No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump floods the zone -- by design

Episode Date: January 26, 2025

Trump accomplishes his strategy of flooding the zone—but importantly, there is a way for Democrats to overcome it. Brian interviews Congressman Daniel Goldman about Trump’s pardon of January 6 insurrectionists, Pod Save America’s Tommy Vietor about his surprise appearance on Fox News’ Jesse Watters’ show, and former Obama ethics czar Norm Eisen about him filing the very first lawsuit against Trump.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.

Today we're going to talk about Trump accomplishing his strategy of flooding the zone, and importantly, how Democrats overcome it. And I've got three interviews this week. I interview Congressman Daniel Goldman about Trump's pardon of January 6 insurrectionists. I sit down with Pod Save America's Tommy Vitor about his surprise appearance on Fox News's Jesse Waters' show. And I'm joined by former Obama Ethic Tsar, Norm Eisen, to discuss his filing the very first lawsuit against Trump. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. The fact that we already knew.

that Trump was going to engage in his strategy of flooding the zone doesn't make it any more startling when it actually happens. Within just days of him taking office, he's already carried out what effectively amounts to a blitzkrieg of extremism taken right from Project 2025. He's withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, making the U.S. the only country besides Iran, Libya, and Yemen not to be involved. He withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization. He unconstitutionally tried to end birthright citizenship, which is a bedrock American principle that has since been struck down. He's rescinded executive orders issued by Biden

to lower prescription drug costs, pardoned violent January 6th criminal insurrectionists, and he's now considering inviting them to the White House. He revoked the Equal Opportunity Employment Executive Order of 1965, which prohibited employment discrimination in federal hiring based on race, religion, and gender, basically rolling back 60 years of progress on civil rights. He's ordered health agencies to stop warning Americans about bird flu

and to halt production of scientific reports as egg prices are skyrocketing. And most recently, he fired 17 inspectors general, despite it being illegal to do so without cause and without 30 days' notice to Congress. And if all of that feels like an insurmountable amount of shit being thrown at us, that is by design. That is the point.

The point isn't just the stuff. It's also leaving the opposition, us, feeling disheartened and disillusioned and discouraged. And to make us numb so that as this continues on, it actually takes on a sense of normalization. Voting rights attorney Mark Elias put it pretty perfectly when I spoke to him in the aftermath of the Friday night massacre that was him firing all those inspectors general. Here's what he had to say. That shouldn't surprise you because Donald Trump is a lawless president. And Donald Trump and his administration want to be lawless. In other words,

they could do it the other way. And Lord knows, Republicans in Congress wouldn't have the spine or backbone to stand up to him. But he wants to force illegal and, and, uh, and compromised processes from the get go because he wants to set that, that, um, that precedent that he can show that he can get away with anything and that Republicans won't back, back him, uh, back him down. And look, that's why I connect this very much so to what we saw with Pete Hegseth, right? Why did he lead with Pete Heggseth because he wants to show that he can make Republicans vote for anyone. If he can make them vote for Pete Heggseth, why did he fire this more than a dozen inspectors general?

Because again, he wants to show that he's in charge and that Republicans like Senator Grassley, who has, you know, proclaimed for years and years, how he's the protector of Inspector Generals, that nobody's going to stick up. stand up to him. So the strategy by Trump is clear. Flood the zone, instill a sense of his dominance, and normalize his abuse. So how do we respond? First off, I should note that from the minority, there's very little practically speaking that we'll be able to do. And so our response has to rely on where we can actually be effective, and that's with messaging. And by the way, for those who doubt whether we can still be effective messengers from the minority,

remember that the only reason that the ACA still exists today is because even with the Republican majority in Congress back in 2017 to 2019, voters struck the fear of God into the GOP at the prospect of taking away health care. And so even with unified control of government, still Republicans weren't able to repeal the ACA. Pressure works even when we don't have power. Now, our job here is difficult because in a normal world, we should be talking about exiting the World Health Organization

and rolling back civil rights and firing government employees and trying to end birthright citizenship ad nauseum. This is stuff that we should be talking about. But by talking about all of it, we risk none of it breaking through. And so in the interest of strategy here and in the interest of not falling victim to Trump's very obvious plan, we have to figure out what resonates. And I would argue that what's going to resonate most

with those persuadable Americans out there, these people, I'm not talking about the 30% of MAGA voters. I'm talking about the vast majority of voters who are still getable at some point. We can still bring them back into our coalition. That is the fact that Donald Trump is doing all of this to the exclusion of taking action that would actually fulfill his campaign promise

of lowering costs. We sat here for months and months and months and listen to Trump talk about grocery prices and rent prices and housing prices and egg prices. And yet, what's been done to take on any of those issues? How is eliminating DEI going to lower your grocery costs? How is withdrawal from the WHO going to lower your grocery costs? How is freeing the January 6th insurrectionist going to lower your grocery costs?

