No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump deals himself FATAL blow on his LAST strength

Episode Date: March 8, 2026

Trump deals himself a fatal blow on the last strengths he has left in his presidency. Brian interviews Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressmen Robert Garcia and Dan Goldman, and Democratic strategist Tom Bonier.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.

Trump deals himself a fatal blow on one of the last strengths he has left in his presidency. And I've got four interviews, Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressman Robert Garcia and Dan Goldman, and Democratic strategist Tom Bonnier. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So it's no surprise that Trump has been very quickly losing the narrative as the Epstein files weighed him down, as his unpopular ICE deployments have weighed him down, as his trade war and subsequent higher prices have weighed him down. But at a bare minimum, he still had one thing that he could point to as a win. Gas prices have been at a four-year low under Trump, with a national average at about $2.98.

Not the biggest win in the world, but Americans love cheap gas, and clearly we are happy to trade away our climate if it means we could get to save a few bucks to fill the tank, which is why Trump repeated that point over and over and over. And granted, he would lie and claim that gas was the cheapest has ever been. He would lie that it's at a 20-year low. He lied that it was $1.85. And while that was all bullshit, it was true that gas was still cheap, or at least cheaper. And then Trump decided to bomb Iran, which would be disqualifying enough for a guy who literally campaigned on no new wars, a guy who is on record, God knows how many times specifically decrying the prospect of war with Iran. But as the result of that decision to bomb Iran anyway, oil prices have now

skyrocketed. Price per barrel is about 90 bucks expected to go as high as $150 per barrel. The cost of gas at the pump has risen between 20 and 50 cents in a single day, meaning in a presidency where Trump has squandered virtually every ounce of goodwill that he had because of the Epstein files, because of ICE, because of high prices, because of rising inflation, because of his trade war, because of his incompetent cabinet, because of gutting ACA subsidies. He managed to take the last vestige of popular support with low gas prices and figure out the way to blow them up by sparking off a war in the Middle East, breaking his most central campaign promise.

Truly, the work of a political mastermind to blow up the last ounce of goodwill you have as your presidency is already flailing. And of course, look, it's no skin off Trump's back, right? Because he's a lame duck and he's drunk with power, so he's going to do whatever he wants with no repercussions. The real consequences are shouldered by the rest of his party because they are always shouldered by the rest of his party. Trump pulls some Olympic-level stupid stunt, and the Republicans have to go out and defend it. And they can't, and then we start seeing swings that we're seeing right now, 12, 14, 16 points to the left on average. Democrats flipping seats in Arkansas and Georgia and Pennsylvania.

But here's the thing. This is not something that's happening to these Republicans. Do not forget for a second that these are grown-ass adults who have agency. They have chosen to contract their autonomy out to Trump.

They have the authority to stop his power grabs. They are making the conscious decision not to. So when they're then left in a position to defend his batshit crazy decisions, remember, they own it too because they could have

and should have stopped it. But God forbid they find themselves on the receiving end of a mean tweet. And so instead they just let it happen, and now they get to reap what they sow. So remember that as we watch everyday costs rise, as we watch gas prices surge, as we watch the U.S. get embroiled in more new wars, as we watch this government continue to engage in a cover up of a pedophile ring, that Donald Trump and the GOP have brought this upon themselves. They chose to campaign one way and govern in another.

They chose to sell their supporters a bill of goods. They chose to treat their voters with outright contempt. And now, in the lead up to midterms, they are, are shultering the blame for all of it. And judging, by the way, things are going right now, the trajectory doesn't seem to be doing them any favors. Next up are my interviews with Bernie Sanders, Robert Garcia, Dan Goldman, and Tom Bonnier.

No Lie is brought to you by Rocket Money. So what is the most ridiculous hidden fee or subscription that you discovered you were still paying for? For me, I've got music service subscriptions that I haven't logged into since like 2022 that I've been paying for every single month. I know that people watching have got gym memberships and streaming services.

is you name it that you're charged for every month and you're not even using. Well, Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps 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 shed light on your spending patterns. 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. Let Rocket Money help you reach your finance goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com slash Brian. That's rocketmoney.com slash Brian. Rocketmoney.com slash B-R-I-A-N. I'm joined now by Senator Sanders. Thank you so much for taking the time. My pleasure. So, Senator, we got some pretty surprising news this morning as it relates to Donald Trump and the economic numbers, there was a net loss of 92,000 jobs, which means that since April this administration has seen a net loss of jobs. There have been no new jobs added in the last 10 months of this administration, which would be bad enough unto itself, even worse, given the fact that Trump has branded himself to

jobs, jobs, jobs president. And this is actually a recurring theme with Republican administration. So can you speak a little bit about the chasm between what Republicans promise when when they're on the campaign trail with regard to these these populist fever dreams versus what they actually deliver when they're in office. Well, I think what you're saying is true. The historical record is pretty clear. When Republicans control the White House, the job situation is often not good.

One of the factors here, no one is quite certain, Brian, as to what it means in terms of today's numbers, is the growth of artificial intelligence and robotics. And this is an issue I have been increasingly involved with because I fear very much that the American people, and certainly the Congress, do not have any sense in terms of the cataclysmic impact these technologies are going to have on our lives, including the economy. So you're having pretty knowledgeable people about AI who are saying, guess what? If you're a white-collar job within a X number of years, there will be artificial intelligence that can do your job better than you can do it today. If you're working in a warehouse, or you're working in a factory, well, guess what? In Y number of years, there's going to be a robot that will take your job.

Robot cost your employer $20,000 to buy. That robot works 24 hours a day, doesn't need any health care, doesn't need time, off when they have a baby. So I think we're looking at a very significant transformation of American society and in fact, global society as a result of AI and robots. And I suspect it's beginning. We're beginning to see it in terms of these job numbers. So I know that this is a pretty broad question here, but, well, let's start with a baby step

then, what is the first step that we need to take in terms of fending off, what would be a pretty cataclysmic impact on the economy and on, you know, American society? Okay, well, there are a number of steps. First of all, we need to understand who is pushing this technological revolution. And I think you and many of your viewers may know that it is the wealthiest people in the world. It's the same old names, the same old oligoths. It is Elon Musk putting hundreds of billions of dollars who's saying, I, Elon Musk, I want to build not just millions of robots, literally billions of robots, all right?

