Speaker 1: Not an ideal situation when the dog catches the car
Speaker 1: and then the dog has no idea what to do.
Speaker 2: And that is the reason why we need.
Speaker 1: To make sure that when we overtake the majority, that
Speaker 1: we actually have a plan. I've talked a lot Harry
Speaker 1: Katy fan News about how if you don't immediately from
Speaker 1: day one, have an actual plan to be implemented, to
Speaker 1: enforce and to pursue accountability for all of the wrongdoings
Speaker 1: that have been perpetrated for the last two years under
Speaker 1: this Trump regime, that I'm not interested in hearing about
Speaker 1: the rest of your campaign. I'm not interested in hearing
Speaker 1: about the rest of your policies. There is the demand
Speaker 1: for true accountability and that can't just be through lip service.
Speaker 1: That can't just be through angry rantings on places like YouTube.
Speaker 1: You actually have to have a blueprint for action. Which
Speaker 1: is when I had the chance to be able to
Speaker 1: read my good friend Brian Tyler Cohen's new book the
Speaker 1: day after, How to Wheel Power in a Post Trump World.
Speaker 1: I was happy to see that there was an actual
Speaker 1: thoughtful analysis that goes into what we got to do.
Speaker 1: Because what Brian's book does is it tackles a number
Speaker 1: of things incredibly well. It tackles the historical framework within
Speaker 1: which we are finding ourselves today. We have so much
Speaker 1: to learn from history, especially when we see how well
Speaker 1: the Republicans have destroyed and dismantled norms and institutions as
Speaker 1: they have built their own power up to a fever pitch,
Speaker 1: all the while the Democrats are just standing there wringing
Speaker 1: their hands. And look, this is not me casting aspersions
Speaker 1: on the entirety of the party, but let's be honest
Speaker 1: in the pursuit of being the good guys. I think
Speaker 1: we've and gals, I think we've lost the plot as Democrats.
Speaker 1: So Brian's book looks and has kind of this is
Speaker 1: the historical framework of what the hell happened to get
Speaker 1: us here? But more importantly, and unlike other books, Brian says, Okay,
Speaker 1: now we're here, what do we do the day after
Speaker 1: Trump is gone? And that's why his book is essential reading.
Speaker 1: I wanted to make sure that we explored those themes.
Speaker 1: I also wanted to make sure, now that we're a
Speaker 1: couple of days out of some pretty wild primary results,
Speaker 1: that we have a blunt conversation about what it looks
Speaker 1: like going into the November general election, and so buckle
Speaker 1: up because it's a it's a pretty compelling conversation with
Speaker 1: Brian Tyler Cohen. Joining me now is Brian Tyler Cohen,
Speaker 1: a progressive YouTuber, but more importantly, the author of the
Speaker 1: amazing book The Day After, How to Wield Power in
Speaker 1: a Post Trump World. This is coming on the heels
Speaker 1: of another best selling book. Brian Tyler Cohen, thanks for.
Speaker 2: Being here, Katie, Thanks for having me. I'm not saying
Speaker 2: this jokingly. I'm not sure where you find the time
Speaker 2: to write a.
Speaker 3: Book let alone do It's amazing what you can accomplish
Speaker 3: when you're willing to sacrifice all of your mental health.
Speaker 2: So well, I was going to say, sign me up.
Speaker 2: That's what we do on the daily folks.
Speaker 1: I was just with Brian at an event in DC
Speaker 1: with a whole bunch of super like minded pro democracy folks.
Speaker 1: That's why I was kind of not jokingly saying, I'm
Speaker 1: not quite sure I has the time because we were
Speaker 1: doing that and now he does all of the important
Speaker 1: work that he does on YouTube. You don't actually want
Speaker 1: to start with the label progressive YouTuber because I've kind
Speaker 1: of been trying to deal with labels lately the last
Speaker 1: few weeks, and I kind of feel like it's a
Speaker 1: great segue into your book eventually that we're going to
Speaker 1: get to. But you know, I've kind of been trying
Speaker 1: to see if we stay with labels, we don't stay
Speaker 1: with labels. I feel like labels sometimes add a little
Speaker 1: bit of baggage. I've been saying we should look at
Speaker 1: the candidates, what their policies, positions are, what they're standing for,
Speaker 1: and really like, are they putting their money where their
Speaker 1: mouth is, because a lot of people talk a lot,
Speaker 1: but they don't actually do something about it. Kind of
Speaker 1: your thoughts on where things stand right now post primaries
Speaker 1: and as we kind of get a lay of the
Speaker 1: land for November.
Speaker 3: No, I think I think that's such a good point,
Speaker 3: And you're right. I think that labels do kind of
Speaker 3: carry along with them some degree of baggage that I
Speaker 3: think is neither helpful nor really instructive of where candidates lie.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, there are there is Zornmandani in New
Speaker 3: York who has a platform that is virtually indistinguishable from
Speaker 3: a bunch of other Democrats, regular Democrats, progressive Democrats who
Speaker 3: are advocating for the same thing we're advocating for a
Speaker 3: lower cost of living, who are advocating for permit reform,
Speaker 3: and so, you know, I think you're right that getting
Speaker 3: stuck in focusing on what certain labels mean, especially as
Speaker 3: we are in a post primary world now heading toward
Speaker 3: the general probably does add an unnecessary degree of baggage.
Speaker 3: I think as long as the candidates espouse certain positions,
Speaker 3: that's how they should be, That's how they should be
Speaker 3: kind of identified. And I feel like that's going to
Speaker 3: be where things move now that the primaries are behind
Speaker 3: us and there's less of a focus on, like you know,
Speaker 3: intra party disputes and where people land on that ideological spectrum.
