No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Will Trump actually be charged for January 6?

Episode Date: January 9, 2022

Republicans try to rewrite history on January 6 and the media inadvertently helps them. Brian interviews former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner about the speed of the January 6 investigation and if we can expect those who incited the insurrection, including Donald Trump, to be charged. And author of the Popular Information newsletter Judd Legum joins to discuss where all of those corporations who froze donations to Republican objectors stand now.Subscribe to Judd Legum's newsletter: https://popular.info/Donate to the "Don't Be A Mitch" fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dontbeamitchShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today, we're going to talk about how Republicans are trying to rewrite history on January 6 and how the media is helping them. I interview former prosecutor Glenn Kirshner about the speed of the January 6 investigation, and if we can expect those who incited the insurrection, including Donald Trump, to be charged. And I'm joined by author of the popular information newsletter, Jud Legum, to discuss where all of those corporations who froze donations to Republican objectors stand now. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So this past week was the one-year anniversary of January 6th, and I want to focus on that not only because, you know, it happened and it was arguably the worst attack on a democracy in U.S. history, but because it's still happening. The goal of January 6th was to undermine our free and fair elections, and that's an issue that's managed to actually get worse since then. You know, not with bear spray or fire extinguishers this time, but with voter suppression laws, with partisan gerrymanders, with the mainstreaming of the big lie. and I really have no intention of seating that narrative to the right so that they can continue

normalizing what happened. And effectively, everywhere we look, that's what they're trying to do to rewrite the history of January 6th. And nowhere was that more obvious than Ted Cruz's public flogging for not towing the party line. So on the January 6th anniversary, Ted Cruz condemned the terrorists who stormed the capital last year, and that's a talking point that he's used at least 17 times before during the last year. But this time, Tucker Carlson lost his mind because Ted Cruz, acknowledging that objective reality, butts up against the revisionist history that Tucker and the rest of those fringe lunatics in the GOP are trying to sell us, which is that the events of January 6th were totally normal. And so Ted Cruz went on Tucker's show and castrated himself on air.

You called this a terror attack when by no definition was it a terror attack. That's a lie. You told that lie on purpose, and I'm wondering why you did. Well, Tucker, thank you for having me on when you aired your episode last night. I sent you a text shortly thereafter and said, listen, I'd like to go on because the way I phrase things yesterday, it was sloppy and it was frankly dumb. I don't buy that. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't buy that. Look, I've known you a long time since before you went to the Senate. You're a Supreme Court contender. You take words as seriously as any man who's ever served in the Senate. And every word you repeated that phrase, I do not believe that you used that accidentally. I just don't. So, Tucker, as a result of my sloppy phrasing, it's caused a lot of people to misunderstand what I meant.

Let me tell you what I meant to say. What I was referring to are the limited number of people who engaged in violent attacks against police officers. Now, I think you and I both agree that if you assault a police officer, you should go to jail. That's who I was talking about. And the reason the phrasing was sloppy is I have talked dozens, if not hundreds of times. I've drawn a distinction. I wasn't saying that the thousands of peaceful protesters supporting Donald Trump are somehow terrorists.

I wasn't saying the millions of patriots across the country supporting President Trump are terrorists. So Ted Cruz begs Tucker to let him on TV so that he can uncancel himself. He apologizes. Tucker makes him beg harder. Ted does. And instead of accomplishing, you know, whatever it was he set out to accomplish, Instead, Ted just showed the entire right-wing ecosystem what a pathetic, spineless, groveling bowl of jello he is. Like, I know Ted Cruz won't stand up for his own wife, but at least try to stand up for yourself.

Anyway, that was all partially to shit on Ted Cruz, but mostly just to show how Republicans are coordinated in their effort to rewrite history when it comes to January 6th. And it's obvious why, right? They need to protect their deity, Donald Trump, from any bad news. And because he clearly incited January 6th, and they can't pretend that he's. didn't, then their next best option is just to claim that January 6 wasn't even that bad. That is exactly what Tucker Carlson and Fox News and the rest of the GOP, including now Ted Cruz, are doing. And we expect that from these Republicans, right?