It is Mark Zuckerberg. It is Jeff Bezos. It is Larry Ellison. It is Bill Gates. The wealthiest people in the world are pushing this technological transformation. And people have got to take a deep step back and say, do. I have confidence that Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are really concerned about me as a working class person. And you've got to be nuts to think that is the case. They want more wealth. They want more

power. All right. So we've got to take a deep breath. We've got to stop them. Now, I have introduced, will introduce legislation calling for a moratorium on data centers. And I'm doing this not only because of the environmental impact that data centers are having in terms of raising electric rates, the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity, their use of limited water resources. That's important. But we got to get a handle on this thing and make sure that AI and robotics work for ordinary people, not just for Mr. Musk and the wealthiest people on the planet. Number two, what can we do? right now, and this gets right into the corruption of our campaign finance system, the people in AI, it's not just APAC and it's not just other big corporations, the people in AI are prepared to spend

hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns. What is their goal? Their goal is to tell the candidates that they elect is you leave us alone. We will do whatever the hell we want. No regulation in any form, way shape, or form, and they're being pushed and working with Donald Trump in this. All right. So what we've got to say, sorry, you're not going to transform humanity. You can transform our economy. You're not going to put the entire world at an existential threat if AI becomes independent of human control, by the way.

Of course, there's going to be regulations. If you go to a restaurant shop this afternoon, they get a sandwich. You know what? The restaurant shop is regulated by the health. Department. These guys don't want any regulations. That has got to change. So we're working on a number of things. But the bottom line right now, Brian, in my view, we got to slow it down to understand its impact on the economy and on humanity as a whole. Elon Musk says, guess what? Work is going to be obsolete. All right, you're not going to have to go to work. Well, how do you feed your family?

Yeah. All right. Well, that we don't quite understand. yet. So we need to slow this thing down. And by the way, on another issue, I was in California a couple of weeks ago talking to some very intelligent guys who had actually quit some of the big AI companies. And they're worried about, as I mentioned a moment ago, the existential threat that as AI becomes smarter than human beings, they may act independently of human beings. What the hell does that mean? This is not science fiction anymore. Yeah.

You think anyone is seriously discussing this issue in Washington? The answer is no. Well, what would be the first regulation that is introduced? Do you have anything in the works right now? We do. And in fact, with a little bit of luck, we'll do a press conference next week. I mean, first thought. And this is baby stuff.

Yeah. Well, you know, I can commit to, I'll make sure to cover that. And I'll make sure to continue keeping my finger on the pulse of everything that's happening on this. All right. I mean, for a start, we want to get some sense. We've got the best minds in the country to tell us what is going to be the economic impact. How many jobs are going to be lost in the next 10 years? We need a study to start doing that.

We need work on, give you one example. Right now, on the Internet, they're what we call deep face. You're familiar with deep fakes. Yes. And I saw some of these things, and it's amazing. Right now, we can have somebody looking exactly like you, you, telling us how you've decided to change your mind. You really love Donald Trump, right? Yeah.

And they can have the words and people say, wow, I didn't know that. Yeah. And if you were running for office a day, you know, a week before the election, you say, well, Donald or not you come up with some outrageous statement. So we got to put an end to deep fakes. We got to work very hard to protect. children from getting addicted to AI and having their closest friends, the AI agents. I worry about that as well.

So getting a sense of what it means economically, protecting the kids and doing deep fakes is something we want to be talking about literally next week. More importantly, how do you slow it down, how you have an international agreement with China in other countries, I think there are scientists in China who share the concerns of scientists in this country that AI can escape human control. So there's an enormous amount of work that has to be done. We've got to start focusing on it. You know, you had mentioned that this is largely the project of a few oligarchs. And in fact, you'd also mention that you were in California last week. You were talking about a wealth tax. And I agree on the need for a wealth tax,

especially on the wealthiest Americans, these people who, you know, launched these projects to ultimately enrich themselves. But my concern, and I'm sure that the criticism that's been leveled, is if you're talking about a wealth tax in California, for example, how do you combat the risk of capital flight if it's not a national policy? Like if you have piecemeal policies in individual states, won't you just have wealthy people leave those states to go to, you know, these havens like Florida or Texas or wherever they go where there's fewer regulations, you know, that would take place in the event that there's no national legislation. All right. This is what I think. And I tell you this, having been all over this country,

the American people are sick and tired profoundly of an economic situation. And this, frankly, goes beyond Trump and his administration. It's been going on. years where the very wealthiest people in America are becoming phenomenally richer. All right? You're talking since Trump, just in the last, you know, year plus, since Trump was elected, the billionaires in America, about a thousand people have become a trillion and a half dollars richer. Yeah. We now have, you tell me if this makes any, vaguely, this is vaguely saying, one guy Mr. Musk now owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households.

Top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 93%. CEOs make 350 times what their workers make. So while the rich become much richer, 60% of our people have paycheck to paycheck. Now, to answer your question, I think what we have to deal with is not only the greed of the billionaire, class. I think it's a profound moral issue. But what you're saying is, look, these guys, if they want to do TV ads in California and say, look, we made this money, you know, we stole the money, we

bribe camp politicians, blah, blah, blah, whatever it is. We have this money. And at the same time as our wealth has grown, Trump gave a cut Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act by a trillion dollars. and through all kinds of people in California, all over this country, all the health care. We think it is more important that we have $200 billion of personal wealth than children in California have health care. Well, that's a good debate.

What do you think? I think 98% of the people would say, screw you. But this is what they're doing, and we've got to take a step back. What they're saying is, let's not argue about taxes and morality. Let's argue about power. What they're saying to the people of California,

California, hey folks, you are powerless. We have all the power. I know you think that children and working class people should get health care. I know you think we should pay more in taxes, but there's nothing you can do about it because if you do the right thing and vote for the children and vote for working class people, we have the power and we are going to punish you. We're going to take your jobs. We're going to move to Florida. We're going to move to Texas. We are the elites. and ain't nothing you can do about it. So I think in California and all over this country, we've got to take that on.

And to talk about that their desire to punish people for standing up and doing the right thing. It really tells me they live in another world where they think they have the divine right to rule. Nationally, we are, have introduced, we'll introduce shortly a wealth tax, And I want to talk what this does. It's a 5% annual tax on only billionaires.

