No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump introduces last-ditch effort to bury Epstein files

Episode Date: November 16, 2025

Trump attempts one last-ditch effort to bury the Epstein files. Brian interviews Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin, JB Pritzker, and Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett.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 attempts one last-ditch effort to bury the Epstein files, and I've got foreign abuse, Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin, J.B Pritzker, and Potsave America's John Lovett. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. You're listening to No Lie. So the walls are very clearly closing in on Trump. For the first time that I can remember, there are full-blown public defections, including from his own party.

Marjorie Tiller-Green, one of his closest allies, has publicly bailed on him. She, along with three other Republicans, Mace, Massey, and Bobert all voted for the discharge petition to compel a House vote on the Epstein Files release. And now that it's happening,

a raft of other Republicans have begun announcing that they also are going to vote for it. So far, some of the names include Eli-Krain, Warren Davidson, Kevin Kiley, that's just to name a few. Rokana and Thomas Massey have said that they expect anywhere

from 30 to 50 other Republicans to ultimately vote for its release, recognizing the inevitability of its passage and, you know, therefore not wanting to be the person who offers up some symbolic vote protecting pedophiles. Like, if you can't even help Donald Trump actually suppress these files, you might as well not be on record suppressing these files and protecting pedophiles.

Now, Trump, for his part, has tried everything. The guy has slow walked the files that are being released in the Oversight Committee, relying largely on files that were already made public. With the help of Mike Johnson, he kept the government closed for months, refusing to swear in Adelaide Grahalva so that the discharge petition wouldn't ripen. Once she was sworn in, Trump summoned, Lauren Bobert to the Situation Room, where conspicuously, you can't record anything, and that was to pressure her to remove her name from the petition, which, of course, she didn't.

And now that the petition's passed, he's publicly attacking Marjorie Taylor Green, having unendorsed her and is lending support to anybody who wants to challenge her in a primary, and that's a way of him to send a message to other Republicans who dare defect, all of which, by the way, has not stopped Marjorie Taylor Green. But there's one more tool in his toolbox to perpetuate this cover-up. So a few days ago, Trump took to choose social and wrote, Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein hoax involving Democrats, not Republicans, to try and deflect from their disastrous shutdown and all of their other failures,

I will be asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reed Hoffman, J.P. Morgan Chase, and many other people and institutions to determine what was going on with them and him. to which Bondi publicly replied, Thank you, Mr. President, SDNY, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country,

and I've asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people. Now, that might seem inconsequential. Trump blames shit on Democrats every day. He issues his little edicts to Pan Bondi every day. She obediently acquiesces every day. But there is a world where,

if the bill to pass the Epstein files passes the House and the Senate by a big enough margin to overcome what would be an inevitable presidential veto that Trump's last-ditch tactic here might be to say we would definitely totally love to release the files

in accordance with that legislation but as you know, the DOJ can't release any information about an ongoing investigation and they will keep that probe into Bill Clinton and Reid Hoffman and Larry Summers and any other Democrat going

for as long as it's convenient which is to see say forever. Now, a few points. First, I'm pretty sure that if Bill Clinton or Reid Hoffman was implicated in these files, that Pam Bondi's Department of Justice wouldn't have sat on it for 10 months. Second, even Reid Hoffman himself came out and called for the full release of the files that he's purportedly implicated in, according to Trump. Third, if Reid Hoffman or any other Democrat did something wrong, that would already be contained within the hundreds of thousands of pages that already exist as part of this investigation and were at one point in time before

they miraculously vanished sitting on Pam Bondi's desk. Again, she could release all that information today. But look, the reality is that it's not about uncovering the truth. It is about looking for any excuse whatsoever to be able to delay the files release. The bad news for Trump is that his ability to have used delay tactics in the past was predicated on the rest of his party being on board. He needed their buy-in, and he always had it. But now he doesn't. And so if he tries to suppress these files with some, you know, half-baked excuse about an ongoing investigation, he's going to sustain pressure from both sides, from everyone. This issue will consume every day of his presidency. Already it's consuming his presidency. He's getting hit with questions on Epstein everywhere.

Air Force One, Oval Office, bilateral meetings, press gaggles. And look, maybe what's in the files is so utterly devastating that it's worth it for him, right? As John Lovett says in the interview that you're going to hear shortly, Donald Trump is doing the absolute worst politics by fighting the release of the files when he specifically positioned himself as the guy who would undo this deep state cabal. Or maybe it's the second worst politics. And he said that to suggest that whatever's in the files is even worse. Either way, it looks like despite Trump's best efforts, we're about to find out, as both Democrats and Republicans look to make good on the Trump administration's own promise of exposing everybody involved in the most notorious pedophile ring in American history.

Next up are my interviews with Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin, J.B. Pritzker, and John Lovett. No Lie is brought to you by Factor. We're now in the fall season that can kind of feel like a reset. There's a lot happening right now between back to school, between busier routines, and shorter days on top of all of that, which means finding time to actually cook can be tough. That's why I love Factor. Their chef-prepared, dietitian-approved meals can make it easy to stay on track and enjoy something comforting and delicious, no matter how hectic the season gets. The reality is that with Factor, there's more variety and more meals. You can choose from a wider selection of meal options each week, including premium

seafood options like salmon and shrimp, and those come at no extra cost. Factor also helps you support your wellness goals, because right now, you can enjoy even more GLP-1-friendly meals and the new Mediterranean diet options that are packed with protein and good for you fats, and you can enjoy global flavors because for the first time you have Asian-inspired meals with bold flavors. that are influenced by China, Thailand, and more. Factor has more choices and better nutrition, which is why 97% of customers say that Factor

help them live a healthier lifestyle. You can feel the difference no matter your routine. And the reality is that for somebody like me, my routine doesn't allow me to cook. And so I need to rely on Factor to make sure that I eat every day, because if I didn't have Factor, I would probably skip a lot more meals than I do right now.

And the most important thing for me is that what I eat tastes good and that it's good for me. I'm very careful about what I put into my body. Factor, make sure that that is completely taken care of. You can eat smart at factormeals.com slash BTC 50 off and use code BTC 50 off to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for a year.

That's code BTC 50 off at factormeals.com for 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for a year. Get delicious, ready to eat meals delivered with Factor. Offer only valid for new factor customers with code and qualifying auto-renewing subscription purchase. I'm joined now by Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator, thanks so much for joining me. My pleasure.

So, Senator, we're speaking the aftermath of a deal being struck between eight Senate Democrats and the Republican conference here in the Senate to basically reopen the government. You know, a lot of us were hoping that the Democrats would stay united and not capitulate to Republicans without any assurances on Affordable Care Act subsidies. Can you give a little insight into what went on, I guess, behind the scenes that led to this moment? Look, there have been for weeks and weeks. a number of Democrats

who, for a variety of reasons, I think, interestingly, they thought that Trump is just too strong, that Republicans were not going to yield. So they start off with the assumption that Trump can't be defeated, and they look around them, and they see federal employees not getting paid,

Trump illegally withholding SNAP funds, kids going hungry, and they say, look, what's it worth? We're not going to win this thing. Now, I'm paraphrasing, and I'm not quoting anybody. That's my gut feeling. They thought it was a hopeless effort,

and they kind of folded. Needless to say, I have a radically different approach. I think that Trump and his friends, while Trump may be crazy and a pathological liar, he is not stupid and he's a good politician. He saw what happened on Tuesday night. He obsessively reads polls. He knows that the American people

are holding his, administration and the Republicans accountable for this shutdown. They are on the defensive. We have already had 15 Republicans in the Senate defied Trump and say release the stop funds. People in the House are saying, you know what? You got to make sure that the ACA premiums do not get doubled. Okay, you've got to extend the benefits for a couple of years. So I think that if we had held firm, it would be the Republicans who would yield.