Speaker 1: Look, I didn't relish the infighting. I think it's unhealthy
Speaker 1: and it doesn't help us as a party. But I
Speaker 1: will say, in some ways it was the spirit of
Speaker 1: a competitive primary, was it not. You have a variety
Speaker 1: of candidates, many of whom are not cookie cutter, and
Speaker 1: they stand for different things, and then you let the
Speaker 1: people pick the one who stands for the most of
Speaker 1: what they think is emblematic or representative of who they are,
Speaker 1: and that's who advances. I mean, in so many ways,
Speaker 1: having a competitive primary with having people that are standing
Speaker 1: for different things.
Speaker 2: I think kind of is democracy, is it not? It is?
Speaker 3: And I have to try and remind myself that every day, because,
Speaker 3: like you, I do not enjoy the primary process. I
Speaker 3: think the infighting is like borderline intolerable. And I also
Speaker 3: know that there comes a point where after the primary happens,
Speaker 3: most people are able to say, hey, we've gotten through that, Okay,
Speaker 3: let's come together. And you have, you know, Hailey Stevens
Speaker 3: endorsing abdulasi ed, you have Angie Craig endorsing Peggy flannagain,
Speaker 3: and so it doesn't matter where you lie on the
Speaker 3: ideological spectrum. The more moderate candidates are are endorsing the
Speaker 3: more progressive candidates and vice versa. But there's always going
Speaker 3: to be some sliver of people who harbor resentment because
Speaker 3: of how ugly the primary process was. And so knowing
Speaker 3: that and having lived through you know, Bernie Hillary, and
Speaker 3: seeing how they're still fallout to this day a decade later,
Speaker 3: over that I do wish that the primary process was
Speaker 3: less acrimonious, But I do have to remind myself like,
Speaker 3: this is what democracy looks like. It is messy, It
Speaker 3: is at times hostile, but hopefully you've ended up with
Speaker 3: the candidate who's the strongest heading into heading into the
Speaker 3: general election, and that's just how it goes. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I mean, it is constantly coaching myself to be like
Speaker 3: this is it's normal, this is okay. It always happens
Speaker 3: like this, and hopefully it leads to the better candidate
Speaker 3: actually winning.
Speaker 1: Which is why this is actually the perfect timing to
Speaker 1: be able to lean into your book, because what I
Speaker 1: particularly love about the Day After is it's I think
Speaker 1: an incredible balance of doing a post mortem because I
Speaker 1: am a huge, huge advocate of making sure that we
Speaker 1: got check ourselves with historical references and understanding how we
Speaker 1: got where we are.
Speaker 2: Today, which your book does.
Speaker 1: Your book does an incredibly brutal, brutal, honest assessment of
Speaker 1: what has happened in the time.
Speaker 2: Leading up to where we are.
Speaker 1: But then the great thing about your book is it's
Speaker 1: the standalone in that it actually provides a blueprint and
Speaker 1: it gives suggestions and ideas of what we do the
Speaker 1: day after we finally have a majority, the day after
Speaker 1: we're back controlling the levers of power.
Speaker 2: You know, as I mentioned a few minutes ago.
Speaker 1: A lot of people like to actually complain and talk,
Speaker 1: but they don't do anything. Your book the day after says,
Speaker 1: not only do we have to do something, but we
Speaker 1: can't just be complacent and lazy and say, oh, we'll
Speaker 1: just go back to what we had before when we
Speaker 1: had a majority pre Trump.
Speaker 2: And just you know, do it, but tweak it.
Speaker 1: You like me, are an advocate to say, uh huh,
Speaker 1: we actually have to not rebuild something. We have to
Speaker 1: start from scratch, like we have to learn from the
Speaker 1: errors of the past, get our shit together, and figure
Speaker 1: out that we have to build something brand new that
Speaker 1: is strong enough to withstand, which I think is going
Speaker 1: to be another wave of trump Ism, just in a
Speaker 1: different form from another person one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, I think that this is existential for
Speaker 3: any democracy movement in this country because we already know,
Speaker 3: as you've said, what the MAGA movement looks like. It's
Speaker 3: not We're not going to have some epiphany in the
Speaker 3: aftermath of the end of Trump. These people aren't going
Speaker 3: to wake up and say, I don't know what happened
Speaker 3: the last ten years like this, this is the trajectory
Speaker 3: of this party. These are people who are anti democratic,
Speaker 3: small D democratic and big D democratic, and they're not
Speaker 3: just going to wake up one day and say, like,
Speaker 3: you know what, actually I changed, I changed, Yeah, I've
Speaker 3: changed my mind. Actually, I do think that Democrats have
Speaker 3: the right to get elected in this country. It's going
Speaker 3: to get increasingly more difficult for them to accept election
Speaker 3: results where they lose, for them to acknowledge the right
Speaker 3: of both parties to be able to play by the
Speaker 3: same set of rules. And so if we don't start
Speaker 3: to change things, if we don't rebuild these systems to
Speaker 3: actually contend with what the opposition looks like right now,
Speaker 3: and that is an opposition that will abuse any levers
Speaker 3: of power if they can get their hands on them,
Speaker 3: then we're to repeat the same problems that we're dealing
Speaker 3: with right now. I think a good microcosm for that
Speaker 3: is like our justice system. I mean, you know, look,
Speaker 3: there is nobody, there is nobody who knows better about
Speaker 3: the failures of our justice system than you, as you
Speaker 3: have become you know, the the authority on the failures
Speaker 3: of this government to really properly navigate the Epstein situation,
Speaker 3: Like this is not a justice system or a judicial
Speaker 3: system that is that is properly equipped to be able
Speaker 3: to hold the Trump administration to account for suppressing these files.