You have $900 million in wealth. You're not going to pay a nickel. All right? What it does is in the first year, you have a $3,000 check to every man, woman, a child in this country. People are struggling to pay their bills right now. And the other thing that we do is end Trump's cuts in Medicaid,

Medicare, Affordable Care Act. We deal with childcare. We deal with the basic social crises facing this country. Bottom line here is, if, you know, Justice Brandeis, I don't know if you ever heard this. He said in the 1930s, he said, you can have, paraphrasing, you can have a country where people have incredible wealth or you can have a democracy,

but you cannot have a country where you have massive concentrations of wealth and democracy. That's where we are at right now. We've got to deal with it. I mean, the reality is, Democrats should run on that. Like, the notion that in a country of 350 million people that that would not get the majority of support where all of the folks who are not billionaires are voting for attacks on

just this small sliver of people who have concentrated so much wealth is, you know, obviously impossible. So I do think that Democrats should run on that as we, you know, move forward into these next cycles, knowing full well that Republicans and Trump are not going to, you know, abide by it. Like, Trump is not, Trump would not sign legislation like that into law. With that said, you know, I think, I think that that kind of lends itself to this, to this idea on a new topic of Trump and Republicans feeling like they're not accountable to the same rules as everybody else.

We saw military incursions into Venezuela, military incursion in Iran. And now Trump has just floated the idea of Cuba. next. And so he's kind of wedded his appetite in terms of these these foreign invasions. Can I have your response to this idea that Trump is now looking into any country where he feels like he could put his thumb on the scale and topple regimes and continue to engage in foreign interventionism, even despite the fact that he ran on this idea that there was going to be a focus on America first? Right. Let me pick up on your last point. This is a guy who ran on. I am the

the peace candidate. Remember? Yeah. I am against endless wars. We put up on our social media, a quote of his, I think it was in 2020, when he said, how crazy is it that we're spending trillions of dollars on the Middle East and yet our own infrastructure? We don't have money to deal with our own infrastructure. That's what Trump said. Well, he was right then. And now he's continuing that process. A couple of things. I think most Americans now understand that tragically, and it is a real tragedy, for the first time in modern American history, we have a president who does not believe in the Constitution. And the Constitution is pretty clear that it is the Congress of the United States that decides when we want to go to

This wasn't suddenly an emergency response, right? Ron did not attack us and the president had to act immediately. This was premeditated. They've been thinking about this for weeks. So once again, the president of the United States is acting against the Constitution, which he does quite frequently on domestic issues and against the rule of law. Second of all, what I think is of great concern. is Trump is taking the world into barbarism in the sense that if the president of the United States

can violate international law, not just the United States Constitution, right? He can wake up in the morning and say, let's see. I think we'll go after Venice. Well, what's today? Wednesday. Let's go after Iran. Oh, it's Tuesday. Let's invade Cuba or whatever. if the president of the United States thinks he can do that, why should any other governmental or terrorist leader in the world

think that they don't have the right to wage a military attack against anybody they dislike? You know, after World War II, the horrors of World War II, 50 million dead, the world came together and said, all right, if we're not going to eliminate war, let's at least establish some rules, you know, And that is that you don't simply attack another country without reason, that we try to work to eliminate war, to solve problems diplomatically.

So what Trump is basically giving a green light, he's saying essentially to Putin, right? Hey, Vladimir, you did the right thing. You invaded Ukraine. That was pretty good. Yeah, we're going to do the same thing. How are you going to criticize Putin's invasion of Ukraine if you do, you wage a unilateral attack? Right.

The second of all, in many ways, what this war is about is fulfilling. Netanyahu is a right-wing extremist who committed horrible crimes, I think genocidal crimes against the people of Gaza. And now for years, for decades, Netanyahu has begged American presidents, Democrats, and Republicans to join him in trying to destabilize Iran. He finally had in Trump a willing dupe. And Trump is now doing Netanyahu's work in Iran. And I think most Americans, whether you're conservative, progressive, or in the middle, think

that that is a pretty dumb way to do American military and foreign policy. What responsibility does Pam Bondi shoulder by virtue of the fact that she is in charge of the very DOJ that's covering up these files? We know that three million files haven't been released. We know that co-conspirators' names have been redacted while victims' names have been exposed. And yet, obstinately, they refuse to release anything. anything else?

Well, I mean, the demand, you know, people like Massey and Rokane have done a very good job pushing them. We got to keep pushing. And she has the responsibility to do what I think my memory is correct. Trump campaigned on, right? Yeah. Release the files. Well, release not three quarters of them.

Release all of them. All right, we'll leave it there. Senator Sanders, as always, thank you for taking the time today and thanks for all the work that you do. Well, you keep up the great work. Thank you. No Lie is brought to by Better Help. It's March, which means international women's day is upon us.

I want to take a moment to celebrate women and all that they carry out at work, in relationships, in families, and in the many roles they hold every day. Between caring for others and managing unseen responsibilities, their emotional well-being can easily be overlooked. I know that life really often moves too fast to reflect on anything, but try to take a moment to reflect on the role that women have in your life that they play, the expectations placed on them, and the pressures that they feel. can create balance, set healthy boundaries, and support overall well-being for everyone,

which is why I'm an advocate for BetterHelp. So why BetterHelp? Because of their quality therapists. BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the U.S. Also because of their therapist match commitment. BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so that you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences, and their more than 12 years of experience and industry-leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. And finally, the client reviews prove it. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is

the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally. And it works, with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for live sessions based on over 1.7 million client reviews. Your emotional well-being matters. Find support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash no lie. That's betterh-h-elp.com. slash no lie. I'm joined now by the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia. Congressman, thanks for joining me. Sure thing.

So you have some breaking news about a brand new subpoena that was just issued by your committee. Can you explain what just happened? Yeah, we were able to actually keep a united Democratic committee member caucus together. And we teamed up with Representative Nancy Mace to get a motion for Pam Bondi to be essentially subpoenaed in front of our committee. we've been trying to do this and been making this request of Chairman Comer for months and it hasn't happened. The fact that Pam Bondi, the AG, who's been responsible for hiding and deflecting and lying about the Epstein files will now be in front of the committee doing the Epstein investigation is really, really important. So we're really glad this just happened. And I think it's a great move by, we had a couple Republicans that joined us.

