No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - ABC endures massive boycott amid Kimmel cancellation

Episode Date: September 21, 2025

The Disney boycott explodes as ABC sides with Trump over Jimmy Kimmel. Brian interviews Daniel Goldman about Kimmel’s cancellation, Jamie Raskin about the Epstein files, Adam Klasfeld about Trump’s case against the New York Times getting thrown out, and Elliott Morris about polling that bodes poorly for Republicans in midterms.Shop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Disney boycott explodes as ABC sides with Trump over Jimmy Kimmel, and I've got four interviews this week. I speak with Daniel Goldman about Jimmy Kimmel's cancellation, Jamie Raskin about the Epstein files, Adam Kassfeld about Trump's case against the New York Times getting thrown out, and Elliot Morris about polling that bodes poorly for Republicans in midterms. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. If ABC thought their decision to capitulate to Trump by canceling Jimmy Kimmel's program would pass quietly by, sorely mistaken. There is a massive movement right now to boycott the company and its properties, including at the hands of actors who themselves star in Disney properties. Tatiana Maslani, the star of Marvel's She-Hulk attorney at law, which aired on Disney Plus, is urging people to cancel their subscriptions to Disney services. Rosie O'Donnell called for a boycott of ABC.

Transparent star Amy Landecker, who's married to Bradley Whitford, posted an image of the cancellation page from her Disney Plus account. According to Business Insider, the chatter online has also translated to an increase in people googling instructions on how to do so, even as many conservatives, including Trump, praise the decision to suspend Kimmel. Search volume for Cancel Disney Plus reached a 12-month high at 9 o'clock on Thursday, according to Google trends. Terms like Boycott Disney Plus and Boycott Disney are also listed as breakout searches on Google. Searches for Cancel Hulu also soared. And all of this comes amid bipartisan condemnation of the move. Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz, Andrew Shultz, the guys from the Flagrin podcast,

Tim Dylan, Fox News as Kennedy, Glenn Greenwald, all criticized ABC capitulating to Trump and his FCC. And again, these are not exactly crunchy liberals here. And look, I think it's beyond clear that Trump and Brendan Carr are fascist scumbags. This is legitimately one of the most anti-American moves we've ever seen in this country, having the FCC lean on a private company because they don't like that these comedians were on TV saying mean things about the president. give me a break. And when they jumped the shark so bad that they're causing Ted Cruz and Tucker

Carlson to find common ground with Rosie O'Donnell, I think that speaks for itself. But let's be clear that it takes two to tango. And ABC made the conscious decision to validate Trump's move. Why? Because Nextar Media Group is one of the largest providers of local news in the country and operates ABC affiliate stations in dozens of markets across the U.S. And Nextar is right now seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with a company called Tegna. So when the FCC chair came out and expressed his displeasure with Jimmy Kimmel, it became very clear that he was extorting that company. And ABC was perfectly content to give in without a fight.

Why? Because it's all about cash for them. Zero consideration for free speech or the First Amendment or even democracy. Their sole focus is money and shareholder value. And because these multinational conglomerates, own all of these networks, like Disney, are so over leveraged and so susceptible to extortion by the government, if they need approval for anything, they just capitulate to Trump. But the cost of that capitulation isn't just that Jimmy Kimmel's canceled.

It is that we all become less safe because we all now live in a country where the president feels emboldened to commit more of these acts. That hurts all of us. ABC and these other outlets like CBS and Amazon and meta who capitulate to Trump are hurting everybody, all because they need another buck, because God forbid they don't focus solely on more money and more growth and more shareholder value. And I hope that the rest of the media outlets understand that by capitulating to Trump, you are not placating him. You're just showing him that you're weak. You're showing him that you can be extorted and bought. You're showing him that if and when he

wants to do this again, that he'll be able to do it without a problem. And I can assure you he will do it again. He isn't stopping with Kimmel, just like he wasn't stopping with Colbert, just like he wasn't stopping with ABC News and CBS and the New York Times and 60 minutes. Trump is not a good faith negotiating partner. He is looking out for himself and anybody dumb enough to think that he won't roll you the minute he feels like it is either a liar or a fool. So look, I'm not going to tell anybody what to do, but I can tell you that from personal experience, I canceled my Hulu package, which I don't do lightly. Like, I live in L.A. I love the entertainment industry. I interviewed Gavin Newsome a bunch of times. I was the only content creator who asked him

constantly about the tax credit for the LA film industry. I know that hurting ABC and Disney doesn't just hurt Bob Iger and these feckless executives. It hurts the artists, the actors who bust their asses for these roles, the producers and grips and PAs and craft services, the

restaurants who serve these people, everyone who works in an industry that is so important that exports our culture to the rest of the world. I think this is the best industry in America. But I want to be clear that that industry relies on our right to free speech. And if ABC is going to be complicit in Trump's efforts to curb that right, then that puts

the whole industry at risk. Frankly, it puts all of America at risk. So it's incumbent on all of us to send a message loud and clear to ABC that while it may be their prerogative to capitulate to Trump, it is hours to spend our money where we see fit. They're not entitled to our cash, and certainly not if they're going to use it to help Trump on his authoritarian crusade. The sad reality is that these companies like CBS and ABC and Amazon are not in it for free speech or the First Amendment or democracy itself, they are in it for money. That's it. That's the

entire game. So if they only speak one language, we need to talk to them in a way that they can understand. The only financial risk to these companies cannot be the one at the hands of Trump. Consumers have power here too. Don't forget to actually use it. Next up are my interviews with Daniel Goldman, Jamie Raskin, Adam Klassfeld, and Elliot Morris. No lie is brought to you by Shopify. Now if you've shopped up, online, chances are you've bought from a business powered by Shopify. In fact, if you've gone to my website, then you've gone to a business powered by Shopify. You know that purple shop pay button you see at checkout, the one that makes buying so incredibly easy, that Shopify. And there's

a reason that so many businesses sell with it, because Shopify makes it incredibly easy to start and run your business. Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, from household names like Mattel and Jim Shark to brands just getting started. Shopify gives you that leg up from day one with hundreds of beautiful, ready-to-go templates to express your brand style and forget about the code. Tackle all those important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments, to analytics, and so much more. Spread your brand's word with built-in marketing and email tools to find and keep new customers. And did I mention that iconic purple shop pay button that's used by millions of businesses around the world? It's why Shopify has the best

converting checkout on the planet. Your customers already love it. If you want to see less carts being abandoned, it's time for you to head over to Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling at shopify.com slash BTC. Go to shopify.com slash BTC. Shopify.com slash BTC. I'm joined now by Congressman Daniel Goldman. Thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me, Brian.

