No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump screws himself after Supreme Court ruling

Episode Date: February 22, 2026

The Supreme Court hands Trump an out– and he refuses to take it. Brian interviews Jared Moskowitz, Tommy Vietor and Amy Klobuchar.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.

The Supreme Court hands Trump in out and he refuses to take it. And I've got three interviews, Jared Moskowitz, Tommy Vitor, and Amy Klobuchar. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. Donald Trump was unwittingly handed a gift when the Supreme Court ruled that his tariffs were unconstitutional. They have been a drag on his presidency. They poll in the toilet. And most importantly, they run counter to his principal promise from the campaign, which is that he would bring prices down. Tariffs are a consumption tax.

It's imposed on imported goods. paid for by American companies and passed on to American consumers. The popularity of his tariff stands at 38%, not great. But of course, Trump could never unilaterally bail on his signature economic policy because then it would feel like he's capitulating unless he was handed the gift of a ruling by the Supreme Court declaring those tariffs unconstitutional. And lo and behold, that's what happened. Trump had in his hand the perfect out, a way to bail on his disastrous tariff policy,

stem the bleeding on the surging costs of consumer goods and start fixing his economic policy ahead of the midterms, which are fast approaching. So what did Trump do? None of that. He vowed to reimpose the tariffs first at 10% globally, then he just nixed that idea and ramped up to 15% globally because I guess he stewed about it all night

and woke up even angrier than when he went to bed. And look, is it a surprise that Trump views every hill to be one worth dying on? No. But here's where it hurts him. First of all, the midterms are a referendum on the president, and the president is doubling down on his least popular policy. That helps nobody in the GOP. But second of all, now all these Republicans running in 2026 have a choice to make.

They can either disavow Trump's tariffs and risk being on the receiving end of his scorn, which ultimately amounts to a primary challenge and possibly losing your job, or they can embrace Trump and his tariffs and explain to their constituents why imposing a consumption tax that disproportionate. unfortunately impacts working-class Americans is actually a good thing and risk losing their job for that reason. So either way, not great. And so now, on an issue that was top of mind for voters in 2024, literally the number one issue in the last general election, Trump has saddled his own party with the extraordinary baggage of more tariffs, which means more taxes, which means higher prices, which means no relief for Americans who are desperate for it, and who believed Trump when he promise to deliver it just a few months back. And I gotta say, the funniest part of all of this

is Trump raging at the Supreme Court. Like, my dude, they did you a favor, or at least they tried to do you a favor. I know that people think that this is the Supreme Court regaining its legitimacy. Come on now. This Supreme Court was trying to throw Trump a bone. We are in an election year, and his tariffs are hated by two-thirds of the country. This was Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney-Barritt trying to help a guy who couldn't bother to take the help. So instead, he'll rage against the court by using some other authority to shoehorn through even more tariffs this time on the entire world, thereby ensuring that prices stay high, and that our trading partners find new supply chains that cut the U.S. out of the equation. Perhaps instead of attacking the Supreme

Court, he should have taken the help he was getting from them. But of course, that's how it goes with Trump, right? This is now a matter of protecting his own ego, so that's what he's going to do. Every battle is a personal one. So because he's already decided to die on this hill, this is about making sure that he wins for the sake of winning. And sure, that'll raise everybody's costs and force Americans to pay an expensive and unpopular consumption tax, but what truly matters is that Donald

J. Trump doesn't lose. And at the end of the day, that is the point of the U.S. presidency. To protect the ego of the man in charge, no matter who has to suffer the consequences as the result of it. Next up my interviews with Jared Moskowitz, Tommy Vitor, and Amy Klobuchar.

No lie is brought to you by Zbiotics. Let's face it. After a night with drinks, I do not bounce back the next day like I used to. So I have a choice to make. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is, until I found pre-alcohol. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a build-up of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this

byproduct down. Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have pre-alcohol before drinks, I notice a major difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on being on camera without worry, which is not something I've always been able to say. You're ready to try it? Go to zbiotics.com slash BTC now. You'll get 15% off your first order when you use BTC at checkout. Plus, it's backed by a 100% money-back guarantee, so there's no risk. Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash BTC

and use the code BTC at checkout for 15% off. I'm joined now by Congressman Jared Moskowitz. Congressman, thanks for joining me. Hey, Brian, what's going on? So we just had a pretty off-the-wall's emergency press conference that was called by Trump, where instead of accepting the reality that the Supreme Court offered, which was that Trump doesn't have the authority to impose these tariffs,

that Congress does, he instead decided to double down and say that he was going to impose another 10% global tariffs using a separate authority. So first question right off the bat, does he have the authority to impose this new round of 10% global tariffs? Well, obviously, every time Donald Trump comes up with an ID or some authority, it winds up getting litigated. But in this instance, he's saying he's going to use Section 122, which would give him power to do it for 150 days, which comes around if he signs it today, July 20th. And then he'd have to go to Congress to extend it beyond that for his global 10%. But obviously, there's a big loss to the president.