Speaker 3: It's not a justice system that's equipped to hold these
Speaker 3: people to account for what they've actually done, the co
Speaker 3: conspirators for the pedophile ring itself. I mean, you have
Speaker 3: been You've been doing stellar reporting. Thank God for you,
Speaker 3: because otherwise we wouldn't be in a situation where we're
Speaker 3: going to have any transparency as relates to the outstanding
Speaker 3: three million files. So, but we're just not equipped right
Speaker 3: now to be able to do this. And the fact
Speaker 3: that we needed you from the outside to be able
Speaker 3: to put enough leverage on the dj to actually get
Speaker 3: these people in court to have to answer for what
Speaker 3: they're doing right now, I think is yes, a huge
Speaker 3: testament to the importance of independent media and somebody like you.
Speaker 3: But really, at the same time, it's a it's a
Speaker 3: condemnation of our of our of our system as a
Speaker 3: whole that it takes this to actually get to this
Speaker 3: point where the Attorney General has to follow the plain
Speaker 3: text of the law.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's another big aspect of your book, which
Speaker 1: is I'm unabashedly and I'll use this adjective mackia Vellen
Speaker 1: sometimes about the need to be back in a seat
Speaker 1: of power, because you can't affect the change that you
Speaker 1: want until you're actually there.
Speaker 2: And I'm not ruthless.
Speaker 1: I mean, I still have morals and I still have
Speaker 1: a compass about it, Brian. But one of the things
Speaker 1: that you acknowledge is it's been a fatal flaw for
Speaker 1: many a campaign. Thus far as a Democrat, we have
Speaker 1: been way too nice about things. I think that we
Speaker 1: have been way too holier than now about not being
Speaker 1: willing to fight. And I do think that is part
Speaker 1: of why you have seen a surge and support for
Speaker 1: the quote more progressive side of our party, that part
Speaker 1: of our big tent, because they have been just so
Speaker 1: overtly like in our faces in a good way. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that it's a fucking radical to say that
Speaker 1: my kids should have health care and I should be
Speaker 1: able to afford basic necessities, Like why is it so radical?
Speaker 2: Because it's not. And I do think we've kind of.
Speaker 1: Tried to shame that part of our party for being
Speaker 1: so outspoken about it, and yet that's kind of what
Speaker 1: we need to be doing. We need to be acknowledging
Speaker 1: that we should not be okay with crumbs, like we
Speaker 1: deserve the whole pie.
Speaker 3: Right and look, they're mad, and rightfully so they should be.
Speaker 3: And I think in large part the reason that the
Speaker 3: progressive flank of the party is acendant right now is is,
Speaker 3: I mean, there's multiple reasons. One you have the more
Speaker 3: like the liberal Democrats who don't even offer a bridge
Speaker 3: to the next generation. These people stay in their seats forever.
Speaker 3: I mean, we have people into their seventies and eighties,
Speaker 3: and there's people in office that are in the sh
Speaker 3: of their nineties right now.
Speaker 1: Just see Chuck Chuck Well, he's not one of but
Speaker 1: Chuck Grassley just filed for his seat again. That guy
Speaker 1: is going to be like freaking ninety seven or some
Speaker 1: copper like that. By the time the dude's done. It's crazy.
Speaker 3: And the sad part is like, we don't even have
Speaker 3: a leg to stand on when it comes to condemning
Speaker 3: that kind of stuff, because we've had Ruth Vader Ginsburg
Speaker 3: die in office. We had Joe Biden obviously very old
Speaker 3: when he was an offit to the point where he
Speaker 3: wasn't able to prosecute the case when he was in
Speaker 3: that disastrous debate two summers ago, and so you know
Speaker 3: this is this is a problem, certainly on both sides
Speaker 3: of the island. I'm the last person that's ever gonna
Speaker 3: lean on the both sides excuse, but I do think
Speaker 3: it's a problem. And and you know, you do have
Speaker 3: a large faction of the base for whom this idea
Speaker 3: of politics as usual, which is espoused by these people
Speaker 3: who have been in Washington forever, is just not garnering
Speaker 3: enough results. And I think that we do need to
Speaker 3: abridge the next generation, and we need to bridge the
Speaker 3: next generation that's actually going to recognize the opponent that
Speaker 3: we're contenting with. These are not people that we can say,
Speaker 3: let's just confer a little bit of goodwill to the
Speaker 3: other side and surely, surely they'll reciprocate, because they don't.
Speaker 3: And we've been trying this game over and over and
Speaker 3: over again and they never reciprocate. And and I just
Speaker 3: want to like bring into office people who recognize that
Speaker 3: this is not the Republican party our of our parents
Speaker 3: or whatever it is they like to say, this is
Speaker 3: a republican party that again, to repeat myself from the beginning,
Speaker 3: does not think Democrats have the right to exist does
Speaker 3: not think that Democrats have the right to get elected.
Speaker 3: And so if we don't start treating this government like that,
Speaker 3: we're we are going to good government ourselves into obscurity.
Speaker 1: You know. I love what you just said, that we're
Speaker 1: going to good government ourselves into ourselves into obscurity, because
Speaker 1: I think that we like to give ourselves sometimes as Democrats,
Speaker 1: like self congratutory paths on the back for being so much,
Speaker 1: you know, better and more noble about things. But I
Speaker 1: think we now have a very different definition of what
Speaker 1: that means, right, because again, I don't have to be
Speaker 1: apologetic for wanting the basics and then wanting more, because
Speaker 1: that's kind of what this country was built on, the
Speaker 1: idea of me being able to have a dream, but
Speaker 1: to be able to actually have the basics to get there, right,
Speaker 1: And I feel like we've just kind of what is
Speaker 1: it just this is kind of like half jokingly not really.
Speaker 1: I was in Paris right and I was having like
Speaker 1: a work vacation and people were jokingly saying Parisians are like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're French, you know, we we we like to suffer.
Speaker 1: But it's like, holy shit, I feel like the Democrat
Speaker 1: like we like to suffer because we're Democrats, Like, no,
Speaker 1: I don't want to fucking suffer.