Really, it was Nancy Mays to kind of help lead the way with all the Democrats on board. and we got a subpoena. That is surprising news. What will, what, what's going to be the objective here as the attorney general comes before this committee? Look, we have a long list of questions. We've talked about what we want to ask her. I mean, everything from the files originally being on her desk, why they began calling this

investigation a hoax, why they try to end the investigation so early to why the rest of the files aren't being released. Where are the missing documents? why are files being brought in and taken out? Why are they spying on members of Congress? I mean, the list goes on and on. And so there's a lot of questions that we're going to ask. And I think that the Democratic members have serious questions about this investigation.

And I'm glad that the Attorney General will now be forced to appear in front of us. Is there any way that the Attorney General opts not to comply, given the fact that it's the DOJ that's responsible for enforcing any subpoenas anyway? Now, this is a congressional subpoena. She's got to come in front of the committee. all other members that we have sent out to get a subpoena from, they've appeared. It's pretty strong. Grusional subpoena is about as iron cloud as you can get. Okay. Now, we have seen other administration officials, including just today in front of the judiciary committee, Christy Nome, come in front of the committee. And there oftentimes seems to be just an attempt by these

administration officials to filibuster, to turn this into a partisan food fight. It becomes hostile and acrimonious. You know, you will ask these questions, and committee members are going to ask these questions that are important and deserve answers. And how confident are you that she's not going to engage in the same kind of behavior that all of these other administration officials are engaging in by just looking to filibuster or attack Democrats with, you know, with personal, petty, partisan attacks? Look, I'm sure she's going to try to deflect and to attack back, but I think we've got a very skilled group of committee Democrats and oversight Democrats that are going to just ask the right questions and we will make sure that we get answers and get those on the record. She will be

under oath. So I think it's going to be a very interesting hearing. I'm looking forward to it happening sooner than later. I think the biggest question for us is where are the rest of the files? Right. What happened to them? Why are the over redactions? And so I think we can try to begin to get some of these questions answered. What would success look like for you in the aftermath of this hearing? Well, success would be actually getting the Attorney General to explain to us why they have been involved in a White House cover-up. Who's directing this cover-up? Why are we protecting billionaires and co-conspirators?

I think understanding where the rest of those files are and how we can get access to them, I think those are going to be some of the top questions. You know, we just saw Bill and Hillary Clinton come and testify. You know, I've said numerous times that I'm in favor of them testifying, obviously. there's, you know, most Democrats are in favor of them testifying as well. This isn't really supposed to be a partisan thing. This is just if anybody has information regarding the crimes that were committed by Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell, then they should be forced to appear and testify and give any information that they know. Now that James Comer has established this precedent, wherein former presidents of the United States can be hauled in front of Congress to answer

questions. What does that say about Donald Trump being forced to come and testify? I mean, it says that we're going to have Donald Trump come and testify. And I look, It should happen now, but we will 100%. This is a new precedent sent by oversight Republicans, and Donald Trump will be in front of our committee. Whether he comes in now and he tries to defy us while he's in president, he's not going to be the president forever. And now we have a congressional new president sent

to be able to bring in former presidents, and we're going to do it. And it should be Donald Trump has to answer questions. And as far as the presidents at the time for wife and first lady, they've also set a precedent for that. And so we look forward to talking to Mrs. Trump as well. In terms of the fact that there were some Republicans on your committee who voted to subpoena Pamp Bondi because she has information that needs to be shared with the committee to get to the bottom of this.

And because I'm sure that those same Republicans were in favor of this new James Comer precedent of hauling in the Clintons, do you presume that there would be an appetite among your Republican colleagues to bring in Donald Trump, given the fact that, you know, if Hillary Clinton is going to come testify, who as far as I know, had no association with Jeffrey Epstein, then, then, you know, do you think that that's going to be an issue in terms of having them buy in some support for Trump? Look, we're going to try. I hope so. I think Trump is, you know, he has lost some of his grip on some members of his party. I'm the fact that we had some members actually join us, particularly Representative Mays, Representative Bobert, a few others on this subpoena of the

Attorney General, I think is pretty significant. And I hope that we can continue to do that. I hope they would agree that the president should come in and testify under oath to our committee. And if they don't, then we're going to push every day until he's in front of our committee, even if that means and he refuses to or the committee to choose not to bring him in, we will do it when we're in the majority. And we certainly will if we have to wait even until after he's president. You know, there are other administration officials who are also implicated in this. Kevin Warsh's name is in the files that Trump's pick for Fed Chair, Howard Lutnik's, you know,

The photo was in the Epstein files, obviously, that they made an effort to suppress that information. Are some of these other administration officials who are directly implicated in the files going to be called to testify as well? Look, we're going to have a very long list, I think, on day one, when we're in the majority of who we get to subpoena. Every subpoena that we've had in this Congress has been because we've forced Republicans, we've been able to pick off two or three of them to join us. But for the most part, they've been unified in their opposition to these subpoenas.

And so it's been because of our consistent pressure that we've been able to get these folks in front of our committee for this Epson investigation. So that's going to continue. We're not going to stop and push and demand just because we don't have the majority votes. But when we do have the gavels and those majority votes, we are going to be able to supercharge this investigation and get the information that we need. Why do you think that there was an appetite among some of these Republicans to call in Pam Bondi if they're still going to be obstinate when it comes to calling in other administration officials? I mean, I think that what's happening right now across the country is that the issue around Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes and Clayne Maxwell, accountability and justice for the survivors is actually very, very popular.

It's something that all of us across the country, whether you're Republicans or Democrats, I mean, it's polling with Republicans in like in the 70th percent, 70th percentile. It's actually the single most bipartisan issue that's popular amongst both parties. And so it's bipartisan. It's Trump's worst political issue. I mean, I think there's the opposition from both parties is immense. He's more unpopular on Eppsian than he is on issues around the economy and health care. So I think that Republicans understand that there's a lot of interests here and that we have to just do the right thing by the survivors. You know, Trump has come out repeatedly and said that he's exonerated by all of this.

What's your response to that? I mean, that's a joke. Exonerated by who? No one's exonerated Donald Trump. he's the one that called it a hoax. He's in the Epson files more than anyone. Marlaugo is oftentimes where they trafficked women and girls. We have questions for the president.

