No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Bombshell: Epstein co-conspirators revealed

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

Epstein’s co-conspirators have finally started to get revealed. Brian interviews congressman Ro Khanna, and journalists Ari Berman and Alejandro Serrano.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.

Epstein's co-conspirators have finally started to get revealed, and I have three interviews, Ro Khanna, and journalist Ari Berman and Alejandro Serrano. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. Some bombshell news here, as Epstein's co-conspirators have now begun to get revealed. The revelation came as lawmakers, were allowed to view the unredacted Epstein files,

which, by the way, were still largely redacted, and began asking the DOJ questions about why certain information was hidden, because, as it turned out, These were not victims who were being redacted. They were the opposite. They were the co-conspirators. And those lawmakers started speaking out publicly and pressuring the DOJ into doing what Pam Bondi and Donald Trump so desperately wanted to avoid doing, which is to reveal the identities of the scumbags that they were trying to protect. Here, for example, is Roe-Connor reading those names aloud on the House floor once those files were actually unredacted. Congressman Massey and I went to the Department of Justice to read the unredacted Epstein files. We spent about two hours there, and we learned that 70 to 80 percent of the files are still redacted. In fact, there were six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason. When Congressman Massey and I pointed this out to the Department of Justice, they acknowledge.

their mistake, and now they have revealed the identity of these six powerful men. These men are Salvatore Navora, Zorab Mekyllads, Leipig Leonor, Nicola Caputa, Sultan Ahmed bin Suleam, CEO of Dubai Ports World, and billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner. And it's not just that list either. Another newly unredacted file offers up an account from a victim where she lays out who had knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's activities and finances. It said, quote, list the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you, your agents or attorneys, to have knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.

Jean-Luc Brunel, Lex Westner, Mark Epstein, Donald Trump, Jenny Saunders, David Copperfield, Glein Maxwell, and someone with the last name Cunningham. Any of those names on that list sound familiar? And I got to say, I find it so curious that the DOJ made all of these little mistakes where not a single fucking name of a single fucking co-conspirator was unredacted. They managed to bat a thousand on redacting the names of the men who associated with Epstein. Don't you find that so interesting how they made all of those mistakes? Literally every mention of a co-conspirator just so happened to be accidentally redacted. That is quite the coincidence.

And it sure is convenient for those co-conspirators, huh? But hey, I'm sure it was just an honest mistake every single time it happened 100% of the time. And so now, yet again, the DOJ is left looking like absolute fools because remember, Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, just days ago said this. You said this is the end of the Epstein, of your review of the Epstein files. So just to clarify, or is the public going to learn the identities of the men who abuse the girls with the information that you're releasing and if not why not and then i have a quick follow i mean you just baked in an assumption into your question that i have never said and i don't know

to be true is the public going to learn about men that abuse these girls like what does that mean i mean i don't understand what that means well i mean they're the men who abused the young women through epstein's uh through epstein's um we we said in july uh And it remains as true today as it was in July. If we had information, we meeting the Department of Justice, about men who abused women, we would prosecute them, right? We talked about the work that we're doing. That's why I said that.

I said this earlier, there's this built-in assumption that somehow there's this hidden trance of information of men that we know about, that we're covering up or that we're choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case. I don't know whether there are men out there. that abused these women. Aged about as well as milk in the sun. And it wasn't just Blanche either.

FBI director of Cash Patel testified under oath just months ago that internal files contained no credible information Epstein trafficked these girls to anyone other than himself. Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women too besides himself? Himself, there is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday

that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited. So the answer is no one? For the information that we have. In the files. In the case file. So which is it? Was there no information to suggest that anyone else was involved?

Or is there suddenly plenty of examples of co-conspirators that have presented themselves in these files? And let's be clear about what's happening here. This administration is engaging in a cover-up at quite literally every turn. from the fake phase one influencer binders last winter, to Pam Bondi saying that the files were ready to be released and then never getting released,

to the blow-up with Marjorie Taylor Green, to Trump summoning Lauren Bobert to the Situation Room to prevent her from signing onto the discharge petition, to all these DOJ officials swearing up and down that Epstein apparently trafficked a thousand girls to no one, to refusing to release the files by the December 19 deadline, to now redacting the name of every single co-conspirator and only revealing them once they got called out,

literally every step of the way. They have shown that they will go to the wall to protect not the victims, but the perpetrators. It is as disgusting as it is obvious. We are witnessing the biggest political cover-up in U.S. history, one that makes Watergate look like nothing at all. And the fact that they're still, to this day, trying to hide the truth is all the evidence that you need

that they've absolutely got more to hide. Next up are my interviews with Rokana, Ari Berman, and Alejandro Serrano. No lie is brought to you by Hewold. So be honest here. When do you usually realize that you forgot to eat breakfast? For me, it's around 2 p.m. so I guess technically I've also missed lunch. I go from pretty much the moment I wake up, which is why I'm a big fan of Huell's Black Edition ready to drink. This is a lifesaver in the breakfast or on the go or even post-workout department. Again, my most limited resource is time, and this saves me a ton of it. Plus, it's not just filler. Listen to