Speaker 2: I want to thrive.
Speaker 1: Like what is so hard to understand about that concept?
Speaker 3: And I think that that like you you you hit
Speaker 3: your your your finger right on it, which is there
Speaker 3: is a sense that we will always get just to
Speaker 3: the five yard line and then fail, Like there's a
Speaker 3: sense that that there's always going to be something that
Speaker 3: comes up the works, whether it's the parliamentarian or some
Speaker 3: norm or some institution or Kirsten Cinema or Joe Manchin,
Speaker 3: there's always one person who screws everything up. And we've
Speaker 3: gotten to the point where it almost feels like it's
Speaker 3: good enough that we got caught trying, that we had
Speaker 3: some symbolic victory in that if only we you know,
Speaker 3: like if only Kirsten Cinema wasn't there, if only Joe
Speaker 3: Mansion wasn't there, we would have gotten everything. But there's
Speaker 3: always one person to stop things. And I think people
Speaker 3: are just so tired of that. And in large part
Speaker 3: the reason that they're tired of that is because Trump
Speaker 3: has shown that none of our institutions are sacker sanct
Speaker 3: like when he wants to do something, he just gets
Speaker 3: it done. He doesn't care what the constitution says. He
Speaker 3: doesn't care what prosecutor say. It doesn't care what the
Speaker 3: court say, what judges say, what other members of Congress
Speaker 3: or Senate or other full branches of government says. He
Speaker 3: just does it. And so it shows that like where
Speaker 3: there is a will in politics, there's a way. And
Speaker 3: my argument in this book is that we have to
Speaker 3: have that same degree of ruthlessness, but you can do
Speaker 3: it for virtuous reasons. Not to enrich yourself to the
Speaker 3: tune of three hundred percent, not to keep billions of
Speaker 3: dollars in military defense contracts onto your kids, not to
Speaker 3: sell crypto coins or open real estate deals in foreign countries,
Speaker 3: but just to pass healthcare, like just to make sure
Speaker 3: we get climate change, just to expand voting rights, just
Speaker 3: to raise the minimum wage. If Trump can do all
Speaker 3: of these things to keep ungodly sums of money into
Speaker 3: his own pockets, surely democrats can do it when they're
Speaker 3: in control, so that we can raise the minimum wage
Speaker 3: from seven dollars and twenty five cents an hour to
Speaker 3: something livable in this country.
Speaker 1: Well, and then that is that therein lies the rub right,
Speaker 1: because you don't want to lose your soul. We can't
Speaker 1: lose our souls in pursuit of this. But as long
Speaker 1: as you're doing.
Speaker 2: It for the right reasons, I'm okay with it.
Speaker 1: Right and so that is the reason why I believe,
Speaker 1: and I want to ask you, I mean, so is
Speaker 1: the premise of your book the idea of not even
Speaker 1: I can't. I hate using the word rebuild because it
Speaker 1: makes us feel like we're looking at the old foundations,
Speaker 1: because we're not. I mean, your book is very clear
Speaker 1: like whatever we've been doing before doesn't work. We've seen
Speaker 1: it doesn't work. We have empirical evidence historically we need
Speaker 1: to change the rules of engagement. Here is that success
Speaker 1: though the day after and moving forward conditioned upon making
Speaker 1: sure that we have the right people in place to
Speaker 1: do that. And I'm not talking just in Congress. I'm
Speaker 1: talking in other kind of industry spaces and other sectors.
Speaker 3: So having the right people in place. Look, we're going
Speaker 3: to have to contend with both. There are going to
Speaker 3: be institutionalists and establishment types who are perfectly content with
Speaker 3: the status quo in positions of power where we need
Speaker 3: them to be movable and flexible so that we can
Speaker 3: kind of achieve some of the change that we're looking
Speaker 3: to see. My goal with the book is is twofold.
Speaker 3: It's of course, to advocate for a new generation of
Speaker 3: people who are actually going to really embody this fight
Speaker 3: that I want to see on the left or in
Speaker 3: this pro democracy space, but at a bare minimum, knowing
Speaker 3: that we're going to have a lot of folks who
Speaker 3: are already in power right now and by the way,
Speaker 3: benefiting from the systems remaining as they are, is at
Speaker 3: least to push them to let them know what we
Speaker 3: expect as the base. And look, I have I think
Speaker 3: a distinct advantage in this space because I talk to
Speaker 3: a lot of these people over the course of the
Speaker 3: last few years in these interviews, and so you know,
Speaker 3: I might not be viewed as as radically as some
Speaker 3: of these elected officials view other folks that they talk to.
Speaker 3: And so if I can be a trusted messenger for
Speaker 3: people and let them know that what we expect is
Speaker 3: not the same incrementalism that we've come to expect up
Speaker 3: to now, then hopefully I can use some of that
Speaker 3: credibility that I've earned with these people to let them
Speaker 3: know what a democratic party of tomorrow should look like,
Speaker 3: which is to say, a democratic party that is not
Speaker 3: going to just rely on institutions or processes or norms
Speaker 3: or traditions or god forbid, we push aside the parliamentarian
Speaker 3: God forbid, we don't embrace the filibuster like I'm using.
Speaker 3: I'm using any street cred that I had gained over
Speaker 3: the last few years building relationships with these people to
Speaker 3: let them know that what we've been doing up to
Speaker 3: now is not going to be acceptable beyond twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the reason why you are a trusted voice,
Speaker 1: not only in independent media but also in other you know, spaces.
Speaker 1: It's important for us to know how to walk in
Speaker 1: all these worlds. And you know the thing that makes
Speaker 1: me happy though, it sounds like there might be a
Speaker 1: place for an old lady like me in your day
Speaker 1: after Brian Tyler Cohen.