So we've just watched as Donald Trump successfully pressured Jimmy Kimmel off the air and we're watching as his administration officials, including FCC chairman Brendan Carr, are doing a victory lap and basically putting in place. the steps for the next cancellations. Is there anything that can be done as far as Congress is concerned, given the fact that this seems like it's a pretty overt attack on the First Amendment? To the degree that we get response from the administration, there we can certainly try to conduct oversight.

But as you know well, we're in the minority. We don't have subpoena power. And this administration has ignored pretty much all democratic requests for information. It is very clear that they do not believe that they answer to Democrats. So we have to take the next step here. And that is to really rally the people. And it's not just to oppose Donald Trump's actions. It's not just to pressure vulnerable Republicans with opposition to these authoritarian tactics.

we have to go back to true advocacy and hold the businesses and corporations that are bending the need of Donald Trump accountable. It is outrageous to me, not only that Donald Trump and Brendan Carr forced Jimmy Kimmel off based on absolutely nothing that is, I mean, frankly, it's not no hate speech, it's nothing. I mean, it is literally just part of his comedic, comedic show. But the fact that Next Star, which is, of course, hoping to get approval for a merger, and Disney ultimately acquiesced. And we're seeing this over and over and over again. And you have Mark Zuckerberg at the White House asking after he announces a $600 billion investment in the United States, which he already had, asking President Trump, oh, I wasn't

sure what number you wanted me to say, was that okay? Right. You know, it is across the board, whether it's law firms, whether it's corporate America, whether it's media companies, we have to stand up for our democracy, because if we don't stand up for it and we don't force not only our elected officials, but. also corporations that we use to do so, then we don't, we are really, really falling down a rabbit hole right now. You know, the way that this was able to be effectuated was because Brendan Carr at the FCC

was able to dangle the prospect of either approving or rejecting this requested merger that would give, I believe, Next Star by merging with 10. like something like 80% control of local TV in this country. And the reason that they're able to do that is they're seeking an exemption to the rule that prevents them from having that much consolidation. It's basically otherwise a massive violation of antitrust in this country. Why does a partisan actor like a president's appointed FCC chair have the ability to subvert these rules that are put in place to prevent monopolistic behavior

unilaterally. Look, this is why Donald Trump has busted every norm and obviously many laws and constitutional requirements. There was never previously a political component to the approval of any mergers or acquisitions, to, you know, so many things, crypto, for example, a regulation of financial regulation. There are policy differences and there are policy disagreements. But Donald Trump has turned all of this into a partisan battle and political warfare. Not just that. He's also using his power for his own purposes, his own political purposes. So he is not just threatening. He is using the Department of Justice to investigate his enemies. He is using the FCC to threaten media companies with losing their license if they don't stop any criticism

of him. And it's all part of a larger scheme here, which is to undermine every form of accountability so that he can continue to take more authoritarian control over our government. That's, really, there's no other way of looking at it right now. You know, prior to coming into Congress, you were an attorney, obviously during the impeachment proceedings, you were very present there as well. Using your past experience, is there any likelihood or is there any grounds for some type of lawsuit on First Amendment grounds against this administration, either on behalf of Jimmy Kimmel himself or some other, some of, some of,

other party, some other litigant to be able to push back on what we're seeing happen at the hands of the administration. Yeah, I think so. I think Jimmy Kimmel should sue. And what's shameful is that Disney did not stand up to Trump. Yeah. Force him to actually take away their license, if that's what he was threatening. And then if they did, file suit. Now, Disney, in theory, a private company and it has, you know, reputational considerations. So, you know, the First Amendment doesn't apply in the same way. But the direct coercion by the government that is connected to Jimmy Kimmel's suspension makes this a government issue in my view. And, you know, I'm not a First Amendment expert, but I think it's important that everyone take every measure they can

to fight against this authoritarian regime. And I am especially concerned about corporate America who seems and the tech world where they seem like, you know what, I'm happy to just give up our democracy as long as, you know, I get the regulation or the lack of regulation that I want that will make me billions of dollars. And it's kind of disgusting. And it's part of the reason why our system has become so divided and so unequal is that you have these folks on top who are mingling with Donald Trump and bending the knee to him and then he's giving them back

the policies that they want and that's how policy is now being made. Right. It's really, really anti-democratic and unacceptable. I mean, there really are, like, to put this as indelicately as possible, like they are showing themselves, exposing themselves as complete horrors

for this administration, whether it's CBS, whether it's ABC, whether it's meta, whether it's Amazon and the Washington Post, whether it's the LA Times, I mean, on outlet after outlet after out, including these outlets that have hid behind these glossy slogans like Democracy's Eyes and Darkness, back when it wasn't challenged, back when it didn't mean anything to say it, it was just a bumper sticker because who cares? No one's actually coming for those things. So why not just say it? Why not just bolster our credentials and our reputation by saying this kind of stuff? It really is telling it the moment it's challenged. The moment that they actually have the opportunity to stand up and defend the things that they have said about themselves, that they're the esteemed fourth estate that's going to stand up and protect democracy when all else fails, the fact that when they have this opportunity, they just bend the knee, capitulate instantly to Donald Trump shows that they're not just full of shit now. They're not just these awful stewards of democracy now, but it was all a scam the whole time because now is when they can actually bear out that thesis that what they were

saying was accurate. between what happened in Trump's first term and what is happening now. There were, there was a, there were a lot of corporations. There were a lot of business leaders who spoke out against Donald Trump, who opposed what he was doing and took him on. I mean, even Jeff Bezos was, uh, ridiculed and attacked constantly by Donald Trump. And, uh, he still managed to try to hold the line. And certainly as you point out, who's going to stand up for us. our First Amendment, if not the media, freedom of the press. But this time around, we're seeing a totally different view. And I think the reason is that they know Donald Trump is completely for sale, that everything is transactional. They know if they give a million bucks to his inaugural that he will make sure that his policies line their pockets. And they'd rather do that than have to fight with him. And that's how we lose. the fundamental values that this country is founded on.