But it's when the media plays into Republicans' hands and decides that instead of taking January 6 seriously and recognizing the threat that it continues to present, that actually the issue at hand here is what about Joe Biden's job of moving past January 6 and unifying the country. Here's a question to Jen Saki from an NBC reporter about exactly that. Does President Biden feel as though he's done enough to unify the country? And what more does he need to do, given the sharp device that we still see on display today? And look, I'm sorry, but we are so royally screwed if the media in this country cannot figure out how not to both sides every issue that presents itself. As if the onus is on Joe Biden to unify a country

that Republicans are currently dividing by repeating the big lie, by pretending that January 6th was a tourist visit, by justifying violence as a political tool. If they are doing things that are objectively anti-democratic, why are reporters asking what Joe Biden is doing to fix it? Why do Republicans get a pass, and the responsibility falls on Biden to do all of the work? Like, why is the media not haranguing Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan,

Josh Hawley, and Matt Gates, and the rest of the election deniers about why they continue to perpetuate lies that are directly causing divisions in the sky? country? Why is it just assumed that Republicans won't act in good faith? And so because that's a given, they just get a pass. Like, Republicans would love if the prevailing narrative today is just that there should be unity because it absolves them of any responsibility for January 6th. And that's a narrative that the media is blindly helping Republicans promote right now. And so instead of confronting

the seriousness of what happened on January 6th, which is that an armed mob of people who were inspired and incited by the president of the United States, ransacked the U.S. Capitol in an effort to kill elected officials, including the Republican vice president, so that they could force them to anoint the loser of the election, the winner. Instead of promoting that message, we're all playing this game where we pretend that the answer here is to, you know, hold hands and say that everything is fine, because God forbid we politicize anything. We wouldn't want to make a politician staging a coup to steal the election political or anything, now, would we? Like, at some point, we have to confront what the job of the media actually is

because more and more journalists view themselves as being stenographers, right? That they're not allowed to interpret anything. They're only allowed to repeat the things that both sides say, regardless of the veracity of any of their claims. And God forbid they take a stand on any of those issues because then they risk exposing themselves as the liberal media. And so instead, they just stay neutral and give both sides the exact same deference, even though one side, knowing how that media operates,

is content to exploit that system for their own partisan benefit. Like, Republicans know that they can say anything they want, and that, you know, as far as the media is concerned, it'll be just as valid as the other side. Like, the Democrats can rightly call the events of January 6th an insurrection, and Republicans can just blindly say, no, it's not. And then right on cue, the New York Times writes articles with headlines like this one. This is an actual headline.

January 6 becomes just another wedge in a divided nation. Yep, that's what January 6 is. just a simple wedge issue who's right there's no way to know and like what's especially ironic about this absurd deference paid to republicans by the press is that they don't even get rewarded for it they still get called to fake news they still get called the liberal media they've never gotten an ounce of positive reinforcement for this bullshit both-sizeism and yet they are so scared of being branded liberal that still they'll cower to republicans who will then use their headlines to validate their claims while simultaneously shitting on them by calling them fake.

But even more ironic than that is that what the press is protecting by pretending that an insurrection on the U.S. Capitol is just politics as usual is a fascist movement. And like, no, I'm not being alarmist. I'm not being hysterical. You had the leader of a political party knowingly tried to steal an election. We have audio of him telling the Georgia Secretary of State to find 11,780 votes exactly one more vote than he lost by. That is literal proof that he tried to overturn the election results.

That is not what happens in a democracy. That is what happens in a fascist state. And think about what the first casualty in a fascist state is, the press. So you have the media falling over itself to constantly give this movement the benefit of the doubt, constantly pretend this is all just, you know, politics as usual. And yet if this movement was actually successful in its goals, that very media would be the first casualty. Is the concept of both sides really that important for the media

that it takes priority over their very existence? So look, I beg of the media, cut the both sides bullshit, and have the courage to be able to acknowledge what is right and what is wrong. Because if you don't do it now, when you have the chance, then you might not be able to do it in the future.

Next up is my interview with Glenn Kirshner. Today we've got NBC and MSNBC Legal Analyst, former 30-year federal prosecutor, host of the YouTube channel Justice Matters, And at this point, frequent guests on this show, this is visit number three. Glenn Kirshner, thanks so much for coming on. Hey, happy to be here, Brian.

