Reflections on January 6th, Two Years Later

[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Here's one way to look at the second anniversary of the January 6th Capitol riot. In a way, House Republicans are succeeding on this January 6th, at what they couldn't accomplish on the original one. They are preventing a change in leadership, bringing the work of Congress to a halt. Of course, we don't want to overstate the similarities. What happened two years ago was an attempted coup an attempt to replace electoral democracy with authoritarian strongman rule by any means they could get away with.

What's happening today is in its way, the ugly beauty of democracy at work. Yes, there's a stalemate. Yes, the Republican Party is divided against itself but they are engaged in the very democratic act of coalition building toward a voting majority under the parliamentary rules of order that The House itself established in a vote in the past. It's the peaceful transfer of power, from one elected majority to the next, from one elected speaker to the next. Long day at reign, the opposite of insurrection really, regardless of who you're rooting for, to win or lose the gavel.

Still, here they go again, the right flank of the party, reveling in how they can stop government in its tracks at least as much as how they can make it work. Here's another connection. Back in June of 2021, The House voted overwhelmingly 406 to 21 to award the Congressional Gold Medal to all the Capitol police officers who responded to the insurrection on January 6th other law enforcement too. We hardly remember that vote. Again, only 21 House Republicans out of around 200 voted against awarding the gold medal to the Capitol police officers.

If that number, 21 Republican holdouts sounds familiar, maybe it's because it's very similar to the number 20. The number of Republican holdouts not supporting Kevin McCarthy for speaker and they are mostly the same people. 13 House Republicans are on both lists. Congress members Biggs, Gaetz, Harris, Cloud, Clyde, Good, Boebert, Norman, Rosendale, Roy, Gosar, and Miller. Some of them said they voted against the gold medal for the officers because they objected to the word insurrection in the bill.

The bill stated that, "On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the Capitol, and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting and violently attacked Capitol police officers." The bill also noted that more than 140 law enforcement officers suffered injuries that day including 15 who are hospitalized. It also says, "The desecration of the US Capitol, which is the temple of our democracy and the violence targeting Congress, our hearts that will forever stay in our nation's history."

By the way, some of the 21 who voted against honoring the Capitol Police also said they did so because of some of that language that I just read. They objected to the word temple, calling the Capitol the Temple of our democracy. They wouldn't vote to honor the Capitol Police because of that. I thought it might be a fitting honor to those officers before we bring on any guests to re-air the first three minutes of the live testimony to the January 6th Committee by a Capitol police officer. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn. He testified on July 27, 2021.

Police Officer Harry Dunn: Chairman Thompson, members of the Select Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to give my account regarding the events of January 6th, 2021. From my firsthand experience as a Capitol police officer, directly involved in those events and still hurting from what happened that day. I'm providing this testimony solely in my personal capacity, and not as a representative of the United States Capitol Police. Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment of my time to ask for a moment of silence for my fallen colleague Officer Brian Sicknick, who died from injuries he sustained in the line of duty defending the Capitol of our beloved democracy.

[silence]

Thank you. I reported for duty at the Capitol as usual, early on the morning of January 6th. We understood that the vote to certify President Biden's election will be taking place that day, and protests might occur outside the Capitol. We expected any demonstrations to be peaceful expressions of First Amendment freedoms just like the scores of demonstrations we had observed for many years. After roll call, I took my overwatch post on the east front of the Capitol, standing on the steps that lead up to the Senate chamber.

As the morning progressed, I did not see or hear anything that gave me cause for alarm but around 10:56 am, I received a text message from a friend forwarding a screenshot of what appeared to be the potential plan of action, very different from a peaceful demonstration. The screenshot bold the caption, "January 6th, rally point, Linkin Park," and said the objective was the Capitol. It said amongst other things that, "Trump has given us marching orders, and to keep your guns hidden." It urged people to, "Bring your trauma kits and gas mask to link up early in the day, in 6 to 12-man teams."

It indicated there would be time to arm up. Seeing that message caused me concern. To be sure looking back now, it seemed to foreshadow what happened later. At the time, though, we had not received any threat warnings from our chain of command. I had no independent reason to believe that violence was headed our way.