what's in it. 35 grams of protein, 27 essential vitamins and minerals, no artificial sweeteners, or flavors, it's gluten-free. So if you're looking for a complete meal that costs under five bucks, this is it. And the perfect companion to the ready-to-drink option is the black-edition powder. So I try to get into the gym most nights a week, so the last thing I want to do is fall behind and getting enough protein. The black-edition powder allows me to control how much I get so that I'm never lacking. And just like the ready-to-drink option, the black-edition powder has the same high-protein, same complete meal benefits, and of course, you can add fruit or nut-butter or ice or whatever you want to round it out. So if you want, if you want to run it out. So if you

want to make sure that you're not missing any meals, this combo makes it beyond simple. We've got a limited time offer. Get Huell today with my exclusive offer of 15% off online with my code BTC at Huell.com slash BTC, new customers only. Thank you to Huell for partnering and supporting our show. I'm joined now by Congressman Rokana. Congressman, thanks for joining me. Thank you for having me back. So today was quite a big day. You had the opportunity to see the unredacted Epstein files. Can you explain what was the most striking part of what you saw today? How much of it was still redacted? The reality is that the FBI and a lot of the grand jury transcripts that were sent to the DOJ were already redacted. So what we were seeing was some unredacted portions,

but I'd say 70 to 80 percent was already redacted. And that's in violation of our law. The law requires the FBI and the U.S. attorneys to unredact the information before sending it to justice. is that going to be rectified? Absolutely. We're going to be pushing in court and through the Pambandi hearings and potentially through impeachment to make sure that there is action that's taken and that those we get the actual files. But there's also a sense of rot and cover up.

I mean, there were six men that Thomas Massey and I identified whose identities were protected. And those need to be released. There's no explanation for why. their pictures were blotted out, why their names were protected. And the reality is while the British monarchy is having an existential crisis, you have the king actually making statements, while you have the British government almost ready to fall, while Norway's monarchy is having an existential crisis.

Here, there has not been accountability in America. I mean, you've got Lutnik still as the Commerce Secretary. You have someone who's the Secretary of the Navy who was on the Epstein plane, not having to answer questions. And you've got all these elite, big tech names, real estate names, people in Hollywood who just have their head down and are hoping that they'll escape scrutiny. It's time for the United States of America to have the kind of accountability for the Epstein class that we're seeing elsewhere in the world. How does Pam Bondi and the DOJ justify redacting these people's names? Because I'm going to read the plain text of the law. It says, no record shall be withheld,

delayed or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. So again, how can they justify these redactions? Well, they can't. And we discovered six redactions that were blatantly illegal done by the Department of Justice. But the broader issue is that they have an obligation at the FBI and with the grand jury documents to unredact them before sending them to justice. So my guess is Pam Bodney is going to say, well, with some of these documents, that's what we received. But the law is very clear that the redactions need to be eliminated even at the level of the FBI. And we know that the FBI went through redacting Donald Trump's name.

So they're doing the exact opposite of what the law requires. There was an email that was released back in December. And it was from two folks who worked law enforcement officials who worked in the violent crime section in the crimes against children, human trafficking unit. And in those emails, they talked about the existence of 10 co-conspirators and grand juries that had been served for those co-conspirators. Three were in Florida. One was in Boston, one in New York, one in Connecticut. I'm assuming if these prosecutors felt strongly enough to put in writing that these people were co-conspirators in this case, that they didn't do it completely baselessly. And so did you have the opportunity to follow any of those leads

based on those previously released emails. Yes, and that's where we're saying. There's six men who are named whose identities have been. So those are correlated with that email? They're correlated with that email and similar documents. Now, some of the co-conspirators, again, are women. And my guess is that they've redacted all the women. I'm not saying that all the women are survivors,

but there may be some overlap between survivors and co-conspirators. There are maybe other women who were actually guilty, who they shouldn't have redacted, but certainly they shouldn't be redacting men. And in just two hours, Massey and I identified six men with their pictures, who they were protecting. A couple of them pretty prominent. And that certainly shouldn't be the case. When you saw that there were at least six names that were redacted that shouldn't have been,

did you have any conversation with any law enforcement officials, any DOJ officials who were there? Well, the DOJ officials who were there were actually helpful. ministerial. They were just helping us do the searches and they did their job. I mean, the problem is that this order of who to protect came up from much higher. And what we're going to do is give the DOJ a chance to correct it, not just with these six men. I think they will on that. But the broader issue is, how are we going to get the files released, which were redacted, perhaps at the FBI or at the grand jury itself, where it wasn't the Department of Justice lawyers going through it and redacting. It was redacted. It didn't for me.

they were getting, and that needs to be unredacted at the agency level. There was also news that Galane Maxwell is seeking clemency in exchange for basically giving her side of what's going on. There was also some reporting that she would be able to clear Donald Trump in exchange for clemency, and so I think that's pretty obvious in terms of what that is, just a pretty blatant quid pro quo. Your reaction to this idea that one of the two named people in all of this is now, you know, that there is, that there is, that there is some probability that she could actually be pardoned or granted clemency, you know, in exchange for giving Trump whatever information that he wants.