That was not the position of these eight Democrats. And building on exactly that, I mean, the reality is that we even saw Trump on election night tweet that it was the result of the fact that he's not on the ballot and the shutdown that resulted in this. We know that two in one independents were blaming Trump for the shutdown. The overwhelming majority of Americans were blaming Trump for the shutdown. And so how did these eight Democrats who defends? not see that the pressure was weighing on these Republicans. I mean, we got to the point where they were litigating on Twitter, basically what a new health care plan needed to look like because the situation was untenable.

And so I'm just a little bit confused on how those folks could see the pressure weighing so heavily on Trump, on Republicans, and think that despite all of that, despite the polling, and despite the election results on Tuesday, that the answer here was for Democrats to capitulate. Well, you know, Brian, you're asking exactly the question that I and other people ask ourselves as well. I think all that I can say is that not in their defense, you know, that they look at the world very differently than the world you described. I said before, they look at it and saying, we can't win this thing. They're too strong. They're too powerful.

Trump won't yield. So let's, you know, not have people not get a paycheck and so forth. But that's their view. I think needless to say their vote was a horrific vote or horrific setback, not only to the fact that we're not going to see, unless we somehow stop it, premiums, ACA premiums double, in some cases triple for millions of Americans, not only that we have paved the way for 15 million people to lose their health care

by cuts in Medicaid, which is just an absolute disaster. But maybe more importantly, the message that came out last night is that some Democrats, so remember, 47 people in the caucus, eight voted, small minority, that, you know, all over the country, people say, stand up, fight, fight. We had no Kings rally. Seven million people coming out. And last night was a setback. And I think people say, oh, Democrats in Senate can't fight effectively.

Yeah. And so how does that make you think about the new wave of Democrats, this new class of Democrats that's campaigning right now. I was looking at their responses on social media and, you know, both candidates in Maine, all three candidates in Michigan, Minnesota, both candidates in Minnesota, like all across the country, there was scorn for what had happened at the hands of these eight Democrats. What about the candidates in New Hampshire? Gene Jeanne's own daughter. Yeah, I actually hadn't even seen that one. Yeah, her own daughter, who's running for Congress disagreed with a mother on that.

Yeah. And so how does that make you think about this next class of Democrats in terms of filling a void that we're very clearly seeing right now at the hands of Democrats who don't recognize this moment? Look, the Democratic, in my view, the Democratic leadership is way out of touch with where the Democratic bases and where the American people are at. That's why I am working as hard as I can to elect a whole new crop of seven. senators and members of the House. We've had good luck in the past in the House, not so much in the Senate, but right now we have at least three candidates in Minnesota today, Peggy Flanagan, Abdul Al-Sayed in Michigan, in Grant Platner in Maine, all of them, if elected to the Senate will come in, be prepared to take on the oligarchs, be prepared to fight for Medicare for all, be prepared to demand that the billionaire class start paying their fair share of taxes. et cetera. So that's the kind of change that we need, and that's what I'm fighting for.

In terms of the ACA specifically, one of, I guess, the concession that was made by Republicans is that there would be a vote on the ACA. But this vote, because it's regular order, it's not something that could pass through reconciliation. It's not something where the filibuster wouldn't apply. That would need 60 votes to pass out of the Senate. Democrats have 43 members, or 47 members, which means that we need 13 Republicans to do. effect, do you have any confidence that there would be 13 Republicans who would recognize the need to extend the ACA subsidies? Brian, it is worse than that.

Number one, there may be a few Republicans who would vote for it. I don't think 13 would. But it doesn't matter. Even if by some miracle, you got 60 votes, where do you think that that amendment would go? No way. Right. Because Johnson has made it very clear that he's not going to entertain it. bump would deficit it. So it is an empty gesture, and that bothers me. It bothers me that people

want to raise false hopes. Oh, we're going to bring forth an amendment. That amendment is ain't going to go anyplace, period, end of discussion. In terms of finding some silver lining on that point, is there some consolation in the fact that now that amendment will go up for basically, you know, a clean vote where people are able to see exactly where the Republican stand on either extending or refusing to extend the ACA subsidies. And so from a political messaging perspective at a bare minimum, it makes it clear who's supporting this stuff and who's opposing it. Well, the answer is, I'm going to be a firm political answer, yes and no.

All right. And that is, yeah, although I think most Americans who follow this thing already know what's going on. But by the way, in a few hours, what times now? I think in an hour or so, Tammy Baldwin and I will be on. on the floor doing more or less just that, and we'll get a vote. It'll be a motion to proceed to extend for a vote to extend the ACA tax credits for another year. My guess is not one Republican will vote for it. So you're going to have a very similar vote literally within an hour,

I think. And so what would your message be to folks around the country, you know, who kind of have endured the whiplash of, on one hand, seeing the election results. that we saw this past Tuesday, and yet watching what happened this week in terms of the Democrats, those eight Democrats caving to the Republicans. Weighing the two developments, the election and the cave in of eight Democrats,

the election is far, far more important. Look, the Democratic establishment, in my view, including many of these moderate Democrats, are way out of touch. And I would say that even if you look say that even if you look at the states that these guys come from, Maine, New Hampshire, the candidates who are running right now, who are in touch with voters every single day, trying to get elected, they are saying this was a sellout.

But what I think we should not underestimate is that we just had an election on Tuesday. And all over this country, Brian, and it's really quite extraordinary, much more positive than I think any of us anticipated, small towns, all in New Jersey, small towns in Connecticut, I'm sorry, in California, in New York City, in Virginia, in New Jersey, all over this country, small towns, large cities, state states, people said no to Trumpism big time. Young people began to come out and express their views. So what we have got to do is go above and beyond what happened yesterday, that terrible, terrible vote and understand that, yes, you are parts of the Democratic establishment

were way, way out of touch with where the American people are or where we have got to go. And our job is to build a political movement. We are doing it with the three candidates for the Senate. I expect more to come with many candidates in the House, candidates all over this country running for local office. We're going to build that movement, grassroots movement, to do what Mamdani did in New York City all over this country and create a government that works for everybody, not just the billionaire class.

Last question, Senator Sanders. We were in this situation where we were contending with the prospect of 42 million Americans losing their food assistance and 24 million Americans watching their health care premiums double, triple, quadruple, or more because Republicans decided to pit the sick against the hungry as a way to negotiate their way through this shutdown.

And so what does it say that those were the hostages that they were willing to take, that the party of family values, the pro-children family party decided to, again, pit the sick against the hungry as a way to get out of this shutdown? It is disgusting. It is disgusting. And in terms of SNAP, the idea that a president of the United States, as you know, we had Congress had appropriated over $5 billion, very specifically, explicitly. In case there's a government shutdown, don't stop the funding.

