No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump falls into trap at State of the Union

Episode Date: February 25, 2026

Trump falls into his own trap at the State of the Union. Brian interviews attorney Norm Eisen and CNN host Elex Michaelson.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 falls into his own trap at the State of the Union, and I've got two interviews, attorney Norm Eisen and CNN host Alex Michelson. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. There was a trap laid at the State of the Union that Trump 100% needed to avoid and yet walked right into. And it was on display quite a bit, but here are a few moments that summed up quite well. A short time ago, we were a dead country. Now we are the hottest country anywhere in the world, the hottest.

Our country is winning again. In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we're winning too much. We can't take it anymore. We're not used to winning in our country until you came along. We're just always losing, but now we're winning too much. And I say, no, no, no, you're going to win again. You're going to win big.

You're going to win bigger than ever. So let's go way back in time to the 2024 election, watching Democrats insist that the economy was the best it's ever been, effectively managing to alienate themselves in the eyes of voters who felt that that wasn't the case at all and that people who were claiming otherwise were out of touch. It would have been bad enough that Democrats were presiding over a country where people were hurting so much economically. But it was the fact that those Democrats seemed proud of it, that that was the straw for so many Americans. And of course, we all, you know, saw what happened next in the 2024 election where Republicans took the House, the Senate, the White House,

all pretty brutal. But it was born out of that disconnect between what a political party is saying and how Americans are feeling, which brings me to today. The reality is that that economic pain that sent Republicans into power has not subsided, and in fact, it's gotten worse, owed expressly to Trump and the GOP. Trump's tariffs have raised the cost of everything from food to electronics to clothing. The one big beautiful bill gutted health care and food assistance, those things more expensive, and inflation is virtually the same as when Biden left office, a few tens of a point lower, meaning nothing has changed for Americans. And in fact, things have gotten worse for Americans. And Trump's response to that is to pretend that everything is great,

that he fixed it, that we're in the golden age, and that he's the white knight who saved us. So tell me, after watching what just happened in 2024, what kind of a position does that put the rest of the Republican Party in now with the American people? Because I'll tell you what everybody heard. They heard Trump saying that costs were down, groceries were cheaper, utility bills cost less, when none of those things are true. And Americans know they're not because we all have eyes and we all pay those things, which unto itself is bad enough. But now we have to listen to Trump gaslight us into not believing our own eyes. And again, not a very effective strategy. And it's not just going to backfire on Trump because now the rest of the GOP has to go out and campaign for midterms and

either distance themselves from Trump, which could earn them the hellfire of Trump's choose social account, or they could embrace Trump, which they so often do, and make themselves seem just out of touch as he is. So either way, not great options. And the sad part of all of this is that Trump could have kept his promises, but he wasn't interested in helping anybody who wasn't himself, which is why he's building a ballroom and redoing the Rose Garden and hosting crypto dinners where he can launder billions of dollars to himself and his family, and he's prosecuting his political enemies. Trump had a clear runway to keep his promise and focus on regular Americans, and yet he chose himself. Trump first, America last. So I'm sure Trump feels great after the State of the Union

because anytime he's the center of attention and saying words, he feels like he's winning. But all he's done in effect was fall into the most obvious trap ever, a trap that he benefited from in this last election cycle. And the consequences for himself and his party, will be apparent soon enough. Next up are my interviews with Norm Eisen and Alex Michelson. No lies brought to you by Hewell. So when do you usually realize that you forgot to eat? For me, it's sometime around 2 p.m., meaning I not only forgot to eat breakfast,

I also forgot lunch. That's why Hewell ready to drink is a lifesaver for me. Not just because I'm always running short on time, but because it is easy, it tastes good and has a ton of great stuff inside. 35 grams of protein, 27 essential vitamins and minerals, no artificial sweeteners, colors, or flavors. It's gluten-free, all for under $5 per meal, a complete meal that you can literally grab and go.

I'm drinking the iced coffee one right now as we speak, but I've tried all of them and I drink them daily, including chocolate peanut butter, strawberry and banana, and vanilla. And the best part is how much protein is in them. It's the perfect post-workout meal. And it actually fills me up for hours, so I'm not just running back into the fridge five minutes later. So if you're trying to stay consistent, Hewls ready to drink is the way to go.

It tastes great and is filled with a lot of good stuff. We've got a limited time offer. Get Hew today with my exclusive offer of 15% off online with my code BTC at Hewel.com slash BTC, new customers only. Thank you to Hewell for partnering and supporting this show. I'm joined now by the co-founder of Democracy Defender's Action, Norm Eam Eisen. Norm, I have been looking forward to talking to you about this in particular because, as we all know, a few days ago, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling invalidating Trump's tariffs. And the question became, what about everybody who paid for these tariffs?