Brian Lehrer: That was Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn testifying live before the January 6th Committee on July 27th, 2021. Yes, unusual for radio I know and maybe some of you were starting to adjust your dials and say what's wrong here, we included his moment of silence for Officer Brian Sicknick, which I thought was an appropriate part of the way to start here on January 6th, 2023. Later in the show, MSNBC host and Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber will join us. He has written a foreword to a published version of the January 6th Committee report.

We'll also talk to Harvard law professor Alan Jenkins, today, co-author of a graphic novel of alternative history What if the January 6th Insurrectionists had Succeeded? We will hear Harvard law professor Alan Jenkins take on that dystopian alternative history. We'll also go live to Washington later to see what's happening with the speaker vote as they head into their 12th round of voting and if and how members of Congress are marking the anniversary of the other January 6th, in the midst of that.

With us now, Andrea Bernstein who was co-hosted the WNYC podcast series Trump Inc. and a later podcast series about the insurrection, the coup whatever word you prefer the podcast title, taken from the Trump tweet about January 6, Will Be Wild. Andrea is now an investigative journalist covering democracy for ProPublica and reports on Trump's stuff for NPR. She's author of the book American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power.

For an even longer view, historical perspective, Manisha Sinha Chair of American History at the University of Connecticut, author of the book, The Slave's Cause: A History of Abolition, and of the forthcoming The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic, and among many shorter works. An article called The Case for a Third Week Construction in the New York Review of Books, which argued that January 6th, and Trump's big lie about a stolen election, actually offers an opportunity to launch what she calls a third reconstruction of American democracy.

Another article of hers on CNN's website, compared the midterm elections of 2022 to the midterm elections just after the Civil War in 1866. We'll get into that. Andrea, great to have you as always, and Professor Sinha thanks for some time to help with this observation of January 6th. Welcome back to WNYC.

Manisha Sinha: Thank you for having me.

Andrea Bernstein: Hey, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Can I first get you both on this confluence of events? I noted in the intro that most of the same 20 Republicans opposing Kevin McCarthy for Speaker were the same small group that voted against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to law enforcement who responded on January 6. Again, that congressional medal vote was 406 to 21. Andrea, does something tie these two votes together, or is that a stretch?

Andrea Bernstein: Well, I think it goes back even further than that, and we saw some glimpses of it in the 1/6 report, although not entirely because some of these people were subpoenaed by the January 6 Committee, and did not testify enough, an issue that just remains unresolved. We did see this core group of members of Congress in communications with the White House after the 2020 election, discussing various options. We saw resistance from the get-go. Some of them as we know, from the January 6 Committee asked for pardons.

We saw resistance right away from this group and others, but to even investigating anyway, in January 6. Remember how close we came to there being no investigation at all. If there hadn't been this move with the select committee, there would have been an investigation. I think we do see a through-line of disregard for the rule of law that extends from before the 2020 elections up until now. One of the things that I think we're seeing play out in real-time, is that there's no end game for that. That is the situation that we are in.

Brian Lehrer: Professor Sinha, same question?

Manisha Sinha: Yes. I think it is actually rather interesting that you find the same 13 people, as you mentioned earlier, voting against Kevin McCarthy, and also people who seem to have been directly involved with the January 6 insurrection. Many of them not only voted against giving a Congressional Medals of Honor to the Capitol police officers involved, but they also were again, certifying the presidential election of 2020. These members of the Republican Party clearly had in mind some sort of coup over the presidential election.

They are in sympathy with insurrectionists, they're not in sympathy with the police officers who defended the Capitol and our democracy. That is evident from their actions, before and now they seem more interested in wrecking the government at this point than they are in any sort of governance.

Brian Lehrer: Can I get you both on a point of language? Some of those Republicans voting against the Congressional Medal for law enforcement, as I mentioned in the intro, said, they did so because the bill used the word insurrection, which they objected to. They might have just seen it as a protest that got out of hand, as people sometimes say. Maybe they'd be okay with riot, perhaps, but not with insurrection. Ari Melber MSNBC's Chief Legal Correspondent, who'll be on later in the show prefers the word coup to any of this.

Andrea, what label or labels did you use in your Will Be Wild January 6 podcast series?