He seems to be taking it well, Brian. I don't know if you've seen him today. There's one thing I got from that press conference. It was that he's taking it well. He's really great at handling bad news, right? He's always excelled in that. That when he gets bad news, he seems to really handle it well. He doesn't blame anyone or shout out anything, right? He doesn't call people names. He really just internalizes it, keeps it inside. doesn't really tell us how he's feeling. But it's a big loss, obviously, for him, six to three at the Supreme Court. But in the plain reading of the text, it was obvious that this taxing authority,

tariff authority rested with Congress. That's right. Speaker Johnson, that's right, Mike, even though you have been obviously weakening our Article 1 authority, you know, at the end of the day, you're actually going to have to do your job. You're actually Speaker of the House. There's actually a legislative branch. And this is our function. As you can see, Brian, I'm here live in front of the Supreme Court.

Reporting live, yes. So one thing that I thought was particularly funny about all of this was obviously these tariffs are super unpopular. And not to mention unconstitutional, but they're unpopular. And so the Supreme Court effectively handed Trump a massive gift, like just a gift-wrapped prize to these Republicans who didn't want to speak out against these tariffs because they didn't want to be on the receiving end of Trump's ire. But at the same time, they don't want to have to go home to their districts in an election year and have to explain to people. people, why a trade war is somehow a good thing, even though it's raising the prices of everything. So he gave them, the Supreme Court gave these Republicans a gift that lasted all of five minutes before Trump said, no, no, I'm going to go out and figure out some other way to impose these

tariffs. And so what do you presume is the consensus among your Republican colleagues, who almost had an out here before Trump decided to double down? More chaos, more uncertainty. You know, that's what, this looks like. Obviously, we don't know anything about refunds. Are these small businesses going to get any refunds? I mean, look, it raised the cost of goods on the American people, right? Toys, food, okay, you know, anything you would buy that was not made here.

Sneakers, all sorts of clothing. It raised the prices on the American people, period. So, you know, even if one was saying, well, look, we need inflation to go down, you know, even as maybe some inflation is easing, it didn't matter because with the tariffs coming in place. It not only didn't ease inflation, it made the situation worse. And that's why Americans feel that things are just so unaffordable. So yes, this wasn't out here. But Donald Trump doesn't want it out. He wants to double, triple, quadruple down on this. And so by the way, why not bring it to Congress? The Supreme Court says, bring it to Congress. Yeah. Why not? Why not bring it to

Congress? I mean, I know how I'm going to vote, but let's see how my Republican colleagues vote. If he thinks, and he said this, there's great unity amongst the Republicans. Well, then bring it to Congress and let us vote on it. That's what the Supreme Court is saying to you, Mr. President. They're not saying you can't do it. They're saying it has to go to Congress, and then you can do it. But you don't want to recognize that there is a co-equal branch, because remember, they had a massive, they have a massive mandate. Remember, we were told that we have a massive mandate. Well, if he has a mandate, why can't he bring it to Congress, Brian? Well, and the reality is, like, if he wanted Mike Johnson to bring it up for a vote, Mike Johnson would do it. Like, Mike Johnson has proven

that he is perfectly content to prostrate himself for Donald Trump. And so if he says bring this in front of, in front of the house, Mike Johnson's not going to stand in his way. He'd be perfectly content to do it. Yeah, listen, I hope it happens. It dies on the floor that day. Yeah. Yeah. Last point on the Supreme Court, what did you make of the fact that he used so much of his time to rail against these Supreme Court justices? This is a Supreme Court, by the way, that has ruled in deference to him that he can commit criminal acts with impunity. They ruled that Section 3 the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to him, even though he incited an insurrection and gave aid or comfort to those who incited an insurrection,

which should have prevented him from being able to run for office again. The Supreme Court has bent over backwards for him for years, only for them in this one narrow instance to not show complete slavish devotion to the guy, and he has a whole press conference about how they're not patriotic Americans anymore. What have you done for me lately, Brian? you may have given me immunity, but you took away my tariff authority. No, I'm completely surprised that the president attacked them personally. So out of character for him, you know, it's a first.

It's a total first for the president to go attack them. I mean, you know, at least he didn't call any of them piggy. Yeah, or a coffee boy, low-level volunteer, just met them recently. I mean, this is like Trump's whole orbit is a big. basically like a trail of broken relationships, broken promises, and one-way street loyalty, whether it's from Michael Cohen,

Gordon Sondland, George Papadopoulos, Rex Tillerson, Kaylee McAnney, Marjorie Taylor Green. I mean, the parade of people who have lost their life. Rex Tillerson,

dumb as rocks. He's dumb as rocks. The parade of people who have lost their livelihood, their law licenses, their dignity, all in blind deference to Trump, only for him to throw them

under the bus. the moment they lose their usefulness is, you know, it's never-ending, I think, is what we're learning. But I want to actually switch gears now, and I know that you, that you wanted to head away from the Supreme Court now into a different venue, if I'm not mistaken. I have Barack Obama on my show. You know, let me throw one out. You know, let me just see how he reacts. Hey, so what about aliens?

Yeah, they're real. They're just not at that location. Everyone's like, oh my God, what did he just say? And then Donald Trump's like, well, he does, he does revealed classified information. I guess I'll have to declassified and help out my friend Barack Obama. I mean, you brought Barack Obama and Donald Trump together on behalf of the American people so we can find out about aliens, Brian. What have you done?