Congressman, what are you hearing from your colleagues? I mean, the Republican Party is this self-proclaimed stalwart, bulwark against the censorship of the left. So, like, are any of them trying to justify this? Are you hearing rumblings from people who are uncomfortable with this? But, you know, who may or may not be willing to speak out? Like, what is the general sense on the other side of the aisle? I hear very little opposition.

Yeah. You know, the idea that they've been talking about Charlie Kirk as a beacon of free speech and to remember him as such a leader in that area and wanting to have debate. And then they turn around. Five minutes later. Yeah, literally support the president in, um, in, uh, his blatant violation of the First Amendment and Brendan Carr and start, you know, accusing the left and trying to silence the left or silence anyone who even criticizes,

not Charlie Kurtz, you know, supports Charlie Kirk's murder, which we all abhor and condemn, but start saying, well, you know, looking at what his legacy is and saying, you know, maybe he said some things that were not so great. Oh, that's off limits. You cannot say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. And it's like, give me a break. You guys are the ones who are the free speech absolutist. You were so upset about censorship by the Biden administration on social media.

You had an entire subcommittee that I was on last Congress on the weaponization of the federal government and using it to censor social media companies and Republican viewpoints. And here, then you just turn around and you're saying, well, no, it's really, I only object if it's speech that I like. Right. I got no problem canceling speech I don't like. Right. What is the natural conclusion of what we're seeing right now?

Like, clearly, clearly this is, I mean, slippery slope is the most generous way to put this. But we've watched, again, I listed out the whole, the whole slew of companies that have capitulated to the Trump administration or that have, or, or, you know, in instances where the Trump administration has successfully lobbied to get these people kicked off the air, whether it's Colbert, whether it's Kimmel, whether it's suing ABC or CBS or meta and getting them all to capitulate. What does this look like a month, six months, a year down the line? Well, we're at a real fork in the road right now because this

latest action was so far and away the most egregious. And it was so out in the public, and it was so clear that it is an absolute bullshit move, that even if you look at the merits of it and what Jimmy Kimmel said, there's nothing wrong with it. Right. I mean, certainly the Republicans, I mean, Donald Trump himself started accusing the left of being responsible for Charlie Kirk's murder before the perpetrator was identified or a right. And that's all Jimmy Kimmel was saying. But even putting that aside, right, is the idea that you can threaten the license of a media organization because you don't like what they say and that they acquiesce is next level here. We continue to go further and further and he continues

to push the envelope. And so, look, there are different ways we can do it. Donald Trump is not going to care what I say or what your listeners likely say or likely what your listeners say. But there are many Republicans in the House especially who are vulnerable in their elections next year. And the closer and closer that we get to those elections, the more and more the pressure that the American public puts on them will have an impact because Donald Trump does not want to lose the majority. That's why he's rigging the entire system by redistricting all over the country. But if he starts to see that the polling and the prospects for his house majority and their vulnerable members are getting worse and worse, that will have an

impact on him. And so I think it's got to be a combination of that and then putting pressure on corporate America to stand up for our values, which I wish we didn't have to do, but we certainly do now. I want to ask one more question here, and it's a little bit of a selfish question, but as we continue to recognize the extent to which legacy media and these legacy outlets are not in it to defend First Amendment rights or free speech or democracy itself, I think the onus does fall more and more on folks in the independent media space to pick up where, where legacy media isn't meeting the moment. And so there is some concern that as Donald Trump has leaned on these legacy outlets,

that he'll then turn his attention to the platforms where all of our content, content creators, where all of our content is posted and to try and, you know, lean on TikTok, lean on Google, lean on YouTube and Instagram and Snapchat to suppress speech that is, you know, like he's doing everywhere else, critical of him. And so is there, do you have concern about that? Is there any bulwark to prevent him from overstepping in very much the same way that he's overstepping as it relates to legacy media? Yeah, I am concerned. I mean, look, the legacy media world, as you describe it, is now there, almost all of it is just part of larger corporations that are public companies that have earned.

and have shareholders and are far more worried about their bottom line than they are about the First Amendment. If he goes after the platforms, we're in a different world because, remember, that's exactly what they have been railing against for years. And the platforms are immune. They do have immunity from liability. That's that Section 230 immunity, correct? Right.

Yeah. But, you know, the idea that Elon Musk could just decide that, all right, I'm just going to, you know, suppress, as they say, whatever the word is, you know, whatever speech or whatever comments I don't like is really dangerous. And that's where I do think Congress has a role because, yes, there's free speech. and yes, these social media platforms may have immunity from liability for being held responsible for something you say, but they use their algorithms in a very specific and particular way. And Congress can regulate those algorithms. And there's a lot of talk about doing it. And I think that we're going to have to ramp up those efforts.

All right. Well, we will leave it there. Appreciate your leadership on this issue. And thank you for the time today. Thanks, Brian. Take care. No Lie is brought to by Uplift Desk. Now, I didn't realize how much sitting all day was dragging me down, both physically and mentally, notwithstanding the industry that I work in. But I would end my day feeling stiff and foggy and completely worn out.

That's why I started using this episode sponsor, Uplift Desk. It completely changed my routine and my well-being. And it doesn't just improve my posture. I'm also moving more, thinking clear, and actually enjoying being at my desk. Great work starts with great work spaces. That's why Uplift Desk builds premium ergonomic furniture designed to keep you moving, feeling good, and doing your best work. Uplift Desk helps you move more and sit less, which does wonders for your posture, circulation, and overall mood. I'm way more productive when I can easily switch between sitting and standing.

That keeps me alert and energized and creative. And what I love most is how customizable it is. There's over 200,000 desk combinations to match your space, style, and workflow. What I find most helpful about my uplift desk is actually their, wire and cable management solutions. There are so many cables around my desk and I'm kind of a lunatic about making sure that everything is neat. Uplift Desk makes that so much easier than any other desk I've ever had. Your workday does not have to leave you feeling worn out. Go to upliftdesk.com slash BTC and use our code BTC to get four free accessories, free same-day shipping,

free returns, and an industry-leading 15-year warranty that covers your entire desk, plus an extra discount off your entire order. That's U-P-L-L-L-F-T-D-E-S. dot com slash BTC for this exclusive offer. It's only available through our link. I'm joined now by Congressman Jamie Raskin. Congressman, thanks for joining me. Delighted to be with you. So you had the opportunity to question Cash Patel, the FBI director, during a hearing today in Congress.