Speaker 2: So I'm grateful for this. Listen, my friend, I don't think.
Speaker 3: Before you stop. You there you have like I know
Speaker 3: that you are going to be that you're going to
Speaker 3: be very modest, but like I just want the audi
Speaker 3: and I know that your audience knows this, that's why
Speaker 3: they watch you. But but you, your voice could not
Speaker 3: be more important right now in one of the premiere
Speaker 3: issues that we're contending with. If it wasn't for you,
Speaker 3: not only would would we have so little insight into
Speaker 3: into one of the most heinous crimes that that is
Speaker 3: being covered up right now, but the victims of those
Speaker 3: heinous crimes are going to get some degree of justice
Speaker 3: thanks to the work that you're doing and the precedent
Speaker 3: by the way that it will establish in allowing other
Speaker 3: independent journalists to step in and say, now we have
Speaker 3: the right as well to see some stuff that's being
Speaker 3: suppressed by this government. So the the tail of what
Speaker 3: you're doing, tail of what you're doing is going to
Speaker 3: have long standing implications for for for not only the survivors,
Speaker 3: but you know, to get some accountability and transparency on
Speaker 3: the corruption that this administration is engaging in. So I'm
Speaker 3: I'm very happy to be here talking to you, and
Speaker 3: and I know I speak on behalf of your entire
Speaker 3: audience and saying thank you the work that you do
Speaker 3: every single day.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that. And look, it takes it literally
Speaker 1: takes a village and then some it takes an internet
Speaker 1: to make stuff happen. But not only your YouTube channel
Speaker 1: and all of the work that you're doing, but especially
Speaker 1: your books are essential reading or go the reason why
Speaker 1: I'm telling everybody that they have to read this book,
Speaker 1: especially this book. I love your other book too, but
Speaker 1: this one, especially for me, really was a siren song.
Speaker 1: So Brian Tyler Cohen, tell folks where they can actually
Speaker 1: go and get The Day After.
Speaker 3: You can get it anywhere books are sold. If you
Speaker 3: want an easy link, I have it at Briantylercohen dot
Speaker 3: com slash book.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we're going to include all of those links
Speaker 1: here with this episode.
Speaker 2: But Brian, it was good to see you in DC.
Speaker 1: I was thrilled that we were able to hang out
Speaker 1: and be, like I said, in community with others. But
Speaker 1: this is an incredibly important conversation because a lot of
Speaker 1: people want to have actionable they want to actionable blueprint.
Speaker 1: They want to have some action items to embrace and
Speaker 1: to know that we don't have a dog catching the
Speaker 1: car moment. And then we're all like looking at each other, like, well,
Speaker 1: now what do we do? What we do is we
Speaker 1: make sure that we've read The Day After by Brian
Speaker 1: Tyler Cohen. Thanks for being here, my friend.
Speaker 2: Was good to see you Katy, Thanks so much, Katie Fang.
Speaker 1: Here we launched the Katifang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch Network, so we can bring you the
Speaker 1: latest in legal and political news, straight no chaser. So
Speaker 1: if you're a fellow truthteller, hit that subscribe button and
Speaker 1: share the word about this channel so we can build
Speaker 1: a high information America together. Things are spicing up in
Speaker 1: the Cash paateel versus the Atlantic defamation lawsuit that he
Speaker 1: brought after this article check Out Your Screen came out
Speaker 1: on April seventeenth, twenty twenty six, entitled the FBI Director
Speaker 1: is Mia Cash. Patel has alarmed colleagues with episodes of
Speaker 1: excessive drinking and unexplained absences. Now, Patel has been an
Speaker 1: unsuccessful litigant for several defamation lawsuits, one of which was
Speaker 1: brought against my friend Frank Figluzi, who was a national
Speaker 1: security analyst and former FBI specialist and agent who is
Speaker 1: often on places like MSNBC and Cash Battel sued Frank
Speaker 1: for a defamation and lost resoundingly his defamation lawsuit. But
Speaker 1: this is kind of a big deal because, as we know,
Speaker 1: there is a very thin skinned sensitivity when it comes
Speaker 1: to members of the cabinet and members of the Trump regime,
Speaker 1: especially the second time around. Cash Battel not being an
Speaker 1: outlier on this whatsoever, Donald Trump himself loves, loves a
Speaker 1: defamation lawsuit. And then when it gets just on the
Speaker 1: even him having to I don't know, testify in a
Speaker 1: sworn deposition under oath on camera, suddenly the lawsuit seem
Speaker 1: to disappear anyway, even if.
Speaker 2: They get that far right.
Speaker 1: So cash Batel labors under the same fatal flaws he's
Speaker 1: bringing these defamation lawsuits. They do not hold any water,
Speaker 1: and they are being dismissed. Now that's exactly what the
Speaker 1: Atlantic is trying to do here. Check out your screen.
Speaker 1: There is a motion to dismiss that has been filed
Speaker 1: by the Atlantic, and this was at the end of July,
Speaker 1: July twenty seventh, and it basically says that, pursuing to
Speaker 1: a rule of civil procedure in the federal system, that
Speaker 1: there is no viable defamation claim that has been asserted
Speaker 1: by cash Battel against not only The Atlantic the publication,
Speaker 1: but against Sarah Fitzpatrick, who's the author of that article.
Speaker 1: And if you check out the memorandum of points and
Speaker 1: authorities in support of the motion to dismiss complaint that
Speaker 1: was filed by the defendants, The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick.
Speaker 1: It's scathing in its assertions, both legally and factually. We're
Speaker 1: going to fast forward to page nine of the forty
Speaker 1: two page motion to dismiss memorandum. Now it states clearly
Speaker 1: the cash Battel has failed to state a claim, meaning
Speaker 1: he has not asserted the necessary elements of a cause
Speaker 1: of action for defamation.
