No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump's Epstein file release botched beyond repair

Episode Date: December 21, 2025

Trump’s Epstein file release gets botched beyond repair. Brian interviews Ro Khanna about the DOJ failing to comply with the law, Bernie Sanders about Republicans blocking the ACA extension, Jasmine Crockett about her run for Senate in Texas, and Hakeem Jeffries about how House Democrats outsmarted Mike Johnson on yet another discharge petition.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's Epstein file release gets botched beyond repair, and I interview Rokana about the DOJ failing to comply with the law, Bernie Sanders about Republicans blocking the ACA extension, Jasmine Crockett about her run for Senate in Texas, and Hakeem Jeffries about how House Democrats outsmarted Mike Johnson on yet another discharge petition. I'm Brian Teller Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. Friday's deadline for the Justice Department to release the full Epstein files came and went with only a partial release of the files. Rokana and Thomas Massey estimate that what was released constitutes about 10% of the actual files that the DOJ has.

And in fact, far from releasing all of the files by Saturday, the DOJ had actually begun rescinding files to protect Donald Trump. The AP reported that 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department's website that had been posted on Friday, including a photo of, and I hope you're sitting down for this, Donald Trump, Malania Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Galane Maxwell together. And of course, that move only further solidified what's already been clear for the better part of the last year. This administration is not concerned with transparency. It is engaged in a cover-up. But here's the most glaring part.

Trump is very clearly implicated in a way that I don't think that we're fully grasping yet. Here's why I say that. The guy is nothing, if not a marketer. He gets the media. He gets narrative. He gets entertainment. And so it's not escaping him

that by very clearly trying to suppress these files and his involvement with Epstein, he's painting a really, really terrible picture that the rest of the country is seeing. He understands the damage that he's doing to his reputation. He understands that he's torching his political capital. He understands that this is owning the news. He understands that every day we're talking about this.

We're not talking about what he wants to talk about. And so that begs the question, why would you voluntarily choose to subject yourself to that unless what's in the files is worse, especially if you're someone who cares deeply about how you're portrayed in the media? And look, I'm not particularly conspiratorial. If you'd ask me a few months ago

whether Trump had something legitimately serious that he wanted to hide as it relates to Epstein or if he simply wanted to protect his reputation, I'd have probably said the latter. But at this point, we already know that he's in the files. That's been reported. We've seen numerous documents from the Epstein estate. Elon Musk aired him out online.

So it's not like Trump doesn't want us to know that he's got some connection with Epstein. That ship has sailed. So the only other explanation, logical explanation, is that what's hidden in those files is somehow worse than the daily barrage of everyone assuming the worst anyway. Which raises the obvious next question,

what can be done about it? And normally, I feel like I'd have a more fatalistic view of things because Trump controls the DOJ. Pam Bondi is a fawning Trump stooge who would never dare defy him. But this is effectively the only issue where Trump doesn't enjoy some partisan insulation, where he gets to act as corruptly as possible

and the entire GOP just blindly defy him. defends him. That doesn't exist here. Remember, four Republicans defy Trump by signing on to the discharge petition for the files to be released. Lauren Bobert withstood pressure from the administration after she was literally summoned to the situation room. Marjor Tiller Green, who had been Trump's most loyal foot soldier, resigned from Congress over this issue after they had their falling out over this. Overall, every single Republican in the House and Senate voted for this bill, with the exception of Clay Higgins. Trump's allies and the media have excoriated him for engaging in this cover-up, those right-wing influencers who are waving binders around, we're all humiliated.

This issue has been an unmitigated disaster since the very beginning, and a good portion of the bad press that's surrounding it has come from Republicans. So if Trump thinks that he's going to benefit from the usual, like, reductive partisan allegiances, he's in for a really rude awakening. So this is a unique instance where the more Trump tries to help himself, namely by engaging further in this cover-up, the more obvious it becomes that he's got something incriminating to hide. The more redactions, more recisions, more baits and switches, he might think that he's helping himself, but he is just broadcasting to the country that in a battle between pedophiles and

the people looking to expose them, Donald Trump, his officials, Mike Johnson, and any other Republican who aligns themselves with Trump are very clearly on the side of the pedophiles. Next up are my interviews with Rokana, Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, and Hakeem Jeffries. No lie is brought to you by Hello Fresh. You may have heard of Hello Fresh. They are the number one meal kit in America, making home cooking easier with chef-crafted recipes and fresh ingredients delivered straight to your door. But this fall, they're serving up even more to love. This isn't the Hello Fresh you remember. It's bigger. Hello Fresh has doubled its menu. Now you can choose from 100 options each week, including new seasonal dishes and