What legal action is being taken? Because we've all spent all this money now buying goods and those tariffs were unconstitutional. You have an update here. Can you bring that to us? Yes, Brian. It's so great to be back with you and your viewers. This is another major pushback by a 6-3 vote at the Supreme Court. and like the famous Sherlock Home Line, Watson,

what about the dog that didn't bark in the night? The Supreme Court left a complete blank slate for everybody who has been wrongly assessed these tariffs that over $150 billion worth of wrongly assessed tariffs to go to court and get their money back. In a better world, the administration would just say, sure, we'll pay you back. They're going to make people fight for him.

So at Democracy Defender's Action, we've been very active in this case. We have represented conservatives. Every administration from Nixon to Trump One saying these tariffs are illegal. And now we're very pleased to be working with former New Jersey Attorney General Matt Plotkin. And we're going to be working on getting those illegal tariffs back for those who paid them, particularly for small businesses, Brian. You know, they operate on such a tight profit margin. These tens of thousands of dollars, in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars,

that small businesses paid in tariffs are the difference between being profitable and declaring bankruptcy. So we're going to fight for those small businesses. And so what is the structure of these lawsuits? Is it going to be one big class action lawsuit? Is there going to be a whole deluge of individual litigation on behalf of each individual small business owner? Well, the exact form of the litigation will be worked out in the days ahead. But the easiest way to do these cases is to have the individuals file for a different. legal claim for what they paid and then to centralize all of those claims.

You know, if you have one small business owner who's paid $50,000 or $100,000, it can be very tough to litigate that kind of a case because it's so expensive to go to court. But if you're representing dozens, hundreds, thousands of those business owners, then you can go to court. and for the business owners, it can be very much more streamlined to get their money back if they're not going through a class action mechanism, but instead they're filing their individual cases, and those cases are being litigated in a centralized way.

Norm, is there some hope that by virtue of the work that you and your team are doing to help streamline this process for impacted small business owners, that that could force the administration's hand so that they're not just, mired in these court proceedings, which, you know, if these small business owners start winning one by one, then it's not just that they're spending money to make these small business owners whole. They're also paying the legal fees. And so it might actually be more beneficial for the White House to ultimately say, hey, if we're going to lose this much, it's just going to be worth it for us to figure out a way to streamline this refund process, this reimbursement process,

so that we're not getting killed twice, one on the refunds and another on the legal fees. Is that your hope for all of this? It is. We've learned in litigating with these administration figures, and between democracy defenders funded, democracy defenders' action, we have over 260 legal cases and matters. We've learned that asking politely is not always the way to go, Brian.

Yeah. You need to. In a more normal circumstance, a major loss of the Supreme Court like this, the administration would say, hey, we'll set up a system to pay everybody back. Here, we think it is important to file those cases. Could be done, as you ask through class action. It can be done through these individual claims that are rolled up. We call that a mass action where a bunch of individuals are working together. There's strength in numbers. There's a mass of claims moving in synchronicity. The advantage of going to court is you may be able to get a fast resolution, get the cases, get a test case, get a resolved, get a court declaration that then allows other speedy resolution. For example, Congress could say, hey, we don't want to make our small business. go through this process of having to litigate. So we're going to put something in a bill. We're going to attach it to must-pass spending legislation.

And we're going to make our wonderful small businesses whole that way. The Supreme Court has said very unequivocally this was illegal. By a six-three ruling, you had three liberals, three conservatives, different reasoning, same result, illegal tariffs. And there's a very strong case law that when an illegal tariff is assessed, you're entitled to get your money back that you were forced to pay under illegal circumstances. So perhaps Congress will respond to the litigation. I think the public should certainly respond. It's not fair to these small businesses. They are the drivers of our economy.

they are the job creators. They create innovation and new products. So Attorney General Plotkin knows a lot about this, just left as the New Jersey AG, and is spearheading the effort with us at Democracy Defender's Action to try to figure out a good resolution in these matters. You know, Norm, a lot of people are going to watch this and certainly agree with you when you,

say that these small businesses are the drivers of the economy, but there are also consumers who have been impacted, consumers who have bought electronics and clothing, food, housing equipment, whatever it may be, who had to pay more as the direct result of these tariffs because oftentimes the companies will just pass on the cost directly to the consumer. And so what can impacted consumers do who are looking for some way to get whole given Trump's imposition of illegal tariffs? Well, we always say, Brian, we've talked about it on your show many times the importance of proceeding in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. And that's where these consumers come in.