Speaker 2: Against the defendants.
Speaker 1: And he brought this defamation action against The Atlantic because
Speaker 1: it published quote an undeniably newsworthy article about his job
Speaker 1: performance that he finds politically inconvenie. It is an assault
Speaker 1: by a man who swore to uphold the Constitution. The
Speaker 1: lawsuit is meritless and should be dismissed. And it basically
Speaker 1: says here that this article reported on cash Battel's tenure
Speaker 1: at the FBI, concerns raised by those around him about
Speaker 1: his behavior, including excessive drinking, frequent absences, mishandling of high
Speaker 1: profile investigations, purging of employees that are deemed to be quote, disloyal,
Speaker 1: and impulsive decision making. The article in the Atlantic was
Speaker 1: based upon Sarah Fitzpatrick's interviews of more than two dozen sources,
Speaker 1: including current and former FBI officials, staff at law enforcement
Speaker 1: and intelligence agencies, hospitality industry workers, members of Congress, political operatives, lobbyists,
Speaker 1: and former advisors. And it also included the denials that
Speaker 1: were made by cash Battel and other Trump administration officials.
Speaker 2: And here is the.
Speaker 1: Crux of why the court should dismiss cash Betel's defamation lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Because cash Battel does not and cannot state a viable
Speaker 1: defamation claim against The Atlantic and its reporter Patel, does
Speaker 1: not plausibly allege that the defendants published the article with
Speaker 1: quote actual malice, as is required by the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: Cash Betel's complaint is just a laundry list of conclusiory
Speaker 1: allegations and generic complaints and does not come close to
Speaker 1: meeting the high constitutional standard, and the Court canon should
Speaker 1: dismiss the complaint in its entirety on those grounds alone.
Speaker 1: Cash Betel's claims also fail as to several of the
Speaker 1: alleged defamatory statements for the additional and independent reason that
Speaker 1: the statements are not able to be sued upon as
Speaker 1: a matter of law because they are not defamatory, they
Speaker 1: are substantially true, or they are protected by a fair
Speaker 1: report privilege in DC. Now, I mentioned a couple of
Speaker 1: minutes ago the lawsuit that Cash Betel brought against Frank Fuglisi, Well,
Speaker 1: the lawsuit against The Atlantic, Patel's fifth in recent years
Speaker 1: for defamation, and the second that he has brought since
Speaker 1: he's been sworn in as the FBI director. And you
Speaker 1: guys know that I love a good footnote. Let's check
Speaker 1: out footnote two here that says, hey, Patel versus Fugleisi
Speaker 1: dismissed pursu into the same rule of civil procedure twelve
Speaker 1: B six that The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick are traveling
Speaker 1: under to get rid of Cash Betel's lawsuit here and
Speaker 1: then it notes Cash Betel sued CNN AH dismissed with prejudice.
Speaker 1: Sued Goldman and others seeking forty five million from The
Speaker 1: New York Times and its reporter for defamation and conspiracy
Speaker 1: voluntarily dismissed without any court action being taken by the court.
Speaker 1: Patel versus Politico seeking twenty five million dollars.
Speaker 2: Oh, that one.
Speaker 1: Also voluntarily dismissed prior to any court action. So again,
Speaker 1: this should be the fifth failure by Patel to successfully
Speaker 1: bring a defamation lawsuit.
Speaker 2: But the defendants go even.
Speaker 1: Farther and they call out cash Battel here for the
Speaker 1: quote ominous message he is sending to the press. If
Speaker 1: you publish reporting that he doesn't like, it will come
Speaker 1: at a high cost. These tactics strike at the very
Speaker 1: foundation of the First Amendment, which was adopted to prevent
Speaker 1: powerful government officials like Cash Battel from controlling the public
Speaker 1: narrative by published by punishing the dissemination of material that
Speaker 1: is embarrassing to the powers that be. There is a
Speaker 1: chilling effect when lawsuits of this kind are brought, because
Speaker 1: if a suit entails long and expensive litigation, then the
Speaker 1: protective purpose of the First Amendment is thwarted, even if
Speaker 1: the defendant ultimately prevails. So they ask the court to
Speaker 1: dismiss cash Betel's defamation lawsuit with prejudice, meaning that once
Speaker 1: it's dismissed, he cannot ever revive it and bring it
Speaker 1: back in any way. And this is interesting because normally,
Speaker 1: as we've talked about here at Katie Fang News, a
Speaker 1: motion to dismiss is usually granted at the first instance,
Speaker 1: without prejudice, the court gives a plaintiff the opportunity to
Speaker 1: try to cure the defects and try to bring it
Speaker 1: again in light of why it was.
Speaker 2: Dismissed in the first place.
Speaker 1: But what The Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick are asserting here
Speaker 1: is that there's no way that cash Betel will ever
Speaker 1: be able to successfully assert a defamation claim against them
Speaker 1: because of this article, and that it should never Cashptel
Speaker 1: should never be given the chance to try to do
Speaker 1: it again. And to be clear, Sarah Fitzpatrick made substantial
Speaker 1: efforts to get comment from not only Patel, but the
Speaker 1: FBI and the DOJ, sending a detailed nineteen point summary
Speaker 1: of what the article was going to say, and she
Speaker 1: sent it to all of these different offices of public
Speaker 1: affairs to get their comments. She said, let me know
Speaker 1: whether you have a response, or whether there's additional context.
Speaker 2: Or information you can share.
Speaker 1: Listen, what she got back was either a platitude about
Speaker 1: how amazing cash Battel is and what a great job
Speaker 1: he's doing, or a general denial of these are lies.