Here's over $5 billion. And Trump acts illegally, totally illegally. You know, one day he says he's stopping in the next day, he's going forward, then he goes to the courts. The idea that you have a president of the United States, a leader of this country, is willing to see children go hungry, is despicable. is despicable. And again, I think people, Republicans,

a lot of Republicans are on SNAP programs. You know, their kids are on, they see it. And, you know, I think that is one of the reasons why Democrats did so well on Tuesday, and we've got to keep up the fight. We'll leave it there. Senator Sanders, thank you, as always, for the moral clarity and for the time today.

Thank you very much. No Lie is brought to you by Shopify. So when I started this podcast, it seemed like I kind of had to figure everything out on my own. I had to figure out scripts and setups and filming, logos, all of which was very overwhelming. And every single day seemed to introduce a new decision that needed an immediate answer. Finding the right tool to help not only you, but simplifies everything, is such a game changer. And for millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce platforms in the U.S.

household names like Mattel and Jimshark to brands just getting started, including my own website, brian taylorcoen.com. For you, you can get started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style. It can accelerate your content creation. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. You can get the word out like you have a full marketing team behind you. You can easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scroll

or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and everything in between. If you're ready to sell, you are ready for Shopify. Turn your big business idea into with Shopify on your side. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.com slash BTC. Go to Shopify.com slash BTC. Shopify.com slash BTC. I'm joined now by Congressman Jamie Raskin. Thanks for joining me. I'm delighted to be with you, Brian.

So first and foremost, you have some news that you want to break. But before we jump into that, we have other breaking news, and that is that there is a new trove of emails tying Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. Can I have your reaction to that news from the emails that were released from the Epstein estate to the Oversight Committee? Yeah, our Oversight Democratic colleagues released this stuff this morning with email mentioned. by Jeffrey Epstein that Trump clearly knew what was going on. He was, quote, the dog who didn't bark yet, meaning he hadn't spilled the beans on what he knew. And there's also mention of the fact that he spent several hours alone with one of Epstein's victims, presumably, you know,

one of the girls caught up in the sex trafficking ring. So it confirms what I think everybody's intuition was, which is that Donald Trump obviously knew about everything that was going on. And Epstein was his best friend for more than a decade, according to Epstein. So it simply is not credible to claim that he wasn't aware of what was happening. How does this make you think about Mike Johnson's not just willingness, but eagerness to keep the house closed for so long, recognizing that once the house is back in session and Adelaide Grijalva is sworn in and there are 218 votes to discharge for the discharge petition to release the Epstein files, that this is the kind of stuff that's waiting on the other end.

Well, I mean, their shutdown played a double role for them. Obviously, they are involved in this top-down class war against the vast American working middle class in terms of people's health care, in terms of snap food benefits and new troops. You name it. It's the dismantling of the federal workforce, air traffic controllers, cancer researchers, food and drug inspectors. This is the program. But in the same time, they were able to postpone again further the reckoning that Donald Trump and his administration are going to have with the fact that he was knee or waist deep into the billion and a half dollar child sex trafficking ring that his closest friend was running at the time. You know, this really draws into focus some of the things that Trump's closest aides and officials, cabinet members, Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, all built their brands on this idea that they would condemn the Epstein follows. And why wouldn't the deep state release this stuff? And there's got to be,

you know, where there's smoke, there's fire. What's your reaction to the fact that they are now part of the very administration that's engaged in exactly the kind of behavior that these people built their brands condemning? Well, Donald Trump is the world master projection. I used to think it was just a psychological and emotional mechanism and instinct for him, but I think it has also become a superb political tactic that he uses. And so he wanted to start to blame other people for the Jeffrey Epstein global child sex trafficking and rape ring precisely because he was so deeply ensconced in the culture of it

with Jeffrey Epstein. So it was this master projection that they were putting on to everybody else. And he was able to stir up and, I would say, stimulate all of Q&ON's fantasies until they spread to millions of people across the country. But at this point, he may have painted an into a corner, maybe a hoist on his own partard, because he got people to believe in what he knew to be true, which was that men of power had decided to use all of their power and wealth to procure vulnerable girls and young women who came from broken homes and had little money to become part of this utterly criminal sex trafficking ring. I guess the million dollar question here, is this going to be?

to a bridge too far for any Republicans or any Republicans as far as you would imagine going to see this latest update, the latest iteration of Trump's involvement in a notorious sex trafficking ring. And, and for them, this will be the straw that broke the camel's back. Well, we'll see. I mean, remember, we had four colleagues, Representative Massey, who co-sponsored this with Rokana, and Nancy Mace and Lauren Bobert and Marjorie Taylor Green, who these days has been brazen in criticizing President Trump administration, not just over the Epstein files, not just adding her name to the discharge petition, but also over leaving millions of people to their own devices in terms of health insurance and health care, because she saw that

her son's premium notices were going up $700, $800, $900 a month, and she said it's not going to be sustainable for people. So credit to her for, at least at this point, speaking the truth. And some people theorized that she feels emboldened now that she herself became a victim of the outrageous sexism and misogyny of the mega movement. I mean, she did everything that they wanted her to do. She was a completely loyal foot soldier. But when it came time to pick somebody to run for the U.S. Senate, they went with the good old boy, Buddy Carter in Georgia, and not her. And I think at this point, we're getting Marjor Taylor Green unplugged, thinking about, well, if they really meant their proclamations of fealty to working class people, how would they be behaving,

and certainly not shutting down the government and throwing millions of people off their health care. So I want to switch gears now to a provision that was tucked into the continuing resolution at the hands of Republican Senate. and the action that you're taking, along with one of your House colleagues, to combat this. So first and foremost, can you talk about what that provision is? I think it's not getting as much coverage because everything's been buried amid other coverage of the shutdown itself, of the SNAP benefits, and of course, now of this Epstein bombshell. So can you first and foremost explain what this provision is that was tucked into the CR by these Senate Republicans?

Yeah. I mean, this is just a classic, corrupt midnight rider that popped out of the Senate. It's a million-dollar jackpot provision written specifically for the self-enrichment of eight senators, eight Republican senators, who themselves voted on it. It's an extraordinary thing. They've been unwinding ever since it became news that those eight senators who had been contacted by Trump or Giuliani or other co-conspirators around January 6th had had their phone records subpoenaed by a grand jury. And though that grand jury had the power to subpoena records of anybody they thought may have evidence related to crimes being committed on January 6th. And obviously there were hundreds and hundreds of crimes, which have led to convictions that were committed on that day.

So their phone numbers apparently popped up or their names popped up in different places and the grand jury subpoenaed their phone records. This is something that grand juries have the power to do. And the Department of Justice issued a nondisclosure notice for the fact that it had been obtained. Now, they might not like that, but then they need to introduce legislation to say that either grand juries don't have the power to get people's phone records. And understand, it's not the record of your conversation. It's not substantive. It's not like a phone tap.

It's just like your phone bill, who called who at what time, okay, which helps them reconstruct the chronology of events. Well, if they want to get rid of that, fine, they should get rid of it. If they're suddenly born again, ACLU civil libertarians, and they think that that's all private information. and it should not be obtained by grand juries, then they should go ahead and legislate against it. But they're not taking that position. They're saying for them, for members of Congress, but not even members of Congress,

because it doesn't even apply to members of the House of Representatives. It's for 100 senators. You can't get those phone records unless those people are personally notified. And if they're not notified, they can sue for 500,000, for the grand jury violation of their privacy and another $500,000 for the judicial non-disclosure notice. So each of them will get a million dollars at least because that $500,000 in each case is a floor. It's not a ceiling. So they could sue for $10 or $20 million.