Well, I was at her deposition. It was shameful. She needs to be sent right away immediately back to a maximum security prison. She basically told the committee she knows other rich and powerful people who raped underage girls, but she's not going to share that. And she's going to plead the fifth unless she's granted clemency. And we know that for nine hours, she was willing to answer questions for Todd Blanche, because she wants a pardon from Donald Trump.

And yet she's not willing to answer the basic questions about Donald Trump or the other men implicated to our committee. And there's no reason that she should be in a low security prison. Do you presume that the same information that she's holding right now, that she's trying to dangle in exchange for a pardon or clemency, could also be found within the Epstein file so that we don't have to go through the disgusting step of releasing one of the co-conspirators of the sex trafficking ring? Not only I believe it, I know it to be true because I've talked to the survivors' lawyers.

They are not releasing the 302 forms. But Massey and I harped on the 302 forms so much that they released them, but they basically released redacted versions. Then they said, okay, come see the unredacted versions. We get there, and the unredacted version is the redacted version. Then I asked the Justice Department, why is that? They said, well, our hands are tied. This is what we got.

Our job was just to enter it. Some of the redactions the Justice Department did was to protect survivors. But the fundamental issue is they got redacted files to begin with. And we know, like I said, that the FBI was working on redactions at Trump's orders. They have been admitted it for months. At what point, and we speak about this every week when we ultimately get to this topic, but at what point do you deploy the, you know, break glass scenario of naming some of the names themselves right from the mouths of the survivors if the DOJ is so hellbent on protecting

these people and won't do it themselves? The survivors certainly can. You know, the six men I don't think is going to be the only thing the American people want, because some of these are foreign-born. Some of these are people who are prominent, but not as prominent. I mentioned them just to show that they're protecting a group of people. But the real information is in the redactions. And they're, you know, that only people who know are the survivors.

It's putting a huge burden on the survivors to say that. And so what Massey and I are going to do is continue to fight. Look, no one gave us a chance to pass this thing. We passed it. Then no one gave us a chance that we're going to get the files release. We've gotten files release that are literally bringing down other countries' governments. We've gotten a false release that have exposed the elite in Silicon Valley and finance and Hollywood in our country.

And so we're going to continue fighting for the other 50 percent. And it's uphill, but so far we've succeeded beyond what anyone thought was possible. Have you seen or are you familiar with or aware of any existing government officials in this country who are implicated in the Epstein files whose information has not yet been released? Not government officials, but I am aware of other senior business officials whose information has not yet been released. But in what we saw today, not government officials. Now, there are survivors who have talked to me, who have shared stories about other government. officials being implicated. But that was not something I saw today in the files. Okay. And how much confidence do you have that when Pam Bondi comes and testifies at the House on Wednesday that she's going to be cooperative enough to get, you know, any accurate

information? She's going to face a barrage of questions, not just from the left, but from the right. Look, there are three cabinet secreties who are losing confidence to this government. and I don't know who's in the most danger. Lutnik probably should be, given that his name is all over the Epstein files and given that he was having business dealings, allegedly with Epstein after Epstein was a convicted pedophile. You know, I don't understand how in Britain

you could have a whole government topple based on Mendelsohn, and here you have a commerce secretary and no action. And then Pam Bondi, a lot of Republicans are upset that she has been less than transparent with the Epstein files. And Christine Noam, I mean, there are Republicans who believe that what she's done, and abusing ICE is totally unconstitutional. So you have a cabinet that really is coming apart for Donald Trump. And I do believe, and we've discussed this before, Brian, that the Epstein

files was the turning point for Donald Trump, the moment that historians will say his administration, his personality, his coalition started to unravel. Well, you know, the thing that bothers me with this idea that Pam Bondi is to blame is that Pam Bondi is not acting independent of Donald Trump. She's an appendage of Trump. She's an appendage of the executive branch. That's not just a benefit of her being there. It's why she's there. It's the whole reason for her being there as attorney general. And so is there some acknowledgement even from the Republicans who are losing faith in Pam Bondi, that Pam Bondi is nothing more than an empty suit, a vessel for Trump to be able to give, you know, hand down his edicts, like that he's the one in charge of everything

here? Yes, ultimately it is Donald Trump. And you know from the first term, Donald Trump learned his lesson that you can't have someone even as independent as Jeff Sessions. He really resented the fact that Jeff Sessions and then the deputy attorney general who became the attorney general were somewhat independent. And he said, I'm going to have my total lackeys there. And he got that with Pam Bondi. But there's anger at her because that Donald Trump's betraying a core promise of exposing the A Epstein files. And it's easy for MAGA to say, well, the person really doing it is Pam Bondi without having to fully do. grapple with Donald Trump, but more and more people are realizing that this is Trump,

protecting pedophiles and betraying his central promise. Do you have any reason to believe in anticipation of Pam Bondi's testimony for the House on Wednesday that some Republicans are going to take this opportunity, not to question her on the Epstein files, but instead try and change the narrative by, you know, obviously doing something that's more favorable to their own narrative and use that time to make that the main story? Sure. I think some will try to make it about Bill Clinton. But Bill Clinton is willing to testify. He's saying, let's testify in public.

I'm waiting for Donald Trump to say that. But you are going to have a number of Republicans who are going to show a deep concern with what Pan Bondi is doing. And that's because you've had people like Sean Ryan, who's a podcast I was on, who was one of the number two or three podcaster in the country who was a total Trump supporter, now say, I'm never going to support Trump because of Epstein. And so the Republicans understand that there is a MAGA base that is furious with what's going on in Epstein.