How is ending birthright citizenship going to lower your grocery cost? It's not. And in the same way that Trump swept into office in 2017 amid promises of a middle class tax cut, of a jobs boom, of a manufacturing renaissance, of an infrastructure upgrade, of a health care plan that's cheaper and more comprehensive. None of that happened. Passed a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. That's it.

That's what he did with his political capital. And yet now he's doing the exact same thing, having promised Americans lower costs, and yet at the moment he's actually in power, he's apparently got all this time to attack national health and federal employees and even has his minions like Andy Ogles introducing a constitutional amendment to allow him to run for a third term. He's got time for all that bullshit. But nothing about lowering costs, nothing to make groceries cheaper, rent cheaper, housing cheaper.

And in fact, if he gets his way by imposing tariffs on Mexico and Canada like he's promised, forget cheaper. All of those things are actually going to be way more expensive. The reality is that Trump knows that he's not going to be able to lower costs. He knows that. And he's known it all along. And so he actually needs to flood the zone because he needs the distraction. He needs us to meltdown over the WHO and birthright citizenship because that gives him cover to ignore his own promises to his own supporters. That's not going to happen. Trump may have been able to game the media and game the left the first time around, but his strategy is clear, and we should have no intention to letting him succeed with it.

He made impossible promises to his supporters that he has no interest in delivering on. We will be here reminding them of it every step of the way. Next up are my interviews with Daniel Goldman, Tommy Vitor, and Norm Eisen. No Li is sponsored by Acorns. I cannot tell you how much I feel like I'm not making the most of my money. I don't understand the market. In the few instances where I have tried to buy stocks, they have a tendency to only go down, and I don't have the patience or time to learn any of this.

Acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future. You don't need to be an expert. Acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. And you don't need to be rich. Acorns lets you get started with the spare money that you've got right now, even if all you've got is spare change. And you can create your Acorn's account and start investing in just five minutes. And the most important part, Acorns gives you small, simple steps to get you and your money on track right away.

Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $22 billion with Acorns. Head to Acorns.com slash BTC or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns, Tier 2 compensation provided. Investing involves risk, Acorns Advisors, LLC, and SEC-registered Investment Advisor, view important disclosures at Acorns.com slash BTC. I'm joined now by Congressman Daniel Goldman. Thanks so much for joining me again. Thanks, Brian. Great to be with you. So we are in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump taking office on day one. He wasted no time in offering full pardons to everybody who was convicted and sentenced

in the events of January 6th. What does it say that this was his first act in office, despite having run a campaign predicated on lowering prices for his supporters? Look, it's no surprise. And there were many of us who warned about the fact that Donald Trump was on a revenge and retribution campaign and that that's what his presidency, be. And this is a horrific and absolutely unbelievable decision of his to pardon over a thousand people who were arrested, convicted either by jury trial or by guilty plea sentenced for committing crimes on

January 6th when they tried to interfere with a joint session of Congress and overturn the 2020 election. But it's more than that, Brian, because first of all, there were about approximately 170 law enforcement officers who were assaulted, many with very serious injuries, some who ultimately took their own lives because of the trauma of that day. And the idea that Donald Trump on his first day would choose insurrectionist rioters and far-right extremists over our brave. men and women in law enforcement says everything that you need to know about who Donald Trump really is. But the bigger issue in many respects, that's big enough, is that he has now led out

of jail, the head of the proud boys, the leader of the oathkeepers, numerous domestic violent extremist groups who masterminded and executed the riot on January 6th, who are now emboldened even more because Donald Trump is their savior. He got them out of jail and he is now the president. So they are, A, even more attached to him and B, already violent in nature, they are even more eager to exact revenge on whomever they disagree with. It's a scary moment in the United States. And I think it is very reflective of who Donald.

Trump is and what we're going to see, unfortunately. J.D. Vance was asked about the prospect of pardoning violent January 6th criminals. Here's what he had to say. January 6 pardons, President Trump says there's a process. Where is the line drawn on who will and wouldn't be considered for a pardon? I think it's very simple. Look, if you protested peacefully on January the 6th and you've had Merrick Garland's Department of Justice treat you like a gang member, you should be pardoned. If you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned.

And there's a little bit of a gray area there, but we're very much committed to seeing the equal administration of law. And there are a lot of people we think in the wake of January the 6th who were prosecuted unfairly. We need to rectify that. So he said, if you committed violence on that day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned. I think that J.D. Vance was trying to take some centrist position, even though pardoning anybody who was convicted or sentenced in January 6th should obviously have to serve out the prison sentence that they were dealt or any of the sentences that they were dealt. But he was then undermined. by Donald Trump, who just opted to offer a blanket pardon to everybody. And so what does this say about the influence of J.D. Vance and more broadly about the prospect

of there being any moderating force to Donald Trump's worst impulses? Well, even what the senators have been saying today, and there have been a number of them who, Republican senators, who have understandably disagreed with the decision to pardon people, criminals who have assaulted police officers, Donald Trump is not going to run for anything again. So he is not thinking about his next election. J.D. Vance is. Tom Tillis from North Carolina is going to have a very tight race this cycle. There are a number of others who are going to have to face the electorate again. And the traditional Republican mantra of back the blue has now just been thrown out. I do not want to hear any Republican tell me that