And if they do it like Donald Trump, they'll try to settle with the government. They'll set it up in advance with Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and so on. But it's at least a million dollar payout for these eight senators. Now, it violates the rules of the Senate because like in the House and like in every other legislative body in the country, you can't vote on legislation that will directly benefit you financially, you or a small group of people, just like in this case. It is utterly corrupt and it's radically incompatible with every constitutional principle we have. Congress cannot raise its own pay. the legal production clause says that all of us have to be treated equally, so they can't create a criminal procedure right, which applies to senators and not everybody else in the country.

But, you know, they're basically following what the Supreme Court did for Donald Trump. They want to be treated like a special privileged class, and they're all going for a million dollar payout. Yeah, I mean, this is the new Republican Party, just outright kleptocracy. Donald Trump decides that he's entitled to $230 million from the Department of Justice, basically from the U.S. Treasury to pay himself a cool quarter of a billion. And these Republican senators feel the same way that they're all entitled to become millionaires on top of the fact that they're already millionaires, just out of our tax dollars. This is the party that beats its chest

about how are we going to pay for it and fiscal responsibility. Now they're just giving themselves million dollar handouts because they feel like they were entitled to it because they were rightly because they were implicated in January 6 and rightly investigated for that investigation, which uncovered, you know, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of charges for the people that were involved. And so it's worth asking, in light of this, what action had you taken to try and prevent this and how did Republicans respond? Well, when we saw this, I got immediately in touch with Teresa Legerre Fernandez, who's my colleague from New Mexico, because she She's been on the corruption thing, too.

We both agreed how outrageous it was. And so we introduced amendments last night to try to stop it. And what we said is, look, whatever else you think, Republicans, about this bargain, you might think it was the greatest agreement in the world. You might agree with us that it's really bad or somewhere in between.

But nobody can go along with this. No self-respecting member of Congress who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law can go along with this. It's just utterly corrupt. A number of Republicans started speaking against it, including Congressman Scott. And a number of them expressed real unhappiness

that these corrupt Republican senators were willing to pile this baggage even further onto their continuing resolution. But last night, they ended up unanimously voting to advance the continuing resolution without stripping that provision. So they voted down our amendment. And so is there going to be any way

to prevent this from moving. I mean, not that this overt corruption is anything new in the Trump era, but given the fact that the resolution failed, is there going to be any way to prevent these Republican senators from doing what Trump does and just pilfering the federal government? Yeah, so they rejected our amendment.

They're not going to allow us the opportunity to vote on and on the floor. They obviously don't want to put their own members in that squeeze play. I certainly hope that any Democrat who was even remotely thinking of voting for this agreement would at this point say there's no way they can vote for this agreement with this completely corrupt provision in there.

You know what it reminds me of, Brian, is like the Roman Senate, which was said to have been just as corrupt as Julius Caesar or Caligula. I mean, the Roman Senate was a bunch of people who got there and immediately started figuring out ways to make money for themselves. And the Senate is acting like a collection of people more interested in private self-enrichment than it all meeting the needs of the American people. And you know, the great irony, the great tragedy of that, of course, is that this is a Republican party that got into power on this pretense

that they were going to look out for regular people, that they understood the pain of working people, that they were focused on the cost of housing and groceries and rent and eggs. And yet, just like Donald Trump, who swept into office and immediately started building himself a ballroom and buying himself jets and retrofitting them using taxpayer dollars and encrusting the Oval Office in gold and throwing great Gatsby parties. Now you've got these Republican senators who see that, and it's just monkey see, monkey do.

And they view this as basically a green light to enrich themselves as well. And so it's just outright corruption from the top down. But, you know, as they say, the fish rotts from the head. And so this is a, this is a no surprise. Well, the movement for strong democracy and freedom in America has a very clear target here, which is the complete corruption of our government by MAGA and by Donald Trump. And anybody who thinks it's just Donald Trump, oh, it's not really the Republicans in Congress,

I think has been disabused of that notion by virtue of Speaker Johnson shutting Congress down for nearly two months in order to avoid having to release the Epstein file and in order to throw millions of people off health care and by the outrageous actions of these senators who are acting like senators in the hunger games or something. I mean, it's just this let them eat crypto attitude. We'll leave it there. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks, as always for your time. Thank you, Brian.

No lie is brought to you by Armour Colostrum. So why are elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers all using Armour Calastrum? Armour Colostrum is nature's first whole food with over 400 bioactive nutrients working at the cellular level to build lean muscle, accelerate recovery, and fuel performance, all without artificial stimulants or synthetic junk. So when you're running a business or training hard or just one an edge, armor optimizes your body for peak output. Probiotics and other supplements are often touted as a gut health solution, but the reality is that most products in the market are dead before they even reach your gut. But Armour Colostrum naturally fortifies your entire gut wall

system and optimizes your whole body microbiome, which helps guard against irritants that can trigger digestive issues that can compromise your immune system. Research has shown that Colostrom also helps enhance nutrient absorption. So let Armour Collostrum help you reach your goals by promoting lean muscle building and fueling better performance and faster recovery. Colostrum bioactives have been shown to reactivate hair follicle stem cells and activate collagen production, which promotes hair growth and enhances skin radiance. We've worked out a special offer just from my audience.

Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to Armora.com slash BTC to get 30% send off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-A.com slash BTC. I'm joined now by the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker. Thanks for joining me. Great to see you. So a lot of Illinois and Chicago-centric news, and we'll get to that in just a moment. But first and foremost, we have breaking news here on the national scene, and that is that the Epstein estate has released some documents showing that, in fact, Donald Trump has a much closer relationship to Epstein than we'd even previously known. The news, according to the emails, is

that Donald Trump had been to Epstein's plane and his house. And so your reaction to this news today. Well, I mean, it's not surprising. I think we've all expected that evidence exists of a lot of a close relationship between Epstein and Trump. But it is certainly news that there are actual, you know, emails between different folks around Epstein about Trump and how close they really were. So, you know, my fear with the release of this information is, and more and more, of course, with the swearing in of Adelita Grehalva, hopefully later today in Congress, is that as they're able to release the rest of the Epstein files from Congress, you're going to see Trump doing everything and anything he can to distract. And that might include going to war with Venezuela,

which he's already on the verge of, apparently. Not to mention all the other. mayhem that he could cause. So I'm deeply concerned about that, but I will say about the Epstein files that, I mean, we've all been demanding this for quite some time. I think with the understanding that there was, you know, something terrible going on, that the women involved have, you know, implied it. They've been, I think, afraid themselves to talk about it and who was involved. But I think these files are going to tell us a whole lot. And again, it's going to lead to I think, investigations by Congress into what must include Donald Trump. So switching gears now to Illinois, you and I had spoken about a month or so ago.