There was a lot of focus on the fact that he had staked so much of his reputation, so much of his credibility on this idea that he was going to be the guy to come in and expose all of this wrongdoing as it relates to Epstein. that had been covered up by these deep state operatives only to then basically become the very problem that he criticized for so long. Did anything in his testimony give the impression that he is, that he's going to be true to his word

that he gave when he was a podcaster as opposed to what it seems like he's doing right now, which is just perpetuating a cover-up? No, he's in full-blown cover-up mode, and it is really mind-blowing, because I confronted him with just video snippets of him saying, This is totally within the control of the FBI director. He's got the black bag.

He can release it, put on your big boy pants, and show us who the petterasts are. And I just turned it around and I said, so what do you say? Are you going to put on your big boy pants and show us who the peters are? And then there was a lot of hemming and hawing and kind of pointing fingers at the federal courts. And their whole deflection ploy has been to say, well, we asked the courts to release the grand jury material, which is a totally irrelevant distraction. The government has just mountains of evidentiary data, investigative data, data that they've gotten. And then they're going and saying, we want the grand jury data from the old Maxwell and Epstein files,

which were about Maxwell and Epstein, not about everybody else. So those judges, not only did they say, no, we're not going to release this under 6E. You've not shown reason why. They also kind of called them out saying, this is a deflection because you have a much greater mass of material that you could just release on your own. And you don't need this stuff. And it's pretty extraneous to what the public wants to see. Back a few months ago or years ago, whenever he said it, when Cash Patel came out and said that really this, the buck stops with the FBI director,

who of course was not him at the time, but was he telling the truth that the buck does stop with the FBI director, which would in turn suggest that he right now, as the FBI director, has the power to release exactly the files that he's claiming that he has no power to release. Yes, overwhelmingly the buck stops with the FBI director. In other words, the greater mass of material out there is within the control of the FBI director. everything they found when they went to Epstein's house and they were in his safe, all of the computers and the memos and the telephones and the photographs and the videos and so on. And they're focused on a very tiny percentage of the overall materials, which was grand jury

material leading up to the indictment of Epstein or the indictment of Maxwell, again, a small fraction of everything the government has and everything that the people want to see. So there were a number of false distractions like that that he engaged in, which says to me, he's really just flipped over. He was demanding it. They thought it was to their political advantage to say, we want to come clean on everything. We're going to do it on day one and so on. And then when they get in and he's deployed a thousand FBI agents to pour over the material to look for Trump's name and to make a mark there and to redact it, then that's when they come back and completely.

flip over to 180 degree, you turn and say, um, nothing to see here. We're not interested in this anymore. Is there anything to suggest that the FBI under Cash Patel's leadership is working toward transparency or accountability? Or does the sole project, the sole goal, the sole focus of this whole thing, is this just a protection racket for Trump? I think it is. I mean, a great example is he repeatedly testified to the Senate during his confirmation hearing. that there would be no political retaliation or retribution against people in the FBI. And yet there's all kinds of statements now

by people with FBI that that's precisely what he's doing. And he's forcing huge numbers of FBI agents out. Experienced, talented, awarded FBI agents are being pushed out of the department, fired, sacked, demoted, told they've got to leave. Why? Simply because they worked on the January 6 investigation. and Trump wants them out, or they worked on the Russia investigation,

the investigation of Russian infiltration and attacks on the 2016 election, the 2020 election, the 2024 election, so on. All these people have been targeted for removal. So he's doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do, which is turning the FBI into an instrument of political revenge and retaliation against people. Well, almost worse than that is, even in the event of the Charlie Kirk shooting, I mean, he was live, he was basically live tweeting it and putting on his podcaster hat and live tweeting the thing,

offering up fake information, information that was ultimately proven completely false because he can't get out of this frame of just being this political commentator. So to what extent is this harming the credibility of the agency that he's supposed to be leading right now? Well, yeah, and that might just be general incompetence and incompetence an inexperience on his part. I mean, he's, you know, one of the only people who ever became FBI director with no experience ever at the FBI.

I mean, he was writing children's books about Donald Trump, about King Donald and about the, you know, the wacky wizard cash who protects King Donald. I mean, this is the level of comic book fantasy world he lived in. And so suddenly he's head of the nation's premier law enforcement organization, and as you say, he thinks he's still some kind of, you know, just online troll or blogger or something and starts, you know, live tweeting things he's hearing from afar about the investigation, and he had to retract a number of his statements. Can you talk about his unwillingness to respond in any of the correspondence that you had sent to him? him over the last eight months? Well, we've been trying to raise all kinds of things, especially about the personnel matters and the ongoing Stalinist-style purge of FBI agents.

You know, they're using polygraphs basically to cross-examine FBI agents as to their political loyalty to Donald Trump. And so we've been trying to raise these things and get an answer from him. And we've simply not gotten an answer. He doesn't even send me form others saying it's been received. It just goes out into the either. So I said, we got a lot of stuff to talk about. Of course, we were all limited to our five-minute question spot, and they didn't want to do

another round or a third round. I mean, we could have gone for a long time on this. So we're going to have to get some answers from Attorney General Bonding when she comes in that we never got from Cash Patel. Of course, I think we did have more substantive exchanges than took place over in the Senate when he just started screaming and yelling over the senators. He did some of that today. but I think that his team must have told him

that that's not a very effective communications tactic for the director of FBI. I know that this is a little bit of an unfair question to ask you to get into Cash Patel's head, but what do you presume Cash Patel, the podcaster, would say if he saw an FBI director being asked these questions point blank

very simple questions about the Epstein scandal, about this effort to basically bury any any accountability or transparency, what do you think that he would say if he was still in his capacity as a political commentator? He'd say that's an FBI director in full-blown cover-up mode who's covering up for the deep state. He would definitely say that. I mean, you know, we just learned from the four CEOs of major banks like J.P. Morgan that there were one and a half billion dollars worth of financial transactions that they identified as suspicious activity going through Epstein's various accounts. That doesn't sound like, you know, just sort of a

prostitution ring on the corner. One and a half billion dollars. I mean, my colleagues across the aisle went crazy for the SARS reports about Hunter Biden, which were around 20 or 25 million dollars. And here we've got a billion and a half dollars going through this international child sex ring and we tried to get a subpoena of these bank CEOs and every Republican except to his great credit, Representative Massey from Kentucky, voted against it. But Massey voted with all the Democrats to subpoena these documents. Jamie Diamond released a statement right after I first raised it saying, you know, essentially he'd be happy to comply and they're sorry they ever had anything to do with Epstein.