that party backs the blue when their leader who has captured and co-opted the entire party just pardoned hundreds of people who assaulted police officers. Don't tell me you back the blue because what you did is back the coup. And that is what happened on January 6th. And so, they are going to have to answer for that. And it's not good enough to just say, I wouldn't have done it. Or as John Thune said, I'm looking forward, not backwards, as if every decision, everything Trump says, you get to ignore because he had said it already, it makes no sense. And that's not going to fly. Is there any worry that these people, I know that you had alluded to the prospect of them feeling emboldened, but now we'll view their release from prison as kind of their mission.

to then continue to do the exact thing that got them thrown into prison in the first place now that they feel validated in having done it. Look, I think this is very serious. And I will tell, I think it's very serious for our political system. And this is why the concerns that I and others raised about our democracy are so relevant. And I'll tell you why. These are convicted, violent criminals who are now who have been convicted for being violent within the political process. They are now out of jail, emboldened, and ready to fight for Donald Trump. I have a lot of colleagues who are concerned for their own safety or the safety of their families. And what that will do, potentially, is have a chilling effect and have an impact on the job that they would ordinarily otherwise do

because they are scared that there will be retribution and revenge or violence against them and their families. And if you have elected officials who are influenced in doing their job because of their concerns for their own personal safety, that fundamentally degrades our democracy. And Donald Trump knows exactly what he's doing because he makes threats all the time. He told the proud boys to stand back and stand by. And when he needed them on January 6th, they were right there for him. He is not ignorant. He is very knowledgeable and understanding of exactly what these people will do.

And the threat of violence has a way of cowing not only Democrats, but Republicans as well. And that's why, in particular, this is so dangerous. Now, I prosecuted mobsters and I'm used to dealing with the potential threat of retribution. But many of my colleagues did not sign up for this, and they should not have to deal with it. But that is what Donald Trump's pardons have thrown onto all of our elected officials. Well, kind of proving out your thesis. I want to put a tweet up here on the screen from the QAnon Shaman, as people are calling him. I just got the news from my lawyer.

I got a pardon, baby. Thank you, President Trump. Now I am going to buy some motherfucking guns. So doesn't that kind of prove out exactly the point that you were making that these people are not going to feel some sense of remorse or contrition for what they've done, that it's quite the opposite, that expressly, inherently they're going to feel emboldened to be even more violent because, again, they've been validated by Trump by virtue of. of their release from prison at his hands? In many ways, Brian, this is perhaps the most authoritarian action separate from January 6th that our country has really ever seen because what this is is the President of the United States is freeing and encouraging violent criminals who try to overthrow our government

and he is endorsing them, and he is now ready to use them, as the Q&N shaman says, to buy guns and threaten others. And I know there are a lot of people who don't want to think about Donald Trump's revenge and retribution and attacks on his democracy, and they want to focus on the kitchen table issues, and they want to focus on the border. And let me tell you, I would like to do that, too. I would like to work with Donald Trump to help the middle class, to make child care more affordable, to make health care more affordable, to make rent more affordable, to make groceries more affordable. We are ready, willing, and eager to work with Donald Trump and the Republicans to lower costs for Americans. And that's what Americans voted for him based on. And I think he sold them a bill of goods, but that's what they voted.

But they did not vote for him to pardon the January 6th violent criminals to undermine and degrade our rule of law and our democracy. And so we cannot just say, oh, let's just focus on the issues related to the middle class and the border. And let's just focus on policy when Donald Trump is already on day one attacking our rule of law and trying to undermine our democracy. It doesn't happen overnight. It happens slowly.

And that's what he is doing. Doesn't this have whispers of what we'd already seen from Trump in his first term, where he ran in 2016 based on this idea that he's going to, he's going to usher in a jobs boom, that he's going to usher in a manufacturing renaissance, that he's going to pass an infrastructure law, that he's going to pass a health care plan that's more comprehensive and more affordable than the one that we had already in place, and that he's going to pass. a middle-class tax cut. And at the end of the day, despite all of these populist promises, he did none of those things. And all he did with his political capital was to pass a tax cut

where it overwhelmingly benefited millionaires and billionaires. And now he's doing the exact same thing where he ran expressly on this idea that he's going to lower the cost of housing, of rent, of grocery prices, of eggs. And yet when push comes to shove, when it's time to actually offer up some action to back up his words, he didn't lift a finger to do anything that would relate to lowering the cost of groceries, but he signed sweeping executive orders, making sure that convicted criminals were able to roam the streets again. That's exactly right. And when you look at the slew of executive orders, the flurry that he signed yesterday,

none of them are related to costs of living. None of them relate to helping middle class Americans seek the American dream. They all related to Donald Trump's own either his revenge and retribution or his support for the Great Replacement Theory and White nationalism or trying to help Big Pharma, as an example, by undoing President Biden's efforts to lower prescription drug prices. And we haven't even gotten to his number one priority, which is cutting taxes for the billionaires who were sitting next to him on stage yesterday at the inauguration. And what I urge everyone to do that listens is do not pay attention to what he says. Pay attention to what he does. In his inauguration speech, he did not mention tax cuts for billionaires. but that is what they are working on right now.