And when Laura Ingram is calling out the Epstein issue, you know you have a problem. And I think Pambani may be in for a rude awakening when she sees members of Congress responding to their base and not just being seen as a cover for Pambandi. Do you have any update in terms of the likelihood of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's testimony being a deposition behind closed doors versus a congressional hearing out in the public? It should be a congressional hearing out in the public, but the President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are agreeing to whatever terms come or wants. And really, that should be a standard that Lutnik agrees to, that Bill Gates agrees to, that Donald Trump agrees to. I mean, there's such focus on President Clinton and Secretary Clinton, it was, you know, from all I've seen barely involved. And there's not enough focus that the people who actually are in the emails having visited the island or, no information about girls being raped. And so my hope is that them setting that standard

is going to be something that other people are withheld to in the Epstein class. And that's my last question here. Is there some recognition by even your Republican colleagues that if the precedent they want to establish is that you can haul in former presidents and their families if they have any involvement whatsoever with Epstein to answer questions under oath that there will come a point when Donald Trump is not in office. anymore and that those people have to abide by the precedent that they're setting right now. Has that dawned on these people? Or do you think that they're that they're just saying it now because it's convenient to drag Bill Clinton in? And then they'll pull a Mitch McConnell

and change their mind once it's no longer politically convenient for them to have to do so. Certainly donned at Donald Trump. That's why he doesn't want Bill Clinton to be testifying. That's why he's out there saying, I don't like what I'm seeing. So if he's saying that, I mean, it's a serious enough possibility for him to be considering it. Well, he knows. He knows that he's going to be out of power. and he knows that likely Robert Garcia is going to be

chairman of oversight and what's he going to do? The first thing, we're going to subpoena Trump. So the reality is that Trump has far more at stake on this. He's the one who actually has to answer

a lot of the questions. And I actually think Homer has set a trap because now when you have Bill Clinton willing to testify and Hillary Clinton willing to testify, any rich and powerful person in America can evade testimony. And that is,

in my view, actually a good thing. I mean, we need a clearing of this elite class, the Epstein class that was callow, immature, reckless, that basically went to an island with a convicted pedophile, did business ventures with a convicted pedophile, because they were so interested in being part of this elite because they thought they were above the law. And until there is a moral reckoning and a clearing of this class, I don't care if they're Democrats, Republicans, until there's a clearing of this class in a new moral beginning, we aren't going to restore. store the Democratic project. Fortunately, this is the one thing that seems to unite Americans left and right to take on this corrupt class. Well, look, this will be one precedent,

thanks to James Comer, that I'm happy to see everybody abide by. So when we get to that point where Robert Garcia is in charge of oversight, and we have to invoke the Comer precedent, you know, we'll see what he's saying then. Congressman, I say this every week, and I will continue to say it every week, but thank you for the work you're doing. This would not happen. We would not be here without the work that you and Thomas Massey are doing. So I appreciate it. I know that the survivors appreciate it. My audience appreciates it.

And thanks for taking the time today. Thank you, Brian. And thank you for your work on this issue. No Lie is brought to you by Rocket Money. You know when you accidentally sign up for subscriptions that charge you in perpetuity? I think I paid for an app one time and I found out two and a half years later I'd basically been propping up the entire company. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted

subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so that you can grow your savings. Rocket Money allows you to track subscriptions and cancel them within the app with just a few taps, saving you time and helping you avoid charges. You can even categorize automatic transactions across your accounts and customize categories with tags to help you shed light on your spending patterns. You can set budgets and goals, get personalized insights and regular reports on your spending habits. You can even receive real-time alerts for large transactions, upcoming bills, refunds and low balances. And the Rocket Money app can consolidate your checking, savings, loans, and investment accounts

into a single, easy-to-use dashboard to give you a clear picture of your entire finances. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com slash Brian. That's rocketmoney.com slash Brian. Rocketmoney.com slash Brian. I'm joined now by National Voting Rights Correspondent and Mother Jones and the author of the book Minority Rule, Ari Berman. Ari, thanks for joining me again.

Hey, Brian, great to talk to you again. Thank you. So, Ari, you are one of the premier reporters in the country when it comes to voting rights. You do excellent work. As we see all of these threats continue to bear down at the hands of Trump, whether it's sending the FBI to an election office in Fulton County to grab all of the 20-20 ballots, whether it's Pam Bondi sending a letter to Minnesota at the peak of the violence at the hands of ICE and saying, we can pull back, but it's going to cost you your voting rolls. As all of this is happening, what do you do? think is the most pronounced threat that we're contending with? And what do you think the impact is going to be on 2026? I think all of these tactics by the Trump administration have a common theme, which is using the full force of the federal government, whether it's the FBI, DOJ, ICE, to try to interfere