So, you know, I think the banks would welcome the opportunity to come clean with all the information they've got. On the Massey front, to your point, he is the only Republican who seems to be engaged in any effort toward transparency. What is the sense among your Republican colleagues who are actively voting to suppress transparency as it relates to, you know, a notorious pedophile in the people that he surrounded himself with? I mean, these were people who during the campaign were perfectly content to exploit this issue

if it meant they can derive some political benefit. But now that they actually have the power to substantiate their own promises from September and October and every month before that, now they're the ones actually perpetuating the cover-up themselves. Well, in fairness, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Nets, you may still have their names on the discharge petition. And we added one more vote on the Democratic side when Jerry Connolly's seat. was filled by Congressman Walkenshaw. So now we just need one more Republican, if my math is

correct, but one or two more Republicans to add their name to the discharge petition. And we will be able to put a bill on the floor, which will have to pass overwhelmingly saying release all the files, because even the people who aren't signing the discharge petition say that they would vote for that. But you're right. I mean, the truth of the matter is that there's a lot of fear, operating on the Republican side, and some of it is fear of political retaliation. Some of it is fear of all of the death threats and violent threats that are out there today. And then some of it is, frankly, just tribalistic thinking. We live in very tribalistic times. And so you saw the center of gravity on the GOP side just switch on a dime from release the file. We want to know

what's in there. This is sick. This is a deep state conspiracy. two, no, we're not interested anymore. We're willing to go with the president. Simply because Trump changed his mind. That is tribalistic and I think humiliating, obsequious and sycophantic psychology, but it has really saturated our politics now. What about the prospect of the Epstein Files being released

to the House Oversight Committee? Is that any different than the effort that would be put forward if the discharge petition passes? Are you trying to do them in tandem for some reason? Is there some greater degree of transparency that we would get if the discharge petition passes? Well, right. The whole point is we're passing legislation with the discharge petition that would command the surrender of the entire file. In other words, it would no longer be dribs and drabs. Right. Parceled out in little political micro doses. Right. I think I think the last the first batch had 97% already public files included in

that charge. Yeah, they were released in old press releases and old newspaper articles. I mean, it was ludicrous just so they could say it was a big batch. It's not the stuff that they want us to see that we want. It's the stuff they don't want us to see that we want. And we're afraid, of course, that it could be destroyed. It could be redacted in the meantime. And so we don't want any more dilly dallying around this. We want to just get the file exactly what Cash Patel, exactly what Donald Trump was talking about before they came into office and they were able to review the file themselves. And finally, let's finish off with this. I know that the Republican effort right now is to try and basically convince. Actually, I don't really know what the convincing

is, but to try and persuade the base that for some reason, the same Epstein files that they staked all of their credibility on releasing, now have to be suppressed. And again, I don't know if it's because they're trying to claim that it was some deep state plot that's been concocted by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and James Comey and Clapper or whatever it may be. I don't, I don't know what conspiracy theory were up to right now. But what would you say to the folks who, you know, in part, stake their votes on this Republican Party based on the idea that they would seek some accountability for this heinous pedophile, and only to watch these people now, again, engage in the same cover-up that just a few months back they were decrying.

And what we're getting is deep state double talk. I mean, what Cash Patel was saying was, oh, we brought these motions to the Epstein and Maxwell judges to release the grand jury material, and they said, no, here's what Judge Berman had to say about this, because these judges, not only did they reject the request and explain precisely why, but they also called the bluff of the Trump administration. So here's Judge Berman. This is on page seven of his ruling in the United States of America versus Epstein, which came out in August. And he goes, the government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials. The government's Epstein files are sui generis, that is, they're one of a kind. They are investigatory

and not subject to federal rule of criminal procedure 6E. In other words, Cash Patel comes to a citizen and says, well, the court says that we can't release all of these materials because of Rule 6E about grand jury materials. Those aren't grand jury materials. Those are independent materials that have been collected by the government. And then Burman goes on to say the government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein files. By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a diversion from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession. So you even have a federal judge saying, you know, basically don't make us a party to this fraud on the public.

Right. And I think, you know, Cash Patel himself said it best that the Buck stops with the FBI director. So if we're looking for the person responsible for secreting all of this information, Cash Patel just has to consult a mirror. Congressman, as always, thank you for the time. Thanks for continuing to fight on this front. I appreciate it. Thank you, Brian, so much.

I'm joined now by the founder of All Rise News, Adam Classfeld. Adam, we have been watching as the Trump administration continues to bear down heavily on media outlets. And that includes his existing lawsuit against the New York Times. now have a major update as far as that case is concerned. Can you explain what just happened in court? Well, it took less than a week, Brian, for a judge to just brutally smack down the Trump lawsuit against the New York Times. He called it, and here's the operative. Here's a key sentence from the ruling. A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or a functional equivalent of a Hyde Park

Speaker's Corner. And he spent all of four pages just witheringly dressing down the fact that this complaint was full of praise for his business acumen, talking about his historic victory. As a matter of fact, one of the parts of this ruling just summarizes, simply summarizes a lawsuit. And there are lines that begin, the reader of the complaint must labor through the allegations. A reader must endure an allegation of him talking about winning the election in historic fashion, for example, trouncing his opponent, quote unquote. He talks about the enervating prose. It's just, it's filled with mockery. And here's a thing, Brian, this judge, Stephen Meridae Day, is a George H.W. Bush appointee, a very conservative judge, by the way, in the Middle District of Florida. And this is,

It's basically him calling out the buffoonery, frankly, of the lawsuit simply just filled with, you know, attacks on the newspaper that aren't even related to the complaint. He complains about, for example, the endorsement of Kamala Harris early on in the complaint and pleads a ridiculous definition of actual malice. doesn't actually have to do with actual malice, claiming that essentially the New York Times is out to get him, which has nothing to do with the legal definition of actual malice. And what happened today was the judge said, try again. Now, in terms of Trump's willingness to actually continue to push this thing forward, is there anything preventing him from doing that? Can he appeal? Was it

dismissed with prejudice? Like, where do we stand right now in terms of the continued existence of this lawsuit? So the technical nature of this is the original complaint is stricken. And so this is actually a highly technical ruling that it didn't meet the Rule 8 procedures just to get out throughout the gate. And so what the Trump legal team said that they will be refiling the complaint without all of this self-agrand document, without the attack. Is that even possible to file a lawsuit that comes from Donald Trump without the self-aggrandizement? Well, we'll see what they submit soon. They have 25 days to do it.