recipes from around the world. Dig into bigger portions that'll keep everybody satisfied. It's healthier. Feel great with an even healthier menu. Choose from 15 or more high-protein recipes each week with options like grass-fet ribbyes or lamb chops. Hello Fresh now helps you eat greener with new veggie-packed recipes that have two or more veggies per dish. And it's tastier. Get steak and seafood recipes delivered every week for no extra cost, now with three times the seafood options. Savor the season with hearty fall recipes like classic beef chili or honey-glazed pork tenderloin, which I literally just ate this week and highly recommend. But I'll be honest, everything is fresh and healthy and perfectly portioned so I couldn't

recommended higher. The best way to cook just got better. Go to hellofresh.com slash BTC 10fm now to get 10 free meals plus a free breakfast for life. One per box with active subscription, free meals applied as discount on first box, new subscribers only varies by plan. That's hellofresh.com slash btcc 10fm to get 10 free meals plus free breakfast for life. I'm joined now by the author of the Epstein Transparency Act, Congressman Rokana. Congressman, thanks for joining me. for having me. So first and foremost, your reaction to the fact that while today was supposed to be the deadline for the full release of the Epstein files, what we got instead was some partial release and even the files that were released were heavily, heavily redacted. Disappointment. It's sadness.

You know, to me, this is not a game. It's not about politics. It's about survivors that I've come to know. And I had talked to them over the past few weeks. They were so looking at forward to this day of finally having being seen, having some closure. And in the morning, when we heard the Deputy Attorney General say there are going to be hundreds of thousands of the documents, Thomas Massey and I said, well, look, it's probably not a full release, but at least there's some effort at compliance. But then when we saw those documents, we were just shocked. Documents totally redacted. None of the key things actually release, the draft indictment, the prosecution memo.

Those documents that would show who were the other rich and powerful men who abused these young girls or covered it up. None of the files on the computers of Epstein released that would actually implicate the other people. And, you know, the country's asking, why are you protecting these folks? What are you hiding? Massey and I are ready. We're drafting articles of impeachment as we speak about Pam Bondi and Blanchard. We're not going to drop them right away. They're saying they're going to keep producing things until the end of the.

the year, but we're ready to use them. And we're talking to survivors about showing up again at the Capitol. We're going to continue the fight. Well, that's some news that you are drafting articles of impeachment for Pan Bondi. And so what is the threshold for actually introducing those articles? What does Pam Bondi have to do or not do for those articles to actually be introduced into the House? She needs to comply, at least with the spirit of the law. Look, the letter of the law, they've obviously violated. They had to get all the unclassified documents out today. They haven't. But to be redacting the entire grand jury when a federal judge has said released them, to not have the names of other government officials and business leaders who are

implicated be part of the public release, to not release the draft indictment and prosecution memo, which get to the heart of why there was injustice in this case and why there was a cover-up, they are not trying to be transparent. They are protecting someone. They are protecting rich and influential people who were friends with the president or know the president or have some hold on our government.

You know what? It's not even about Trump. Okay, there were not many mentions of Trump. They're protecting other people here. There are dozens of people who were involved in this cover-up and who imbues these girls. Think about it.

1,200 victims. You don't have one person have 1,200 victims. And that 1,200 number is from the DOJ. So, why are these people being protected? That's what, that's what the country's asking. And that's exactly the part I want to dig into. There was a note from Fox Digital, and I'm going to put that up on the screen. It says, the Justice Department redacted the names and identifiers of the victims. Fox News Digital has learned that the same redaction standards were applied to politically exposed individuals and government officials. Now, I'm also going to put on this screen the actual

text of the Epstein Transparency Act itself, which says that no record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. And so how can they make up this brand new standard that already unto itself violates the spirit of this thing, but also violates the direct letter of this law? Well, that was the whole purpose of the law, right? I mean, the DOJ, the Department of Justice, was not releasing this. because they did not cause embarrassment to powerful people.

And their rationale was, well, we don't release things if we don't charge people. That was their whole rationale. And that's why I took a literal act to Congress to say, no, we want you to release these things, even if it's going to cause embarrassment to people who weren't charged because justice wasn't done, because there was never a real prosecution of these individuals. And three federal judges looked at the act and said, yeah, you know what? We didn't order the release before because of reputational harm and the idea that you don't don't release things with people who are not charged, but Congress now is spoken. So we're going to

reverse ourselves and we're going to mandate that you release this. At that point, I thought, okay, certainly they're going to release it with three federal judges saying that. And some of it, they did release, but they redacted the whole thing. And they covered up the names. So this can only lead one to believe that they want to distract with pictures of Bill Clinton. Everyone knows Bill Clinton doesn't have good judgment. I mean, we didn't need the Epstein release to know that. They want to distract with that, and they don't want any of the other rich and powerful men who are part of this cover up to be exposed. And why does it matter?