in the 26 election. And it's funny to me, Brian, this is thought of as a hypothetical. I keep seeing all these stories, will Trump interfere in the 2026 election? And I would argue he's already interfering in the 2026 election. When you have ICE terrorizing blue states and blue cities, when you have the FBI rating and getting 600, 700 boxes of ballots in a key swing county, when you have the DOJ demanding people's personal information to get masked agents out of a place. I mean, I think this is already something that could lead people to choose not to vote for fear that they will be harassed at the polls or their information will be turned over to the federal government or their secret ballot will no longer be secret. And so this is all part of a concerted strategy by Trump to interfere in

the midterms. And that's how we should think about it, not as one thing here or one thing here, but as it all being connected. What do you think needs to be done on the state level or the federal level, although, you know, presumably there's not much that can be done because Trump is in charge. But what needs to be done to kind of erect barriers to what's being attempted by Trump right now? Democrats in the places they have power, particularly at the state and local level, need to do everything they can to try to trump proof the system. So we don't see more things like the ballots being taken out of Fulton County. We don't see more things like Trump issuing an executive order to seize voting machines and people being caught off guard.

People need to think through the kind of things Trump might do. This is not to be alarmist. It's not to be a domer, but Trump takes things to the very edge. We saw him do it in 2020. And so people need to be prepared, for example, for him to invoke the Insurrection Act to claim a national emergency, to say that voting is so crooked,

we have to take the machines and the ballots and other things like that. He can't unilaterally do it on his own, But I think we need to be prepared for Trump to push the system as far as it'll go if he feels like he's losing power. And every day it looks more likely like he will lose power. At least his party will lose power. And that's going to make the administration become more and more extreme. Do you have concerns, even as we head toward midterms right now, that we may not have a free and fair election?

I have concerns about how free and fair it will be. I know a lot of people just think that Trump's going to cancel the midterms altogether. And I don't think that's going to. I don't have that fear. Yeah. I don't have that fear. The president can't unilaterally do this. But the actions he's taking are very intimidating to people. And when he does things like take 700 boxes of ballots, to me, that's as much forward-looking as it is backwards-looking. They want these ballots in Georgia

so they can say, finally we found the evidence of fraud, however flimsy that argument will be. therefore that's a predicate for us being more aggressive in terms of our actions, whether, as I said, it's trying to seize ballots in future elections or take voting machines or deploy ICE or the National Guard or something else at the polls, things that we haven't seen in any previous elections. These are the kind of things that Trump is now contemplating for 2026. I have a theory with regard to Tulsi Gabbard because obviously she was, you know, she caught a lot of attention because she was at the execution of that FBI search warrant in full

Colton County, Georgia. And she shouldn't be there in theory. Well, nobody should be there in theory because that shouldn't have happened. But she in particular shouldn't have been there because her job as Director of National Intelligence is to make sure that there wouldn't be foreign interference in the election. And so I have a theory as to why she might have been there. And we've seen Trump repost, you know, crazy truth social conspiracy theories about how the Italians and the Swiss and the Chinese are all, you know, part of some grand conspiracy with Joe Biden's CIA and FBI to meddle in, you know, meddle in our elections. And so we've seen that kind of stuff get propped up by by Trump's movement. Do you think that Tulsi Gabbard is there to try and kind of

legitimize some crazy conspiracy theory like this so that he then has some justification to be able to say, look, Tulsi Gabbard just told me that, that, you know, Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelans and the Chinese and the Italians and the Swiss all conspired with Joe Biden to rig our elections. And so now we have no choice but to allow me full oversight, full nationalized oversight of our elections so that I can make sure that this miscarriage of justice doesn't happen again and then, you know, obviously do whatever he's trying to do, which would ultimately benefit him and his party in the end. Do you think that there's some legitimacy to that theory? Yes. I think that's very plausible because, as you said,

the Director of National Intelligence is prohibited by law from taking part in domestic law enforcement operations and her only portfolio with regards to elections is stopping foreign interference in elections. Now, we'll leave a fly to the fact that Trump administration has completely gutted protections against foreign or domestic interference in elections. But after the raid in Fulton County, there was a very revealing Royer's story that said that Gabbard's people had been in Puerto Rico looking for evidence that Venezuela interfered in Puerto Rican elections. Suddenly, they're interested in what happens in Puerto Rico, I guess. But The point is, is that that was a huge...

That could have been a great, a great, you know, moment for the whole country to come together yesterday at the Super Bowl, you know, when we have, like, finally, the administration cares, sees Puerto Rico for something that's important, but apparently it's just... Finally, we see why the administration cares about Puerto Rico. They didn't find the evidence, of course, of Venezuela, interference in the election, but that was a tell that Gabbard is preparing some kind of report for Trump about interference in the 2020 election. I think it's very plausible.

they're going to have concoct some wild theory about Venezuela interfering in the election. You've already seen people like Mike Flynn, Mike Lindell talk about this. It's in far right election in our circles. They could lean on Maduro himself to admit that he colluded in the 2020 election as a result of a plea deal. I mean, these things sound crazy. But once she's there, trying to access the ballots, look at the FBI raid, it raises a lot of unsettling questions about where this is all heading. And I absolutely think that Trump is going to seize on any kind of accusations to try to interfere in the midterms.