Speaker 2: And you shouldn't be printing them. And that's the crux
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 1: Now, what just happened the other day, though, is cash
Speaker 1: Betel filed this his opposition to the defendant's motion to
Speaker 1: dismiss the complaint, and what cash Betel asserts, starting on
Speaker 1: page seven of this thirty nine page pdf, is the
Speaker 1: following that the defendant's punished published a hit piece knowing
Speaker 1: it was false when they published it. They were told
Speaker 1: it was false by multiple official sources, but they published
Speaker 1: it anyway, and now they can't hide behind the First
Speaker 1: Amendment and ask the court to believe that their conduct
Speaker 1: constituted legitimate journalism. According to cash Betel, it did not.
Speaker 1: I adore my Jones, Rude miracle Bomb, my collar, Mimi Beach.
Speaker 1: Of course, miracle Bomb has replaced multiple steps in my
Speaker 1: daily routine. Now I just grabbed my miracle bomb and
Speaker 1: I've got a highlighter, Bronzer, blush and liptint in one
Speaker 1: amazing product in less than sixty seconds. And with the
Speaker 1: kind of hectic life I live, who wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: shave off time in the mornings running around with my
Speaker 1: kids' school and activities. Don't get me started with to
Speaker 1: travel with Jones or a miracle bomb. I have a
Speaker 1: seamless go to that is lightweight and easy to pack.
Speaker 1: And once I started simplifying my routine, I realized there
Speaker 1: are some days that I need a little bit more
Speaker 1: coverage without looking kky or heavy. That's when I grab
Speaker 1: my Jones Road Foundation stick if it's perfectly into my
Speaker 1: current routine and gives that extra kick of coverage modern
Speaker 1: day makeup that's clean, strategic, and multifunctional for effortless routines.
Speaker 1: And for a limited time, our listeners are getting a
Speaker 1: free full sized mass Scerra on their first purchase when
Speaker 1: they use the code fang at checkout. Just head to
Speaker 1: Jonesroadbauty dot com and use the code fang phang at checkout.
Speaker 1: After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.
Speaker 1: Please support our show and let them know that we
Speaker 1: sent you.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Cash Betel does assert the appropriate legal standard that is
Speaker 1: considered at this stage, so he sued and the defendants
Speaker 1: have foul emotion to dismiss and this standard meaning the
Speaker 1: kind of context or framework that the court considers the
Speaker 1: allegations insh Btel's complaint is in in the light most
Speaker 1: favorable to the plaintiff, meaning at this stage, before any
Speaker 1: discovery has been done. The court will consider the facts
Speaker 1: that have been asserted and cash Betel's complaint, and they
Speaker 1: will do so in the favor of cash Matel. And
Speaker 1: that's just law, that's established law. But what the defendants
Speaker 1: have said is we don't care because even when you
Speaker 1: apply that standard, where all inferences are in favor of
Speaker 1: cash Betel, we still get the ability to get this
Speaker 1: lawsuit dismissed with prejudice. Now, let me be clear, the defendants,
Speaker 1: the Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick will get a chance to
Speaker 1: file what we call a reply to what cash Pattel
Speaker 1: just filed a couple of days.
Speaker 2: Ago, and I expect it to be a doozy.
Speaker 1: Of a reply because what cash Matel says Spurtz here
Speaker 1: is court, you can't dismiss my lawsuit because there's just
Speaker 1: been malice shown by the defendants, because they pretty much
Speaker 1: didn't buy my incredible record of doing such a great job.
Speaker 1: And I've told them that what they have is lies. Well,
Speaker 1: that's okay. You would expect people like cash Matel to
Speaker 1: say that they are lies.
Speaker 2: In fact, Cash.
Speaker 1: Battel, under oath, at a Senate confirmation hearing the other day,
Speaker 1: said the following to Senator Van Holland, you.
Speaker 4: Agree Director Patel that if one of your agents was
Speaker 4: unable to perform his or her duties because of excessive drinking,
Speaker 4: you would need to take corrective or disciplinary action. You
Speaker 4: agree with that statement.
Speaker 5: We would implement the inspection review process, just like these
Speaker 5: other agencies have their own internal investigations, and complete that review.
Speaker 4: As I said in my opening remarks, I really don't
Speaker 4: care about your personal life so long as you are
Speaker 4: able to perform your public and official responsibilities, which are
Speaker 4: awesome responsibilities. Multiple reports, including reporting by the Atlantic, have
Speaker 4: alleged episodes of excessive drinking, unexplained absences, and behavior that
Speaker 4: concern current and former FBI and d officials. You have
Speaker 4: publicly denied those allegations and filed a defamation lawsuits. So
Speaker 4: today's you testify before Congress, is it your testimony that
Speaker 4: those allegations are categorically.
Speaker 5: False, unequivocally categorically false.
Speaker 4: So there have been no occasions during your tenure when
Speaker 4: FBI personnel were unable to promptly reach you.
Speaker 2: Absolutely not.
Speaker 5: You can ask my entire workforce. They hear from me
Speaker 5: at every single hour of the day, as do these
Speaker 5: great gentlemen here, as do the men and women of
Speaker 5: the interagency in state and local law enforcement in the
Speaker 5: White House.
Speaker 4: And so there have been no occasions when your security
Speaker 4: detail had difficulty waking or locating you.
Speaker 2: Is that right now?
Speaker 5: If it's a total force, I don't even know where
Speaker 5: you get this stuff. But it doesn't make it credible
Speaker 5: because you say so.
Speaker 1: I mean that really does spack of methink thou dolt
Speaker 1: protest too much?
Speaker 2: Cash? Does it not?
Speaker 1: But look, I mean, somebody's definitely got his you know,
Speaker 1: panties in a bunch about what is being asserted against him,
Speaker 1: and he does seem incredibly defensive. But being defensive and
Speaker 1: stating it's not true does not stop a publication from
Speaker 1: going forward. And according to the lawyer who is representing
Speaker 1: Cash Betel, a guy by the name of Jesse Banal,
Speaker 1: who I'd like to share with you right now the following.