I don't know. I don't know. These are my friends. These are my friends, by the way. There was a moment yesterday where prior to, prior to the announcement from Trump saying that he was going to declassify any information related to aliens, UFOs, UAPs, where it was just focus on Barack Obama declassifying information. And I was actually with my friends of POS-Safe America, who obviously all worked for Barack Obama. And I was like, am I going to be responsible for Barack Obama being the next target of Trump's prosecution attempts? because I decided in minute 47, minute 44 of a 47 minute interview to ask a speed round question about aliens.

But now, apparently, Trump couldn't handle the fact that, you know, Barack Obama was getting all the attention. So he had to glom on and say, actually, I'm going to be the hero as far as aliens are concerned. Look, it's worth asking you here. Do you buy this idea that he's going to declassify any of this stuff? Or is this just, you know, some example of, ooh, this is a shiny thing that can help distract from the Epstein files. Yeah, I'm just waiting for the Pope to come out and condemn your actions. You know, look, I obviously have been involved with this.

I've been involved with the UAP task force that we set up in Congress. I've been a part of a number of hearings that we did in oversight. And look, I do believe that the American government is lying to the American people about these UAPs. And we're not getting the information. information that I think they have. I do think there's a lot more that they're not telling us. I think that Arrow, you know, which was set up, has information that they're not sharing with the American people. And this is why it's so bipartisan. You got people like me and Tim Burchain and Luna.

You have, you know, Chuck Schumer involved in this. You had Harry Reid involved with this before. Marco Rubio, who's the Secretary of State, obviously is involved with this. You know, how far it goes, How much do we know? That's unclear to me. You know, but I do think the president could declassify a lot of documents. I think you could clear up a lot of stuff. Will he do it? I don't know. You know, we'll have to see. You know, it'll be interesting that these are the files that come to us unredacted at the end of the day.

This will be the files. It'll be like, yeah, I can't release the Epstein people. But you know what? Have aliens. Take that. Right. Okay. So I got to ask, is there evidence? as far as the government is concerned, from what you've had insight into that UFOs and UAPs exist? Yeah, there's plenty of video evidence. There's plenty of documentary evidence. The real question is, are they ours, are they adversaries, are they private companies, is a technology that was found here,

that we've reverse engineered? These are a lot of questions that get asked. I have sat with, you know, multiple people from the military, former pilots, former folks. high-ranking individuals in our military. And I will tell you, they have witnessed this stuff first-hand, Brian. And these are not the folks that, you know, 10, 15, 20 years ago were in the Winnebago saying, I was taken up in the ship. These are decorated military people with stellar records. These are folks from some of the best, you know, universities, some of our best, you know,

military education institutions. These are reputable people who said, I saw it, it defied gravity, it didn't move in ways that we can possibly understand. We have physicists that we've interviewed that have been involved. So this has taken on a totally different face. This movement is taken on a totally different face than 20 or 30 years ago when it would be someone who said, you know, aliens touched me and now I live in a van down by the river. Right. So from the beginning of your response there, it sounded like this is, that. that it's really focused more on like military technology because you said you don't know if these

UAPs are ours or if there's adversaries. But I'm in an undisclosed location, Brian. Now because we're talking about this, I've had to go to an undisclosed location. That's fair. That's fair. But like, but the second part of your answer made it sound otherworldly. And so, and so, you know, what are we talking about here? Is there, is there some consensus even among the international community that some of these UAPs that folks have seen don't belong to some foreign military?

Yeah, there's evidence that the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans all have crash retrieval programs. Okay. There's documents that go back decades and decades and decades that those three countries have crash retrieval programs. And in fact, again, David Grush, right, he's one of the folks that talked about these crash retrieval programs. And then if you, if you, I got to meet all the people who were involved with that movie

disclosure that that just came out. And I will tell you again, decorated folks. These are legitimate folks. And they've been involved, been in the room. Some of them have had, can't talk about it, because they had to sign, you know, non-disclosure agreements. In fact, in one of the hearings, one of the pilots talked to us about how he had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. So I don't know how far it goes. Some people say they've seen biologics. I don't know that I'm there with that. right? That's like one of those like I need to see it to believe it sort of things. But on the UAP thing, there's definitely more that the United States government is telling us. And the way it's getting paid for, right, is if you look at the Pentagon who hadn't passed an audit in forever, right,

and how things cost an exorbitant amount of money in government procurement, what folks that have looked at this is saying is that they're overcharging for certain programs and misappropriating those funds. Because Congress isn't funding this with our knowledge, obviously. Right. But they're moving money around. Remember when we killed Osama bin Laden? We had helicopters that came out of Area 51. These were stealth helicopters that came out of Area 51.

This is 11 years ago or so ago, maybe longer now, to co-kill Osama bin Laden. Nobody knew about these stealth helicopters. We didn't fund it. It wasn't a weapons program that was well known. And it came out of Area 51, by the way, because that's where our AT programs come out of, our advanced tech programs come out of it. And the other reason we know about this, Brian, is because one of the helicopters crashed. And that's why we know that these helicopters existed.