And prior to Prop 50 passing in California, when we were talking about Donald Trump going into these states and basically mandating that they redraw their maps, and you had alluded to this idea of pairing one state with another. And so when we have California, neutralizing what's happening in Texas, then those kind of cancel each other out. But whether the other democratic weapons would be used would depend on what happens next. Since our conversation, we have seen, yes, Texas redraw its maps and that get neutralized by what happened in California just a few days ago. But we've also seen maps redrawn in Missouri, redrawn in Ohio, in redrawn in North Carolina, recognizing now that we only have a few weapons at our disposal

to again neutralize what we're seeing, what can you tell us about how Illinois will be used in terms of neutralizing those other states? Well, if you look at a map, we're neighbors with both Indiana and Missouri. And I've sort of taken it on as a personal project to focus on what's happening in Missouri because that can be reversed with a referendum. And so we'll see what happens. There's been some success, I believe, at the, you know, moving toward that reversal in Missouri. And I'm going to help in any way I can there as well. And then there's Indiana. And, you know, Indiana's been on again, off again about whether or not they're going to redistrict. And I've made it reasonably clear that Illinois will have to move seriously toward the idea of redistricting if Indiana is going

to do it. If they back off, I mean, they need to understand that they will get neutralized if we go about redistricting. So, you know, I don't, I mean, if they're rational, I think they'll choose not to redistrict. So that's something that I've been very clear about. Now, Indiana has pushed it off till the first week of December that they'll consider it. And so we're going to, you know, be watching closely to see what will happen there. And then, of course, we're, watching the Voting Rights Act and how it fares in the Supreme Court. But here in Illinois, we follow the Voting Rights Act and we will do so if we have to redistrict. I've said all along, I don't want to redistrict. I mean, I don't think mid-decade redistricting is a good idea. But we live in a

world where they've broken all the rules, the Republicans. And we're going to have to react to preserve our democracy as they are trying to take it away. So, We saw what happened in California. One other thing I want to say about this, you know, I think about the history, and I think you probably have looked at this, these independent commissions, which I think in general are a good idea, but I chose, you know, back in 2018 when I was running for governor, I talked a lot about the idea of maybe we should have an independent commission in Illinois.

But when I really looked at it, I thought, we're unilaterally disarming if we do that. And California had already unilaterally disarmed. and so had New York. But I looked at it and said, well, gosh, look what they've done in states like Texas and Florida. Why are we Democrats the ones who are responsible for having independent commissions when they're, you know, districting in a way that clearly is a violation of the Voting Rights Act and are willing to take away people's rights? So we wanted to be clear that we're going to follow the Voting Rights Act,

and we're going to do it again if we have to redistrict here. but we don't have to undo what other states, you know, have to now undo in order to fight fire with fire. So I hear what you're saying in terms of serving as a deterrent for Indiana, but in net, the Republicans are still able to do this in other states. And so if they know, okay, all we have to do is just avoid Indiana and we can still get away with what we're doing and that will still net us more seats in the House, how are you thinking about Illinois's position in the broader environment? because it's not like, it's not like we haven't already seen this action from Missouri. It's not like we haven't already seen this action from Ohio. It's not like we already haven't seen this action from North Carolina. And so if you're looking for an impetus for Illinois to serve as as a way to counteract

what's already been done, we already have plenty of evidence that would, that would kind of warrant a map redraw in Illinois now. And so, and so can you speak on that idea? Sure. Well, let me start out by being clear. with you, and I think you know this. I'm on team fight. I mean, we are going to have to use every tool in the toolbox and maybe some that are not in the toolbox to try to push back on the kind of tyranny that's being brought on the country. So I'm willing to do the things that are necessary.

I also would point out that we start out with a map in Illinois where Democrats have won 14 out of 17 available districts. So if we redraw in Illinois, we probably, could come up with one more district, and I understand the desire for everybody to do whatever is necessary, but one more district in Illinois. We'd also be stretching some of the district, so it's not 100% clear that you'd end up with 15 Democrats. Let me also say about Texas that it's clear from the results last Tuesday's election, you know, eight days ago, that we've had a significant move by Latino voters back to the Democratic side. And if that happens in 26, in Texas, even the redrawn districts, the five supposedly the Republicans would take,

would probably only yield two to them. So just thinking about the entire map of the United States. And if you look at Dave Wasserman has posted about this online, it looks like, you know, all the redistricting that already will have occurred, putting Illinois aside, will be around a net one plus one for Republicans. That's not to say that we shouldn't all do what's required and necessary here. But I want to make sure that Indiana knows that if they go ahead and redistrict and they want to take one or two seats from Democrats, there are only two Democrats in their delegation, that we're going to seriously have to look at it and that they should know that that threat exists. Let me also say that I'm for independent redistricting.

I mean, I think that we should all have a independent redistricting commission, but you need every state to do it. Right. And there was an opportunity to do that back in 2021, the For the People Act. You've heard a lot about this. But we did this. You know, Democrats voted for it. Almost every Democrat voted for it, I think, saved for one.

And every Republican voted against it. So it's clear who wants fair maps here and it's Democrats. But again, if they're going to steal seats, if they're going to cheat mid-district, mid-decade, rather, then, you know, we're going to have to unfortunately fight fire with fire. And I hear what you're saying about the fact that it's largely a wash. I've reported on that on my channel as well. The elephant in the room, of course, is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because that would unlock basically 20 seats across the country if Republicans want to redraw those maps and basically

eliminate every minority-majority district that they, have in all of their states. And so we may see fewer, you know, Democratic seats in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and on and on. And so that opens up an entire new, you know, opportunity to have to fight on a brand new battlefield, unfortunately. But to that point, we do have to, you know, fight fire with fire and figure out what we can do where we can do it. And I'm for standing up and fighting in all of those circumstances. It's just that, you know, we have a unique situation, I think here in the Midwest, both Missouri and Indiana, and I think Illinois holding out, I think, might have the result of keeping Indiana out. Last question on this. What are the technical aspects of being able to do this prior to 2026? What are some deadlines that we have to keep in mind? Can you just give some insight into how the process would actually work and how quickly it would be able to move?

Yeah, we, good, good question. Because Illinois, is in a kind of a difficult situation. We have our primary very early in March of next year, and the deadline for turning in your signatures has already passed in order to get on the ballot. So what would have to happen would be that we'd have to create a new deadline and have people go collect signatures in those new districts if there was redistricting. And then we'd have to set that deadline so that you could actually print the ballots. with the new names that would be on the ballot, because no doubt in redistricting, you'd have some new people running, maybe some people not running. And so I think a lot of change would

have to take place. Remember, March 17th is not very long from now. So a whole lot would have to change. And a lot of people would have to go out in the middle of winter, basically, collecting signatures. But it's been done before it could happen again. Okay. So switching gears here, finally, I want to hit on one more topic, and that is the idea of ICE having come into Illinois. Can you give any update as to where that stands, especially in light of the fact that not only did Judge April Perry rule against Trump's ability to be able to deploy the troops there, but we had the Seventh Circuit uphold that decision? That's right. So there are really two big cases that are happening at once. They're ongoing. One of them is the one you just

described about the National Guard, and that, of course, is reaching all the way to the Supreme Court. We'll see what they rule. But so far, we've won at every level there, keeping National Guard out of, federalized National Guard out of the city of Chicago and the surrounding areas. So that's one issue. The other is that there's another case, Judge Ellis, it's a private case in federal court, not one brought by the Attorney General. And in federal court, we have, have been winning there as well in the private case, we being all of us who know that ICE and CBP have overstepped the bounds of their authority. And in fact, that court is limiting their ability to, for example, use tear gas, to, you know, go arrest people without showing any

identification, et cetera. We're winning, you know, in every one of those motions that's been brought. Those cases remain and are being actively litigated. Let me add, though, that we've created an accountability commission, the Illinois Accountability Commission, headed by two former federal judges, very well respected and with members of it that are well respected from all walks of life. And that accountability commission is gathering evidence so that people could go to court. in order to limit ICE and CBP in their activities going forward. So, okay, that's another thing that's happened. And then there's new news, which has happened in the last 24 hours, news that Gregory Bovino,

who's been leading the CBP and ICE effort on the ground here in Chicago and has just been terrible for our communities. I mean, it's traumatized our children. They've done, you know, they brought in Black Hawk helicopters and they've been attacking buildings in our city, really making things very unsafe and, frankly, costing the taxpayers of the country a lot, not to mention the economy of the Midwest. He has announced that he is leaving and taking with him 150 of the 250 ICE and CBP officers that are on the ground. So they'll still have a presence here. It'll be much smaller. And we'll still be litigating against their presence here.