And, you know, they had the, here's the thing, Brian. They have the first complaint out there. It's been through the news cycle. They have the press release out there. We'll see if they can cut it down to about half the length, as the judge is demanding here. Team Trump now has to cut it down to 40 pages or less, and we'll see the case go forward. But the kind of question remains, when you cut the fat from it, is there any meat left? Now, in the event that this lawsuit doesn't go forward, what kind of precedent does that set

for his other existing attacks on media companies? I understand that this would happen at the trial court, so there's no binding legal precedent. In fact, there's no legal precedent because it's not at the appeals court level, but what kind of atmospheric precedent does this have? Well, this is one of a series of lawsuits that Trump is filing in and before his second term to try to chill the press. And sometimes he's had success with it. It happened with ABC, CBS, where he gets settlements for over cases that most legal experts didn't really find a lot of merit in. Right. He wields these lawsuits as a cudgel. As a matter of fact, the lawyer, the lead attorney behind this lawsuit is Alejandro Brito, who's the same lawyer whose lawsuit we've spoken about, Brian, against the Wall Street Journal's parent company and their reporters over the letter that we now know is 100% legitimate, the one that he sent to Jeffrey Epstein that was authenticated by nothing less than Epstein's estate given to Congress. and publicly released. They're still pursuing that lawsuit. It's the same legal team that just got this judicial smackdown today. And, you know, can the Wall Street Journal, for example,

look at some of the arguments that the New York Times would be able to make against, would be able to make against Trump and use some of those arguments in their own existing case? Well, the interesting thing about this ruling is it happened before there were any arguments. This was a judge simply looked at the complaint and said, this is not an acceptable complaint. So I don't think it's going to do so much with precedent, but it does hopefully put some wind in the sales of other media organizations facing ridiculous lawsuits from the Trump administration while they use litigation to try to intimidate the press when they use the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr. to try to threaten media organizations to suspend Jimmy Kimmel. I think that we need to view all of this through that same prism. This is more than a legal case and more than the defamation law and precedent.

This is an act of intimidation. So in that sense, Brian, the victory here, even if there isn't a real precedent to harken to, we'll see, it should be wind in the sales because it's a judge saying right out the gate, this is ridiculous. Well, you know, the irony of that is that when Trump doesn't have leverage over certain institutions or certain outlets and they go to court and they win, none of that is surprising, right? And there's no reason for them to capitually.

But it's only in the instances where these major media outlets are so over leveraged, like CBS, like ABC, and they know that even though they have a winning lawsuit on their hands, because the Trump administration has taken on some action that is so blatantly, nakedly, unconstitutional, still they need something from this administration. In the case of ABC News, you've got Next Star that needs approval of a merger with Tegna so that they can show affiliate, you know, so their affiliate channels can be in something like 80% of American homes. they can't do that without FCC approval. And so they kind of put themselves in a position where they opt to capitulate to Trump,

knowing full well that his arguments against them are baseless, but they still recognize the extent to which they're over leveraged and he can exploit that weakness for an otherwise home run win. Absolutely. I think that's exactly right. And, you know, you mentioned NextStars merger with Tegna. With the Paramount settlement, you know, there was all to talk about the Skydance merger, which was mysteriously approved by Brendan Carr as soon as the settlement happened.

So, you know, it is an awful thing to face a federal lawsuit by one of the most powerful individuals in the world. And a lot of people just want to make it go away. But I think today's ruling from this judge kind of shows the kind of lawsuits that we're dealing with here, one that was just witheringly dressed down by a very, very conservative judge who found that just on its face before anyone has made an argument, before the New York Times said a word in defense of this lawsuit, he just smacked it down. in the most mocking language, and said that it was tedious. He said that it was unacceptable, and he ordered them to write what is essentially a sober

and serious complaint. Well, that's not an embarrassment just to the Trump administration, and it's clearly an embarrassment to the Trump administration. It's also an embarrassment to all of the media organizations and outlets that do opt to entertain or capitulate to this Trump team that's engaged in such farcical prosecutions. I mean, when you look at the extent to which the people who actually fight back, whether it's the law firms or the universities or the New York Times or any outlet that does opt to take these, you know, joke lawsuits to court and when they inevitably either win or don't

even get far enough to win before the judge just throws the whole thing out, that shines a spotlight. that underscores just how much the ABCs of the world and CBSes of the world chose to neuter themselves in deference to this guy when very clearly they could have just fought any of this and won because what Trump is doing is so blatantly unconstitutional, such an egregious overreach, such a stunning breach of free speech rights and the First Amendment, And yet, and yet you have these people, you know, at ABC, at CBS, who are just so focused on on consolidating more wealth for themselves and their shareholders because they want to just continue to engage in these mergers and acquisitions and try to get themselves in front of more people and deliver more shareholder value.

It is, it is so money focused that they allow themselves to be completely, to completely, to be completely humiliated by this administration. that any time they go into court, they get laughed out of the courtroom. And yet, that's almost a bigger, makes a bigger mockery of the people who do choose to engage in this stuff and allow themselves to be rolled by Trump. Absolutely. And of course, this week, with everything going on with Jimmy Kimmel, we're very focused on media and media companies, news organizations. But if we pull out the picture a little bit and every sector of civil society, it's followed the same pattern you're talking about, Brian. There's the major law firms, all the major law firms that fought back against unconstitutional

executive orders to have the Trump administration bully them about who they can and cannot hire and associate with and yanking certain privileges that whether that they cannot enter a federal building if they work for such a law firm, one federal judge after another, keep smacking down these unconstitutional executive orders. The ones that fight back win. Same thing with Harvard University so far. They have fought back and they won while other universities are capitulating. And it shows that, as you're saying, some of the ones that folded in big law, like the major media

companies were the major, some of the most wealthy and powerful law firms in the world. They knew they could have defended this. They chose not to. And they were run circles around by smaller law firms that stood up for the rule of law. And it's a real message for media companies. Are they going to take this? Are they going to take this naked attempt at journalist's intimidation dressed up as a lawsuit. And if they do, independent media needs to pick up where institutional media is failing. And I'm glad you said that because, you know, we are seeing these failings happen left and right.

