0:00

Tired of ads barging into your favorite

0:02

news podcasts? Good news. With

0:04

Amazon Music, you have access to

0:06

the largest catalog of ad-free

0:09

top podcasts included with your

0:11

Prime membership. To start listening, download

0:13

the Amazon Music app or visit amazon.com

0:17

slash news ad free. That's

0:19

amazon.com slash news ad free

0:22

and catch up on the latest episodes without

0:24

the ads.

0:27

Today we're going to talk about Democrats finally seizing on

0:29

a winning formula just in time for 2024. And

0:32

I interview Congressman Jamie Raskin about the Trump disqualification

0:34

case in Colorado, Speaker Johnson's embrace

0:37

of the Biden impeachment effort, and how to best engage

0:39

with hesitant Democrats ahead of 2024. I'm

0:41

Brian Tyler Cohen and you're listening to No Lie.

0:46

We've got a pretty seismic

0:48

update with Democrats finally seizing on a winning formula

0:50

heading into 2024. So

0:52

up to now, when abortion rights have been on the

0:54

ballot, Democrats have won. Just weeks ago

0:56

in this off-year election cycle, voters in

0:58

Ohio voted to enshrine abortion rights into the state

1:00

constitution in a state that's been trending away

1:03

from Democrats for a decade. On the same

1:05

day, voters in Virginia rejected Governor Glenn Youngkin's

1:07

proposed 15-week abortion ban by stripping

1:09

him of control of both chambers of the state legislature.

1:12

Pennsylvania voters overwhelmingly elected

1:14

a liberal state Supreme Court justice in a race

1:17

that was largely predicated on abortion. So

1:19

that was the 2023 election cycle. Going

1:21

back to the midterms in 22, voters

1:24

in California, Michigan, and Vermont passed

1:26

a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion.

1:28

Voters in Kentucky and Kansas rejected

1:31

amending their state constitutions to include language opposing

1:33

abortion protections. And voters in Montana

1:35

rejected a measure threatening medical workers with criminal

1:38

charges if they didn't intervene in attempted

1:40

abortions. All of which is to say, in

1:42

the

1:42

nearly dozen elections with abortion, either

1:45

directly or indirectly on the ballot, Democrats

1:47

and the pro-choice contingent have won all of

1:49

them. Their streak is unbroken, regardless

1:52

of how otherwise conservative a state is. Like,

1:55

from Kentucky to Ohio to Kansas,

1:57

voters are not here for the GOP's

1:59

extremist

1:59

them on abortion rights. And so here's the good

2:02

news. Now, pro-choice advocates are

2:04

working to get abortion measures on the ballots in a staggering

2:06

nine more states in 2024,

2:09

which would obviously have major

2:11

up-ballot implications for Democrats. And

2:13

some of those states are ones in which Democrats desperately

2:16

need the help. In Missouri, for example, there

2:18

are currently as many as 11 different amendments

2:20

taking different approaches to expanding abortion rights in that

2:23

state, with the most promising one being

2:25

a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion up to

2:27

the point of fetal viability. And if it makes

2:29

it on the ballot, that will coincide with one of the

2:31

Democrats' only pick-up opportunities in the US

2:33

Senate. And that's where Democrat Lucas Coontz

2:36

is taking on the least popular

2:38

Republican senator currently running for reelection anywhere

2:41

in the country. And of course, that's Josh Hawley. There's

2:43

also an effort in Florida to amend the state

2:45

constitution to ban abortion restrictions up until

2:48

fetal viability. And of course, that's another

2:50

state with a pick-up opportunity for Democrats as far as

2:52

the US Senate is concerned. Add in

2:54

Arizona, same situation. They're seeking

2:56

to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to create

2:58

a right to abortion care up until fetal viability.

3:01

In that state, Republican Kerry Lake will likely be facing

3:03

off against Democrat Ruben Gallego in one

3:05

of the country's closest must-win Senate races

3:07

for Democrats. In Nevada, advocates

3:10

are seeking their own constitutional amendment, protecting

3:12

abortion rights until fetal viability, and

3:14

to restrict the ability of lawmakers to undo

3:16

those protections. And Nevada is yet

3:19

another state with a close Senate race coming up. And

3:21

by the way, the only state where Democrats lost the gubernatorial

3:24

race in 2022, making that something

3:26

of a blinking red light for Democrats. So this

3:29

ballot measure would be desperately needed. Then

3:31

we head over to New York, where the measure is already

3:33

on the 2024 ballot. That's a sure thing,

3:36

but this is a state where we expect maps

3:38

to be redrawn in time for 2024, meaning

3:40

we could see a swing of as many as six House

3:42

seats for Democrats. But that's only

3:44

if people turn out. An abortion measure on that ballot

3:46

would clearly help accomplish exactly that.