and what they're doing anyway. And so that's been kind of big news, headline news in the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune. And we're very hopeful that we, you know, can bring the temperature down and importantly limit what ICE and CBP are doing. Because remember, I know that Trump wants to bring troops into our cities. He's got aims that are much beyond immigration. He wants to affect the 2026 elections by posting them at, at polls. places. But meanwhile, he's got troops on the ground with ICE and CBP. They're wearing uniforms. They're carrying automatic weapons. They're frightening the heck out of the citizens of my state.

You know, the residents here are people are having to walk around with proof of U.S. citizenship. Do you carry proof of U.S. is? I don't. And you shouldn't have to. But brown and black people literally are just being stopped because of the color of their skin and asked to prove who they are. Now, I, you know, believe that, you know, Donald Trump is also kind of using the, you know, the facts of our having reduced crime over the last four years to now say, as they're retreating, that, oh, look what he's done to reduce crime in Chicago. That's, it's complete BS. And, of course, you know, we've cut the homicide rate in half here. All of the violent crime rates have gone down by. double digits every year, by the way, for the last four years. So, you know, Donald Trump now wants

to claim victory and go home kind of like Gorbachev and Afghanistan way back when. You know, how do you retreat? We'll just declare victory while you're pulling out. Right. So we'll see. I mean, I'm very concerned, nevertheless, for the people who live in Little Village and Pilsen and throughout the Chicagoland area and, you know, their safety and security. So I'm just, you know, Gregory Bovino is somebody people should pay attention to you don't hear a lot about Tom Holman, do you anymore? He's not on any of the program. Seems like ever since everybody found out that he was being bribed and has been investigated by DOJ, that you don't see him anymore. But Gregory Bovino is the guy you should pay attention to because he's about to go to Charlotte, North Carolina,

and attack the people of that community as well. You know, just on the point that you made about accepting bribes, it really is open season in the Republican Party. Not only did Trump try to get $230 million from the DOJ and we'll wait and see what happens on that front. But that little provision tucked into the CR, the continuing resolution, allowing Republican senators to be able to get anywhere from $500,000 to a million because they were rightly implicated in the investigation into January 6th. And so really, again, just open season. If any Republicans want to pill for the federal government or take money or take bribes, you know, clearly they see that in Trump's new kleptocracy, they have carp.

Blanche to do exactly that. One last question on the pulling out out of Chicago. Do you have any indication as to why they did that? Is that related to the Seventh Circuit decision or is it for a separate reason entirely? It's unclear. I mean, it is true that they have been losing time and time again. We have done everything that we can to push back and they've been unsuccessful here the way that they had hoped to. You know that Stephen Miller set a quota for arrests and detainment and deportations, and they haven't been able to meet that in Chicago, in part because of the work that we've done to support people on the ground so they would know their rights and to take them to court and limit their ability. You know, look, I want them to take the criminals

away. We've got violent criminals. Trust me, I would like them out of my city, out of my state. That's not what they're doing. This is not about the worst of the worst. They are going after just regular folks, people who are holding down jobs, paying taxes, law abiding, some undocumented people who've been here for decades. And yet, you know, and, you know, these are people that we ought to be protecting. They ought to go after the worst of the worst. If you're undocumented and you're committing crimes, I don't want you here. They're not coordinating with us. They're not working with us to make that happen. I'd like them to help us get criminals off the streets. But again, Donald Trump isn't doing that.

We'll leave it there. Governor Pritzker, thanks so much for your time, as always. Thank you. I'm joined now by the co-host of POTSafe America. John Lovett. Love it. Thanks for joining me. Thanks, Brian. So we have just seen Donald Trump engage in yet another effort to figure out his way to wiggle out of the Epstein situation.

He posted onto two social. Now that the Democrats are using the Epstein hoax involving Democrats, not Republicans, to try and deflect from their disastrous shutdown and all of their other failures, I'll be asking AG Pam Bondi and the DOG, together with our great patriots at the FBI to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan Chase, and many other

people in institutions. So basically what he's looking to do is focus all of the attention, not on him, but on a bunch of Democrats. So is he trying to negatively polarize this thing so it devolves into the usual D versus our fight? I don't know.

Who knows? He's flailing. They've been all over the place. I do think part of this is that They underestimate Democratic partisan loyalties. Right. They underestimate how much Democrats would care about this threat because I bet if you asked most Democrats, including most Democrats in Congress, would you take a bipartisan, full-throated expose by the Justice Department, investigation by the Justice Department into everybody? We'd be like, yes, if it affects Democrats or don't, like, we don't care about that. Like, we'd take that deal. Like, yeah, go after everybody who is involved in Jeffrey Epstein.

Now, I do think it's worth saying, like, if they are trying to smear people to draw attention away from what is a very deep and long relationship that Donald Trump had with Jeffrey Epstein to go after people because they have a D next to their name or their big Democratic donors, like, you know, that's gross. But yeah, man, investigate anybody and let the chips fall where they may. I think it betrays his worldview, too, because he thinks that because he exists within this cult of personality around him, that the same is true of everybody else. Like, this is a very egocentric worldview where he's like, no matter what I do, I'll always have people who will defend me no matter what. I mean, he himself said, I can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue. I won't lose any fans. And so he thinks if he confers that same ideology onto the other side, it's like, oh, if I throw Bill Clinton into the mix, then like, this. These people are going to just immediately run to his aid in the way that anybody runs to a politician's aid because that's how I've, that's how I've created this worldview.

Yeah, totally. And so it's both like it's, it's, so it's both that. Like he thinks this is some kind of a threat. It's also a bluff, right? Because that's Caroline Levitt is in the briefing room saying this is a distraction. Like, is it a hoax? Or is it something that needs to be investigated by? the Department of Justice. If Donald Trump wants people to move on, a really great way to do

the opposite of that is to suggest you're going to bring DOJ resources into investigating aspects of it. The House Republicans have been trying to do this. Comer has been trying to do this, make it about Democrats. Like, I don't think it's going to work because if you're talking about Epstein, the facts are the facts. They're out in front of us. You can try to make it a story about just a subset of the names in the trove of fucking emails. But like we all have eyeballs. We're all seeing this. The news is covering this. It's not going to work. And so, you know, that there is the fact that there are a few people in the right way media ecosystem who have come out and opted to defend him. Benny Johnson reduced it to just a naughty offense. That's literally the word that he

used. Mike Johnson, of course, continues to call it a distraction. Here's what Megan Kelly said. As for Epstein, I've said this before, which is a reminder. I do know somebody very, very close to this case who is in a position to know virtually everything. Not everything, but virtually everything. And this person has told me from the start years and years ago that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view, was not a pedophile. This is this person's view who was there for a lot of this, but that he was into the barely legal type. Like he liked 15-year-old girls. And I realize this is disgusting. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this. I'm just giving you facts.