So there's definitely government programs that the American people are unaware of. So the only branch then that would have any insight into any of this would be the executive branch, because clearly, as a member of Congress, if sitting on the committee that you do sit on, if anybody would have some information, presumably it would be you and your colleagues who sit on that committee, but you guys have no insight into any of this stuff either. No, they've kept it from us. And when we've asked questions, they've tried to stop us. When we've tried to put language into bills about disclosure,

there are people from government come down and go to the Hipsy Committee, right, you know, and go to armed services and try to stop that stuff. So, you know, and that was the thing that we found most interesting on the oversight committee, which is if there's nothing there, why are people from the government trying to stop the language? Why did Harry Reid have such a hard time to get language in? Why did Chuck Schumer have such a hard time to get language in? Why did Marco Rubio have such a hard time? If there's nothing there, if it's all fake, if it doesn't exist,

why are people in the government trying to stop it from coming out? And so last question here, what? Yes, it's your fault, Brian. It's your fault. Is it to what extent is all of this my fault? So last question here, what can be done? What are you doing right now to try and get some more? exposure onto this stuff. Well, I think you'll see maybe this week a bunch of us in Congress

do a press conference on a bipartisan basis to try to talk about more disclosure, more information, to take the president's words and say, okay, now let's turn that into action. Let's get some of these documents out of the Pentagon, out of the Defense Department. Let's get some of these documents out and let's get it released to the American people. All right. Well, I am looking forward to that press conference. Please let me know if you need me to be there as the I don't know if I'll be able to come out of my own disclosed location now that we've discussed this in detail, but if I am, I will be there. All right.

Well, looking forward to it, Congressman, as always, appreciate the time. Thanks, Brian. No lies brought to you by Factor. As my days get busier, the first thing to go by the wayside, cooking without fail. Factor makes healthy eating easy with fully prepared meals designed by dieticians and crafted by chefs. So eat well without the planning or cooking. My favorite factor meal is easy. Filet mignon and shrimp. It is legit restaurant quality food. And it's hearty, which is perfect for the winter.

Factor meals are high quality. They have functional ingredients including lean proteins, colorful veggies, whole food ingredients, and healthy fats. No refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners, no refined seed oils, and their meals fit your goals and schedule. Healthy eating, calorie management, more protein. I love the variety too. There are 100 rotating weekly meals to keep things fresh and delicious through winter. Options include high protein, calorie smart, Mediterranean diet, GLP1 support, and ready-to-eat salads. Plus, the new Muscle Pro collection supports strength and recovery. Factor is always fresh, never frozen, ready in about two minutes, and there's no prep and no stress. I am very picky about what I eat, and I love eating Factor Meals. So head to

FactorMeals.com slash BTC 50 off and use code BTC 50 off to get 50% off and free breakfast for a year. Eat like a pro this month with factor. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. One free breakfast item per box for one year while subscription is active. I'm joined now by the co-host for POTSave America, Tommy, thanks for joining. Tommy, we have big news today as it relates to the Epstein files. There seems to finally be some consequences. I think we have a clip right here. Andrew Mountbatten Winter, formerly known as Prince Andrew of the UK, has reportedly been arrested. Officers reportedly arrived at a royalist stayed in eastern England earlier this morning to make the arrest of the former prince who turns

66 years old today. So we're not seeing consequences for those in America, but in the international community, definitely seeing some consequences. So can you speak about this situation unfolding with Prince Andrew in the UK? Yeah. So Prince Andrew was arrested on Thursday. He's no longer Prince Andrew. He's been stripped of his titles because of his conduct with Jeffrey Epstein. He's now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. It's quite a name. He was moved out of his massive castle into a slightly less massive. Two-bedroom. Royal O-N, I think it's like a five-bedroom. But yes, he's a total creep. He was accused by Virginia Jufre, one of Epstein's victims of sexual assaulting her several times. However, the allegations in this case are not about, you know, possible

sexual improprieties. They're about suspicion of misconduct in public office, specifically that he shared confidential government information with Epstein when he was a special trade representative. So it's a massive deal. It's a seismic event in British history and I think pretty much far in a way the most high profile individual to have face consequences because of their association with Jeffrey Epstein, the second highest profile being guy named Peter Madelson, who was the former UK ambassador to the U.S. So again, another example of folks overseas, you know, having to face consequences for what they did and while, you know, Donald Trump's sitting in the White House.

Do you think that this increases pressure for the people who are contained within the Epstein files here in the United States? Or do you think that we're just in an environment right now where the Trump administration is clearly hell-bent on protecting these people? And it doesn't matter if the whole world gets locked up for their association with Jeffrey Epstein. If you're in the United States, if you are in the Trump orbit, you're going to be protected. It's a good question. I think it's likely to create more pressure because every time there's another investigation, journalists pull more strings, there's another court case where documents could be subpoenaed or found during these law enforcement searches.

there's an opportunity to find more evidence, more names, more documentation of crimes or associations or photos or whatever it is. So I do think like the more, you know, what we've seen so far in the Epstein files is the more information that comes out leads to more questions, which leads to more investigations, which leads to more accountability. So hopefully this is going that way. I think the hard part for me to reconcile is how these people, I'm talking law enforcement officials, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, Cash Patel, they can proceed with this sense of

impunity, like invincibility that they can lie under oath. I mean, we had, you know, Todd Blanche and Pan Bani just days ago said that there's no evidence of Trump committing a crime. Ted Liu has brought out that evidence since, and we can talk about that momentarily. But, but a lot of what these people are saying has been refuted by the actual evidence contained within the Epstein files. And you have the broader Epstein files that haven't even been released in accordance with the law. They were supposed to be released December 19th. And on top of that, you know that they have obfuscated every opportunity they've had to hide, you know, the co-conspirators and to, in some cases, expose who the victims themselves were. And yet, there doesn't seem to be any

sense that anything could ever backfire on these people, even from a legal perspective. You know, you worked in the White House. Like, is that, why is that not a thought for any of these people as they barrel ahead with, with, you know, this very much extrajudicial behavior? I think in this case, Trump has surrounded himself with a team who are just woefully unqualified to be there, right? Like Pam Bondi is a fucking idiot. Cash Patel, the FBI director, has absolutely no business running that organization. These are people who owe their jobs, their loyalty, their livelihood going forward to Donald Trump. And he assumes, based on giving them those jobs, that they will do what he says.