Andrea Bernstein: I think that the committee has called the January 6 Committee or was called January 6 Committee on the attack on the Capitol. For me, that seems an indisputable fact. I think that the battle of language has been crucial from the beginning. One of the things I do want to say, you played that long piece of tape of Officer Dunn, and I think that he is most remembered, if people do remember him for really talking about how he was assaulted with these violent racial epithets that day.

He said, "I have never been called these things as a police officer in uniform," and was [crosstalk] was saying--

Brian Lehrer: Right. I decided to spare the listeners that audio, but he talked about how he was called the N-word, and he said the N-word in his testimony, a number of times. He was called that. He had never been called that while in uniform ever before, or as many times in his life as he was in those several hours. Go ahead, I'm just giving people that context.

Andrea Bernstein: Yes. I think what is important to say is what he said prompted that, was when people invading the Capitol said, "Nobody voted for Biden," and he said, "Well, I voted for Biden. Am I nobody?" I think that that goes to the crux of what January 6 was about. It was who gets to participate in democracy.

Brian Lehrer: That's what touched off the barrage of calling him the N-word. It was when he said, "I voted for Biden, am I nobody?" In his telling, that's exactly when that verbal abuse started. Sorry, Andrea. Go ahead.

Andrea Bernstein: Exactly. Just to get to your question of the words, what are the words here that matter? I think it is no accident that there was a great resistance to calling these officers heroes. You may remember about-- I think it was a year ago, if my timeline is correct, the Republican National Committee described what happened at the Capitol was legitimate political discourse. At one point, it was described as looking like a normal tourist visit. I think that what all of this goes to, is defining what happened as a tumultuous and horrible event in American history or something worth looking away from.

I think that that push to look away is both what officers like Officer Dunn, and Officer Michael Fanone, who I also spent a lot of time talking to, have really been fighting against, like, "Don't look away, examine this." Changing around the language has real political meaning, and is not just an accidental definition of tropes.

Brian Lehrer: Professor Sinha, do you parse this language with your students at UConn? As Chair of the American History Department, are there any preferred term in your writings?

Manisha Sinha: Yes, and I should clarify that I'm not the Chair of the history department, but I actually just hold an endowed chair in American history. Regardless, I think it's really important to use the correct term to understand these events historically. As a historian of the Civil War and Reconstruction period, you can see how using different terms can obscure history, and in fact, rewrite it in ways that really damage what happened, damage the truth of what happened. I see the similar process going on right now by Republicans trying to call the insurrection.

It was an insurrection because it was a violent assault on the government of the United States on Congress. This is not just a riot, it's not a protest, it's certainly not a visit by tourists to the Capitol, who would desecrate it in that manner. I always emphasize with my students using the correct terms, because if you use wrong terms, or you use euphemisms or even terms that completely allied what happened, you're doing violence to history. Yes, I would definitely use the term insurrection in this case. I use the term slaveholders' rebellion.

I call the Confederacy a nation based on slavery, rather than fighting for some misbegotten notion of southern honor and states rights. It's really important if you see the way the last cosmetology justified the Jim Crow regime in the south, and the overthrow of emancipation and reconstruction, that we use the correct terms. My students get it immediately, because they have seen this happen before in American history, and they can see how attempts to use obfuscating terminology is really an attempt to rewrite history.

That is not something that should be done in a free and fair democratic society. That is something that fascist societies do. They try to rewrite their histories, they try to use terms that obscure the truth. There's something Orwellian about this, and it's rather telling that our students can get this immediately young students of American history while politicians, certainly people associated with the January 6 insurrection and the attempt to overthrow the presidential elections of 2020. The results of those elections that they continue to traffic in these lies and these myths about what happened.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, your thoughts and questions welcome on this second anniversary of a date that we will always know simply as January 6, right? Obviously, January 6, 2021, but like 9/11. What else? Maybe the 4th of July? We didn't even have to say the year. January 6th, 212-433-WNYC, as we discussed, January 6th meets-- I should say January 6th, 2021 meets January 6th, 2023 for the whole show today, 212-433-9692, or a tweet @BrianLehrer. When we continue right after this break, we'll listen to another much shorter clip of Officer Harry Dunn. Stay with us.