3:49

And then you add in Maryland, Colorado, and

3:51

efforts in Nebraska and South Dakota.

3:54

And Democrats seem to have finally seized on a

3:56

winning formula ahead of 2024, because

3:58

for as much doom forecast, the

4:01

truth is that when abortion rights are on the ballot

4:03

Democrats win yes even with Joe

4:05

Biden as president old age and all because

4:08

despite the polls despite the ... Next

4:55

up is my interview with Congressman Jamie Raskin.

4:57

Support for this podcast and the following message come

5:00

from Coriant. Coriant provides wealth management

5:02

services centered around you. They focus on exceeding

5:04

expectations, simplifying lives, and establishing

5:07

legacies that last for generations. Leverage

5:09

their exclusive network of experts to help achieve your

5:11

personal and professional financial goals. As

5:13

one of the largest integrated fee-only registered

5:15

investment advisors in the U.S., Coriant has

5:18

experienced teams who can craft custom solutions

5:20

designed to help you reach your financial goals. No matter

5:22

how complex, real wealth requires real

5:24

solutions. Connect to a wealth advisor today

5:26

at Coriant.com.

5:55

I totally do not agree with you.

5:57

push

6:00

that. You know, you

6:02

would have to believe that the framers of the

6:04

14th Amendment specifically banned

6:07

people from becoming

6:09

electors for president and

6:12

vice president, that is being an electoral

6:14

college, but not banning the president

6:16

himself or herself. It

6:19

just makes no sense. The president is the person

6:21

who, as we saw on January 6, 2021, hoses the most

6:24

danger if he decides to overthrow

6:28

the constitutional order and seize

6:30

the presidency. So there's

6:33

no textual exclusion for

6:35

the president. The language is written as comprehensive

6:39

a way as possible. And

6:42

it seems clear to me that the

6:44

framers of the 14th Amendment wanted

6:47

to sweep in the president, along

6:49

with members of Congress, members of

6:51

the electoral college, you

6:54

know, and any other civil or military

6:56

office. It just seems sweeping and comprehensive.

6:59

And there would be no logic for

7:01

saying that it shouldn't apply to

7:03

the president when the president is potentially the

7:06

most dangerous actor and

7:08

has the resources at his disposal

7:10

as the commander in chief of armed forces in

7:12

times of insurrection and

7:16

in times of war. So I don't

7:18

agree with that. I do think that Judge Wallace

7:24

did reason properly when it came

7:27

to Trump having actually

7:29

participated in insurrection. And that's just

7:31

an airtight and detailed and comprehensive

7:35

part of the opinion. And she herself says

7:38

that, you know, it might sound

7:40

preposterous to say that it shouldn't

7:42

cover the president, but that was her

7:44

reading. And it's all based on the idea that the

7:46

president takes

7:49

an oath to uphold and

7:51

defend the Constitution, whereas

7:53

other people take an oath to support the

7:55

Constitution. And Section 3 says that

7:59

Nobody should hold

8:02

an office who

8:05

has previously

8:07

taken oath

8:08

to support

8:10

the Constitution. And so that's a very

8:12

thin read to hang it on. Obviously,

8:15

swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution

8:17

is swearing to support the Constitution. Right.

8:20

Well, can you talk about why Section 3

8:23

of the 14th Amendment was put in place originally?

8:25

Because I think the history here is especially

8:27

important.

8:29

Yeah, I mean, the history is revealing. This

8:31

is right after the Civil War. It's during the Reconstruction

8:34

period. There were Confederates

8:36

all over

8:39

the South, former Confederates, who

8:41

were planning a restoration of their power

8:44

and

8:46

wanted to get back into office.

8:48

And originally, the legislative

8:50

history is fascinating because originally

8:53

the House wrote

8:55

a Section 3 that was far more sweeping.

8:57

And it said that anybody who

9:00

participated in insurrection shall

9:02

not be allowed to hold office or vote

9:05

again at all. And

9:07

when it got over the Senate, they said that

9:09

is way too broad. We

9:11

want to zero in on the bullseye core

9:14

of people who really pose the greatest danger

9:17

to the Republic. And so

9:19

they said, we're not going to

9:21

make it about suffrage and franchise.