And it's creating a major sense of disillusionment in terms of what legacy media actually stands for. And I think most of us are recognizing the extent to which while they hid behind their flashy slogans of democracy dies in darkness and the esteemed fourth estate that in reality these people are looking out for themselves and their shareholders. And it's all about just their bottom line. It's about finances for them. And so in light of this massive failure at the hands of legacy media, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to support independent media outlets. You know, Adam, you do it. You do it better than anybody else. So I would highly recommend for everybody who's watching right now if you'd like to support.

Fearless Independent Journalism, please sign up for All Rise News. I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Adam does an amazing job. I think you can see that by the conversation that we just had. And so if you've not yet signed up for his substack, highly recommend you sign up. It is a great read and a great way to support independent media more broadly, especially in light of these failings by Legacy Media. So Adam, as always, thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for having me, Brian. Always a pleasure. I'm joined now by Elliot Morris, author of the Strength in Numbers newsletter. Elliot, I was reading your newsletter and something really caught my eye as we head toward 2026 as it relates to The House, which has been a major focus of politics over these last couple of weeks and months. Can you explain what the analysis that you just went over just showed? Yeah, that's right, Brian.

And thanks for having me back to give you some of these numbers. Look, I saw an article from NPR yesterday. It's said that there are 27 total retirements for the House of Representatives at this point. And in this case, retirement means a member says they either don't want to continue in elections. They're like they're quitting overall or they're running for a different office, say governor or Senate in their state. At this point, 27, that's a lot. And it's a number to focus on because it signals that there's some dissatisfaction among representatives. And it can also signal that some members of one party feel like they might lose their seats or that this might be a bad midterm for them.

Historically, when there are more retirements from one party than another, say the Republican Party this year, since they're the ones in power, than the Democrats, that tends to forecast that that party does poorly in the next midterm election. So that's why these numbers are worth tracking over time. And right now we're seeing 17 Republicans compared to 10 Democrats. And so kind of using this analysis, that would suggest that Republicans almost to a two to one ratio are looking to head to the exits as opposed to their Democratic counterparts. Yeah. So there are six or seven. It kind of depends on how you count it. More Republicans retiring than Democrats. So for some historical comparison, I time traveled. I looked at the previous retirements or at this point in the 2018 election cycle. That will, that's the cycle. You'll remember Democratic. Democrats, big wave, they won by eight in the popular vote in November. At this point in 2018 cycle, so 2017, September, there were 18 Republican retirements and nine Democratic retirements, so a difference of nine there. This time, there's that difference of six or seven. So it looks like there's some slight lagging in this indicator. If you're going to use this indicator to

forecast what's going to happen in the next election, there's a bit of a lag. Democrats are a little bit behind where they were at this point in 2018 by this metric, but it's still directionally similar. This is still a large advantage historically for the Democrats going into the midterm, speaks to probably some dissatisfaction with Republicans and some poor projections on how they're going to do next year. So staying with this comparison to 2018, I know that we've spoken in the past about the similarities that we're seeing in the special election over performances at the hands of Democrats and how similar they are to the special elections that we saw in 2017 ahead of the 2018 midterm cycle, for example. So can you give us a little bit of an overview

of what we're looking at in terms of the overperformance by the percentage in these special elections? Yeah, great question. So at this point in 2018, again, time traveling, Democrats were doing 11 percentage points better in special elections to state legislative chambers and to the U.S. House of Representatives, 11 points better than Hillary Clinton had done, wow, time traveling in 2016, seems like, forever ago. So 11 percentage points better. They ended up doing, again, you know, an eight point margin in the House, and that was a shift of double digits as well. So, again, these numbers are pretty close. At this point, in the 2006 election cycle, Democrats are doing 16 percentage points better than they did than Kamala Harris did in 2024. So an even larger shift in the special election index. Now, I wouldn't say this is particularly bullish for them, at least in comparison to 2018. I wouldn't say they're going to swing the House by 15 or 16 points just based on this number. That might be possible. But actually, I think what's going on here is that the types of people that vote in special elections who are

really intensely interested in politics, they're very high income and very high educated relative to the rest of the population, those people just tend to be much more democratic now than they used to be. So when the midterm rolls around and you have more less engaged voters voting, they tend to be a little bit more Republican. So you probably shouldn't expect a 16 point swing next year, but it could be double digits. I would not necessarily bet against that. In terms of the going back to the retirements that we're seeing thus far, can you give a little oversight into who the Democrats who are opting to retire might be and whether there is actually some good, like if the thesis that we're going off of here is that is that

retirements are generally a net negative because they show that those people don't like they're seeing that their prospects at winning their elections might not be that good or that or they're figuring, okay, we might be in the minority anyway and so I don't to sign up for that, and so I'd rather just head for the exits. Is there anything positive to look at in terms of the Democrats who have opted to step aside? Well, two prominent examples come to mind. First is Mickey Sherrill in New Jersey. She might think putting myself in her shoes that she's well suited to run in a year that will be favorable to Democrats in a state that was not so favorable to Democrats in 2022 or 2024. So she might just seem like

You know, she wants to get out of the house. It's very hard to be in the minority in the House of Representatives. You really can't do much. She can do a lot more as governor of New Jersey. So that's one example. Another pattern here is a lot of the people that are leaving are older. So Jerry Nadler, who's, of course, very progressive, very important on the left. He's on MSNBC all the time.

He's 78, and he's retiring this year. And he just said point blank when he was announcing his retirement, it's time for more, for a new generation of leadership in. in the Democratic Caucus, more young people getting into these seats. So he might feel like this is a good opportunity for him to hand that seat. It's a safe Democratic seat over to someone younger who can continue to serve. He also said in his announcement he saw how people reacted to Joe Biden as he aged in that seat, and he just sort of felt that it was his time to move on.