Police Officer Harry Dunn: Now it was obvious that there was a direct threat to the Capitol. I quickly put on a steel chess plate, which weighs approximately 20 pounds, and carrying my info rifle sprinted around the north side of the Capitol to the West Terrace and the railing of the inaugural stage where I had a broad view of what was going on. I was stunned by what I saw. What seemed like a sea of people, Capitol police officers and Metropolitan police officers MPD were engaged in desperate hand-to-hand fighting with rioters across the West Lawn.

Until then, I had never seen anyone physically assault Capitol Police or MPD, let alone witness mass assaults being perpetrated on law enforcement officers. I witnessed the rioters using all kinds of weapons against officers, including flag poles, metal bike racks that they had torn apart, and various kinds of projectiles. Officers were being bloodied in the fighting. Many were screaming and many were blinded and coughing from chemical irritants being sprayed in their faces. I gave decontamination aid to as many officers as I could, flushing their eyes with water to dilute the chemical irritants.

Soon thereafter, I heard, "Attention all units, the Capitol has been breached," and that rioters were in various places inside the building. At that point, I rushed into the Capitol with another officer going first to the basement on the Senate side where I'd heard an MPD officer needed a defibrillator.

Brian Lehrer: More of the testimony of Capitol police officer Harry Dunn before the January 6th Committee 18 months ago. Now, as we continue this special edition of the Brian Lehrer Show today, January 6th, 2021 meets January 6th, 2023. Our first guests still with us are Andrea Bernstein, who does investigative journalism, covering democracy for ProPublica, and covers some Trump stuff for NPR and co-hosted the Will Be Wild Podcast about January 6t, and University of Connecticut, American History Chair Mania Sinha.

Professor Sinha, you wrote in your New York Review of Books article last year that after the 2020 election with the Democratic Controlled Congress, that the Biden administration had a chance to inaugurate a third reconstruction of American democracy. Would you like to take a minute to lay out your concept of a third reconstruction? Then I'll ask if you think the Democratic Congress fulfilled your hopes to that to any degree before they lost The House majority in these midterms, but what do you mean by third reconstruction?

Manisha Sinha: Yes. If you look back at US history, you can see that the first reconstruction of American democracy took place immediately after the Civil War. When we established, emancipation and national citizenship regardless of race and previous condition of servitude. We had three amendments to the Constitution, that attempted to secure the results of the Civil War. We all know, of course, that that was overthrown by a steady and long insurrection by racist terror and legal maneuvers in the South.

Which resulted in the second reconstruction of American democracy during the Civil rights era, when finally with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, in 1965 when the Civil Rights Act, 1964, we had a second reconstruction of American democracy. Which was really just implementing many of the laws and amendments that were passed immediately after the Civil War, but it took that long and that much protest to get it done.

Now I think we are at a tipping point in the history of American democracy that requires as you mentioned, I wrote in that piece for the New York Review of Books, a third Reconstruction of American Democracy by really trying to fix some of the systemic problems that we have. Whether it is in the manner in which we elect our president, or whether it is to secure the right to vote, which is a very basic right in a democracy for all citizens. These are things that really need to be implemented.

I also suggested in that piece that we fix the loophole that we have right now, the 14th Amendment, which prohibits insurrectionists or those who encourage violent insurrection against the government of the United States from holding office after having sworn an oath of loyalty to it. That we should implement that and that we should implement it against precisely those 20 people who are now, holding up the election of a speaker, and who basically hold the entire Republican party, hostage, at this point.

The fact that so-called mainstream and moderate Republicans are willing to be held hostage by this group, is really a sad commentary on our democracy. That is what by third reconstruction. We have many laws and amendments in place that we should simply implement. For instance, there is a clause in the 14th Amendment, to the US Constitution that was passed in 1868 that says, if you are a state that is suppressing the right to vote of any group of citizens in your state, then you will suffer a loss of representation in Congress.

Now, that was never implemented against the South, throughout the Jim Crow era. I think we need to implement those because at this point we have a Supreme Court and one major party at least that seems to have lost faith in the rule of law and in democracy. We need to implement the amendments and laws that we have in place and perhaps pass new federal laws to protect the right to vote. Perhaps get rid of the electoral college where a person who does not win the majority vote sometimes gets to be President.