He's been named in the Epsine files multiple times. There are serious allegations against him that have been removed for reasons we don't understand. We've got to get to the bottom of it. When will the Pan Bondi testimony take place? We don't know. That's going to be up to James Comer. As the chairman, he controls the timing. But I imagine it'll happen sometime over the course of the time.

the next few weeks. Okay. Well, we will leave it there. Congressman, as always, I appreciate you taking the lead on this issue and not letting it fall by the wayside. And I appreciate the time today. Sure, thanks. Thanks. I'm joined now by Congressman Dan Goldman. Thanks for joining me. Thanks so much for having me, Brian. So, Congressman, we just saw Christy Knoem endure a pretty bruising line of questioning a few days ago at these congressional hearings that obviously resulted in her losing her job. And so recognizing that these administration officials are not necessarily immune to pressure. How does that make you think about Pam Bondi, for example, as she is anticipating her own congressional hearing and as she continues to cover up these Epstein

files? Yeah, well, it's somewhat apples and oranges. I think Christy Noem demonstrated herself to be unqualified, unaware of what's going on, unwilling to take any responsibility or to hold any accountability on anyone. But perhaps the one thing that she did that really got her fired is she blamed Donald Trump for something that, well, period, blamed for something. Whether true or not, it doesn't matter. And so Pam Bondi's in a little bit of a different circumstance. I think her performance in front of me and the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago was far worse than Christy Noem's performance. But keep in mind, Pam Bondi knows where all the Epstein secrets are. She has been part of this massive cover-up. And if Donald Trump fires

her, he is opening up the possibility of Bondi turning against her, which I think is the reason why he hasn't fired anyone to date is he saw what happened when he fired people in his first term and they often turned against him. And you see Bill Barr and John Bolton and a host of other people. And Bondi knows too much about him. She knows where all the skeletons in the closet are for him. I have no doubt in my mind right now that this is a massive cover up to protect Donald Trump. And Bondi is at the center of it. So it's very unlikely that she will get And so can you talk about any personal liability that she might shoulder or any consequences we might see for Pamp Bondi by virtue of the fact that she is really a willful participant

in this entire cover-up? I mean, we know, for example, that she refuses to release 3 million files. We know, as I mentioned before, that we have co-conspirators' names who've been released while victims' names have been exposed. And so is there, you know, because she's the Attorney General, is that it? Is there some world where she shoulders any legal exposure after she's out of office? Sure. I mean, there's a five-year statute of limitations, criminal contempt, it would obviously be the one that you would focus on as it relates to the Epstein-Files Transparency Act. But I would want to know more than that. I would want to know whether there are any witnesses who were precluded from coming and talking to them, whether there were any threats, whether there was any additional assets, whether there was any additional assets, to a cover-up, Gilae McSwell and that Todd Blanche whole discussion, because there could be

obstruction of justice as well, depending on what happens. We don't have that information, but a cover-up is an obstruction of justice. And so there are lots of different ways that you can get to that through the criminal law. You know, Congressman, you obviously were a counsel when Trump was being impeached. And so you're well aware of what it looks like when Congress does its job, when the legislative branch does its job to hold corrupt administration officials to account. I think a lot of people see what's happening right now and have this feeling that we are in a post-legal world where all of these people can just get away with their crimes and because

they engage in this criminal activity so frequently that we're no longer able to to, to to be in a place where the law applies to any of them. And so it gives them a feeling of impunity. And obviously, they've run with that. This is the most corrupt administration we've ever seen. The financial corruption is staggering. The legal corruption is staggering. Trump's wielding the DOJ as his personal cudgel against his political enemies.

And so what needs to happen in the aftermath of this administration to hold these folks to account? And can you talk about that especially through the lens of having gone through a Biden administration where that wasn't really a priority, where the priority was mostly preventing the optics of politicization. Yeah, and I'm perhaps overdone, you know, gone too far on the other side of that. I think there are a couple of different ways of tackling this. And the one thing that you didn't mention in your litany of things that they have done that are just so blatantly corrupt is the fact that the FBI is not investigating, those who killed Alex Prattie and Renee Good.

And what that really does give the ICE agents, CBP officers, that feeling of invincibility and impunity because they know that their brother executive branch agency at the FBI is not going to hold them accountable. And so it is that feeling of impunity. It is that knowledge that, well, Donald Trump is doing all of this stuff and he seems to be getting away with it. So I'm going to do it as well. I always go back, Brian, to this shocking comment that Chairman James Comer made of the Oversight Committee when he was asked why he spent so much time on the Hunter Biden investigation that related to maybe $20 or $30 million of money from foreign

entities, not even foreign governments, and that he's not at all investigating Donald Trump receiving a $400 million plane from Qatar or all of these investments in crypto companies from foreign countries and foreign companies that are just patting his wallet. And Comer's response was, well, Donald Trump does it all out in the open. Right. Well, yeah, after all, like committing crimes in broad daylight makes them not crimes. Exactly. And so you are right that there's a massive accountability gap and the Republicans have done nothing. The FBI has done nothing and we can't expect them to. So we have two phases. The first phase will be when we take back the majority in Congress. Donald Trump will still be president for two years. But we will initiate a host of investigations. And it will be somewhat of a decision point where how many, and which ones because you do want to make sure that you're covering the gamut of conduct,

but you also only have so many resources. So that will be an important part. And similar to how I did the impeachment investigation, you know, we're going to get massive obstruction from this administration. So we're going to have to figure out alternative ways of getting information and proving the case, which we had to do as well in the impeachment investigation. So it's not going to be straightforward and easy, but it is going to be something that we are very, very focused on. Then you mention after 2008, after Trump is gone, after this administration is gone, and hopefully there's a new Democratic administration, then you've got the possibility of criminal prosecutions, and that that can be good dating back. Usually the statute of limitations is five years.