And it's clear to me that all those individuals are now involved in a cover up. I mean, Cash Patel said there was no credible information, quotes, that Epstein had trafficked women and girls to other powerful men. We saw, in the last tranche of Epstein files, tons of evidence that that had happened. So that can't possibly be true. We also don't know what Patel's FBI redacted or withheld before they turned the documents over to the DOJ for release as per the law, which you, I think rightly pointed out, has not actually been followed to the letter of the law, the law requiring the release of these files. So I think people like Pan Vondi... And an explanation of the redactions, by the way. Right, right. So I think people like Bondi, people like Patel, they know that the only way they keep their jobs is by doing Trump's bidding.

And I think they probably also assume that on the back end, when they leave government, they'll get a pardon. And it's not just all of these other, the existence of all of these other co-conspirators, who we know based on what we've read in these files have committed criminal activity. But Ted Liu had also stood up on the House floor and offered up some information that was incriminating against Trump. Let's see that clip. Donald Trump is in the Epsine files thousands and thousands of times. In those files, there's highly disturbing allegations of Donald Trump raping children, of Donald Trump threatening to kill children. So I encourage the press to go look at these allegations.

So that was Ted Liu, making it abundantly clear that Trump himself is implicated in these files, which, by the way, again, directly refutes what Pam Bondi said when she claims that, you know, Trump had done that there was nothing illegal tying Donald Trump to Epstein in the Epstein files. We know this not true. Yeah. And so, I mean, we know that in the Epstein files that were released by DOJ, there are allegations that you and I have not been able to corroborate of misconduct or crimes by Donald Trump. And then you were saying that Ted Liu said, no, no, no, what he's referencing there was not

even in the DOJ release. It was something he had heard through, you know, a separate sort of investigation of his own, which all speaks to the fact that, look, I mean, you look at what DOJ is doing here. and it's like, is it malevolence or is it incompetence? I mean, maybe both. It does seem like there is some amount of a cover-up. And when Pam Bondi's pressed on what the hell she's doing over a DOJ, she screams, we should be talking about the Dow being at $50,000.

And like, truly. We should be talking about the Dow being in a lot. Truly, one of the most insane moments at a hearing I've ever seen in my life. Yeah. And to your question of whether it's incompetence or malevolence, I think, frankly, it's both because Pam Bondi was confronted on the fact that that she hadn't even taken into account what these survivors have to say by Dan Goldman at the House Oversight Committee hearing just a few days back.

There are 32 names. One is redacted. 31 are not. So someone looked at it and decided to redact something. And I will tell you that that is clearly intentional to intimidate these survivors and victims. Now, in a interview last week... How will you tell me that's intentional? In an interview last week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche You can't go off script. Said that any victim that wants to speak with the department has done so, hopefully. Well, thanks to the incredibly brave people sitting here behind you,

we can actually ask them if that's true. Now, with the survivors and victims who are here, please stand up one more time. Just by show of hands, how many of you or your loved ones actually have met with the Department of Justice? justice and provided testimony and estimate and evidence. None. And of those of you who have not met, which is everyone, how many of you have reached out either

individually or through a lawyer or representative to offer to provide testimony and evidence? All of them. And of those of you, all of you who have reached out, how many of you were denied or ignored by the Department of Justice. All of them. And despite the shameful and despicable efforts by Ms. Bondi and her department to intimidate you, how many of you are still willing to speak

to the Department of Justice? All of them. Well, Ms. Bondi, it looks like you have some more witnesses to talk to. So right there, you can see that this DOJ will, again, beat its chest as this beacon of accountability and transparency and looking out for the survivors and seeking punishment for those who participated in these crimes. But they can't even be bothered to meet with the survivors themselves.

It's really a stunning moment. How was it possible that they have not met with those individuals? They've not heard them out, that they've not taken testimony. These are serious crimes that we're talking about. They refuse to meet with these people. And then Pambani in that clip wouldn't even look at them. She wouldn't look them in the eye. She wouldn't apologize for the way her office is mishandled the release of the files

and exposed their names or exposed images of them. I mean, it's truly, it's like horrifying. Just from an optics perspective, too. Like, I wonder what was going through her head when she was like, I want the photo of this moment, like, the way that this moment is going to be memorialized to be all of these survivors standing behind me and me not even being bothered to turn around and look them in the eye. It was like engineered to be the most callous image you could possibly create.

It kind of reminded me of the famous, I think it's called the Seven Dwarbs image of all the tobacco CEOs, kind of getting sworn in at a hearing. It's just like indelible iconic images of these seven scumbags who go on to testify and claim that nicotine isn't addictive and, you know, that cigarettes are fine for you, basically. Like that's what it made me think of, is Pam Bondi just ignoring these victims because she is terrified that it will upset Donald Trump somehow.