He talked about the middle class and he talked about black and Hispanic voters who supported him and that he's not going to forget that. Well, let's see if that's actually the case. I am quite certain it will not be. I think that's the perfect point to leave off right here. So, Congressman, thank you for taking the time today. Thanks, Brian.

No Lie is sponsored by BetterHelp. It's January of 2025, I'm certain that you all come into this new year with goals that you want to hit and changes that you want to make. Life isn't about resolutions that fade away by February. It's about picking up the pen and becoming the author of your own life. And oftentimes, that requires some help. So think of therapy as your editorial partner. I am a huge advocate for therapy. A lot of my friends do it.

I do it. The stigma surrounding it is gone. And if you're going to invest in anything this year, it should be yourself and your mental health. You can be a little selfish this year and finally take care of you. BetterHelp is fully online, making therapy affordable and convenient, and it serves over 5 million people worldwide. You'll get access to a diverse network of more than 30,000 credential therapists with a wide range of specialties, and you can easily switch therapists any time at no extra cost so that you can find the one that's perfect for you. Write your story with

better help. Visit betterhelp.com slash no lie to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, help.com slash no lie. How many genders are there, Tommy? The honest answer, Desi, I don't care. I'm a libertarian. I don't care. It's too. You can be what you want to be, Jesse. I think Joe Biden's decision to pardon his family sends a terrible message to the world. I think the presidential pardon power is far too expansive. I would love to see Congress come together and pass a constitutional amendment that says you cannot pardon yourself.

You can't pardon your family. You can't pardon your staff. I think all your listeners would support that. Why did he pardon his family? Preemptively. But I also think it sends a terrible message to pardon people who beat the crap out of police officers on live TV. Yeah, they were overcharged.

Daniel Ball assaulted a police officer and threw an explosive device at the Capitol entrance that detonated on 25 cops. Yeah, yeah, they were definitely overcharged. But Trump ran on pardoning Jan Sixers in the country voted for him. So in a way, the country voted for these pardons.

But let me ask you, why did he pardon Fauci? I don't know, because Donald Trump put him on an enemy's list, and Fauci was a man who was just doing his job in the midst of a pandemic. I haven't seen this enemy's list. Can you show me this list? Yeah, read Cash Patel's book, the new FBI director.

You should check it out. It's not a long book. I haven't seen the list yet. I'm joined now by co-host of Potsave America, Tommy Vitor. Tommy, that was a clip of you with Fox News as Jesse Waters. One of your best friends. You just went on his show a couple of days ago. Why did you think that it was important to make an appearance on that show of all shows

as we head into the beginning of the Trump era now? Yeah, I mean, look, part of it was like we were in New York doing some things. They reached out. And I'd wanted to go on because, I don't know, I think we've got to just stop talking to each other as Democrats. It's time to go into some unfriendly places, answer tough questions, push back a little bit. So I did Jesse's show, we did a bunch of other things in New York. It was kind of fun. When you look at where Jesse kind of positions himself among the broader Trump-friendly media ecosystem,

obviously he is much farther to the right than most people. It doesn't necessarily strike me as him acting in good faith or open to, or, or, or open to a good faith debate where he might be willing to change his views on something. This is somebody who's really bought in on the Trumpism. So is there any part of you that was like that kind of doubts the effectiveness of going on somebody like Jesse's show versus, you know, more of a Joe Rogan type, a Theo Vaughn type where it's not like these guys are super pro-Trump. They're just kind of more right-coded than left.

I think you want to do it all. I mean, part of it is that in this new information ecosystem, a cable news hit on a friendly network just kind of ends there. Like it doesn't live on social, it doesn't go viral, right? And if you can find ways to manufacture a little tension, some controversy, something more interesting, you can do your cable hit, and then it'll get clipped on Twitter or X or TikTok or whatever, and exponentially more people will see it.

And I think that's kind of what happened here. I mean, I wasn't going in there with any gold, you know? I didn't think it was a huge deal. I just thought it would be fun to mix it up a little bit. I want to get back into doing more of that stuff. And I'm someone who in the past has said, Democrats shouldn't go on Fox because it is an extension of the Republican Party. You're not doing an interview.