So I wanted to have you on this week because January 6 is in the news. And I think that a lot of people, myself included, are growing wary of waiting, right? It's been a year, I think, about 700 people have been arrested. And yet no one responsible for inciting all of this seems to have faced an ounce of accountability. So as a prosecutor, what do you say to people

who are growing frustrated and losing hope that we will see any accountability. So as a former career prosecutor, I say I share your frustration. But, you know, the Department of Justice is like the world's biggest steamership. You know, it heads in one direction very slowly. And it takes a very long time to change course, even a couple of degrees. So when Merrick Garland said things like, we investigate from the bottom up. These things take time. We have to develop the facts. He's absolutely right. That is the way we prosecute, and it generally takes a long time. Problem is, we've never really encountered a series of crimes that represent what happened to our

democracy on January 6th, in the run up to January 6th, and what continues to happen. So I would urge DOJ to perhaps try a fresh approach to an unprecedented series of crimes. But there's also a lot of good news. And yes, I'm a half glass full kind of guy, even though I've been dying of thirst for the last couple of years. There was some really important justice synergy going on in recent days. This is not me being Pollyanna. Because two days ago, when Merrick Garland took to the mic, and he said three really important things, frankly, I didn't expect to hear this for Merrick Garland. He said, we will hold the January 6 perpetrators accountable at any level. That means small fish, medium fish, and big fish.

He said, we will hold the January 6 perpetrators accountable whether they were at the capital or not. And we all know there were significant co-conspirators, I would say middle fish types, enjoying the cushy environs of the Willard Hotel, plotting democracies, demise, the Bannons, the Giuliani's. there were seditious lawyers like Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman who had written letters and memos, you know, basically had a coup for fun and profit. So the fact that these people were not at the Capitol on January 6th, but Merrick Garland looked us in the eye and said, you're going to be

held accountable at any level, whether at the Capitol that day or not. That is an important promise. And he capped it off by pulling out the W word. I heard some rumbling. he was going to say Watergate, and he did. He didn't use it for the factual circumstances of Watergate, though I maintain there are some strong parallels, right? Because think about it, we did hold the sort of low-level conspirators accountable early on in Watergate. Those were the Burglars who broke into the Watergate Hotel. Then it took about two and a half years to finally hold accountable the biggest fish. We let the big one get away. because of a really ill-advised presidential pardon,

which set the stage for Donald Trump to do what he did with impunity, at least thus far. So there are some parallels, but why Merrick Garland said Watergate was because he said, we've learned from the lessons of Watergate, that there are but one set of rules for the powerless and the powerful.

So those three things in combination that Merrick Garland said, those were promises and those were signals. There's no backing up that now. And then when Vice President Harris and President Biden the next day said a couple of important things, and I love that Vice President Harris set the table by opening with three dates that she bundled together, right? December 7th, 1941, September 11, 2001, January 6th, 2021. Of course, one of these things is not like the others, because two were attacks from without by foreign

enemies. One was an attack from within sort of directed by a defeated president who was looking to unconstitutionally retain power. But she bundled those three dates together. There was no mistaking the signal she was setting in the table she was setting for President Biden to say, and I quote, this was an armed insurrection. And you know, oddly enough, we've got a little something for an armed insurrection in this big blue book of federal laws, the United States, code, right? So I think, and then you also, I think, have to add into the justice synergy mix, the House Select Committee. In recent days, both the chair, Benny Thompson and the vice chair, Liz Cheney have said, we expect to hear from former Vice President Pence and his team is

already enthusiastically cooperating with us. Those three things in combination. That's some justice synergy. There's no backing up from that. We're moving toward accountability, in my opinion. Yeah. And those comments by the vice president and the president were especially impactful, given the right-wing media ecosystem's insistence right now on trying to make it seem as if it was just a regular tourist visit. It was a false flag. Whatever they're trying to do to downplay the significance of, you know, you had Tucker Carlson just come on TV and say that there's no way that this was an insurrection. Matt Gates came up and said, this wasn't an insurrection. This was a fedsurrection, which was, you know, the brilliant line that he was probably falling over himself for 12 hours to say. With that said, what do you think would be the timeline for these kinds of things? I know that you had mentioned two and a half years prior. We're already a year in. What do you expect to be the timeline to see some accountability? I expect the Department of Justice to continue to take too long to hold folk accountable.