In the court of law, we've been very proud this is not a partisan issue. It's a nonpartisan issue. We represented dozens of conservatives from every Republican presidential administration from Nixon to Trump on saying, hey, we're supposed to be a free market economy. These tariffs are illegal and they're impinging the freedom of our markets. Then you have the Court of Public Opinion. That's where the consumers come in, in speaking out, in making their voice heard, in supporting our small businesses, as in the court of law,

you have those who have legal standing, the businesses who've actually paid the amounts. I think it's beneficial for consumers. can get that $150 billion plus back into the hands of these businesses. Just as the prices went up under the tariffs, perhaps there'll be positive impacts on affordability for all Americans. Certainly, it makes a point about our democracy. It's really a double bottom line here. Yes, there's the question of the people who've had to pay the wrongful tariffs. But Brian, there's also the question of everybody who steps up to litigate this in the court of law or to speak out in the court of public opinion is also standing up for our rule of law, for our democracy. So the American people are responding in a very significant way.

It really was a landmark case. And we were very proud to start work for those conservatives. and now we're going to be moving over to support small businesses, if that's possible, depending on their circumstances. So Norm, let's say I'm a small business owner who is impacted by the imposition of these tariffs, these unlawful tariffs. What could I do if I was listening to you speak and wanted to be part of this whole process? Well, the first thing you need to do is to get information.

Email Attorney General Plotkin, he set up an email address, tariff refunds, T-A-R-I-F-F-R-E-F-U-N-D-S at Plotkin-L-L-L-A-T-K-I-N-L-P-L-P dot com. And Brian will, as always, share that email address with you. I'm going to put that in the, I'm going to put that in the, I'm right here on the screen, and that's going to stay on the screen for a while, so folks can write it down on their own. And I'm also going to put that email address in the post description of this video.

Terrific. And then you can get more information. And of course, legal cases need to be assessed. Every individual, their claims, their status needs to be looked at. If you email him and request more information, the plot confirmed. firm will get back to you. And, you know, they're looking at this through a double bottom line. They want to find ways to help small businesses, if possible, including in court. But Brian, they're also fighting for democracy. They are a public interest firm doing so many wonderful things,

the former AG. Instead of joining Big Law, he left his AG post, and he's come out here to help all of us in fighting for democracy and the public interest, as well as analyzing whether it's possible to get refunds back. Norm, we can all see how much this impact, how much this Supreme Court decision impacts Trump. He was irate in the immediate aftermath. He called an emergency press conference, imposed a 10% global tariff under a different authority the next morning still stewing from this. He upped that 10% global tariff to 15%. He went on a rampage against even the conservative of justices and said that their families should be ashamed. This is obviously something that impacts him.

And so is there any concern from your end? And I have a feeling I know what the answer is going to be, but is there any concern from your end that by giving impacted Americans an outlet to get whole as the result of these illegal tariffs, that you're going to draw the ire of Donald Trump, who clearly takes this issue personally? I have long ago, based. and any concern that I have about doing that. Probably somewhere around the 100th case or matter against the Trump administration.

Brian, and it's been such a privilege to come on your show to share that journey. What a distance we've traveled together with your wonderful viewers, listeners, over the past year plus where, you know, I wrote for the New York Times. as Donald Trump was coming into office, are we sleepwalking into autocracy? But these legal cases and matters, hundreds of them, and it's not just us, it's many others who've also litigated. They threw off sparks that has become a fire of justice. And you see public protests, political leaders, dawning press awareness, and in particular results in public, opinion polls and at polling places, repudiating authoritarianism, really in a bipartisan way,

a big tent coalition. And the danger, death, and destruction has been vast. But that atmosphere of impunity and fear has dissipated as people become more and more courageous. I think history will look back, for example, at Minneapolis, the way we talk about Birmingham. or Selma as key inflection points in the civil rights movement. We've seen the real birth of a democracy movement that is stronger than Donald Trump's authoritarianism. And I think this tariff's case is a declaration by the Supreme Court that they're not going to have it, at least in this area, I by no means agree with everything that they have done or will do. but they're not having it here. And great lawyers like former AG Plotkin are fighting in court to do the right thing as well.

And the tariff case provides another opportunity to achieve that double bottom line recovering wrongly paid tariffs for small businesses, both for the sake of redress and accountability, making them whole. helping with affordability in our economy, but also the other bottom line of joining in to fight for our democracy. Well, look, I have said it before and I'll say it again. I am always happy to elevate the fighters and there's no better fighter than you. So I appreciate the work that you're doing alongside the former AG of New Jersey. And one last time, Norm, can you give the email address so that folks who are looking to participate can reach out. Tariff Refunds. T-A-R-I-F-F-R-E-F-U-N-D-S at Plotkin-L-L-L-P-L-L-P.