So it can go back for the whole term and even in the campaign before, if there's something relevant to that. And doesn't the clock start once the crime is finished? And so if they're still engaged in this criminal activity, if they're still engaged in this corruption, if Pam Bondi is still suppressing the Epstein Files and defying the Epstein Files Transparency Act, like the clock is still running. So that five year, that five year window hasn't even begun yet. No, that that is absolutely true. And, you know, for the most part. And so I don't think the the timing of it is going to matter that much in terms of the statute of limitations. And look, there's always the question when a new administration comes in, how much backward-looking stuff are you going to do and how much

forward-looking stuff are you going to do? And I think, though, that because of the reasons you said, that there's a feeling that we live in this post-legal world where the rich and powerful or the well-connected are not held to account, are not held to the same rules and laws that everybody else is, we have to do some of that accountability. We have to restore faith in the rule of law, that it is applied equally, and that even those who are powerful are the ones who they will be held to account, just like everybody else. And that was certainly how I approached things as a federal prosecutor when I was doing that for 10 years is I was I was looking for you know the real masterminds right the ones who were really at the top of the pyramid yeah not the the ones at the

bottom doing the dirty work because those are the ones a who are really responsible but B have a much greater deterrent effect on other people doing it in the future and that's why doing at least some of these criminal investigations is going to be very important. And I think also important is going to be figuring out how to walk and chew gum at the same time because there needs to be, you know, a forward-looking agenda as well, especially in light of the fact that, you know, there is an opening right now. Trump had run as this, you know, working class champion. The Republican Party ran as these working class champions. We just saw the jobs report today showing a net loss of 92,000 jobs, which means since April, the U.S. has seen jobs lost,

hasn't gained a single job, has only lost jobs. Compare that with, you know, the millions of jobs that were added during the Biden administration. I think we had an average of roughly 400,000 jobs added per month, meaning in one month of the Biden administration, we saw more jobs added than the last year in the Trump administration. And so what has to be done from that standpoint, from a focusing on American, who are obviously having a difficult time right now, economically speaking, what needs to be done on that front to rectify this disaster that Trump has ushered in? Well, I think it would help if he got rid of tariffs.

If he stopped using all of our money on foreign wars, I think it would certainly help if he were invested in the middle class and that he were not just cutting taxes for billionaires. I think there are any number of different things that can spur the economy, which spurs growth, which spurs job creation. But he's just not focused at all on that. And he's trying to gaslight everybody into thinking that the prices are down when they're up. I mean, it's your own pocketbook. How is he?

Why does he think that he can literally convince people that he knows better than what they are having to pay? And so there are any number of a host of things. And I think that the first thing that we have to do is tackle wealth inequality, which has just skyrocketed exponentially under Donald Trump, long before that as well. And we're in a world right now where the very select few at the top are getting super, super rich. And everyone else is struggling. And if you're a wage earner, your wages are relatively. going down compared to inflation. If you're an asset holder, your assets are going skyrocketing. So, you know, a bill like my Robin Hood Act, which would make billionaires pay their fair share because they, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk and the top 25 earners in top 25 wealthiest people in America have an effective tax rate of about 3% because they have all these tax avoidance. We got to tackle that. And that will then allow. us to have more money. Both I think we need to pay down the deficit, which is becoming a huge

albatross, but also we can invest in things that families need, universal child care, right, so that parents can stay in their jobs, grow their careers while their kids are well taken care of, which is a win for the parents, a win for the child, and a win for the economy because that we're growing the economy. So we have to be thoughtful about where we are investing. the money from the government so that we are spurring job growth and creation. And that's just the opposite of what Donald Trump has been doing. Right. Well, to that end, Congressman, you're obviously running for re-election this term and midterms are fast approaching. For people who want to help your campaign, what can they do? Well, they should go to Dan Goldman4.N.Y.com.

All my social media handles are also Dan Goldman for NY. We are, we're moving. We're really pushing ahead with a great group, a great campaign, a great platform would help to be in the majority so I can hold this administration accountable and we can fix our rigged system. So any support, volunteers, financial otherwise, is always welcome. Great. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Congressman, as always, thank you for the time. Thanks, Brian. I'm joined now by Democratic Strategist and Senior Advisor to Target Smart, Tom Bonnier. Tom, thanks for joining me.

Great to be here. So you had a really interesting, I think the most interesting takeaway from the Texas primary. Can you explain what that takeaway was? Yeah. Well, your folks will remember, you had a great conversation with Mark Elias about this the other day about the Texas gerrymander. It was the domino that set off all the other redistricting around the country. But Republicans went to say, we're going to grab a bunch of congressional seats by redrawing the maps. mid-decade. And so they created these districts that they believed to be out of reach for Democrats, where they were just going to knock off some Democratic incumbents, put some districts out of reach, and basically steal a handful of seats. And what they were relying on was the fact that Donald Trump in 2024 did pretty well with Hispanic voters.

So they created a couple of districts that were like Trump plus 10, another one that was like Trump plus 15. And, you know, when they did it, looked like maybe a smart move. I do have to say, I think at the time I did say this might be a dummy mander. You have to be careful. I'm not saying I'm a genius, you know, like the swings. Again, you've been talking about this for a long time. These types of swings we've been seen elsewhere in special elections would potentially put these seats in reach.

Anyhow, when you look at the primary results in Texas, how many votes were cast by Democrats, how many votes were cast by Republicans? Because keep in mind in Texas, you can pick either ballot. There's no partisan registration. So they're going to go where the excitement is. And what happened is in all four of these districts that are new districts they created to be their safe seats, and all four of them, more Democrats voted than Republicans, which was, I have to admit, even a shocker to me. I thought, look, these might be within reach in November.

Maybe we could pick one or two of them off. This isn't, you know, definitively saying now Democrats are going to win them. but it's about as good of a sign as you could possibly ask for going into, you know, coming out of this private. And you put some of that information on Twitter. I'm going to throw that on the screen. You know, in these four districts, congressional district, 9, 28, 34, and 35, I mean, the 28th congressional district had 66,000 Democrats turn out against 16,000 Republicans turn out. In the 34th, 56,000 Democrats compared to 36,000 Republicans. So these aren't small differences that were. seeing. And so to your exact point, I mean, these might be, you know, if these trends hold,

which, look, anything can change in politics, certainly over the course of a few months, which is what we, the amount of time that we have between now and the general election, but if these trends hold, then you're right. We may be looking at a dummymander situation where the ultimate irony is not just that Republicans attempted and failed to redraw these maps to garner themselves a few more seats, but that that sparked off a chain reaction where Democrats reciprocated. And we're certainly not going to see Republicans overperform in the five seats, for example, that Democrats drew in California, meaning this would, like this whole thing may very well be an unforced error, wherein nothing really changes in terms of the Democratic seats in Texas.