Most of my students still don't understand how that is possible, in a democracy. Now, the Biden administration had a very tiny a sliver of a majority in Senate, and now we've lost that in The House. They did actually try to pass at least some modicum of protections to the election of the President saying that the Senate cannot simply overturn the results of a presidential election. That the role of the vice president is merely to report it. These are the things that those attempting a coup on behalf of Trump, had been experimenting with or trying to force people to do those sorts of things.

I think it's good to clarify that in law, it would be really good if we could get rid of the filibuster in the Senate to actually pass legislation. We would've done much more. I think the Biden administration would've done much more in that regard if we did not have those two holdouts in the form of senators, Manchin and Sinema. Now we have lost The House. The reconstruction that I'm talking about would require, a majority and good paid, a substantial majority in both houses of Congress.

That is something I think that the Democrats really need to fight for in 2024, not just to win the elections on behalf of their party, but to win the elections in order to implement some systematic, and systemic democratic reforms.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Tom and Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Tom. Thanks for calling in today.

Tom: Hi, Brian and guest long-time first time. I wanted to know what are some actionable steps that can be taken to hold the people who are responsible in Congress accountable, specifically those who are being talked about right now, evading, renaming the event. I'll take my answer out the air. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Tom, thank you. Andrea, I'm going to throw that to you, but I want to give even a little more context because while we might single out that small group opposing McCarthy and voting even against the Congressional Gold Medal for January 6th police responders, as I mentioned earlier, that was 13 of the same people in this group of 20 voting against McCarthy on the Republican side. It was full majority of the Republicans back on the late night, early morning, two years ago, 139 members of The House, a lot more than 20, who voted not to certify the election results.

Even after the riot was quelled, and the Capitol was cleared, they were willing to help aid the coup. What does that say about Republican America today or the two years we may be about to be in for the new House of Representatives, or to the way Tom posed the question?

Andrea Bernstein: To answer that question, I'm just going to roll back a little bit. To January 6, 2021, as it happens, we're actually editing our final episode of Trump-ink. We were trying to understand what was going on at the Capitol, was this just some ragtag group of Trump supporters that got out of hand, what was going on? At the time, those of us who are watching it, none of us really had a sense of what the actual violence was, nor all of the things that Trump and his associates had done in the months leading up to that.

When the select committee formed, and we reflected a lot in the last episode of our podcast, both on the question of reconstruction, how do you get history right? What is the importance of setting the record straight? When we made that episode, I was trying to lift my own spirits and feel a sense of like, "Okay, maybe there's this thin chance that we can lay down the history as it should exist correctly this time, and maybe that'll have an effect on the world," but I didn't really feel very optimistic. This was before all the hearings and the report of the January 6 Committee.

I actually do think that for the question of accountability, the committee and its report have had a huge effect already. I think they've completely changed the national understanding of what happened that day, to a rally that got out of hand, to an event that was egged on and was just part of what the committee has often called a multi-part plan to block the peaceful transfer of power. The fact that we have that understanding, not everybody, we're a divided nation, but if you look at the results of the last election, there's a very slim but clear pattern that out-and-out denialism is not something that the majority of Americans are going to accept.

To the question of does all this accountability matter? I always argue that it does. I always argue that we need to do what didn't happen after reconstruction, which is really hold on to the history. I also think that it has not only a sort of theoretical effect in terms of our national understanding, but I do think that it has a actual effect in terms of the way that we live in the world. I realize it's a philosophical answer to the question about accountability, but I do think the report has been a form of accountability.

I also think that whether it's a result of the January 6 investigation, the congressional one, we don't know, but certainly what the Justice Department is doing has become much more visibly forceful. Are they going to ultimately hold these members of Congress accountable? I don't know. I don't know who will do it, but I do think that the mechanisms that we believe in, which are following the rule of law, telling truthful stories do have an effect. I'm not entirely unhopeful about the work that's been done and the work that still can't be done in telling the true story of January 6.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to talk a little later in the show to MSNBC host and chief legal analyst, Ari Melber, who has written a foreword to a published edition of the January 6 Committee report about the distinction as he sees it between legal accountability and political accountability. He also draws a distinction between things that are illegal and things that are unconstitutional, a distinction that he thinks matters for the accountability conversation. That's coming up in a little bit.