Email the former AG. Let him know your interest, again. No guarantees, of course, but he's there. to give you more information, particularly if you're a small business owner, those are the potential critical cases that can make the difference in striking that double bottom line, getting back the tariff that you directly paid, but also striking another blow for our democracy. Excellent. And again, that email address is tariff refunds at Plotkin, P-L-A-T-K-I-N-L-L-P,

And again, that link is going to be in the post description of this video. Norm, as always, thanks for the work you're doing. Thanks for taking the time today. Thanks, Brian. Great being with you as always. No Lie is brought to you by better help. We get it. February is full of flowers, candy, stuffed animals, and of course, lots of talk about

relationships and dating. And no matter where you are, whether you're married or dating or single or just focusing on you, you're right on time. Therapy can help you find your way and see more clearly where you want to be. Therapy can also help you identify what's weighing your relationships down and find ways to brighten them again. Whether it's for individuals or couples, therapy is an opportunity to identify what's getting in the way and help remove any blockers. That's why I'm such a big fan of BetterHelp. So here's why BetterHelp is such a great asset.

First of all, they've got Quality Therapists, BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the U.S. Because of Better Helps, 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 weren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored recommendations. And 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 a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews.

Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash no lie. That's BetterHELP.com slash no lie. I'm joined now by the host of The Story Is on CNN, which air is 9-21 Pacific. Alex, Michaelson. Alex, thanks for joining me. Thanks, Brian. Great to be back with you. So, Alex, you have been speaking to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle and especially

about the Epstein files because this is one of the principal issues that everybody's talking about right now. I'm curious, especially among your right-leaning guests that you have on air. Does there seem to be a way for these people to avoid talking about the Epstein files, or does it seem like this is just an issue that's going to dog them from now until midterms and possibly even beyond? I think it depends. I mean, there are some folks on the right who are really concerned about the Epstein files

and have called out President Trump for it, and we've seen that on the air. And there are other folks who, I think, find it in their professional best interest to defend President Trump no matter what, and they'll pretty much say whatever he wants them to say. Now, in terms of whether it will dog President Trump, I think we don't know that yet because we haven't seen all the files. So based off of what has come out so far, there is no smoking gun that, you know, implicates the president in any sort of criminal conspiracy. There's sort of lots of things that folks on the left are concerned about, but there's nothing big. I still contend. that the issue that is the biggest potential problems for President Trump is the economy.

Right. And the cost of living. That is what most people deal with on a day-in, day-out basis. And that is an issue that nobody, Republican or Democrat, can lie to people about. Because when they go to the store and they see the prices, the price is what the price is, not what some politician tells you the prices. Well, on this issue of we don't know, you know, we don't know whether there's any smoking gun. I mean, you obviously have covered Trump, you know, for the last decade. In fact, you've,

you've spoken with him personally. You've, you've had the opportunity to ask him questions when when he's come to California to do press conferences or whatever it may be. You know that this guy would not voluntarily subject himself to the new cycles that he's subjecting himself to right now if what was in these files wasn't worth hiding. And so how do you think about that aspect? of it because he knows the media better than any other, you know, president ever has. He knows the media better than most people could, could imagine. And so he understands that if, you know, if he is subjecting himself voluntarily to this media narrative, it has to be for a reason.

Probably. That's probably true. But we don't, we don't know that for sure. And so, you know, based off of the way we do things, we have to do it based off of facts and things that you can prove. We do know, for example, like there were years of speculation on Russia stuff, and there was not, at the end, a whole lot that was provable against him. And so there are folks that are his supporters who would say there's a lot of media hysteria over things which sometimes turn out to not be true. And there's nuance when it comes to the Epstein files, too.

Some people who just are in some ways mentioned in emails are not necessarily the same people. who were having sex with underage women. There's nuance to it as well. Yeah, I know in one of those situations, we're talking about Casey Wasserman, who is in charge of the Olympics here in Los Angeles in 2028. Can you speak on that story a little bit? So Casey Wasserman is the head of LA 28,

which means he is the person overseeing the Olympic Games coming to Los Angeles, which obviously is going to be a huge world story. He helped bring them here about 10 years ago. he's been working on this project, very, very influential in Los Angeles as a talent manager. He owns a talent agency called Wasserman that does a lot of folks in entertainment and in sports. So his name was invoked in the Epstein files. He exchanged flirty emails with Galane Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend.