People say, well, he was dead years ago. Well, it matters because people are sick of two tiers of justice in this country. They're sick of a elite that gets away with even things like raping young girls or watching young girls be raped and not saying anything. They are sick of elite impunity. And they think that there's something rotten about these interests that have a hold on our government. And they want it exposed. And that's why this story is not going away. And the ultimate irony of all of that is that is exactly the message that the Trump administration ran on.

That is what Cash Patel built his brand on. That's what Dan Bongino built his brand on. That's what we heard from Pamp Bondi and Alina Haba and all of these Trump acolytes. J.D. Vance himself said we have to release these files for that exact reason. And now not only are they doing the thing that they promised, but they're perpetuating the exact criminal behavior that they once condemned. There's a feeling of helplessness because when you have a violation of this law, the people who would, in theory, be there to enforce the law are the very people that are violating the law in the first place. And so what recourse is there when you've got the DOJ, again, whose job it is to enforce the law, that's actually the one violating it. That's the one deciding to create, you know, new standards by Fiat where they say, okay, not only are we going to not release the full files, as was required by this law,

but we're also going to create this new standard where, where, you know, if you're involved in government, even though this would say government-aligned pedophile ring, if you're involved in government, that we've now given ourselves license to just redact your name from this thing. What recourse is there when the police are the one who are crooked? Well, the first recourse is public opinion. And that is what moved the bill in the first place. The reality is that Donald Trump thought he would get away with this. He didn't expect that his MAGA base would literally unravel.

This is what unraveled Trump. This is why you have 50 discharge petitions. This is what split his base. And the reason it happened is because of these survivors. They came to the Capitol two times, and people said, this is outrageous. And they're going to come again. So this idea that justice thinks, okay, this is the end of, they're just wrong. Watch the outrage when survivors are back and saying that they violated the law

and they have not complied. More broadly, people are subjecting themselves to the risk of prosecution. They are obstructing justice. And this is not just about these three remaining years. A new administration could prosecute these individuals. The statute of limitations would not have run out. And I'm one of these people. I don't know about you, Brian. My view is, yes, I one healing and reconciliation after Trump's gone. But I want accountability too. Right. I'm not going to have reconciliation without accountability. And if you violated the Epstein Transparency Act, if you bombed innocent people off the coasts in the Caribbean, if you ripped people out of their families as ICE, there is going to be criminal accountability. And that is

in a new administration. And then Massey and I were talking about articles of impeachment and inherent contempt. The difference here is you've got Republicans, MAGA Republicans who may go for this. In fact, someone had shared my video on the MAGA, prominent MAGA influencer saying, Roe, impeach Bondi. You and Massey should impeach Bondi. So this is not some democratic issue. I mean, think about if you've got five, 10, 15 Republicans actually leading the call for an impeachment. It's worth asking here, because I think you're absolutely right, this idea that that, you know, taking the Merrick Garland approach of, okay, let's just sing kumbaya now and we'll just, you know, achieve peace after that. You need some deterrent effect. People don't just

change overnight if there's if there's no reason not to do so. I mean, we saw the extent to which, you know, the people that were involved in January 6 were not held accountable for their actions and began immediately engaging in the same type of behavior because they were given that free pass by Trump. But it's worth asking here to what? To what degree do you have some concern that even though Trump can plainly see that these people are engaged in criminal activity by violating this law, that he can just hand out pardons and just, you know, basically absolve everybody of their wrongdoing here? Is there any other avenue?

Can you talk about civil proceedings or just some other way to counteract what may be the inevitable, you know, get out of jail free card handed out by Trump? This is why I'm for a constitutional amendment to abolish the pardon power. I believe it's been most abused by Trump, but it's been abused by too many presidents. Yeah. But the reality is that we can have groups, including survivors, sue the federal government for release. Congress can support that, and we're prepared to do that. They certainly have standing under the law to bring those suits.

And if you're a person at justice, and you're a lawyer, you're an honorable lawyer, many of the career folks are, or you're a political appointee, not a Trump acolyte, but you're a Republican, you're serving in the justice administration. I mean, that's an awful risk to take to be having your whole career arrest on the whims of whether Donald Trump will pardon you. And even if he does pardon you, it doesn't strike me as that's a great way to build a legal future to be the person at the Justice Department who skirted the law because they didn't want justice for survivors to protect rich and powerful men and have a Trump pardon at the end of their name. I don't think that that is the way to build your legal reputation. So, look, this has been a disappointing day, Brian.

I've got to be honest with you because this meant so much, not just to those Epstein survivors, but the survivors around the country. They finally felt heard seen by Congress. And this is a slap in their face. But we've been fighting this for six months. We've been building public support. We defeated the president. We passed a law that no one thought we could.