So she's yelling about the vow. Right. I mean, and that really is what it comes down to at the end of the day. And the sad part is, as far as Pam Bondi and Donald Trump are concerned, is that they're performing for an audience of no one at this point. Like they've lost all their influencers. They've lost Andrew Shultz and Joe Rogan and Tim Dillon, Brett Cooper, Sean Ryan, like all of these Manusphere podcasters, right-wing podcasters who, you know, were groomed into thinking that... I don't think they were groomed. I mean,

I think these people were sincerely thought that what they were being told was real. And the assumption was, if you think back, was that like, that Democrats were covering up the Epstein files because Bill Clinton was in them and that Donald Trump would have a political incentive to go after this information and expose. them. And what we've all learned since is that Trump and Epstein were best friends. Yeah. And so at this point, you know, they've lost all these people. They, the survivors can obviously see what's going on. You've got even Republicans, you know, even though they won't have been it publicly, the fact that you've got Thomas Massey and Annapolina Luna and Nancy Mace and Lauren Bobert and formerly Marjorie

Telegram. Yeah. I mean, like the fact that you've got all of these people who, who, but like, you look at somebody like Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Bobert, like these are people whose brands are their fealty to Trump. That is their whole brand. And even these people are breaking with Trump because it's become so obvious what he's trying to do. And I don't know what this performance is for anymore, but like it is impossible not to be able to see through it. And then every day that this continues subsequently, it just feels like more of a slap in the face. It's just outright disdain for their own audience. Yeah, it is. Look, I mean, I'm not someone who agrees with Marjorie Taylor Green on much, if anything, but I do think she's kind of like a sincere person who came to the job as

just like a normal lady and did a lot of CrossFit down in Georgia and genuinely was horrified by what she learned about Jeffrey Epstein. He genuinely thought Donald Trump would actually take steps to go after the people who abused these women and has been sickened and shocked by his reaction. I think, you know, it's pretty talent. Well, I do hope that some of this movement from overseas is going to at least have some impact. I can't imagine it makes these American officials' lives any easier.

Like, do I think it's going to be enough pressure to actually move, you know, some prosecutors or whatever it may be to like take seriously people's involvement with the Epstein scandal. Who knows? Especially if Pam Bonney's in charge of the DOJ, is she going to do anything? Probably not. But it's not going to make their lives any easier. And it's only going to add to the immense pressure that they're already contending with to the point where, you know, Trump has lost his most vocal ally in the House. Polling is dismal on this topic. You know, you've got midterms coming up. And now the framing, as far as the broader political zeitgeist is concerned, is, you know, you've got the working class versus the Epstein class.

And Trump is lumped into the Epstein class. He is viewed as, look, I think a lot of people supported Donald Trump because they hated Washington. They hated the system. They rightly felt like it was corrupt and it was rigged against them. And they thought that Donald Trump would go to D.C. and burn the place down and go after all the people that they hate. And in fact, he's on the opposite. He is their biggest defender. He is keeping him out of jail.

He is taking their bribes to build his little ballrooms and then protecting them legislatively. So I think it's like a perfect. encapsulation of the ways Donald Trump has not drained the swamp. He is just filling a backup. Yeah. Okay. Tommy, we're going to switch gears a little bit here to a particularly interesting moment that actually involves me. What'd you do? That is, I made the car, I committed the cardinal sin of asking a former president whether aliens were real. I'm sure most people have seen this clip, but here's the quick clip. Are aliens real? They're real, but I haven't seen them and and they're not being kept in, what is it? Area 51. There's no underground

facility unless there's this enormous conspiracy and they hit it from the president of the United States. What was the first question you wanted answered when you became president? Where are the aliens? So that was Obama confirming his belief that aliens are real, but not offering any proof as to the government knowing anything about it. It was pretty clear to me in the room. I think you and I had spoken as well, and I think it was pretty clear to you as well what he was saying there. That wasn't.

So when this interview was pitched to you, they weren't like, hey, we'd love to confirm the existence of aliens. But first, let's do like, let's do 44 minutes of other stuff. That's not how it went down. We want to do 44 minutes. Then we're going to break the biggest news of the century during the speed round. The scoop of the century. So in any case, it was pretty clear to me.

but apparently one of our most frequent viewers He's your number one fan, I think. He's always commenting on your videos. Always comment. And it gets a little bit annoying. It's a little bit of this point. But he had something to say about it. Barack Obama said that aliens are real.

Have you seen any evidence of non-human visitors to Earth? Well, he gave classified information. He's not supposed to be doing that. So aliens are real. Well, I don't know if they're real or not. I can tell you. He gave classified information. not supposed to be doing that.

He made it big mistake. He took it out of class of right information. No, I don't have an opinion on it. I never talked about it. A lot of people do. A lot of people believe it. Do you believe it, Peter? Well, the president can declassify anything that he wants to.

So if you want to make an amount of... I may get him out of trouble by declassified. We know illegal aliens, but... Yeah, illegal. Only illegals. So that was Donald Trump saying that Barack Obama spilled classified information by affirming the existence of aliens.

Yeah. Do we think that's what happened here? I didn't think it was what happened until Trump said that it was classified information. The craziest part is, again, like the internet was split as to whether Obama really, you know, was offering up some, the scoop of the century by talking about aliens. But there was always like a real healthy degree of plausible liability. But when Trump comes out and he says, Obama just revealed classified information. there's no ambiguity there.