And we don't have any evidence of him exchanging emails even with Jeffrey Epstein. We have no evidence of all of him ever going to the island or doing anything with anyone underage. Casey Wasserman was married at the time. So kind of a scumbag thing for your wife to be exchanging flirty emails with another woman. But that would not be a fireable offense if you owned a company in terms of HR just because somebody flirted with somebody else. But his name is associated with Jeffrey Epstein now because he's. it's in this tranche of email. So the board who hires and fires him so far have stood with him,

but some politicians have slowly started to call for him to be out calling him a distraction, so much so that he decided to sell his talent agency and say that he was a distraction. So now there's an effort to get him out of LA 28. We'll see what ends up happening with that or not. But it's sort of proof of a bigger thing. Like, for example, there's a guy named Steve Hilton, who's running for governor of California. And there's an email that mentions him that says that he was interested in setting up a meeting with Woody Allen to talk to his boss at the time, David Cameron, but it was in the

tranche of email. So some of the Democrats that are running for California governor have said, Steve Hilton is in the Epstein files. He should drop out of the race. And when you dig a little deeper, you're like, really? So some of it, I think, the name Epstein, is getting associated with people and it's become like a scarlet letter and a bunch of politicians are reacting but not every story is the same. And when you look at the facts of somebody like Prince Andrew,

a former Prince Andrew, what he's involved with, and accused of much, much, much more serious. Or even you look at somebody like Deepak Chopra who has been a spiritual guru for so many and you look at the emails and him wanting Israeli young women and all the rest of that is just really gross.

So I don't, I don't think it's one size fits all when it comes to the three million plus documents associated with Jeffrey Epstein. But isn't it interesting how people's threshold for those who are involved in the Epstein files is so sensitive and in most cases as it should be. And yet this administration doesn't seem to be carrying that burden. Like we're seeing foreign governments basically like people who are engaged in the UK government or. or in northern Europe. I mean, this is having such a massive effect on those people who were in any way implicated with Epstein.

And they're all, you know, anybody who was involved is getting ousted from their positions and we're seeing that all over the world. And yet for this administration, it doesn't seem to be having any impact whatsoever. Well, in fact, the opposite. They seem to be going out of their way not to even address it.

When Pam Bondi's had an opportunity to even look at Epstein survivors during a testimony, she chose not to do it. Yeah, it is interesting seeing the way that the world reacts to things. It was also interesting, Brian, just this past week,

I was anchoring live and in the middle of our show, we went to South Korea where there was an incident where the former president was convicted of inciting an insurrection and potentially sentenced to life in prison. Now, we know how that went here in America.

I didn't even charge him. And now they're potentially investigating Jack Smith for investigating President Trump. So it is interesting they see around the world. There does seem to be a different threshold when it comes to the government and to going after high-profile officials. I mean, to go after the former president of a country and convict him of something. Or to go after Prince Andrew. I mean, the king's brother. You know, no royal has been prosecuted for.

crime in hundreds of years. And the fact that he's, you know, now potentially going to face justice is really something if you think about it. Well, it's kind of, it's kind of these two stories may seem disparate, but, but they're one and the same. I mean, this is the same story of, you know, our inability to hold this criminal cabal of pedophiles to account is not dissimilar to our inability to hold the ruling class politicians to account when they've done something wrong. And ironically enough, it's happening at the hands of the same person. Like, Trump has the ability right now to release the Epstein files and his DOJ has the ability to hold these co-conspirators to account. And of course, Pam Bondi will say, oh, there's, we don't even know if there, you know, there are no co-conspirators, which has already been disproven.

We've already seen pictures disproving as much. We know that there are at least six co-conspirators who Rokana and Thomas Massey have uncovered within, you know, two hours of just looking at some of these files when they had the opportunity to do so at, at the DOJ. And so, you know, that whole talking point has fallen on its on its face. But then Trump himself is the one who was able to evade prosecution, you know, in all of these four cases where he was indicted. And so, you know, this is somebody who has shown whether it's, you know, pedophiles or the ruling class elites that Trump does not value this idea of holding a certain trunch of people, a certain elitist trance of people to account.

And that's sort of, I do think, actually, some of the political danger for Donald Trump. because the way that the Epstein files for the MAGA base has been for years is this idea that there's a different set of justice for people in power. And the way that they're seeing this play out kind of makes that point. I mean, you hear somebody like Marjorie Taylor Green who has now had a public break from President Trump over this issue articulating that point. And it also goes back to the affordability issue. I actually think those two things are tied together as well. Because the argument was you're going to fight for us. You're not going to forget about us.