And that's why the presence of Gabbard and the raid in Fuln County was so disturbing because it's clearly a predicate for more extreme action by the administration. And the reality is he has these people lined up. I mean, we know Maria Carina Machado, the opposition leader in Venezuela, is, you know, wrapped around Trump's finger to the point where she even gifted him her Nobel Peace Prize, obviously Maduro's regime, his vice president, who's currently in power, is only there expressly because she's willing to participate in any way that Trump wants her to participate, whether that means gifting American oil companies oil or, you know, laundering whatever bullshit conspiracy theory gives him some justification to engage in some election interference moving forward. he's collected all of these different people around the world who need something from him, needs something from the United States, and so we'll be perfectly willing to do what Trump

already tried to do once, which is to use Zelensky, for example, to serve as a way to launder some dirt on Joe Biden. Like, this isn't even theoretical, to your point. Like, we've seen, we've seen this happen. Trump got impeached over this exact thing where he's perfectly willing to use foreign leaders to give some information that he can use to, happenize against his political opponents and benefit himself. Yeah, I mean, I think what we know from Trump is that he's 100% transactional and he'll use

whatever kind of leverage we have. And that's true on the foreign front. It's also true on the domestic front. What really makes me nervous is that all the people that might have stood up to Trump in 2020 have been replaced. I mean, you can't imagine anyone in the White House today standing up to Trump and saying, don't seize the voting machines. Don't invoke the Insurrection Act, all of the crazy things he wanted to do. He was somehow talked off the ledge, not by a bunch of moderates, but people like Attorney General Barr, right? Or Mark Millie, or whoever it may be. And Pam Bondi's not going to stand up to Trump. Tulsi Gabbard's not going to stand up to Trump. Pete Higgseth isn't going to stand up to Trump. They were put in there

specifically because they wouldn't stand up to Trump. And that's why I think the possibility of Trump interfering in the midterms in a more dramatic way than he tried to do in 2020 is very much on the table because there's no one to restrain him right now. And he knows that sooner or later he's going to have to leave. And so the last thing he wants us to spend his last two years in office being investigated over and over by a Democratic senator, a Democratic House. You know, Ari, we have heard Steve Bannon, for example, come out and say, damn right, ICE is going to be at the polls. And my concern with these troop deployments across the country is not just that, you know, that they are dangerous and unconstitutional, but also that Americans

become normalized to this idea of, you know, boots on the ground. And we know that if Trump had boots on the ground in 2020, for example, when he wanted to seize the voting machines and he had moderating forces like Bill Barr, which is a crazy thing to say, but, you know, Bill Barr wasn't going to participate in this whole, you know, bogus conspiracy theory about there being fraud in the election. He himself called it bullshit. But, you know, Trump has replaced Bill Barr with Pamp Bondi and now he has boots on the ground all over the country with these ice agents who are a lawless rogue police force that's answerable to him. And they act with impunity. And so do you have any reaction here to what we've heard from Steve Bannon in terms of, you know, using these

ICE agents who, again, answerable to Trump, don't feel like the law applies to them, are ill-trained, ill-equipped to deal with, you know, domestic, any domestic disputes, that those people are going to be the ones that Trump decides to deploy the polls. Yeah. And my concern is that ICE doesn't even need to be at the polls for it to have a suppressive effect. If ICE is doing operations in blue states and blue cities, basically making them occupied territory in the run-up to the election, that's going to scare some people. people away from turning out. And so having them at the polls would be a dramatic escalation and one that I think

would be very questionable legally in terms of their ability to be there. But even just having them around now, but certainly in the run up to the election, is something that's very concerning. And I believe that that's something that Democrats should add to their list of demands in terms of agreeing to any kind of DHS funding deal. They should say, make clear that ICE has no role, with regards to elections, but also we can't have ICE operations in the run up to elections. There's things on the books, for example. Like in the National Voter Registration Act, you can't remove people from the rolls 90 days before the election.

They should have the same kind of thing with ICE to say that we don't want any ice activity in the run up to the election. Because we've already seen how Trump's going to deploy this. He's going to specifically deploy it in Democratic areas and swing districts to try to suppress people from voting. And it's going to be really hard to quantify how many people don't show. up because they don't want to deal with that level of harassment. Last question here, Ari.

What does success look like for this midterm cycle and what does a lack of success look like in this midterm cycle? What are you looking at to determine whether we've had free and fair elections? I mean, success looks like people being willing to come out and vote, a process by which they can vote, and a process by which their votes count. Now, that's how things have been throughout our history, but I mean, there's a real question about whether that's going to happen this amount of time. And I think it's very, very clear that there needs to be an extremely high level of turnout and mobilization to make those kind of things happen. That if it is a very tight election or it comes down to one state or one district or something like that, it's going to be a lot easier for Trump to interfere than if it's an overwhelming victory. The way it wouldn't look like a free and fair election is people are afraid of turning out in the first place. There's all sorts of barriers put before them to cast a ballot.

And then ultimately, once they cast a ballot, those results are challenged if Democrats win. And either the result is somehow overturned or we see a replay of 2020 where the results hold, but an extreme amount of stress is put on the system. And honestly, I don't think the American system, given where we're at, can handle another 2020 right now. Ari, where can folks who are watching and listening, see and hear more from you? They can read me at motherjones.com. They can buy my books, minority rule, and give us the ballot wherever books are sold,

and they can find me on blue sky at Ari Berman. Well, I would highly recommend all three of those things. I do all three of those things. I've been following Ari for the entirety of my own career in digital political media, and I could not recommend highly enough. Are you do amazing work. Thanks for all the work you're doing, and I appreciate you taking the time today.