But now, because of that, you have a bunch of Democratic seats that are newly redrawn in California to counteract something that never even materialized in Texas. That's right. I mean, the net effect of the redistricting now. Again, when we went into this, I'll speak for myself, but I think a lot of Democrats were very concerned that this was the Republicans, they set up their sleeve and through these types of anti-democratic measures, they could come in and basically hold on to the House by just gerrymandering every state. To your point, they did this in Texas, which meant, you know, Democrats truly had no choice to be able to go into these other states. And, you know, again, in a lot of these places voters actually voted, which is something they didn't do in Texas. Because California passed by a landslide in terms of the new map there.

But now, you know, the outlook is, and we see this, that it is more likely than not that the net effect of the redistricting around the country is going to be beneficial to the Democrats. Democrats might pick up a few seats net just out of the redistricting measure. So, yeah, a big mistake. I think they have to have a lot of regret. And to the point that you made about those districts and just the huge turnout disparity, some people might look at this and say, well, it's just the primary, you know, do people have a reason to vote? But the confounding factor for that argument is $80 million were spent by Republicans in the top of the ticket in this Senate race to go out and energize their voters and turn them out.

They spent a record amount of money. Yes, Democrats spent a lot of money, but less than half. Right. And by the way, it's not like this was an uncontested primary by Republicans. It's not like just John Cornyn was on the ballot, in which case, you know, what's the point of turning out if you're just basically voting for the incumbent, there was a pretty bruising primary between two candidates who have, who are on different ends of the ideological spectrum within the Republican Party. So if ever there was a reason to draw these Republicans out, not just ideologically,

but also financially, I mean, this is a pretty damn good test case. There was absolutely every reason for them to turn out. And again, you know, we've talked about these four districts that, again, are primarily Latino districts, not exclusively, but again, significant Hispanic population across these districts. And so, you know, that's another element of this that I think beyond just these four districts has to cause great concern for Republicans that in general, Hispanic voters just came out. They chose a Democratic ballot. They chose to come out in this race. And not only did they choose to come out, they came out in record numbers, not just exceeding Republicans turnout. The other number that blew my mind is that when you look at a lot of these Hispanic majority

counties in the Rio Grande Valley, South Texas, you had more. more people voting Democratic in this primary than voted for Vice President Harris in the general election in 2024, which just doesn't happen. You don't have primary turnout exceeding general election turnout. And you'd never see it exceeding presidential turnout. But it happened in these counties. And that has to terrify Republicans. Can you talk a little bit about that Latino vote? Because I think the fatal flaw for these Republican maps is that they were drawn with this idea in mind that,

the realignment that we saw in 2024 was going to be permanent. And in fact, it doesn't look like that realignment is permanent. In fact, it looks like we're seeing some pretty, pretty egregious swings in the opposite direction. There were certain jurisdictions in this past November election cycle that saw upwards of 50-point swings among Latinos back to the left. So can you talk a little bit about the Latino vote in this election and what it portends for Republicans moving forward? Well, in the point you made is something that I think we need to reemphasize here is that we were all subjected after the 2024 election to this notion that there was not just a swing in this election, but literally the term you used, the realignment. Patrick Rafini wrote a book

about this, about the emerging Republican multicultural working class majority. We were all told that this was suddenly people were realigning off race and ethnicity lines into class and economic lines. And obviously, it was a fallacy then. But if it was a realignment, there's been a re-realignment in the last year in what we saw because to your point, Latino voters across Texas, but to be clear, this hasn't been limited to Texas. When we've looked at special elections around the country, we've seen Latino voters swinging back massively to Democrats. When you look at the gubernatorial elections in Virginia, New Jersey, we saw the same thing where not only were Democratic candidates going back to the margins that we saw from a decade ago, but

But actually in many cases, exceeding them. Does that mean that Democrats can take Latino voters for granted and just assume that their votes will be there in November? No, of course not. We're talking about swing voters. But the fact that we saw these margins, just ridiculous margins, ridiculous turnout among Latino voters, especially in South Texas, is an incredibly good sign for Democrats. Not just for James Tallerico in the Senate race, which is like what he'll need to be able to make this race competitive and potentially win. which I believe he can, but again, around the country. Well, it's difficult to talk about just the Latino vote when we're speaking about realignments

without also discussing the youth vote. So what are your main takeaways as far as younger voters? Because this was a blinking red light for, I mean, it is existential for the Democratic Party to feel like we are going to lose the youth vote in a way that the 2024 election showed. And so are you seeing those same trends? Are they swinging back? Is there something in the middle? What can we look for moving forward in terms of the political affiliation of young people?

You know, a lot of encouraging data so far. We think back to 2018 in the great blue wave election that was really fueled by massive record-setting youth turnout. There was no group that surged more in turnout between the catastrophic 2014 midterms in the blue wave in 2018. And then to your point, what we saw was some receding in that. terms of turnout, especially in 2024. We saw younger voters of color, as we've been discussing actually crossing over and voting for Donald Trump, younger men especially. And so, you know, again, we talk about Virginia, New Jersey. We saw incredibly encouraging, the youth turnout surges in those states, which I don't think people have talked about enough, were just massive and drove

those massive landslide margins in those gubernatorial elections. And here in Texas, again, we only have the individual vote history for the early vote, but that's over a million votes cast. It's almost 60% of all votes were cast before election days. So it's a pretty good data set. And when you look at the individual data there, youth turnout again surged by more than any other group in the 2022 Democratic primary. So the past, the last midterm primary election in Texas, voters under the age of 30 were only 6% of votes cast in the early vote. In the early vote this year, they were 10%. It's a huge increase. Yeah. And also just just a more diverse group. And again, when you look at the actual performance there, when you look at these college campuses, you look at the turnout that they got at UT, record-setting numbers. So again, incredibly encouraging. I think Democrats have to look at that and say, this is great. We see that there's a path there, but also there's work to be done between now and election day.

And by the way, that's why Trump and Republicans are so hell-bent on trying to pass the Save Act, because, for example, student IDs wouldn't be a valid form of ID, whereas, you know, these these more Republican favorable forms of identification are. So that's like one instance of, of, you know, why they're so worried. But this really is a huge, a huge misstep, I think, by Republicans because they had a chance,

like this once-in-a-generation chance to redefine themselves with young people in a way that hadn't been done before. Like, I'm a millennial. I remember being on college campus. And this was a college that was probably a little bit more conservative than most. and you could not find somebody who was not like an Obama voter.