You are going to deliver for us. And if that's not really happening and the prices aren't really lower, but they see the rich folks who clearly did something wrong getting pardoned because they know the president or they're rich, that doesn't play great. it doesn't look great that you're saying we're going after Venezuelan drugboats and other things because you're concerned about narcotics and then you pardon a former leader who has a bunch of criminal convictions for drug offenses you know some of this stuff

doesn't look great and and I do think that there's a danger in that and of course the midterms coming up in November are going to be a referendum in large part on exactly that point and you know we can talk about the broader midterms, but I think while I have you and while I have this opportunity, it's worth talking about the California gubernatorial race, because this is something that you've been especially focused on as somebody who's obviously been the principal reporter out here in California. So how is the California gubernatorial race looking? Because from my vantage, it seems like a lot of Democrats have jumped in, no one's really caught fire. And in fact, there is

some risk that because of the way our jungle primary system works, we could see not one, but two Republicans advanced to the general election? Yeah, I mean, the primary is kind of nuts. I mean, if you think about it. So this weekend, there was a convention in San Francisco. All of the Democrats were there. Matt Mayhan, the mayor of San Jose, got in too late to be considered for the endorsement. To get the party's endorsement, you need to get 60% of the state delegates to be behind you.

Eric Swalwell was closest to 60%. at 23%. Yeah. That's not too close to 60%. So that gives you a sense of the party leaders. They're not ready to coalesce behind somebody. There are a bunch of people running that are all sort of crowded up against each other.

We are starting to see some trendlines in the race. Eric Swalwell seems to be doing pretty well, especially with a lot of the anti-Trump people. Tom Steyer, the billionaire who ran for president. A lot of people remember him, climate change activists. Spent a lot of money to try to impeach Donald Trump. He is spending a lot of money.

He's already put in $27 million of his own money. He's kind of the only person with ads on TV, and it is starting to work. You're starting to see him pick up some steam. He is interestingly going as the billionaire who's going for the working class person. So he's trying to be the populist candidate and going after labor unions,

which traditionally have a lot of power in California. Katie Porter, who a lot of your audience, is going to be familiar with, of course. She's been struggling since those videos of her came out. You start to see her down in the polls a little bit. But there is this phenomenon of potentially two Republicans. It's unlikely. The top data status scientist in the state who runs simulations of this

and kind of is the go-to. It's about a 12% chance based off of where the polls are right now. But 12% is not 1%. I mean, that's not an insignificant thing. And if you think about the potential result of that, that California then would have a Republican governor and there wouldn't even be a Democrat to vote for on the general election,

which could have a huge impact down ballot. Right. And all these close congressional races and other statewide office races as well. Well, to that point, I mean, have these candidates been asked at a certain point when it becomes clear that you're not going to be in the top two or three, are you willing to drop out

so that we don't end up in a situation where we've got one or even two Republicans at the top of the ticket? I guess the question is, who asked them, though? I mean, yes, I think we will get to that point. I'm not sure when we will get to that point, but a lot of these folks don't really have anything to lose, so they may not listen.

And we'll see. There really has not been a lot of advertising so far. That's going to come. We're still a bit of a ways away from it. You know, the primaries in June. So we have a little bit of time. But who knows? I mean, stranger things have happened.

There's a lot of egos in that race. I'm curious on the Katie Porter front. It feels like we're in a political environment, thanks to Trump, that nothing sticks to anyone ever. Like everything that feels like it would have been a career-ending scandal, you know, five, ten years ago, just comes and goes like a fart in a hurricane right now. And so why do you think that, in a sense, situation where Katie Porter was was extraordinarily rude to her, to one of her staffers, which, again, in like the before times would have been a big scandal.

But now we're in the Trump era. Why do you think that that's stuck? Well, I mean, the worst thing in politics can be a visualization of something that people already think about you. And so Katie Porter has never been the most popular person in the Democratic Party in California. I mean, she got into major fights with Nancy Pelosi when she was in Washington. She, when she ran for U.S. Senate against Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee, you know, there's 40 plus members of the congressional delegation. One of them endorsed her. One. Wow. I actually didn't know

that. That is not a lot. Yeah. Robert Garcia was the only one who did. So she didn't have a lot of friends to back her up to begin with. And that was part of the issue. When she ran for Senate statewide. She didn't do that well. I mean, she finished, you know, a distant third, not as well as was expected. So maybe there wasn't a huge base there, but there's still time, you know. I mean, she's a really smart and effective messenger, and she could end up being the one, who knows. She, though, tried to get attention at the convention this past weekend. She took out her famous whiteboard and she wrote simply fuck Trump and held that up and tried to lead a chant of fuck Trump because apparently the F word has become the rallying cry for the Democratic Party.