9:24

We'll make it about holding

9:26

office. And it will only be

9:28

those people who actually held office before,

9:32

swore an oath and then violated the oath by

9:34

engaging in insurrection or rebellion. So you can see

9:36

how it got dramatically drastically

9:38

whittled down. But Donald Trump is right there

9:40

in the center of the bullseye core.

9:43

Right. I mean, to your exact point earlier,

9:45

if the authors of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment went

9:48

to all the trouble of preventing those who've engaged

9:50

in or aided in insurrection from taking office,

9:53

why would they also make the conscious decision to

9:55

include who you said would

9:57

be the most powerful person in office?

10:00

to exclude them from

10:03

this exact same provision.

10:05

I mean, you'd have to believe that they thought

10:07

that Jefferson Davis

10:10

could have served as president

10:12

of the United States after the war, or Judah

10:14

Benjamin, or someone who

10:16

had been a

10:18

vice president in the

10:20

Confederacy. And

10:23

it just makes no sense. I mean, John Breckenridge

10:25

was a guy from Kentucky who was

10:28

a US Senator before

10:30

the war. He was vice president before

10:32

the war. And he was expelled

10:35

from the Senate for treason. On

10:38

this theory, you know,

10:40

had he been, well, I guess

10:43

as vice, as

10:45

senator, she would say he'd be covered. But

10:47

if he had just been vice president or president,

10:49

she'd say he wouldn't be covered. And it just

10:51

seems incoherent. I mean, it almost makes

10:54

me believe that, well, maybe she was on the

10:56

fence and she was ambivalent and she decided

10:58

at her level of the courts,

11:01

it is too much, not only to find that

11:03

Trump

11:03

had engaged in insurrection, but

11:05

agreeing with the House of Representatives,

11:08

agreeing with a majority of the Senate,

11:10

agreeing with the January 6th committee, but

11:12

also

11:13

that he would actually be denied a place

11:15

on the ballot. And she may have just punched

11:18

it and said, let's, I'm gonna leave this up to the Colorado

11:20

Supreme Court. Well, okay, to that exact

11:22

point, this judge, Judge Wallace,

11:24

said just a few weeks back that she was concerned

11:26

about her own safety. So to what extent

11:29

do you believe that Trump's intimidating

11:31

tactics, for example, may have influenced

11:33

her decision here?

11:34

See, I was not aware of that, Brian,

11:37

so that that's alarming

11:39

that she said that. Look,

11:42

we're living in a time of violent

11:45

threats, death threats, actual

11:47

people like Paul Pelosi being

11:50

assaulted and beaten up. And

11:55

so that intensifies

11:57

the climate for...

13:59

The difference is given to the fact-finding

14:02

judge, the district court judge, on the facts.

14:06

So it would be a

14:08

pretty radical statement for either the Colorado

14:10

Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn

14:13

the facts as opposed to

14:15

change the law. So again, I think

14:18

that Wallace has done the country a big

14:20

favor in having a very

14:23

meticulous presentation of the

14:25

different witnesses who was credible,

14:27

who was not credible, and her

14:31

best reconstruction of what happened leading

14:33

up to January 6th. And then

14:35

Donald Trump's very clear incitement of

14:37

the mob to go and fight like hell where

14:40

you're not going to have a country anymore. So

14:43

I thought she did an excellent job on that. And

14:45

the other thing is a

14:48

case of first impression with respect

14:50

to an issue of law. And

14:52

so the Colorado Supreme Court was going

14:54

to have to rule on it one way or another, and

14:56

the U.S. Supreme Court will have to rule on that one

14:59

way or another. And the question is, I don't

15:02

think it's remotely ambiguous or

15:04

inscrutable. I just think it's clear it's comprehensive.

15:07

But if you were to think it was any

15:10

kind of a tie of

15:13

interpretive methodology, surely

15:16

the tie has got to go

15:18

to constitutional democracy, by

15:20

which I mean not what Trump's people are

15:22

saying, which is, well, just let the voters decide.

15:25

No, it's got to go to constitutional democracy

15:27

in the determination

15:30

of the framers of the 14th Amendment to

15:33

disqualify people who've

15:35

been in office and then tried to destroy the republic.

15:39

Now, while this case is working its way through the courts,

15:41

Donald Trump has been on the campaign trail himself

15:44

echoing language used by the most vile

15:46

dictators in history. So what was

15:48

your reaction to Trump echoing the likes of Hitler

15:50

and Mussolini by vowing to root

15:52

out his opponents, whom he called

15:55

vermin? Well,

15:56

it's all unvarnished now.