Speaker 1: Jesse Binall is a Trump lawyer. He has done a
Speaker 1: lot of work for the Trump campaign in places like Nevada,
Speaker 1: pushing claims of voter fraud in not only court filings
Speaker 1: but also congressional testimony. He's represented Donald Trump and civil
Speaker 1: lawsuits that were brought by congressional lawmakers and plaintiffs sek
Speaker 1: can to hold him accountable for his rhetoric over the
Speaker 1: January sixth insurrection. So Jesse Banall is no stranger to
Speaker 1: being in the Trump world and doing trumpy shit. So
Speaker 1: I'm not surprised by what I've seen that has been
Speaker 1: filed by Cash Betel's lawyers. But here's an interesting wrinkle
Speaker 1: that I want to also bring to your attention. Once
Speaker 1: lawsuits are filed, there is the chance to be able
Speaker 1: to participate in something called discovery. We've talked about it
Speaker 1: a lot here at Katie Fangs News, but it bears repeating.
Speaker 1: Just because there's a pending motion to dismiss does not
Speaker 1: in and of itself mean that discovery doesn't happen, Because
Speaker 1: sometimes as discovery happens, it actually helps frame some of
Speaker 1: the issues that may be a part of a motion
Speaker 1: to dismiss. The discovery definitely speaks to an eventual filing
Speaker 1: called a motion for summary judgment, which comes later after
Speaker 1: discovery has been fully developed, and again supports the idea
Speaker 1: that either a claim or defense cannot be maintained because
Speaker 1: the evidence doesn't support it. In its instance, discovery was
Speaker 1: supposed to be starting an ongoing in this lawsuit. However,
Speaker 1: the defendants, the Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick have asked the
Speaker 1: court to stay or pause discovery because they believe so
Speaker 1: strongly that their motion to dismiss will be well taken granted,
Speaker 1: and so it's a waste of time to be able
Speaker 1: to do discovery. However, there's one specific area of discovery
Speaker 1: that the Atlantic and Sarah Fitzpatrick are asking the court
Speaker 1: to have move on and continue, and that is this
Speaker 1: and I'm referencing the motion to stay discovery that requests
Speaker 1: that are directed to the gooj FBI and Cash Patel
Speaker 1: that they should be allowed to be ford because Cash
Speaker 1: Patel and any defamation lawsuit as the plaintiff, carries the
Speaker 1: burden to show that the article that was published in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic is quote materially false, nor can the defendants
Speaker 1: establish that the article is substantially true. Now think about this,
Speaker 1: because well, let me clean that up. Cash Patel, as
Speaker 1: the plaintiff in this defamation lawsuit, must prove it's a
Speaker 1: burden to prove that the article that was published in
Speaker 1: the Atlantic was materially false. In order for the defendants
Speaker 1: to establish that the article as published was substantially true,
Speaker 1: they should be able to participate in discovery by getting
Speaker 1: information from the DOJDFBI and from cash Btel himself about
Speaker 1: things like excessive drinking, his people not being able to
Speaker 1: wake him up because he's been so blasted and so
Speaker 1: passed out drunk, his abuse of his role as the
Speaker 1: FBI director to purge employees because they don't pass a
Speaker 1: loyalty test.
Speaker 2: Things like he's unable to do his job because of
Speaker 2: his excessive drinking and partying.
Speaker 1: Those are the allegations, and the defendant should be able
Speaker 1: to prove them by way of accessing this information internally
Speaker 1: at places like the DOJDFBI and from cash Betel himself.
Speaker 1: So it's a very interesting ploy here that has been
Speaker 1: used by the defendants. That's like, look, our motion to
Speaker 1: dismiss is so strong that we believe that discovery doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense. But hey, at the same time, you should
Speaker 1: allow this one particular path and discovery to happen because
Speaker 1: that'll also help us prove that what we've published about
Speaker 1: cash Betel is true. That is the danger, as we
Speaker 1: know as to any defamation lawsuit, when you see somebody
Speaker 1: for defamation, you put at issue what you are claiming
Speaker 1: are the lies because it allows the defendant to be
Speaker 1: able to say it's true, and in order to prove
Speaker 1: that something is true, you get to be able to
Speaker 1: access that information from the plaintiff.
Speaker 2: It is a delicious turn.
Speaker 1: The irony doesn't escape me here, and that's part of
Speaker 1: the reason I think why Cash Mattel has been unsuccessful
Speaker 1: and at least a couple of his defamation lawsuits because
Speaker 1: he realized that, yeah, anybody can sue, but you have
Speaker 1: to be able to sustain the lawsuit, and part of
Speaker 1: that involves the discovery process. We are going to watch
Speaker 1: this lawsuit carefully because it truly does strike at the
Speaker 1: heart of the freedom of the press to be able
Speaker 1: to publish articles about people that are high up in
Speaker 1: the food chain in an administration like the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and to be able to report accurately and truthfully about
Speaker 1: the wrongdoings that are being perpetrated and committed by the
Speaker 1: people that are in the upper echelons of this regime,
Speaker 1: people like the director.
Speaker 2: Of the FBI.
Speaker 1: And when the FBI director can't do his job properly
Speaker 1: and competently, I think we as the American people, deserve
Speaker 1: to know, and that's why the press should be able
Speaker 1: to print articles even when they hurt Little Cash's feelings.
Speaker 1: Be mad, the outrage, demand accountability.
Speaker 2: I'm off to rattle cages. Katie Fang.
Speaker 1: Here we launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership
Speaker 1: with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you
Speaker 1: the latest in legal and political news, straight no chaser. So,
Speaker 1: if you're a fellow truthteller, hit that subscribe button and
Speaker 1: share the word about this channel so we can build
Speaker 1: a high information America together