You had much wealthier kids on this college campus. You had kids that weren't so wealthy, but like there was no race-based divide. There was no wealth-based divide. And it would be kind of social suicide did not have been an Obama voter back when I was in school, like in 2007 to 2011. And now they had this opportunity where Republicans really had one culture in a way that I didn't think I would see, certainly in my lifetime, but to squander that so quickly by basically just engaging in Bush era redux, like foreign incursions in the Middle East,

lying about the Epstein files, saying that you're going to lower prices and then raising prices. I mean, just taking all of this goodwill and basically in one year, just blowing all of that up and missing out on a generational opportunity to win over a generation, a younger generation, in a way that we haven't seen Republicans capable of doing. Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, when I was looking at the data leading up to the 2024 election, this is something I flagged on Twitter at the time,

was this really disconcerting trend where, especially among young men and the partisan registration, we are actually seeing these huge gaps emerge where young men, under the age of 23, they were actually more of them registering Republican than Democrat, which is not something we have seen in generations. And so to your point, Republicans had made incredible headway. And then they basically took all of the rationale that was given to these younger voters, especially younger men to vote with them and then have thrown it out the window in the past year.

And to your point about winning the culture, they are now, you know, very much conceding the culture in different areas, much to their detriment. And so you're seeing a reversal in the voter registration data. But I think more importantly, you're seeing it in these elections. like the 2025 general elections, you know, the age gaps in New York. And I know New York City is New York City. It's its own thing. But to see record-setting age gaps from Mondani and in his victory, but also seeing that for the gubernatorial candidates, the Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia, now to see that repeated in Texas, it's enough of a sample size coming together where, again,

I think Republicans have to be looking at this and growing very concerned about the mistakes they've clearly made and what path that leaves them to potentially holding on to Congress in November, it's a much more narrow path at this point, which is why I think they are choosing this voter suppression path, like you say, with the safe fact and so on and so forth. Well, look, I think that there's a lot of good news here for Democrats to take, but I don't want to be Pollyanna about this, especially considering the fact that right now, you know, we don't have the House, we don't have the Senate, We don't have the White House. We don't have the Supreme Court and we don't have the majority of state legislatures.

And so I think that we have to also have some humility here. And so which lends itself to my next question is what are you most worried about as far as Democrats are concerned in the lead up to this election while there's still some time to maybe rectify some of those issues? Yeah. I mean, what am I not worried about? I think anyone who's lived through the last eight years or so has to be concerned about sort of everything. But I think you've hit on a lot of the high notes here just in terms of the potential voter suppression efforts. Republicans will stop at nothing, whether it's the Safe Act, whether it's this idea of putting Trump's ICE soldiers at polling places to try to suppress the vote. They will stop at nothing.

And also just again, my concern would be Democrats, especially folks who are investing in this and funding these campaigns to look at it and just say, well, it's so great. Things have gone so well in these special elections and these primary elections that we don't need to invest in this further. And it couldn't be a bigger mistake. We need to be communicating more effectively, more directly with these communities they've underperformed with us in the past. So younger voters, younger voters of color, especially voters of color generally. We don't have the luxury, frankly, of taking any demographic group off the table and say, well, they're good. We don't have to talk with them. And so we need that investment.

We need to be doing that work. We need to get louder, frankly, because what we're doing is working, right? That's the good news is what we're doing is working. What they're doing is incredibly unpopular. But if we take our foot off the gas pedal for a second, we'll pay for it. Yeah. And I think, too, the way I'm thinking about this is like we've been lucky enough to have, you know, the momdani's of the world and Mikey Sherrill's and Abigail Spanberger's win their election.

but like, you know, these, if we've learned anything from 2024, it's that to your point, I mean, these coalitions are not guaranteed and these voters are not are not inelastic. And so I look at this stuff as the audition. I mean, like, we have the opportunity to prove to people who live in New York, who live in Virginia, who live in New Jersey, who live in these different jurisdictions where we have new Democratic leadership to prove to those people that they should get reelected

and that the Democratic Party can work for them. But, I mean, you know, you said it. Like, we're not in a position where we can say, oh, now that we've been elected, like, it's all just smooth sailing from here. A lot of these people are running on affordability. That means you actually have to prove it because, you know, they voted for Trump,

who ran on affordability, and things are getting more expensive, and there's a backlash against him. So I think that this is very much a situation where, you know, this just blind, partisan allegiance of the past is gone, and that a lot more people, who come into the political process are not, you know, just team blue or team red,

and they're perfectly content to go one way or the other if it means that the previous party who was representing them failed to own up to their campaign promises. And so, you know, I look at the people who've won again as this isn't the end of the line. It's the beginning. This is their audition. This is the opportunity to prove that democratic governance can work. And if it doesn't, we can very easily lose these people again. Well, and to your point about the blind partisan allegiance being gone, I think that's one that we can't hammer home strongly enough that when you look at the exit polls from New Jersey, Virginia, New York, when you look at the data we have from the national polls, what we know is that the Democratic Party's brand has never been worse. Now, the Republican Party's brand is awful, too. But the good news is when you look at our successes in those races, we succeeded despite that, right? And it wasn't because our candidates, by the way, were running from the Democratic Party. They weren't.

But they were actually putting forth an agenda, a message that resonated. And so, you know, eventually, if we have enough candidates doing that success, that becomes the new brand. Right, exactly. And I've said that before. I know that so many people are worried about the brand problem. But the brand is reflective of the Democrats who are in office. And if we start to get enough Democrats in office who are popular because they are meeting people where they're at and they're more relatable to people and they're younger and more tech savvy, more progressive, whatever it is they're looking for, then we no longer have to contend

with some nebulous brand problem because, again, the Democratic brand will be reflective of those more popular politicians. So, you know, I think that was really well put. Tom, as always, I appreciate the work that you're doing. Where can people who are listening right now and watching right now see and hear more from you? I'm on all the various platforms, T-B-B-O-N-I-E-R. you can find me in any of those dark corners of the internet. The talk successful that is the internet these days. We'll highly recommend for anybody who's watching and listening. If you're not yet subscribed to Tom's channels,

please go ahead and subscribe. Tom, as always, I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thanks again to Bernie Sanders, Robert Garcia, Dan Goldman, and Tom Bonnier. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Wednesday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by YouTube by YouTube.

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 bryantarcoen.com to learn more.