But like I said, it's that big steamership, and there really is no altering its course. I have a feeling with what we saw and heard from both Merrick Garland and President Biden, what we're seeing from the House Select Committee over the last 4872 hours, we're going to see at least some mid-level conspirators indicted. And then we're going to see a series of superseding indictments. I'm not a betting man. $1 is my betting limit, but I would probably bet a buck that within the next 60 to 90 days, we're going to start to see some indictments handed down. I know people will yell and scream that there is no outward manifestation of a DOJ investigation into any significant players. That is precisely as it should be if you're investigating in a vault-like fashion,

which is exactly what an unprecedented investigation into a former president and his co-conspirators ought to look like. So what are the next steps? If we do see indictments, where does that go from there. Next steps will be when you start seeing indictments of sort of middle rung conspirators, right? Like Bannon's, listen, there is a reason not to get off track that the prosecutors ask for a trial date for Bannon well off into the future. It's because they're going to return superseding indictments. They're going to add charges against Steve Bannon. I'll tell you, as a 30-year Fed, nobody wants to go to trial in a standalone. own one count case against an important defendant, not when he's committed a whole rack of other

crimes. That's why we're going to see superseding indictments of guys like Bannon and and others, I predict. Maybe we'll finally get around to indicting Giuliani. And then the hard work of trying to flip those people and work their way up the criminal chain will go on at the Department of Justice. And I think they'll have some success. Because once you've reached the end of your rope, whether you're a Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani or one of these treasonous lawyers like Clark or Eastman, you have no choice but to cooperate if you don't want to die in prison. So I think you're going to see things begin to ratchet up. You're going to see things begin to move a little bit more quickly now that we have heard from the country's leadership that this wasn't armed

insurrection and that we will hold them all accountable. Now, building off of what you said about predictions and not being a betting man. Based on your knowledge, you know, given the best information that you have, what do you believe that the outcome for Trump will be? He will be prosecuted. Nobody, no prosecutor wants to be the first to indict a former president of the United States. But Brian, I predict every prosecutor will want to be the second because he's committed crimes in multiple jurisdictions. Obviously, he's committed. federal crimes, but he's also committed state crimes in New York, state election crimes in Georgia. I maintain as a former homicide prosecutor, he has committed at least the crime of involuntary

manslaughter or negligent homicide by the way he not just mismanaged, but lied to us about the COVID pandemic. And then once the first prosecutor brings charges against Donald Trump and suffers the white-hot glare of media and world attention for, it. It's going to take a strong prosecutor to do that. Everybody will then be forced to say, well, wait a minute, he committed crimes in my jurisdiction too. And in my backyard, too, I got to charge him. I got to charge him. And then you're going to see, I think, the floodgates open. I don't know where the first charges will be, whether they'll be federal, whether they'll be New York, whether they'll be Georgia. I will say in Georgia, the entire crime was captured on a reported

phone call. Right. So I would hope that the Georgia authorities will be able to move out sooner rather than later. But as I say, nobody wants to be the first, but it's going to happen. Going back to Merrick Garland, do you think that Merrick Garland has the tenacity to take this to the wall? Like, we've even heard from Democratic lawmakers, their frustration with an attorney general who they don't think is aggressive enough to meet this moment. I hope he does. He is a thoughtful, circumspect, understated. You know, there was a New York Times piece, I think, that described him as Owlish in demeanor. And I think all of that is accurate. But, you know, I always harken back to some of the really hard work he did as a prosecutor. In my former office, he was basically

the lead prosecutor in the Mayor Marion Barry case. And that was a challenging case on the law, on the atmospherics. He handled it expertly. He, of course, headed up the prosecution and the investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing case of the Atlanta Olympics bombing case of the Unabomber investigation. And what he said, and he actually echoed this two days ago, what he said when we were going after Timothy McVeigh for the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, he said, we are going to hold everyone accountable who had any criminal responsibility for this, but we're going to do it in a way that honors the concept. that has always given me prosecutorial goosebumps because as much as we want to hold criminals

accountable as prosecutors, we have to do it by honoring the Constitution, by honoring every defendant's statutory rights, legal rights, and constitutional rights, because that's the only way our system can continue to function. So yes, he is slower than I would like. But when you're going after a former president, you probably need to be a little extra care. And obviously, that's a question that will only be answered when we have the answer. So now, do you think that a failure to indict Donald Trump and those responsible is effectively tacit permission for him to incite more violence, more of the big lie, more subversion of democracy?