He is saying that that is not only real but classified. Do you think you'll be called to testify? I can't imagine I'm not. Can you imagine? You're sitting in court in like three years? You're like, yeah. Do you know the crazy thing is that isn't even the most far-fetched thing I could think of right now? I get hauled into a courtroom to testify on behalf of Barack Obama who's being prosecuted for spilling state secrets about the existence of aliens and the speed round of my podcast.

It would be memorable. It would be memorable. It's a good story for your second book. I mean, like, you know, you having worked for him, National Security Council spokesman when he was president, what did you make of his answer? Because like there was a ton of discourse surrounding this question in particular. You know, there were plenty of people on the internet who were perfectly content to jump down my throat and tell me that I'd miss the, you know, missed the follow-up of the century. But did it strike you as something that needed clarification? I mean, I saw some of those reactions and my takeaway was that those people don't have the best kind of like reading or viewing comprehension. It was pretty clear to me that Obama was being like, yeah, I think aliens are real, but I never saw evidence of them.

So like if he has not seen evidence and he obviously can't confirm something to you, he was just saying like, yeah, it's a big fucking place. Like, what's it, the Drake equation, right? There's X number of stars and even more planets and, you know, with the right conditions, the right numbers. So there's likely to be life out there somewhere. Doesn't mean we know of it. But like if he, anyway, the people are yelling you about falling up

are deeply stupid in my opinion. Point one. Like, he's a pretty cautious guy. I don't think he's going to disclose anything that even comes close to classified. Yeah. So I don't really think Trump's right there. I don't know, man.

Like, Trump's just being an asshole. What did you make of the fact that Obama issued his clarification? Is he an issue, a clarification kind of guy? Not usually. What I assume, And you can tell me if this is right, is that all of a sudden the internet ran with this, a bunch of news articles ran with this. And his staff was getting a trillion incoming questions about whether they could confirm or deny the existence of family in life.

And they were like, Jesus Christ, let's just post something. Yeah. I think that's pretty safe. I remember seeing like K-File post online that he'd reached out to Obama's spokespeople for comment. And I was like, I was like, Jesus. Listen, I think it was a good story of a great, thoughtful, comprehensive interview. And then, you know, you do a little click paid at the end. And then you successfully clip it and get it out there. And it's a great way to drive eyeballs to the whole thing.

Well, you know, the interesting part was for all of the people saying that I should have asked a follow up, if there was a follow up and he had said what you and I know he would have said, which is, you know, the universe is large. It's highly unlikely that we're the only intelligent life in the universe. but, you know, I haven't seen any aliens, you know, in any government facility or anything like that. I think that that would have actually quashed all of the, like, the interesting part of this, which was the question of whether aliens are real or not. Like, I think the fact that there was no follow-up actually drove a lot more conversation

because it was that ambiguity that allowed the discourse to take a life of its own. Yeah, I guess. It's just like, to me it was just a reminder that people on the Internet take everything so goddamn serious. Yeah. It's like everyone just relax. I just watched he's clearly not saying. He's trying to do a speed round. He's just not. My next question was like, I had a question like two questions if that was like is Tupac real? Yes.

Like that was, look, we had 45 minutes of really heavy like, you know, what I think is interesting stuff. Interesting stuff. Trump authoritarianism. Yeah. Like we hit every topic, the future of the Democratic Party. We had, you know, the how the party could and should look differently moving forward, the issue of age in politics, all this stuff. and like we should be able to have like like 120 seconds of just something like just goofing around yeah would you say is Tupac alive and he said on my playlist he is that was it like exact same tenor in tone of that answer as the as the Lies one which is like yes they are but I don't know that there is a parallel universe where that was the clip that was clipped 100% and everyone's like Tupac is real yes Tupac is definitely he didn't deny it yeah

how dare you not follow up on that like is he literally living in his playlist we'll never know because there was no follow-up. Like, come on everybody. Well, with that said, that interview, of course, is on my YouTube channel for those who haven't seen it yet. Also, for those who are watching right now, highly recommend if you're not subscribed to Pod Save America's YouTube channel, please help us grow this progressive media ecosystem. I'm going to put the link to Pod Save America's YouTube channel right here on the screen and also in the post description. Make sure that more people can listen to Tommy and hear what he's got to say. Look at that face.

I'm joined now by U.S. Senator in Minnesota and current gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar, thanks so much for joining me. Well, thanks, Brian. Great to be on. So I want to talk about the new news as it relates to the Supreme Court. Trump just came out in the aftermath of the Supreme Court striking down his tariffs and said that he's going to basically double down. And so he said two things that I want to get your read on. The first was that there are going to be existing tariffs under Section 232 and 301 that are going to remain in place. And the second thing he said is that he's going to impose a 10% global tariff.