I believe another lawmaker, Jan Schakowski in the Chicago area, is in the same boat, where I believe she's either a septuagenarian or octogenarian. So it looks like, you know, I guess going back to what I was saying earlier, it looks like whereas normally we would say, okay, these people are just running for the exits because things don't seem like they're going in the right direction for one party or another. It seems like a lot of these older folks are leaving, but that doesn't necessarily, that doesn't necessarily suggest that they're doing it because they think that election prospects are dimmed.

in large part it seems like some Democrats are answering the call for generational change that a lot in the party have been demanding. Yeah, I'll say there are a lot of idiosyncratic reasons someone might leave. And sometimes they are given the opportunity to run for an office. They're sort of told, hey, you're like going to be a shoe-in for this seat, Byron Donald's, a Republican from Florida thinks he's a shoe-in for the governor's race, for example. He said as much. So that's why he's leaving the house on the Republican side. But on balance, when we take tend to have more retirements from one side or the other. That tends to foretell forecast a poor showing for that party in the next midterm. But yes, there's a good amount of idiosyncrasy.

And yeah, I mean, you cannot be an older Democrat living in the 2020, 2012, and 2024 and 2006 elections and not feel the pressure from the base to give that seat to someone younger. Is there anything else that you're tracking as we head toward 2026 that might suggest overperformance by Democrats? One other thing. We've already talked about the generic ballot on the polls. That's the popular vote margin Democrats might get in the House. Another polling indicator is enthusiasm. And this gets a little bit back to that special elections point, but Democrats are much more enthusiastic about voting. If you ask them to rate themselves on a scale from 1 to 10 and how interested they are in elections right now, they're much more interested

in elections than Republicans are. So that number also tends to be correlated with electoral performance in midterms, especially, because you really have to be interested in that midterm to go seek out that participation. So that's another thing to keep your eye on that will keep tracking. Well, isn't that kind of a regular recurring theme that we've seen where so long as Trump isn't on the ballot, Republicans do seem to underperform. And we've seen that in 2018, for example. We saw it in 2022. And now we're seeing it, you know, possibly as we head toward 2026, the polling suggests the same thing. And so isn't this kind of becoming a recurring theme here? Yeah, there's a long-term trend at this point in American politics where Democrats do better with educated higher-income voters. In 2012, 2008, there were a lot more working class or non-college-educated white voters in the Democratic Party, and they've left. And that sort of sorting on education has started to affect democratic margins for other racial groups as well, especially Hispanics. That has been characterized as bad for the party in general election.

for president when you have a really high turnout. But this has been actually worstful Republicans in those lower turnout elections, like a midterm, like a special election or an off-year election, like Virginia or New Jersey governor this year, or the California recall or New York mayor, et cetera. If your base is concentrated among people who are lower education, lower income, they might have to work more on election day, have a harder time getting off, or they just less interested in politics, that's actually harder for your coalition. So, you know, Republicans have mobilized a lot of voters in presidential elections using arguments that I would characterize as sort of social or more, let's say, culture,

worry. And that helps them in presidential elections when those people turn out. But when it's an off year, where those people go, well, they stay home. So that's been bad for the party. And to what extent, and I know this is kind of veering into a non-numbers focused question here, But to what extent do you think that the Republican's efforts to redraw these maps in Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Florida, and even try to benefit from the dismantling of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, where the Constitution mandates the presence of these opportunity districts, these black majority or Hispanic majority districts, to what extent do you think that that might undermine a lot of what the Democrats have going for them as we head toward 2026, whether it's the enthusiasm gap advantage, or the overperformance in special elections. Yeah, so I'll take off my like data hat and put on my speculation hat, I guess. Look, like the Republicans that are drawing these maps are very smart. The national directors of their redistricting commissions for all of these states are talking.

And it would be silly for me to think that they expect themselves to do well in the next midterm election. So if they are operating in the headspace that they're going to do poorly, And they're also operating in this headspace where the Republican president has told them find more seats, to quote from Trump. Then they have both the pressures they need. They have the electoral pressure and they also have support from their party leader to be as aggressive as they want in those map redraws. So I do expect that it reflects a little bit of their internal discourse about the party's position heading into the next midterm. But the biggest thing that's going on is that the party leader has said, you know, single member districting in the U.S. is not a matter of who voters want for their politicians, but a matter

for who politicians want as their voters, and they have permission to do that. Last question here, and this stays with the speculation hat on. But do you think that what the Republicans are looking to do right now with regard to these mid-cycle redraws and, again, the possible dismantling of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Will that be enough to overcome all of what the Democrats have going for them? Enthusiasm gap. The number of retirements for Republicans versus Democrats and also the overperformance we've seen thus far. Yeah, so here's the number that people want to look out for.

It's D plus two, okay? We've done the math here at Strengthen Numbers. It looks like Republicans might get nine seats, maybe optimistically. They might get closer to like 11 or 12 out of redistricting. And if things don't go their way, if some of these maps get struck down, then it could be closer like six. Okay, so between, let's just say between six and 12. If you take between six and 12 seats out of the Democratic column, they need to win by two points to win the House majority back. So that's accounting for those seats that they're going to lose along the way while you shift all these seats to the left.

So right now, as mentioned, they're at D plus four. So they would be on track, I would say, to overcoming the bias in the national map from all this redistrict. but four is close, so you don't want to say for sure they're going to win. If they stay on this path and the maps go how we think they're going to go, yeah, four is going to be enough. Three is probably enough as well. Elliot, for folks who want to follow your work, where can they find you? Yeah, thanks, Brian. They can go to gelliotmoorce.com or just Google strengthen numbers. I could not recommend strength in numbers enough. I follow it on a daily basis. Every time there is a new article that comes out, I immediately consume it. So highly recommend for

everybody who's watching right now. If you are not yet subscribed, please go ahead and subscribe. I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post-scription of this video. Elliot, as always, I appreciate your time. Yeah, thanks, Brian. Thanks again to Daniel Goldman, Jamie Raskin, Adam Kassfeld and Elliot Morris. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellsey, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and a five-star rating in a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen

on all of my other channels, or you can go to Brian Tyler Cohen.com to learn more.