Because I tend to think that right now we're at a critical juncture where we can either take a strong, decisive action to show that we are a nation of laws or we can fail to do that and basically usher in an era of complete lawlessness. Do you agree with that? Yeah, it's at a minimum tacit permission. And what Donald Trump will do is he will use DOJ's inaction or decision not to indict him as a stamp of approval that everything he has done since day one, since he first announced that he was running for president, everything he has done is entirely lawful.

Because if it wasn't folks, the Department of Justice would have indicted me. The fact that we didn't indict Richard Nixon gave Donald Trump permission to do precisely what he did. He said to himself, wait a minute, wait a minute, I can commit crimes while in office. And my underlings at the Department of Justice have a policy that say, that's okay with them. They can't indict a sitting criminal president. And then once I get out of office, I'll be pardoned, probably like Nixon, or otherwise, I just won't be prosecuted because of the timidity of the Department of Justice. where do I sign up, you know, and he kept, and he held up the presidency as a shield against criminal prosecution, and he's continuing to try to do it. If he's not prosecuted, Brian,

I am not a sky is falling kind of guy. That represents the end of our democracy. And we slide into autocracy. Yeah. No, I completely agree. I've said the same thing, especially these last couple of weeks over and over and over again. So, you know, from your lips to Merrick Garland's ears. Now, let's finish off with this. What's the question that you've been asked most regarding January 6th that I haven't asked? When we've seen so much evidence in the harsh light of day on videotape played on an endless loop of Donald Trump's crimes, including expressly inciting an insurrection and demonstrating his corrupt intent. by calling it a steal and lying to his supporters when his own administration said there was no fraud

undermining Joe Biden's win. Why hasn't he been locked up already? Why hasn't he been indicted? Why isn't he in court being prosecuted? And that, you know, is a question that there's no good answer for because the only good answer is he should already be a defendant sitting at council table. But for all the reasons that we've discussed, the Department of Justice is not there yet. New York is not there yet. Georgia is not there yet. But I believe we're all going to get there. Well, with that said, anyone watching or listening, check out Glenn on YouTube.

That's Justice Matters with Glenn Kersner. Glenn, thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Brian. Great being with you. Thanks again to Glenn Kershner. Now we have the author of The Popular Information Newsletter. Jud Legum, thanks so much for taking the time.

Thanks for having me, Brian. So you're known online for exposing the funding behind some of the most vile actors in politics. So last year, following the insurrection, a number of corporations had pledged not to donate to the Republican objectors. And now, here we are one year later. So where do we stand on those donation freezes? Well, it's a mixed bag. I think there are a number of companies that made very strong statements after January 6th. and ended up either donating directly to the Republican objectors or donating not directly to the

objectors themselves in their campaign accounts, but donating to the party committees, the NRC, which supports all the Republicans in the House or the NRC, which is supporting the Republicans in the Senate. So you have a company like AT&T that hasn't donated to any of the individual campaigns, but has donated to those committees. So there are several. dozen companies, you know, in that category. More of the companies who made the pledge are in the finding a way around the pledge by donating to the committees than donating to the individual people. There's only a handful there, but there's definitely some backsliding. On the other hand, if you look at the whole scope of corporate PAC donations, which is something we did in my

newsletter, and you compare how much the objective. the Republicans who voted to overturn the election raised in 2019 versus how much they raised in 2021. It's down about 60%. So on aggregate, there are a number of companies, dozens of companies, probably hundreds of companies, who have not yet resumed donating and may not. So it is a mixed back. And in the broader ecosystem of donations, do we know if fewer companies have been donating in this cycle anyway? Is it the kind of thing where we can say, okay, there are 60% fewer donations for these Republican objectors, but is it also 60% fewer donations for all Republicans across the board? No, that's not the case. A roll call actually did that analysis, and they found

that among the Republicans who did not object, corporate PAC donations were only down about 3%. Got it. So there are some companies who are just not doing anything. There's a few packs that actually shut down after January 6th. They're like, well, we're going to just stay out of this. But there is a focus on these 147 on behalf of a lot of companies. Now, this freeze is clearly having no impact on the politicians that it was intended to punish because so far, only one Republican objector said that he regretted his vote. That's Tom Rice from South Carolina. So is this the kind of thing where the politicians, these Republicans, are just waiting it out because they think that the companies are going to fold? Or does it seem like