Thanks so much, Brian. Always great to talk to you. Keep up the good work as well. I'm joined now by politics reporter at the Texas Tribune, Alejandro Serrano. Thanks so much for joining me. Thank you for having me. You put together a great article

that talks about the Latino situation right now in this country. We saw a realignment in 2024. We're seeing something of a new realignment right now. So I want to talk about that, especially we want to talk about it in the context of how this kind of came to head, culturally speaking, with this bad bunny Super Bowl show and how that kind of became a politicized event onto itself. But before we dive into all that stuff, can you talk

about what the lay of the land is right now in terms of where the vast majority of Latino voters are in, you know, as part of this political coalition? Yeah. So I think, thank you for having me. I think one of the big reasons that this special election for the Texas Senate C has gotten so much attention is because people are kind of pining for a measurement of what you just described. You know, how will voters react to the president's policies? And it's difficult to assess that specifically with Latinos because, you know, it's a big group. It's not a monolith, as we often like to say, and any number of Latinos will do any number of different things. But I think what was remarkable here in this election is that some of the biggest shifts and the swings occurred in

precincts that are majority of Hispanic. And they were, there were big swings. You know, by one estimate that Mr. Taylor Revenue captured 79% of the Hispanic vote in this district. And why that might be, there's, again, any number of reasons, but some of the reasons that people have pointed to is the president's immigration policies, perhaps the economy, you know, sold this idea of, you know, the economy stuff, I'll fix it.

And some folks may not be feeling that. I have not read much, I guess, analysis of specifically Texas-related, but, you know, nationally, there has been some surveys that Hispanics are, souring on the president, so to speak, as people sometimes put it. So would you say that the realignment we saw in 2024 has snapped all the way back to where it was in pre-2020 levels in terms of support for, you know, Democrats versus Republicans? You know, it's tricky. I don't know. And I think it's difficult because to know if it's a

realignment because of how remarkable it was in 2024 for the president. But, you know, at least speaking for Texas or like analyzing text. Texas, the Texas GOP had made inroads across the state. And last year, the border got a lot of attention, rightfully so, because the president nearly swept border counties. In Texas, he won 14 of 18 that are closest to the US-Mexico border. But we also know that the GOP here has been making a lot of inroads in urban areas, like in the suburbs or some of these precincts that had been,

you know, democratic bastions and slowly made progress in courting those voters. voters. So I think it's going to be probably one of the biggest questions this year going into November. Like, is it going to hold? And if not, what does it mean? You know, one person kind of described it to me as Latinos who make out the majority of the population in Texas are kind of like the power brokers who don't know it yet. And I think this election is definitely going to demonstrate how that is. In your reporting, have you heard from any Republican officials who have expressed some degree of alarm over the situation unfolding right now? Yeah, there's been all sorts of takes, I think, from, from, you know, both sides of the aisle in response to this election.

But I think one thing that has become kind of clear from, it seems like, Republican leaders, is that it can't be ignored, right? Like, special elections are unique. And especially this one, was on a Saturday following very cold weather in Texas. You know, we were kind of like locked in because everything was frozen for a few days. So that affected campaigning, that affected early voting. But it was just such a big swing that a lot of people. or sort of recognizing that it can't be dismissed. Can you speak about the prospect to that end of the new map in Texas, potentially turning into a dummymander?

Because if we see the same margins that we saw in SD9, for example, kind of replicate themselves across the state, then we may be in a world where not only did Republicans not net the five seats that the map was redrawn to net, but Democrats might actually see a net gain of seats because the districts were drawn too thin. Well, yeah, I'll tell you that. The Democrats are definitely feeling good about the prospect,

that it's a dummy manager. You know, the state party had a press call last week to kind of go over this. And they see all those seats, you know, being competitive, especially even once in the Houston area. There's one, and there's another one of free in the city. But their approach right now is kind of like, we're going to fight and see what happens.

So I think that there is a possibility, but I think, you know, there's any number of variables that go into each election and it's going to, I don't want to be predictive, but I think the party is definitely feeling good about, I think, the prospect of that happening. As it relates to Latino voters, I think that a lot of us had thought wrongly in the beginning that the only issues that Latino voters care about were issues like immigration. That was like 10 years ago, cut to last year, you know, Latinos kind of fell into the same bucket as everybody else where it was like the principal issue was was the economy and so i think that the

administration you know if i had to guess i would think that they have would have thought that they had more leeway um to engage in what are pretty brutal immigration tactics because it wouldn't have any impact on these latino voters who have a lot of strength in the election because latino voters much in the same way as as you know white voters and black voters looked at the economy and economic issue as the principal driver of where they put their votes. Do you think that was a misstep because now we're seeing that in fact it does have, you know, some impact on Latino voters, how the immigration situation is handled in this country, very much in the same way that it has some impact on how on how white people and brown people perceive this administration

and perceive the overreach of this administration, but that, that, you know, they weren't going to be given a free pass by Latino voters just because Latino voters might have ranked the economy above immigration. You know, it's curious because I think, again, in Texas, how it's different. There's a number of things that make Texas unique, but the border was curious when it came to what you're describing because I think immigration, like people were kind of voters, some voters were fed up with immigration. You kind of had a situation where, you know, it's their backyard.