And she tried to capitalize on that moment to try to give herself something that would potentially go viral. Now, another California politician, obviously, is Gavin Newsom. You know, we have seen him pretty much dominate the conversation as far as 2028 is concerned. I'm curious, like, as we look at this process play out, I've seen the ebbs and flows online, where at first, you know, thanks to not just him, but also his governor's office account on Twitter, basically, you know, they, he says holding up a mirror to what Trump is doing by tweeting like him. You know, that caught a lot of attention. It was, it was celebrated by a lot of folks on the left for finally, you know, pushing back on Trump and being willing to fight back against Trump. And, of course, Prop 50 was an actual instance of him fighting back and winning against Trump. And then, you know, there were more progressives who came out and they have taken up this cause of trying to ensure that Newsom doesn't become the nominee in deference to a more progressive nominee.

How are you thinking about this? Do you think that Newsom has peaked too early by having so much of the attention on him right now? How are you thinking about Newsom's inevitable presidential run? Well, it was interesting. He was on with Dana Bash this weekend. And he said that his son doesn't want him to run for president. and that's weighing on him and said, we're too young, we want to spend more time with you.

So that was the first time he at least publicly expressed some concern from his family, potentially gave himself a way out. We'll see if he's able to convince his son going forward. I don't, look, does he, has he peaked too early? Who knows? We don't even know who's going to be in the field, right? I mean, we're so far away from that primary process

that, you know, we don't know. Is it better to have grown a base and to have raised a ton of money and to have your name ID really high and to have people describing you as a frontrunner than the opposite? Sure. I mean, who wants to be the other position? So I think Gavin Newsom really helped himself in the last year. He's going to be kind of everywhere in the next week or two on his book tour in cities interacting with people. A lot of the book tour cities just happen to be primary states. It's interesting how that works.

he's going to be on stage with a lot of folks doing, you know, podcasts like this one. And basically every single democratic place you could have. And his message is going to be in the next two weeks, probably to what? 150 million people. I mean, if you think about all the different shows and Adam all up and he's doing you and he's doing my stuff, he's doing all these other places and it'll be on all the network shows, I mean, it's going to be Gavin Newsom, all Gavin Newsom all the time. And I don't know how many governors, even the governors that are thinking about running

for president would be that in demand. Right. I mean, is there that much demand for Josh Shapiro when he's on his book tour? Yeah. At the same level right now, probably. I mean, there's gonna be a lot of demand, and I hope to talk to Josh Shapiro,

and I think it'd be interesting to learn more about him and all that. But, I mean, Gavin Newsom is a bona fide political celebrity at a time in our culture where people really like celebrities. And he does seem to, at least right now, have that sort of alpha energy that I think a lot of people are hoping to see in the Democratic side. Well, you rightly pointed out the fact that he's at the top of these polls,

but oftentimes he's number two and it's just behind Kamala Harris. You know, you've obviously spoken to her quite a bit. You've covered her for the entirety of her career and watched this election, as we all did, where she obviously lost to Trump. But now there's this open question as to whether she's going to run again. given what you've seen, is there any indication one way or the other, whether you think that she's going to throw her hat in the ring? And I ask because, look, she obviously decided against running for governor of California. And she, you know, there is a particular, I don't know how to

say it other than to say, like, a stink attached to you when you've run for president once and then lost. And especially in this last election cycle where I think people view the politicians that enabled Trump's rise through a particular lens, whether that's going to have some impact on their decision to run again or, or more importantly, on Americans' decision to vote for them again. So what are you thinking as far as Kamala Harris is concerned? Well, she named her book 107 days for a reason. In some ways, that's like an excuse in itself, right? This idea that I didn't get to do a full run. And if I would have done a full run, I would have done it differently. And so don't blame me for this loss. Blame the old guy.