16:00

understand that Trump's

16:02

not bringing over any

16:06

moderate voters anymore. You

16:08

know, there's, there are very few swing voters.

16:11

I mean, it's not like there are 7 million

16:13

people who voted

16:16

for Biden who are going to change their minds and, you

16:18

know, Biden beat Trump by 7 million votes

16:20

and so it's not like there's 7 million people saying, Oh,

16:22

that Trump guy, where he really deserves second chance,

16:25

you know? So what that

16:27

means is that Trump

16:29

is throwing some cloth into the winds. I mean,

16:31

he is waging war on

16:34

the federal courts, on the state courts, on

16:36

district attorneys, on the rule of law, on

16:38

the justice department. He's

16:40

set himself at war against our whole constitutional

16:43

system. And it's repeatedly said that,

16:45

you know, it's more important that he get back in office

16:48

than that we would follow

16:51

the dictates of the constitution and is called for

16:53

it to be set aside repeatedly.

16:57

So, you know, the

16:59

best one could hope for in a Donald

17:02

Trump return to power would be something like Putin,

17:05

but he's also talking about, you

17:07

know, setting up camps

17:09

for

17:09

undocumented

17:11

immigrants, for 10 million people in

17:13

the country, mass roundups and

17:16

deportations. He's

17:18

calling his political enemies vermin and he's

17:20

openly saying that he is going to

17:23

weaponize the Department of Justice and

17:25

unleash prosecutors on people who he thinks

17:28

are beating him in the polls.

17:31

He seems to think that he's going to be running

17:34

endlessly as well as assuming, of course, that

17:37

he's going to win,

17:39

which

17:40

seems like an unthinkable outcome from the

17:42

standpoint of the survival of democracy

17:44

and our country.

17:47

Well, not asking you to do the impossible

17:49

and get in Donald Trump's head, but what do you

17:51

presume is the strategy here by virtue

17:54

of kind of doubling down on the same kind of rhetoric

17:56

that would presumably alienate

17:58

all. of those people

18:00

in the middle who he'd need to

18:02

actually win? Or is it just to really double, triple

18:05

down on his base and hope that they're

18:07

as energized as possible so that they actually

18:09

end up going to the polls and just hoping that there's

18:11

depressed turnout on the left?

18:13

Yeah, they don't have a majority strategy. They

18:15

have a strategy of galvanizing

18:17

their base,

18:19

turning them out,

18:20

and then suppressing other

18:22

votes through unlawful

18:26

and lawful means. Premandering

18:29

as many districts as possible, installing

18:34

and then exploiting the

18:37

right-wing pro-Trump judges in

18:40

the federal judiciary.

18:42

They learned a lesson from Bush versus Gore, of

18:45

course, about the

18:47

Supreme Court intervening the stopped accounting

18:50

of ballots. So,

18:54

it will be...

18:56

Well, they anticipate hand-to-hand combat

18:59

in the streets, but it will certainly be a massive

19:02

litigation struggle

19:05

all over the country as they try to disqualify

19:07

voters, drive people from

19:09

the polls, challenge voters.

19:13

You notice that the Voting Rights Act

19:15

has been dismembered in Shelby County versus

19:19

Holder. The pre-clearance requirement is essentially

19:21

gone, and now they're taking after

19:23

Section So,

19:26

they really do want to thoroughly

19:28

trash the Voting Rights Act, so it's just

19:30

not a factor anymore. And

19:36

they have made it very difficult to sue constitutionally

19:39

to vindicate the

19:41

right to vote, which, of course, is not a

19:43

textual right that applies to

19:46

everybody. What we have is anti-discrimination

19:48

amendments, like the 15th and the 19th.

19:51

because

20:00

apparently he enjoys the masochism. So

20:02

what was your reaction to hearing that the

20:04

abject humiliation that was this impeachment

20:06

effort just got Speaker Johnson's blessing?

20:09

Well, I mean, he's got a four vote majority.

20:12

If and when George Santos

20:15

goes next week, that's down to a three vote majority.

20:18

We've seen repeatedly, it's ungovernable

20:21

on the Republican side.

20:23

And so he, like his predecessors,

20:26

is just selling off large

20:28

parts of the farm and so there

20:30

are people who want to pursue

20:33

the, you know, impeachment

20:36

theater of the absurd. But

20:40

there of course, there's nothing there, you know, after

20:42

thousands and thousands of pages of documents

20:46

and bank records and suspicious

20:48

activity reports, they haven't laid a glove

20:50

on Joe Biden. And

20:55

everything seems to be, you know, blowing

20:57

up on their face. They just keep stepping on the rake no

20:59

matter where they go. So

21:01

it doesn't trouble us except that

21:05

at a time of so many serious problems

21:07

in the world, in our country,

21:10

we could be doing real legislation.