You're like, you're talking to conservatives. But now I just think things have changed and we need to just mix it up more. We're not in a media environment anymore where going on Fox News is somehow validating that platform. That ship is sailed. They get not only millions of viewers, but they get more viewers than just about every left-wing show. So to claim that, like, we can't go on there because somehow they'll be validated. by our appearances on there is kind of really an archaic perception of all of this. When they asked to bring you on, though, I'm sure they didn't say that, like, Jesse Waters

wants to hit you with a barrage of right-wing conspiracy theories. How did they pitch him to you to get you actually to come on? Like, John had gone on, their producers came by at the convention, and they talked to a bunch of us. John went on during the DNC. I said I'd go on some a later date, and then being in New York, it just kind of worked out. But the funny thing was they were like, here are the topics, like Biden's legacy, what it means for Democrats. And they started with two genders.

And they're like, how many genders are there? I'm like, okay. So that's what this is going to be. It's him just trying to like, you know, do this kind of bro-y attack, gotcha thing. And so, you know, I was like, okay, I'm not going to necessarily treat this as a serious interview. I'm just going to punch back of this guy a little bit. So moving over to the political environment that we're in more broadly, I'm curious whether your thoughts. I mean, Trump has been in in office for a couple of days now.

really he's used his political capital on freeing the January 6th insurrectionists on broaching this idea of conditioning disaster relief and even eliminating FEMA, which on its face doesn't seem like a great idea, especially when the top five states that are impacted by hurricanes are Florida, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. So not exactly any liberal bastions there. I'm wondering if you think that in the way that Trump has presided so far, that he's kind of burning up his political capital too quickly on stupid shit. I think the January 6 pardons were far more sweeping than I'd expected. And I do think it'll be incredibly unpopular. And it was interesting watching Fox News that week and watching them change their spin in real time for whether it was bad or not to beat up cops. All of a sudden now the J6 hostages, as they're called, who hit cops were overcharged. That's the new spin, which, like, I don't. doubt, listen, people are pretty polarized on a lot of things. I imagine most Trump voters

don't think you should hit a cop with a, you know, a weapon or bear spray, right? And that's what they're out there defending. So I do think Trump has burned some political capital on the pardons, and it's something Democrats need to talk about ad nauseum. But the real area that he's focused and I think will continue to just hammer is immigration and locking down the immigration system, blocking legal immigration, deporting people, like, that's what's going to get super ugly. And so how do you think that that's going to present itself in a way that Democrats could focus on from a messaging perspective moving forward?

Like, we know that the immigration fight, that the deportations, that the raids are going to happen, what do you anticipate if all goes according to how you presume it's going to go? What do you think that it would benefit the left to focus on as we fight back? against Trump. Yeah, I mean, I think what Trump is going to want is to pick fights with Blue State sanctuary cities and try to create some high-profile instances where he claims he's trying to deport violent criminals and some, you know, Blue State or Blue City Mayor is blocking it. That's the narrative he wants. Right, because he needs a boogeyman and all of this. He needs an enemy. Yeah. All the time. Always needs an enemy. And I think Democrats need to just come at this

from a common sense place, a place that marries up tough control at the border, a policy that is sane that involves prioritizing the people who try to immigrate to the U.S. the right way, people who wait in line, learn English, like the Obama era rhetoric, right? I'm curious on the Obama era rhetoric. I was looking at a clip that Favro posted on Twitter and it shows Barack Obama talking about immigration. And I think some of what he is saying about immigration, which, you know, along those lines that there has to be, that there has to be more orderly process, that we don't want half a million migrants coming over the border at the same time. A lot of that, kind of the conversation on the left has moved away from that.

And I don't know that there would be kind of an embrace of that, at least among the progressive faction of the Democratic Party moving forward. Do you think that there is a way for the left to embrace that kind of rhetoric? How do you foresee that playing out? Because, I mean, what you're describing, I think, would be at odds with a progressive wing that very much views that kind of rhetoric as more pandering to the right. I mean, I think, look, Donald Trump won the election running on these issues. So I think there's got to be some course correction here. I think what people want to hear is that the border is secure, that the immigration process and system is orderly and fair and doesn't prioritize people who did the wrong thing, that there isn't,

the so-called catch and release where anyone who comes and claims asylum just gets released since the United States. There's a lot of sort of things that were happening because the system was overwhelmed. Yeah. It didn't make sense to people intuitively. And I think Democrats for years and years and years have talked about comprehensive immigration reform that includes, you know, border security, but also a pathway to citizenship for people and protection for the dreamers.

People who came to the United States with their parents when they were small children have never lived anywhere else, don't necessarily know the language of the country. they came from originally, but now could get deported. And so I think focusing on all of that at once has always been the winning political message, right? You want a secure border, you want an orderly process, you want it to be fair, and you want people who did the right thing not to get cut in line, but also, like, we have to emphasize the humanity. And I think that's where Trump got in trouble in the first term.