You look at cities like Eagle Pass, which became a sort of like epicenter between Texas's instigations with the Biden administration and its immigration policies and like, you know, states' rights to implement any number of immigration measures or to try to combat it. You know, and I think people, I remember I lived in ECO pass for half of the year reporting on immigration and whatnot. And, you know, people of all political beliefs did feel kind of neglected and how the Biden administration had not taken the issue seriously. And I think that kind of also contributed to those swings we saw in 24. But I think to your point, like, that the administration, the Trump administration assumed that it would give a free to pass. I don't know.

I think it's also a combination of things because it's also the economy and the two are intertwined, especially in Texas. I mean, you look at the workforce and you look at, especially down in the border, like industries like construction or starting to have impacts from raids and fear, just general fear in the community. My colleagues had a story a few weeks ago, how, you know, some companies can't even get folks to show up to work out of concern. So I think that all this is going to lead to more clarity maybe in November to see how people do vote and if there is a response to that. And obviously, you know, it's hard to kind of everything else that's going on, not just,

you know, kind of like in Minnesota or in Los Angeles or in Chicago. Like there's been, I think, a lot of action on top of the first year, which was kind of like a remarkable blitz of policy changes that changed immigration in ways that are still being revealed, you know, through time. So I think I hope we have more clarity on that question in the coming months, especially in November. Have you heard anything from Republican officials right now or Republican leadership in terms of how their strategy might change to be able to grab back some of, you know, what very much looks like a rapidly departing, uh, uh, content. of their coalition?

Yeah, there's been mixed signals. I mean, one thing that we're starting to see here on the ground covering, you know, like Texas politics is sort of affordability and labor. Like, it's something that both parties are talking about, which is kind of new. You know, like the governor just rolled out some endorsements from unions and it's celebrating them. And in some instances, when just looking at the GOP site, there has been some doubling down on the like sort of maga messaging which is also interesting i mean it's a primary season

you know so kind of makes sense but also some criticism some people had of um the sd9 race was that you know the jop candidate ran it sort of like a primary even though it was supposed you know it was more of a general election type of situation um meaning you know socially conservative issues and whatnot so that doubling down has been curious um and i don't i don't know if there's a bigger strategy shift But it does seem like this election, at the very least, changed the conversation. So we watched as the whole Super Bowl situation, the halftime show with Bad Bunny. Republicans basically tried to negatively polarize the halftime show. And obviously, they held counter programming with Kid Rock.

There was a very obvious race-based component to all of this. Megan Kelly is on her crusade saying that, you know, you got to speak English and We don't want to see any, any other flags. It's America first, rah, rah, rah. So do you think that's going to complicate Republicans' plans in Texas, for example, where instead of making inroads, you know, they're taking one of the biggest Latino superstars in the world, but certainly among, you know, the Spanish-speaking community, which also exists in Texas, and turning him into the enemy?

Yeah, I don't know if it's going to affect election results, so to speak, but it does appear, you know, like everywhere, Bat Bunny is really popular here, just, you know, having lived here whenever he comes through, he sells out concerts. And I think it also kind of gets to the nuance of voters, right? Like, I don't know if that's going to be the issue that changes anyone's mind, but I do think it is kind of almost another example

of all the tensions going on right now, because, you know, especially our state leader, some of them were communicating, you know, posting on social media for people to turn into the counter-programming and whatnot. So yeah, we'll see on that. I mean, one might think from a political perspective that if you are seeing swings as high as, you know,

50 points from voters who had previously voted for you now are defecting to the other party and they're becoming one of the largest voting blocks in the entire state that taking like the biggest musical artist in that community of that community and vilifying him doesn't seem like a very sound political strategy in an election year, no less. Yes, we'll see it. We'll see what happens if there's any shakeout. And also, I mean, it's a long way until November.

Yeah. And finally, let's finish off with this. Are there any races that you're keeping an eye on that might also offer some insight into these shifts in very much the same way that this Senate District 9 race did with Taylor Remit winning prior to midterms so that we just have a little bit more data points than we had before? I mean, I think writ large is all the statewide Texas races. You don't know. Democrat has won one one since 1994. And the last time they came close was in 2018, which was also the midterm year response to, you know, the first Trump administration when Bethel O'Rourke came real close to unseating Senator Ted Cruz. So I think that, you know, there's numerous. There's obviously the top of the ticket with the senatorial race, the Senate race. But, you know, there's also other contested elections to lead state agencies that are kind of coveted roles here. You know, some electric officials win those and then stay in those positions for a long time.

And Democrats are hoping that this might be the year. All right. Well, we will leave it there. Alejandro, for folks who are looking to read your work, where can they go? Sexistribute.org. Great. Well, I'll put that link on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Thank you so much for the work you do and for taking the time today.

Hey, thank you for having me. Appreciate it. Thanks again to Rokana, Ari Berman, and Alejandro Serrano. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Sunday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, Music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera.

If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave 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 bryantilercowen.com to learn more.