That he wasn't into like eight-year-olds, but he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were, but would look legal to a passer-by. And that is what I believed, and that was what I reliably was told for many years. And it wasn't until we heard from Pam Bondi that they had tens of thousands of videos of alleged, forgive me, they used to call it kitty porn. and now they call it child sexual abuse material on his computer that for the first time, I thought, oh, no, he was an actual pedophile. I mean, only a pedophile gets off on young children abuse videos. She's never clarified it. I don't know whether it's true.

I have to be honest. I don't really trust Pam Bondi's word on the Epstein matters anymore. Yeah, so I don't know what's true about him, but we have yet to see anybody come forward and say, I was a, like a, I was under 10. I was under 14 when I first came within his purview. Look, it's, you can say that's a distinction without a difference. No, it's not. I think there is a difference.

There's a difference between a 15-year-old and a 5-year-old. Such an important point, Megan. Thank you so much. I, like, is genuinely upsetting to me to see this turn for a couple of reasons. One, like, I know we're all. bored to death of hypocrisy, but these are people that have been saying girls aren't safe in locker rooms. These are people that are going after fucking drag queens for reading stories. These are people claiming all kinds of ridiculous, fantastical, horrible things about trans people.

And now we're dancing on the head of a pin as to whether or not someone is technically a pedophile, if they like pubescent fucking girls who are still children. and what an interesting intellectual exercise. A story came out this week that looked at the girl that Matt Gates allegedly had paid for sex. And it was the first time we got this level of detail about her life. And it turns out that she was a junior in high school, who was 17, who was at times living in a homeless shelter because one of her parents was homeless who was trying to save up money for fucking braces, who, like, whose life was chaotic and insecure and who ends up in this disgusting sex party

where there are drugs and where she is being kind of exploited by these adult men. No, she wasn't eight years old. She was 17. Okay. It's fucking disgusting. It's monstrous. And it, like, why now are we, like, this is an important point to you in this moment. Now that it's sort of casting a Paul over the Trump administration, this is depraved conduct.

This is a, like, a collection of people who are willing to, whether participate in or look past evil. and allow this person into polite society because he had money, even though he had pled guilty to charges related to this. This is someone with access to some of the most powerful people in our society who just clearly dehumanized these fucking girls and young women because the culture said that was okay. I find it so disturbing that these people are casting about for excuses and caveats like this.

Like, what, what are we doing here? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know, the, like, talk about a straw man. Like, like, as if anybody's out there saying that anybody is eight years old to begin with. Like, that's never been the issue at hand. There's never been any doubt about the age other than just to recognize that these are minors. And that what happened at the hands of Epstein was rape. And so this notion that that Megan Kelly needs to come out and say, well, technically,

he wasn't a pedophile, he was an effiebophile, is so backwards. And I guess it raises the question, why die on this hill? Especially given the fact that we watched an entire campaign cycle where they stake so much of their brands on this idea that they needed to expose this very degree of corruption and depravity. I mean, we heard from damn near everybody, whether it was Cash Patel, whether it was Dan Bongino, Pambon, I mean, on and on, J.D. Vance, every single person this administration has come out and staked their reputation on this idea that these files need to be released. It was important enough for them to bring it out on the campaign trail to trot it out so many times. And so why die on this hill of whether you're doing what Megan Kelly

is doing, which is like, well, technically they weren't pedophiles, they were afebophiles, or whether it's what Benny Johnson's doing, which is just to say, you know, oh, okay, this was like some naughty email, whatever, or Mike Johnson saying that it was a distraction. Look, I think everybody's got their own, like, strange motivations. I mean, to Meg and Kelly in that moment does say it's disgusting. I think even as she's saying it, she's kind of introducing this almost like, well, let's, we can say the truth and this is the truth. And it's worth saying, even if it, like, that, that, like, we are fearless in the face of the actual facts here. And so it's, it still sounds like a hedge. I mean, like, of course. Of course. But, but I do think it goes to something

deeper right now on the right. And it's something Megan Kelly has been pretty explicit about. Put aside this specific story, Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson were both on Megan Kelly's show in back-to-back conversations. And Ben Shapiro actually did an excellent job of just tearing apart the ways in which Tucker Carlson has become a vehicle for introducing far-right, fucking Hitler apology historians and all of this disgusting shit, including a very soft conversation with Nick Fuentes. And in Megan trying to defend Tucker Carlson while claiming she's not defending Tucker Carlson, what you see is someone who is willing to bend over backwards for people

who she views as ideological allies. She has such a endless amount of generosity. and openness and forgiveness for people who she views as on her team. And she's said explicitly that she wants to not punch right, she wants to not do, that she views the left as such an organizing threat that she doesn't want to do anything to antagonize her own side. Not in so many words, but that is the gist of what she's been saying. And so you have this person who is willing to say, to just to cast all Democrats in this terrible light and to describe the left, in these mannequian terms. Meanwhile, on her own side, you have this disgusting and depraved story,

and she's looking for all the ways in which she can talk around it. And what I would say, and maybe this is a lesson for everybody, which is we got to be willing to be generous with our opponents and hard on our allies when, like, the moral stakes are so fucking clear. Like, she's somebody who posted, she feared for Virginia because J. Jones, who had sent some fucking awful texts, had won the attorney general's race. And it's like, I don't need anybody to like Jay Jones. If you think Jay Jones shouldn't be attorney general, even though he apologized, fine, but he's a menace whose forgiveness is impossible, whose apologies can't be real, who deserves no quarter. But when it comes to your own side, when it's Tucker Carlson talking to someone

who's like Churchill was the real villain of World War II, or that it was like anti-Christian to want to fucking kill Hitler, it's like, let's think about all the ways in which we can see the spirit of Tucker Carlson as a human being worthy of our of our generosity and it's like at some point like you're you're you're saying the quiet powder out loud which is the right can do no wrong and the left can do no right and it's fucking shitty you know when when we look back at the war in Iraq stuff it became clear after the fact a little quite a bit after the fact that um that the people who voted to you know in favor of this thing were on the wrong side of history and the people who voted against it, few though they may be, or few though there were, they were on the right side

of history. And so Massey had kind of alluded to that as it relates to the Epstein files. He basically said there will, there's going to come a point where Trump isn't going to be there to defend you. And so while you're casting your vote on the upcoming discharge petition vote to release the files next week in the House, you have to remember that, that like Trump won't be on the campaign trail with you. And on, you know, 2028, 2030.