We also want to acknowledge that there are many, many Republicans in the United States, still who do not accept that this was an insurrection, would not use that term as we discussed the language a little bit earlier. I want to take a caller who for him that is the case. Pete in Newton, New Jersey, you're on WNYC. Pete, thank you for calling in today.

Pete: Hello.

Brian Lehrer: Hi Pete.

Pete: Hi Brian, I've listened to your show for a long time, and this is my first time calling in.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you.

Pete: I am one of those people who don't believe that it was an insurrection. I'd like to give it some context because I consider myself a disenchanted liberal. I feel in my heart that I'm still a progressive, and I'm still a liberal, but I think the terminology we're using to describe what happens is an excuse to increase the powers of a surveillance state. Before I go into all that, the reason why I think it's not an insurrection was because of the level of spontaneity. What happened there was wrong.

What they tried to do was wrong, but Trump, who I didn't vote for and don't care about, what he did, he whipped up a bunch of people. Within that bunch of people like a chocolate chip cookie. You got the chocolate chip in there, you got a few like the Oathkeepers, you got a few that, yes, they would really like to go in their guns ablaze. In doing that, you do have certain elements that require the prosecution that's happening now. To say that that whole mass of people, even though they had an aggregated sentiment about how they felt about the election, but people just came along for the ride at the last minute, like this was some planned revolution.

Brian Lehrer: Pete, I'm going to leave it there for time, but I appreciate your call. I'm glad you got on, please do call us again. I apologize to you for assuming that you were Republican. You said you had no use for Trump, so I don't know how you vote. Andrea, he makes a point that a lot of people around the country would still make that this was a band of whipped-up protesters, but there was not an organized plot to stage an insurrection. Now, I know Ari Melber will describe what he considers a continuous coup conspiracy. He uses that phrase, but how would you respond to Pete?

Andrea Bernstein: Yes, I think it really depends on what your view of conspiracy is. Is your view of conspiracy that like Trump called a group of people on the phone and said, "All of you go attack the Capitol?" No evidence has emerged that that is exactly what happened, but clearly, I think we know quite a bit now from the trials that have already occurred of the Oathkeepers that were convicted of seditious conspiracy, and others. That, and the Proud Boys trial, which is now beginning, but much evidence has been introduced, that certainly there were leaders of these extremist anti-government groups who wanted to disrupt the certification.

That they were quite clear that they wanted to get what they call the normies to go along with them. Absolutely, there were all kinds of people who were swept up in [sound cut], many of them have expressed regret for it. You have that in the context of a president, as we now know from the committee hearings, who was aware when he said those words, "Fight like hell," that he was speaking to a heavily armed crowd of people that were riled up. We are only now talking about the rally and what happened to the day and not everything else, the fake electors, the justice departments, et cetera, et cetera.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, they tried all kinds of parliamentary means to stage a coup, which we'll go into later. To wrap up this segment--

Manisha Sinha: If I may add Brian, sorry.

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead, professor.

Manisha Sinha: I think you would use the term insurrection whether people were riled up and whipped up by Trump in that rally that he had outside the Capitol, or whether it was in fact organized, as we now know from evidence uncovered about the chatter amongst these right-wing extremist militia groups. The fact remains that it was an attack on the Capitol, meant to disrupt the counting and the announcing of the votes for the presidential election. That in itself makes it political violence and insurrection against the government of the United States.

Brian Lehrer: That's going to be the last word for part one hear from Manisha Sinha, who holds the Draper Chair in American history at the University of Connecticut and is the author of books including the forthcoming The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic: A Long History of Reconstruction, 1860 to 1900, and Andrea Bernstein, investigative journalist covering democracy for ProPublica. Also covers some Trump things for NPR. Co-host of The Will Be Wild January 6 podcast, and author of the book American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power.

Thank you both so much for starting us off.

Andrea Bernstein: Thank you, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.