Family separation created images and headlines and stories that offended the majority of the country. And it's inevitably going to happen again. There's no way to go about enacting his plans without ripping families apart or even worse, this idea that folks who are in this country and who have basically lived in the U.S. their entire lives are somehow now going to be deported to a country of origin that they've never in effect and practically speaking even known. Yeah, and he's also trying to get rid of birthright citizenship, which is something that is clearly enshrined in the Constitution. And do you have any worry about that in particular? Because, I mean, I know on its face that it's nakedly unconstitutional. But then you look at presidential immunity. Also, doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided out of whole cloth that it does belong in the Constitution. At the same time, you look at Section 3 of 14th Amendment, that's in the Constitution saying that anybody who's given aid or comfort to those who've engaged in insurrection or who've incited insurrection themselves, who've previously been in office, can't run for office. Again, they've decided that that doesn't count in deference to Trump. And so is there any worry that while a federal court rightly struck it down, and I presume the appeals court's going to do the same thing. We already know that Trump is going to appeal this thing all the way up to the Supreme Court if he can, that even something like this is going to really fall in Trump's favor if the Supreme Court just decides, yeah, actually he's right.

We can interpret it this way. Yeah, I mean, we have a pretty radical right-wing Supreme Court and a number of justices that seem to have been radical. Michaelized during the Trump era. Including some of their spouses, too. Ginny Thomas, like storming the capital. So, yeah, I'm very worried about that. I'm also worried about Trump doing things that are completely inappropriate and illegal, like using the U.S. military to enforce immigration laws, right?

So there's a whole bunch of ways, I think, this is going to get more extreme. And the question is, will that bother voters? Is this what they want? Because there's some polling that suggests there is support for mass deportation. but I think the question is once it is being implemented and you are seeing family separation at an industrial scale, do people still support that? I hope not. And do you think it'll actually happen? Because there is also a school of thought that Trump is basically going to just slap new branding on the deportations that are happening anyway.

I think there's roughly 400 deportations happening per day that had that had been the recurring number, even throughout the Biden administration, that he'll basically. do what he did with the wall and say, oh, they're happening on mass right now, and his base will kind of just gobble it up in the same way that he says, we built all this brand new wall along the entirety of the southern border. At the end of the day, they built like 52 miles of wall. Yeah, it's a really good question. I think what you're ultimately getting at is whether his heart is in it and he really wants to go through with these kind of deportations. I don't know, but I do think his staff's heart is in it. That's what I was just going to say. I think he probably He probably doesn't care one way or the other.

I think he will go whichever way the wind blows. But if you look at the people who he surrounded himself with, the Stephen Miller's of the world, the Tom Homan's of the world, these are not people, in my opinion, to answer my own question. No, they're ideologues, right? These are not people who are just going to be happy with trying to get some, like, PR victory. These are people who are going to want to actually carry out the plans that they believe that they have a mandate for. Yeah, and I think these are the people that are going to be, you know, they now understand how to control the various, you know, parts of the government and wield power. And, you know, to people wondering, well, why wouldn't Trump

want a mass deportation? What would, what would make him oppose it? The economic impact. There could be an economic shock from deporting millions and millions of workers. And suddenly industries can't find people to do jobs that, frankly, Americans don't want to do, like pick crops or et cetera, et cetera. So I think you could see Trump worrying about that and the impact on the stock market. Like the things he cares about are the stock market and bad press. But ultimately, I think he's going to have these little gremlins working in his administration that are going to implement these things. Weirdly, so much of what he's doing is kind of designed to hurt our economy, which is the one thing that predicated his whole campaign on. I mean, if he goes ahead and imposes 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, knowing that we import half of our fruits and vegetables and nuts from Mexico onto itself, knowing that we import aluminum and steel and car parts and automobiles themselves and just,

the list of what we import from Mexico and Canada is so vast. Adding on top of that, if you deport to your exact point, the people who are actually picking the crops and making our economy function, build the houses, like, the adverse impact that that's going to have on our economy seems so counterintuitive and so harmful to the very thing that he cares about most, which is making sure that we have a strong economy. And so what do you presume is the rationale here? Or is there no rationale it's just, okay, what's right in front of me, let's win the 24-hour news cycle, you know, I've already floated the idea of 25% tariffs. And so kind of following this model of the Roy Cohn School of Management, any backtracking is

going to look like weakness. And so I just have to be pot committed. Yeah, I mean, part of it is like looking tough, picking fights, having an enemy. Part of it could be a negotiating position. You know, I mean, there's some talk I've read that he wants to reopen the USMCA trade deal, which is the U.S. Canada, Mexico trade deal. deal that his administration renegotiated, this NAFTA became the USMCA. If they want to open that back up, maybe you start with a threat to slap tariffs on Mexico and Canada as a way of taking a position. But that seems stupid because the Canadians have said that they'll put reciprocal tariffs on us. He's also talking about up to 60 or 100 percent tariffs on the Chinese

for various things. So that's when you're getting into like big deal trade war economic challenges. So are you not buying this idea that the only way to solve all of this then is just for Canada to become the 50 first state? I think Justin Trudeau should do the right thing. There's still time. There's no time. Well, we'll see if we can get them on here to join us next week as a representative from the state of Canada. Tommy, thanks, man. I'm joined now by former Obama Ethics Tsar and the publisher of the new outlet, the contrarian, Normis, and Norm. Thank you so much for joining again. Brian, you know, it's always a pleasure to be with you and your viewers and listeners. So, Norm, you've already made your mark in the history books in Donald Trump's second term.