right i mean that so there's some of the rationale to say don't think of me like the other democratic nominees who lost democratic party doesn't like to go back to losers republicans traditionally have far more often um and given people a second chance um that what that have run or even gone for the nomination and given them in the in the democrats really don't do that i mean i don't think the democrats have renominated somebody since adlea stevenson who lost and that was before the era of television, really. So, you know, that's the rub against her. Positive for Kamala Harris is she's, you know, politics is about name ID and she's got like 100% name ID. People know who she is. The other big thing we don't know, Brian, is we don't know what the order of the primary states are

going to be yet. The Democratic Party is still trying to figure that out. And if, say, South Carolina goes first, that's a huge boost to Kamala Harris, where black women are the most. important part of that voting block. So if it's like Nevada going first or North Carolina going first or Michigan going first, or that could really change up the game for her. And what are they going to do about New Hampshire, which might be a state that doesn't do as well? So I think those are open questions. In terms of her not running for governor, she didn't run for governor because she doesn't want to be governor. But you know what she does want to be? She wants to be president, which is why she ran for president,

and then she ran for vice president, and then she ran for president again because she wants to be president. So do I think that knowing Kamala Harris, if she sees a clear path or even a almost clear path to run, will she run? Yes. If she really doesn't see a path,

is there a possibility where she says, I don't want to be embarrassed and I don't need that shit? And she steps out, that's also very much a real possibility. Well, it'll be interesting to see what happens over these next few months as we head toward midterms. Then of course, but it's interesting also, Brian, that this week, you know, Gavin Newsom is going to be on the road

doing this book tour, as we just mentioned. You know what else is on the road this week? Kamala Harris is going to be doing speaking engagements and stuff on stage with different people in different states all around the country all week, which she timed just in time for Gavin Newsom's book launch. Yeah. So we're going to see a lot of like, it's going to be a lot of people trying to counterprogram a lot of other people as they jockey for position right now, both in 26 and 28. I know that you're covering all of it. So for folks who are watching and listening right now, where can they see and hear more from you? Yeah, so you can watch our new show.

The story is on CNN. It's 9 to 11 p.m. on the West Coast, midnight to 2 a.m. on the East Coast. You can also check out YouTube.com slash Elex Michelson. That's where a lot of my videos are. We have a really interesting interview recently with Bernie Sanders. We had an interesting interview with Bill Maher. got a lot of attention. And best of all, our recent debates featuring Brian Tyler Cohen and our conversation about his amazing interview with Barack Obama, which was the biggest interview

of the year. So congratulations to you on that. Well, I appreciate it. I'm going to throw the link to your YouTube channel right here on the screen. For everybody who's watching and listening right now, highly, highly, highly recommend that you subscribe to Alex's YouTube channel. This way you can catch all of those interviews, whether it's with Bernie Sanders or any other candidates, both left and right. You're one of the few people that's able to speak to everybody, which is why I think the show is particularly interesting. Yeah. Well, thank you. And so people can check out.

We did an interview about your Obama interview, which people can watch there. The other thing they can watch is this recent debate you did with Katie Zachariah, which got a lot of attention all over the world. And interestingly, after that debate, Katie Zachariah was named as the new spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security. So you can get a sense of who's coming to that department. as well if you check that out. What was particularly interesting about that was, I remember during the show, like asking her, I think were we having a debate about about ice? Was that what it was?

About where she was defending, defending what happened with these ICE agents? Was that what it was? I think that was the previous debate that we had. But yes, we've talked about that with her. There was a point where I asked her, like, or maybe it was Epstein, I'm not sure. It was the Obama Ape video. That's what it was. That's what it was.

It was the Obama Ape video. And I asked her like, why, like, you don't have to do this. this. Like, you don't have to debase yourself like this for Donald Trump. But apparently she did. And apparently it worked out because she got a job as spokesperson person for DHS, which I would imagine seems like the single most politically toxic job on earth right now. But lo and behold, they clearly like what they saw. When I asked her, when I asked her why, you know, why she was doing this inherent in that was the fact that, you know, a job was waiting for her on the other side. And so I guess I guess that's why she. We didn't know that. She's a very.

very, very nice person. She is a very sweet to both of us. So congratulations to her. Obviously, that's a big deal for her to be in that position. But it was interesting to see that. And now she's going to be in a big, a big powerful role, as were you. And then a week later, after we debate Obama's apes, you're interviewing Obama talking to him about that video and then the video that goes around the world about the aliens, which you've now made a thing. So when the X-files are released, it's all going to be because of you. Yeah. Well, You know, just, it's just one more thing. I'm joking here.

Just, just, just, there's nothing more important than the no lie podcast, changing the world, not only this planet, but beyond. That's it. Perfectly put, we'll leave it there. Again, I'm going to put a link to Alex's YouTube channel right here on the screen and also in the post description. If you're not yet subscribed, please go ahead and hit the subscribe button. Alex, as always, thanks for the time.

Thanks, Brian. Thanks again to Norm Eisen and Alex Michelson. That's it for this episode. Talk to you this weekend. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler, Coen, 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

bryantellercoen.com to learn more.