21:12

There's real work that could be done. I mean,

21:14

the gun violence crisis alone should

21:18

be commanding our attention after yet

21:20

another nightmare of a massacre

21:22

in Maine. But the

21:25

Republicans just don't want to do anything,

21:27

thoughts and prayers, but no

21:29

action and no legislation.

21:31

Well, to that exact point, we are now

21:33

a year out. What's your plan to

21:35

convince an electorate that is looking

21:38

more and more hesitant to back Joe Biden

21:40

and the Democrats in 2024?

21:42

I mean, I think that people have

21:44

to get over the idea that

21:47

with a president, we're picking, you know,

21:49

a leading actor for a movie or

21:51

something like that. I mean, you're picking

21:54

a president, a vice president,

21:56

a cabinet, a political party

21:59

to move. into the future.

22:01

And they just got a great record in terms

22:04

of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act,

22:07

$1.2 trillion infusion of

22:09

money into the bridges and the roads and the highways

22:11

and the ports and the airports and the metro

22:14

stations and rural broadband

22:16

and high speed internet. I mean, the

22:19

Democrats did that and the Chips

22:21

and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction

22:24

Act, dramatic reductions in

22:26

prescription drug costs for people in Medicare

22:29

A, constituents

22:31

who were spending $1,000 a month

22:34

for their insulin shots and now it's capped at $35

22:36

a month. And we did

22:38

that without any Republican votes. So people

22:40

got to think programmatically

22:43

about where we're going as

22:45

a country. And we just did two contrasting public

22:48

philosophies. On the one side, you've got

22:50

Joe Biden, who really is anchored

22:53

in the New Deal, the Great Society,

22:55

the civilizing movements of our time,

22:57

the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Movement, the LGBTQ

23:00

movement. And he believes with

23:02

our party that the

23:04

government must be an instrument for the common

23:07

good of all. And then

23:09

you've got Donald Trump, who believes that

23:11

the government is an instrument of private

23:13

money making for the president,

23:15

his family and his private corporations.

23:18

And it's just an absolute rip off.

23:22

And that puts us in the company of

23:25

the plutocrats and the kleptocrats

23:28

from all over the world. And

23:31

the autocrats and the theocrats, I mean, that's the

23:33

coalition of people

23:36

conspiring against the common good that

23:38

the Democrats have to stand against. And the good

23:40

news, though, is that we are a big majority.

23:43

Hillary beat him by two and a million votes. Biden

23:46

beat him by seven million

23:48

votes. We have another 12 to 15 million young people

23:52

coming onto the

23:54

rolls. And our job is to connect with them,

23:56

to listen to them, to hear them, to

23:58

participate with them. to get them

24:00

engaged in politics as quickly as possible

24:03

because we got to defend our freedom, we got to defend

24:05

our democracy, and we've got to get

24:08

back to work again on climate

24:10

change, which is the overhanging nightmare

24:13

that we need to confront.

24:15

Perfectly put, as always. Let's finish off with this.

24:17

This interview is being recorded just before Thanksgiving

24:20

because I've been doing my

24:22

show for a few years now, and I'd be

24:24

more likely to get drafted into the NFL this

24:26

week than land an interview the Friday

24:28

after Thanksgiving. So do

24:30

you have any plans for Thanksgiving?

24:32

Well, yes, indeed. I mean, you know, our

24:35

family goes

24:37

to my sister's house, and so my

24:39

sister is a brilliant

24:41

hostess, and so she hosts 29 members

24:44

of our family. And

24:47

every year I bring a surprise guest.

24:49

So I've got a really good surprise guest for them, but

24:52

I can't tell you. I

24:54

was going to say, this isn't coming out until after

24:57

Thanksgiving. So you can, I mean, I'll be the only person that

24:59

knows if you want to reveal it. All right.

25:01

Well, let's, well...

25:04

You don't have to. I'll

25:07

tell you afterwards, but it'll definitely pique

25:09

your interest. So call

25:11

me on Friday. And then, I'll tell you. I've

25:14

just been happy Thanksgiving. Thanks so much for taking the time.

25:17

Happy Thanksgiving to you, Brian, and to

25:19

all of your great

25:21

participants out there. Thanks

25:24

again to Jamie Raskin, and for everybody listening,

25:26

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.