You are responsible for filing the very first lawsuit against Donald Trump in court. Can you explain what this lawsuit was based upon? That is correct. I submitted an application here at State Democracy Defenders Fund, where I'm the executive chair saying, hey, if Doge is really all about effectiveness and efficiency, please put me on the doge together with my colleague. She was my ethics deputy when I was the White House Ethics Tsar, Jenny Cantor. She's now our chief ethics and anti-corruption counsel.

I wrote, I said, I'm applying to be on the Doche because I know about conflicts of interest and fighting corruption. And boy, it sure seems like there's a lot of. risk in those areas here with this Doge. How can you have the world's wealthiest man who's heavily regulated by agencies across the government now in charge of slashing the government and potentially affecting or cutting down the agencies that regulate him?

And the official response from the Doge spokesperson was that they don't want me, no Democrats need apply. Well, that's not allowed. You can't pick and choose. Say, oh, I'm going to exclude Democrats from government service. And there's a lot of secrecy surrounding the Doge. It seems like they're getting a lot of undisclosed advice. We filed this lawsuit for transparency and to say, this is not how agencies are supposed to work in American government. What Trump is doing here is dictatorial. And so this, I guess, relies on hiring discrimination to some degree. Is there any precedent in terms of how this kind of lawsuit might play itself out? The focus is we filed it leading with the transparency requirement, but a set of other rules under a federal statute known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act that we believe governs some of the Doge activity that's not being disclosed. and that if that activity is happening, they have to welcome a balanced panel of people, irrespective of partisanship. Yes, these cases have been litigated. These cases have been won. We have a lot at Democracy Defenders. We have a lot more coming. We've filed dozens of FOIA

request to get all the information about this undisclosed activity that's going on. And I won't predict what's coming. coming down the pike. I want to see those documents and then we'll know for sure they should call it dodge, not doge, because I believe it's dodging accountability, transparency, and doesn't seem to be doing the things it's supposed to be doing. Norm, not to be outdone, you've also filed a second lawsuit. Can you walk us through what that was based on? Yes, and I should say, Brian, I'm proud to be part of teams that have done these lawsuits in our Doge case, public citizen, the venerable government accountability and consumer champion is co-counsel.

And in that case, also AFG, the American Federation of Government Employees, because government employees and consumers are going to be so profoundly affected by these dodges, dodgy doge. And in the second case, I joined with the ACLU, with LULAC, our nation's most venerable Latino civil rights organization, with the NAACP LDF, and with Asian American civil rights groups, to file a case against an even worse transgression, even more dictatorial. Donald Trump promised he'd be a dictator on day one, including on immigration. Brian, he fulfilled his promise. The Constitution says, if you're a baby born in the United States, you're entitled to citizenship.

He's rewriting the Constitution with one of his dictatorial decrees. Don't call him executive orders. It's a dictatorship decree. My word is greater than the Constitution. Those babies will no longer have citizenship under the 14th Amendment. what? So we got the EO within a couple of hours. Our team had sued, including my wonderful democracy defenders, colleagues, and we're seeking to get preliminary relief. And other lawsuits are around the country as well, by states, by other plaintiffs. And that's as it should be.

We should not allow a president to behave like a dictator. So the story of day one, it was day one dictatorship and day one democracy. And now we're at a crossroads. We're going to see which one triumphs. Norm, in terms of Donald Trump actually signing this executive order into law, does this mean that it's in effect until and unless it's challenged, or why, it's already been challenged, but until it's challenged and goes through the process of a judge actually striking it down? Or is it not in effect until a judge upholds it? Let me ask you a question, If I took this piece of paper and I scrawled on here, $100 bill, could I walk down the block to the 7-Eleven and say,

is this $100 bill in effect? It's a nakedly dictatorial, unconstitutional, illegal, inhumane, cruel, ugly, and against American values, dictatorial decree. Don't call them executive orders. It can have no legal effect. Of course, Donald Trump is going to behave as if it has legal effects. So when that first baby is born after the EO was signed,

who's seeking to have parents, seeking to have that child as an American citizen, he will order the government, in my view, illegally, not to honor the citizenship of that child. Well, we're taking it on with our partners, and this is one that we're going to win. And Brian, the theory of these cases, and there will be many more to come. As you know, I sent Brian the plan. Marshall Plan for American Democris have a long plan written with many scholars, experts, practitioners,

what we have to focus on. And one of the main areas is protect the rule of law, push back on scapegoating, and defend pluralism. So the idea here is bring a series of cases we can win. And that will demonstrate the American people. The Constitution and laws are more powerful than our wannabe day one dictator. Well, Norm, you've shown a ton of leadership in the courts immediately upon Trump taking office. You're also showing a lot of leadership in the space of media. So you and a bunch of colleagues have launched the contrarian.