the companies are actually taking a hard line here? Well, I think there was really a choice for the Republican Party after January 6th. And for a moment, for a day or two, it sort of looked like, well, maybe this was the end as far as their allegiance to Trump. You had Mitch McConnell making some strong statements, Kevin McCarthy making some strong statements, but very quickly, they've decided for the indefinite future that they're hitching their wagon to Trump with only a handful of exceptions. And so that's their political strategy. Now, the corporations at the same time, you know, made statements based on these votes because obviously the votes, that was very critical who had happened on January 6th because it really validated the law. You know, it wasn't just

something that was made up. There were a bunch of people who were voting to say this election was stolen. And so companies said, you know, this is undermining democracy. We're not going to donate to these folks anymore. Nothing's changed. And I think there's no waiting around. I think this is just, this is their strategy. And it's up to the corporations now as to whether they're going to stick to their word. You know, some of them are so far and some of them aren't. But I think for the Republicans, I don't think it's playing a huge role in their calculus. They're just barreling forward because I don't know why exactly, you know, which I wish I do. But that's clearly their strategy. Well, to that point, I mean, one possible explanation could be the fact that, you know, when you

have this more bombastic style of Republican up-and-comer like Marjor Taylor Green, like Lauren Bobert, Madison Cawthorne, it allows them to raise inordinate sums of money from the most extreme members of their base, the most extreme supporters within their base, does that render these companies whose support they would have otherwise relied on unnecessary? And so this kind of changes the whole incentive structure within politics, because now if you can just, you know, run the grift and and squeeze every last dime out of these supporters through their outrage cycle emails and whatnot, and do you even need these PAC donations, which would have otherwise rewarded a more moderate and responsible stance? Yeah, it's an interesting question. I think the answer for some

politicians, like a Marjorie Taylor Green, like a Madison Cawthorne, they weren't getting much pack money to begin with, and their allegiance to Trump and the push of the election fraud lie has actually accelerated their fundraising. So they've done a lot better, raising millions of dollars, far better than they've done in the past. Even somebody like a Matt Gates, you know, who has a history because merger Taylor Green, this is her first kind of full cycle as an incumbent. But people who have a history running as an incumbent, they're doing much better now. There's another category, though, of folks who are less prominent, who are not in the media as much,

who don't have as big of a national profile. And they are raising significantly less. You know, we looked at the scope of everyone. About two thirds of the Republicans have raised less overall. And one third has raised more. The one third that have raised more have raised a lot more. Right. So it's kind of feast or fiends.

So not everyone can switch into sort of Marjorie Taylor Green mode and raise that money. Ideally, I'd love everyone to be able to raise money in small dollar amounts. I think it's probably better for the democratic process. But the reality is there's a lot of people who do still rely on this money. Yeah. And yet at the same time, the argument could be made that these donations are less and less important by virtue of the gerrymanders that we're seeing by virtue of the voter suppression bills that we're seeing where it's less about the democratic process altogether.

Yes. Because these districts are scientifically engineered so that these Republicans can't lose, the laws are passed in a way that will allow. the fewest amount of Democrats to be able to vote in these elections anyway. So, you know, this is all undergirded by the fact that unless we can figure out a way to pass the Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, that the donations play less of a role than they did before. That's right. There's just not that many competitive districts overall. So, you know, and you can lose some of your edge because incumbents always have an edge anyway. So if you've been

an incumbent for multiple cycles. You were in a safer and safer district because of the way the district lines are being drawn, and you already have a big edge over any opponent in most cases, so you can afford to take a hit. Now, I think they're also hoping to make up for any lost money in 2022. You know, that's part of this thing, is that I think many of them are hoping that these corporations will come around. But to me, I think you're right. It's not really, in most cases, a situation where this corporate money is going to be decisive. To me, it's more of a matter of principle and accountability from the corporations themselves who issued these statements around January 6 as a way of presenting their values and telling the public what they

stood for and whether they're going to stand behind that. Now, more broadly, yes, including these January 6 objectors, but you've done a ton of work through popular information. with Fox News and a lot of these outlets that are also lending themselves to these same ideas, the big lie and these anti-democratic talking points and whatnot, what does the ecosystem more broadly of donations, of corporate donations, of corporate sponsors look like? Is it staying pretty much static despite all of the anti-democratic behavior that we're seeing on the right? Or is there a move from these companies who do outwardly espouse more progressive values, more inclusive values, they're pro-LGBT. Have you found any general movement either toward these