new tariff under Section 122. Obviously, I'm not up on these different tariff statutes, but I want to get your read here in terms of whether what he's saying is true or not. I know you are super surprised that he is not just accepting the decision of the highest court of the land. I know you're also super surprised that he called them disloyal, unpatriatic, and wait to boot, swayed by foreign interests. And that includes Gorsuch, Connie Barrett and Roberts. That all aside, he has had used several statues for tariffs. Two are the ones you mentioned that are more traditionally used, that 232, which is about like national security interests. Other presidents have used that before on steel and things like that,

aluminum. And then the section one is this 301, which is about violations of tariff agreements. those will still stand. They are more narrow. There has to be an investigation. I actually have been in favor of using those statutes for some things. That's why we have tariffs, right? Especially when steel dumping is going on on the like. But again, he's overused them. But let's go to what really happened here. The IAipa statue, sounds cute but isn't, is the one that he used to assess these across the board tariffs. That's where the court's, where the court's, said, wait a minute, it doesn't have the word tariff in it. You can't do it this way. So his response, of course, was to go after the justices and also to go after, I guess, the chamber and all the

small businesses that brought the case. But now, here's this kind of scary part in terms of the future. He has said that he's going to use another statue, and that was your second question, 122. This really hasn't been used in that way. I don't believe it'll be upheld. I don't know. But there is a catch with this, which is why he didn't use it before. After 150 days, Congress can step in and say, no, we're not going to extend this. Congress has recently shown by passing something to throw out the Canadian tariffs that even some Republicans are realizing this is horrible economic policy and voting with us to get rid of the tariffs. So that's the problem he's got under that thing. Plus, is it even legal? Will it even fit it? Is he even going to do what he says? And then meanwhile,

we've got people that are going to want refunds, including every consumer in America that lost $1,700 last year. But that aside, it's a lot of importers in the U.S., how will it be passed on. That's what he should be focused on. But instead, he's just lashing out at everyone and blaming everyone else

instead of taking responsibility for getting our economy on a better track. If he does move forward with the implementation of the 10% global tariff under Section 122, which it seems like he's hell-bent on doing. And he has, what, you said, 150 days to, that this last 150 days before it has to be reauthorized by Congress, is that correct? So, I mean, isn't that putting Republicans in a miserable position of having to now

be the ones to shoulder the burden in an election year of continuing tariffs that are already unpopular, already raising the prices of everything from food to clothing to, to toys, to electronics? Like, isn't, isn't that screwing over his own? party just months before voters are going to be casting their ballots? But he doesn't seem to care. He literally called the Supreme Court justices, the conservatives he had put on their rhinos at this press conference. I heard it. I couldn't even. And that's why I don't think he cares. And so they have already started to say, of course, behind closed doors

over and over again, especially northern states, telling him that these Canadian tariffs are a disaster. Carney, who's a smart prime minister, is starting to make deals with other countries. What else is he supposed to do? And we're going to lose long-term markets because of these tariffs. So who knows what he'll say tomorrow? But today, the response was anger and chaos, which is what we're used to every day from this White House. The checks on him, the midterms, big, big, massive check on him. The court, clearly at times will stand up.

and the people of this country who in poll after poll, especially now independents, moderate Republicans, are saying they hate the costs, they hate the chaos, they hate the corruption. Okay, so I want to switch gears here. You have announced your gubernatorial run in Minnesota. What's going to be your priority as governor of Minnesota? Well, Minnesota has been through a lot, and that's not sugarcoating it because we've had, of course, the assassination of former Speaker Melissa Hortman.

and her husband, 20-some people gunned down little kids in a church through stained glass windows, and then the current, which is 3,000 ICE agents on our street with Minnesotans standing up and showing the world that we're not just the Center of America's Heartbreak, we're also the Center of America's Hope and Courage. So I learned from Governor Walls at the end of the year that the beginning of this year that he had decided that he wasn't going to run. And I had to make a very quick decision. I love my job. I think you know that. But I love my state more. So my focus on being the governor of the state of Minnesota, if the people give me that trust, is going to be to be a transformative governor. We need to get to a

higher ground. And to me, that means getting stuff done for our state. I've got a track record of doing that. It means bringing people together. If I can pass a bill with Ted Cruz while done, Donald Trump is in office. I can do some pretty good things for our state. And then the third thing is standing up for what's right. We don't need a rubber stamp of Donald Trump. I have seven Republican opponents right now. So it's standing up for what's right, but it's also fixing what's wrong.

And so I'm really excited about this campaign right now. So give me some specifics. What would you like to see at the end of, you know, let's say you've got two terms of governor of Minnesota under your business. if you've accomplished what would make it a success? Bringing cost down for the people of Minnesota. That means more housing. That means on child care.

There's all kinds of innovative things going around our state that I think be really helpful. And it means bringing health care costs down. I also want to get to a point in our state where people feel good again about what's going on in our country. Some of that, of course, is going to be changing who's in the White House. but a lot of it is going to be getting to a better place in our own state. Our state is the state that brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it note, and we've got to conquer our next frontier,

and that's going to be educating our kids and making sure that people can buy their first house. So that's what I'm going to do is governor. And it is a time like no other. And for me, I've been just telling everyone that's been 50,000 people, and I was in that March, who stood up, it was 10 below zero and marched, that this is our moment to not look away, to not look down, but to look at each other and look up to the North Star and move forward together. So part of this as a leader is just bringing that sense of optimism in one of the toughest times we've ever seen.

And I do that in the memory of Alex Prattie, gun down in the middle of the day or Renee Good. We know how hard this is going to be for their families in the year and with them. Thanks again to Jared Moskowitz, Tommy Vitor and Amy Klobuchar. That's it for this episode. Talk to you Wednesday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by 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.