2032. And so how are you thinking about that in relation to this Epstein situation? Do you think that it matters for these people? Or is the threat of Trump looming over them and the threat of being the subject of his ire so great that they would ignore the fact that they will be casting a vote, basically to run cover for a pedophile, a pedophile ring? Are they thinking about it in the same lens as the Iraq war and how they'll be remembered for a depraved vote? Or are we just so calcified in our polarization and so afraid of daddy Trump that even if it means we have to literally protect a pedophile ring, that's a vote that they're perfectly willing to take? I think we're going to learn a lot next week. It's very interesting that Trump brought

Lauren Bobert to the White House to try to buttonhole her into voting no, because once Grahalva was seated, they needed to pull one person off. They couldn't get her, right? They can't get Marjor Taylor Green. They can't get Thomas Massey and Kana did an interview and they thought the defections could be as high as 30, 40, 50. Some people have estimated the defections could be as high as 100 from the Republicans, which would, by the way, also be a veto-proof majority out of the House because this would still have to go to the Senate and then go to Trump. It is amazing what a week and a half can do. Two weeks ago, Trump was joking about never leaving. He's never been more of a lame duck than he is right now. If he can't hold, like, he's going to lose this vote. That's

done. And because he's going to lose this vote, and it's going to be on the record. Mike Johnson tried to do what's called unanimous consent to try to get it through without anybody having to be on the record. I think that is both because he knows a lot of his members are afraid to vote yes, and he knows a lot of his members are afraid to vote no. But I think that the floodgates could really open and that is going to make Trump look incredibly weak. It's also then going to go to the House, to the Senate, where all of a sudden a bunch of these senators are going to be like, what the, what, what equity is there for me in voting no on this fucking thing? So I think it really exposes that like it's in a strange way, like kind of normal politics. Trump is just not

as powerful to these guys. And that's the point Massey's making, right? It's not, yes, these guys some history, votes for history. These guys are barely able to think one day ahead. And it's been interesting, too, like, what issues can people break with Trump on? One of them for a long time has been budget, right? That, especially in his first term, there were Republicans, House Freedom Caucus members who said, look, they are MAGA all the way through and through, but they won't vote for increasing the deficit.

That's an ideological conviction that is deep for them, and I think quite real. as misguided in some ways as I think it is. And that was hard for Trump. He had to navigate that because there were people that were willing to buck him. And it's interesting how Epstein becomes that too, right? Because it almost gets at the like the deep motivations beneath the right, one of which is a kind of anti-tax, anti-government spirit. And the other is a conspiratorial anti-establishment spirit.

And those are things Trump has tried to harness. But it's very dangerous for him to buck it. And this is an issue where clearly, like, just step all the way back. Donald Trump is doing the worst fucking politics on earth for him, which is fighting the release of the Epstein files when everyone thought he was the guy that they were sending to undo the fucking deep state cabal that was protecting Epstein and his powerful friends. Or is it the second worst politics for Trump, which is whatever's in this shit, It is worth whatever. It is worth what they're doing here, which is so suspicious.

Bobert said this. Bobert is like, why are they fucking pushing me so hard against this? It makes me only more sure that we've got to undo, you've got to get this information into the light because it's sure reeks of a conspiracy. And it's like, Lauren, babe, I'm with you. Like, I can't believe how much this has made all of us conspiracy theorists because for years this was a pizza gate and secret codes and emails and a cabal of Hollywood Democrats. and fucking Jews protecting a ring of high-level massad pedophiles,

whatever the full breadth of the conspiracy was. Then all of a sudden, Donald Trump is president, and there really is a group of people inside the Department of Justice, preventing us from understanding what is going on with Epstein. As Galane Maxwell, one of the most despicable fucking sex traffickers of notoriety in American history, like Epstein's girlfriend, Pimp, is being what, giving a dog to pet, and transfer to a minimum security fucking prison with no explanation?

Are you kidding me? Dodd Blanche goes and interviews her and does a softball interview that these emails now clearly make make us, these emails now make clear either he was trying to avoid the truth, didn't know how to get at the truth,

or was snowed by this person. Like, Lauren Boe, like, how bad has Trump managed this? How fucking deep does this go? Lauren Bobert and I are equally conspiratorial at this point. Last question here on this. I'm mad. And that is on, Dan Bongino and Cash Patel specifically. They're in the same space. They specifically

predicated their identities, their whole persona on this idea. How do they, how do they stay a part of an administration that is right now orchestrating the largest cover-up of a pedophile ring in the history of this country and then come out on the other side of this thing, having even a scintilla of credibility, having any of their reputation intact. No, I mean, with their reputations, I have no fucking idea. They're really in it. They're really in it.

They don't know what to do. They're posting through it. They're trying to figure out how to get to the other side of this thing. There's no way, like even if one of them left today. I mean, we are 10 months into this thing. There's no way for them to preserve any modicum of their branding, is there? Well, the problem, right,

I have no, I don't think so. I mean, the problem, right, is like, you know, they do an interview where they're like, okay, we've looked at it, we're now on the inside. Epstein did kill himself. And they are really trapped, right? Because their assertions of what the conspiracy is, okay, we're probably never going to put them in a position to deliver for the base. While at the same time, the actual conspiracy is one that they're now are complicit in. Right. Right. And so on the one end, they told a story that they were never going to to be able to prove. On the other hand, they do have access to a way to tell everybody what happened,

but they can't, but they fucking can't. So they are pretty well stuck. It is, it is like a remarkable thing that that, that, I mean, I definitely feel, don't you feel stunned by like just how, like, these emails, you're finding out that, like, we don't yet know the details and we don't know. We can't confirm this is based on Epstein's fucking emails and obviously he's a scumbag and a liar and alive but the uh but now we there's an email where he implies that he saw Trump after Trump became president on Thanksgiving of 2017 which is if true like a a total obliteration of every excuse and story we've heard so far so it shockingly a decade into this scandal or more like we're still kind of at the beginning um

And it puts Trump in the unenviable position of being on the wrong side of a conspiracy theory in which Democrats and everybody who wants the truth, including Thomas fucking Massey and Marjorie Taylor Green, can be out there saying, what did he know, and when did he know it, how deep does it go? What is the truth? Release the information. And that can go on for fucking ever. Yeah.

The irony of the fact that emails would end up being Trump's unraveling, his undoing. And at some point, somebody will find out what the fuck Merrick Garland was doing over there for a couple of years. Yeah, just sort of protecting the institution. Yeah, that very quickly on that point, that is the, you know, when I think about the failures of this administration and even when Republicans rightly say, why wasn't this stuff released? I agree, why wasn't this stuff released? What was Merrick Garland doing? And I think he is the perfect microcosm for the impotence of not just that administration, but a democratic, you know, mentality more broadly of being circumspect and judicious and not giving the optics. of politicization to a fault.

Yes, that legitimacy isn't born by a fucking consensus between the parties. Legitimacy is born of executing the laws in a way that is not worried about the optics. And they got that completely backwards. James Comey, Merrick Garland, Mueller, all of them. And we live in the wake of what they chose to do, which is to put the appearance of propriety ahead of actually defending the legitimacy of these institutions. And now we have a bunch of hacks and frauds and goons abusing their power and politicizing these agencies because when they had the moment to protect our democracy, they chose avoiding

criticism over doing the hard thing and letting history judge. And a good lesson for all of us, I would say. We'll leave it there. For anybody who's watching right now, if you're not yet subscribed to Potta of America's YouTube channel, I'm going to put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. If you're listening on the podcast, check out the show notes. Love it. As always, thanks for your time. PTC. Love you.

Thanks again to Bernie Sanders, Jamie Raskin, J.B. Pritzker, and John Lovett. 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 and a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels,

or you can go to briantellercoen.com to learn more.