Republicans, or is everything staying exactly the same despite all of the anti-democratic behavior that's happening? I don't think that there has been any kind of systemic change as far as how corporations spend their money and aligning that with their stated values on a systemic level. Now, I do think if you look at some specifics, you do see some action. And the question is whether that will expand and become something more significant or whether it's just trying to keep them, keep their heads above water and doing the absolute minimum. So if you look at Tucker Carlson, he doesn't really have any brand advertisers, you know, anymore. It's Mr. Pillow. It's supplements. I mean, it's the stuff that you would see, you know, at one or two in the morning,

except this is a show that's, you know, the most watched show on cable in most circumstances, probably except for football or something like that. Yeah. But millions of people are watching. I don't think it's really had too much of an impact on Fox, though, because for the most part, the advertisers have just shifted around to the other programs and Fox News, of course, is a savvy media organization. and they're figuring out other ways to monetize Tucker Carlson.

That's why I think you have a situation where Tucker Carlson now has this other documentary show on Fox Nation, which you can pay for directly and stream. And so that's a way of monetizing his audience. So, you know, the kind of change that would really be meaningful and make a difference, I don't think we've seen, but I do think there's more activity at the shareholder level at the level of the public kind of demanding that and we're going to have to see how it plays out. Let's finish with this. I do want to expand upon that point exactly. And I know that I've spoken about this on the past on this show and I know a lot of people

on Twitter speaking about it more and more, this idea that Fox is largely subsidized through carriage fees and therefore aren't super reliant on advertiser dollars. I guess the question is, what's the next move to try to get some equity in that space so that Fox isn't completely insulated from advertisers and accountability? Well, I do think that there's some things that could be done. I mean, it could be done on the legislative level or it could be done by pressuring the cable providers themselves. But I think consumers should have a choice as to whether they want to pay, you know,

$10, $12 a month or whatever it is, probably a little less than that for Fox News every month, even if they never watched the station. And ultimately, we may be going there anyway just because of Netflix and over the top and everyone's got their own streaming station. So maybe we'll end up there and that'll be helpful. But I think Congress could look at that too. If you create some real consumer choice, that would allow people to support what they would, what they would want to support and not have to buy everything in this massive bundle, which is the situation you see now. So I think that could make a big difference. You know, you would have to think that tens of millions of people, if given the opportunity, would immediately decide that they don't need to spend, you know,

many dollars per month on Fox News. I mean, that would, and that could have a material impact on their ability to reach people and also their ability to profit from the kind of stuff that goes on on the network. Yeah. Well, great. That's a, that's an important conversation to keep having. Judd, how can we help? Well, help me. You help you, yes. That's a very nice question. What I would just encourage people to do if you're interested in some of this stuff, sign up for my newsletter.

It's actually free to sign up, and it's at popular.info. It comes out four days a week. I do a lot of corporate accountability stuff on a whole range of issues. I've got a big expose coming up on Red Lobster, so you can sign up and look out for that. Excellent. Well, I can attest to the fact that, you know, a lot of. of your work is super important. Also, I would recommend people follow you on Twitter as well. I'll put the link to your newsletter in the show notes here. And Judd, thank you so much for taking

the time. I appreciate it. Thanks for having it. Thanks again to Judd. Okay, one last note. It's my birthday this week, January 12th. So am I going to exploit my birthday for donations for voter registration groups? Yes, I am. So if you want to help me celebrate, please donate to the Don't Be a Mitch Fund. The link is right here in the show notes of this episode. Any amount helps, and I really appreciate it. Okay, that's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen,

produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, interviews captured and edited for YouTube and Facebook by Nicholas Nicotera, and recorded in Los Angeles, California. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app. Feel free to leave a five-star rating and a review, and check out Brian Tyler Cohen.com for links to all of my other channels. Thank you.