Can you explain why this is important and why you opted to do this now? When we studied other would-be dictators, aspiring autocrats, authoritarians, with my group, we went all over the world. We did field work, some of our colleagues, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, Turkey. Why is it that in Poland and Brazil, the people were able to oust autocrats like Donald Trump, but it has stuck, Brian, in places like Hungary or Turkey. And it's because you preserve elections, something I know is very important to you. You fight for the rule of law. We've already talked about that.

You fight corruption. That's why I brought my Doge lawsuit. Another very important set of principles. There's seven major principles. Another very important set of them is fighting disinformation, protecting media space, and explaining that democracy delivers better than dictatorship for people. To achieve those three goals, Jen Rubin quit the Washington Post. I quit CNN, and we started a new publication, The Contrarian.

We did it with superstars like Joyce Vance, Professor Larry Tribe, Andrew. Weissmen, but not just law and politics, Brian, also culture. The humorist, Andy Borowitz, the TikTok star, Olivia Giuliana. She actually did a column with a bunch of other well-known TikTokers for us last week. We have a cooking column, if you can believe it. We do pets, on the contrary. My teacher, the great Czech president, playwright Votslav Havel, taught me, you don't defeat democracy, you don't defeat dictatorship and promote democracy, just with law and politics, you do it with culture and laughter.

He was a comic, satiric, absurdist playwright. So that's what we're doing on the contrary. And I'm so happy to tell you, you're a substack superstar. I'm so happy to tell you it's been the fastest ever to get the bestseller purple badge, fastest of the first 10,000 paying subscribers. of the biggest hits in the history of Substack. And now we're getting ready to roll to YouTube. Your ground will never catch you on YouTube, but we're going to be strong on YouTube. We have podcasts, Talking Fed's Pod, the great Harry Lipman, my friend and sports adversary for over three decades,

has brought his Talking Fed pod over under the umbrella of the contrarian. We're going to, Jen is doing her podcasts. We're doing videos on Substack. And no false equivalence here. We said when we covered the release of the Jack Smith report, our coverage was, hey, it was not, oh, what's in the report? What's not in the report? It was this is a warning that a dictator who tried to overturn an American election is about to take power again. People should be treating this report as if it was a letter saying, the British are coming.

to burn Washington again, like in the War of 1812, we were loud about the danger to democracy and that, no false neutrality, that has to go in as part of the truth. We need to be honest about the moment we're in, unlike the mainstream media. Norm, to that point then, what's the significance of the fact that, you know, you and Jen both left legacy media to create this outlet here? What's your view in terms of how legacy media is failing to meet the moment right now? Well, you have Jeff Bezos, who once had as a slogan for the Post, democracy dies in darkness.

We actually had a slogan contest for a new slogan. They put in a new and very dopey slogan, stories for all Americans. The winner of the contest was gaslighting the way. I thought we should change it to a democracy thrives in darkness. That's Bezos motto. He's capitulated, anticipatory obedience, classic and authoritarian regime. It's not, and you had the ABC News settlement of a libel case that was a head scratcher. Normally, media would defend that.

Now there's news. CBS wants to do the same thing. But, Brian, it's not just the old media. You also have new media, Zuckerberg, Musk, two of the most dominant titans in the social media space. So it's disappointment all around. We need to do much better. And that's what we do with the contrarian. And that's why we've had this enormous explosion of popularity and getting over a million views a day.

It's been very, very exciting. Well, it's well-deserved. Norm, where can my viewers and listeners find it? You can find it on Substack by looking for the contrarian. You'll see our logo of the Statue of Liberty holding up a large pencil instead of a torch or searching for Contrarian News on Substack. That's us. And you'll see me and Jen Rubin doing our best Brian Tyler,

Cohen show imitation, the two of us making our video to launch the contrarian and all of the other content. It really is an anthology of pro-democracy content. And we've reported opinion. We pride ourselves on being fast and first so often reporting whether it's the hostage deal, the Jack Smith report, the ERA amendment, TikTok, previewing the TikTok ruling with TikTok stars reacting to it. You'll find that content, first, fast, and extremely pro-democracy for your reported opinion on the contrarian. Well, look, at a moment where it's very clear that mainstream media and legacy media and even these tech platforms are just falling over themselves to bend the knee to Donald Trump and offering up the exact

anticipatory obedience that you just referred to, I'm, I'm, super grateful that you started the outlet that you did, that you started the contrarian along with Jen Rubin and all of those other folks who are working with you guys. Highly recommend for anybody watching and listening right now, head over to Substack and please make sure to subscribe. Please make sure to give your stamp of approval to folks who are doing the hard work and actually engaging in fearless journalism and stark opposition to what we're seeing from folks in the legacy media space.

Norm, thank you so much for taking the time today. I appreciate it. Thank you, Brian. Always great to be with you. Come visit us at the Contrarian. won't only make you think, we'll make you laugh. Thanks again to Congressman Goldman, Tommy, and Norm. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week.

You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by 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 Brian Tyler Cohen.com to learn more.