So I would just say, don't underestimate Massey or my resolve. Don't underestimate the resolve of these survivors. This fight will continue until those files are released and justice is done. Well, look, I just want to take a moment here to say thank you for the hard work that you and Thomas Massey have been doing on this issue. I know that there are a million reasons not to have done it, especially because, you know, I think it's becoming more commonplace that you'll even have Republicans rebuke the president. We saw that in Indiana. We saw that just a few days ago with this latest discharge

petition in the House getting 218 signatures. But your discharge petition in the House was the first instance of even Republicans defying this president. And that wouldn't have happened without, you know, this whole campaign that you drove forward here, you know, against a president who had, at that point, had basically total control. So I think you deserve a lot of credit. I know that, you know, my audience is appreciative of it. And it's important, too, to get some accountability for the survivors here, who I know that you've been in close contact with. So, again, thank you for all the work that you've been doing. And I know this isn't the last we're going to see of this whole saga, but appreciate your leadership on all of this. Thank you, Brian. Thank you

for your voice. And you're right. The presidency is unraveling, and that's because of the courage. People like you have shown, Republicans are showing. Finally, people are seeing the emperor has no clothes. You can stand up to this president. and you can stand up for American values. Roe Kana, thanks so much for your time. Thank you. No Lie is brought to you by Shopify. Back in 2020, I was basically wishing to be able to start my own show.

That wish turned into the podcast and business that you're listening to today. Starting your own business is a hope that lots of us share, but too many of us let it remain just that. Don't hold yourself back with thoughts like, what if I don't have the skills, what if I can't do it alone? Turn those what ifs into why not with Shopify by your side. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the United States from my own website, Brian Tyler Cohen.com, to brands that are just getting started, which raises some questions here. What if I can't design a website? Shopify's got you from the get-go with beautiful ready-to-go templates to match your brand style. What if I need a hand? Get help with everyday tasks like enhancing product images, writing product descriptions, or generating discount codes with Shopify's AI tools created for commerce. What if people haven't heard about my brand?

Shopify helps you find your customers with easy-to-run email and social media campaigns. And what if I get stuck? Shopify's always around to share advice with their award-winning 24-7 customer support. So turn those dreams into and give them the best shot of success with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.com slash BTC. Go to Shopify.com slash BTC. I'm joined now by Senator Bernie Sanders. Thanks so much for joining me. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

So, Senator, we have seen an effort in the Senate first and foremost by Republicans to basically quash the extension of the ACA subsidies. Now it seems like there is the potential for this thing to have a second coming in the House as the discharge petition has passed. So even if this discharge petition leads to a full House vote and it passes in the House, do you think there's an appetite among your Senate Republicans to revive the extension of these ACA subsidies so that 24 million Americans don't lose access to their health care? Well, that is a great question. I think with the Republicans in the House, many of whom come from vulnerable districts, understand ain't a good idea to go home to your constituents, run free election and say,

oh, sorry about the doubling of your health care premiums within the ACA, in some cases, a tripling. If it is passed in the House, do I think there may be some rethinking about the position of Republicans here in the Senate? Yeah, I do. And do you think that Mike Johnson, or I should ask, why do you presume that Mike Johnson seems so hell-bent on not allowing this to happen, even as it seems inevitable that, you know, that it's going to pass in the House? Well, it's an acknowledgement of the failure of the Republican Party to stand with ordinary Americans. These premium increases are a result of the big, beautiful bill, which they vigorously supported. So to say that we have to undo a major provision of that bill is an acknowledgement

of how bad that bill was. But, Ryan, that's only half the story. If we do not act next year, some 15 million people are going to be thrown off of the health care they have because of the terrible cuts in Medicaid and other cuts in the ACA. Well, I think that's a, that's a good transition into what I wanted to speak with you about more broadly, taking a 30,000-foot view here, and that is kind of the unsustainability, the untenability of the entire health care system that could be put in imminent risk for 15 million people,

17 million people who rely on Medicaid, 24 million people who rely on these ACA subsidies. And so I want to talk about Medicare for All. First and foremost, do you think that the politics have changed as it relates to Medicare for All, universal health care, single-payer health care? I do. I think COVID where millions of people lost their jobs and because their health care was attached to their jobs, they lost their health care.

That made people thinking, hmm, should health care simply be part of my job as opposed to a basic right? That's number one. And number two, what's happening right now with massive cuts to Medicaid and the ACA, people are also more conscious about how expensive health care. in this country is and how vulnerable they are. That if AI comes along and they lose their jobs, what are they going to do? Bottom line of all of this, in my view, is as a nation, we have got to make some very simple decisions. Do we agree with every other major country on Earth

that health care is a human right? Should all of us have health care, regardless of whether we're rich, we're poor, we're middle class, whether we're young or whether we are old? All over the world, wealthy countries have said health care is a human right. It is universal. Second of all, we have got to be questioning a system that is so broken. Brian, I do a lot of town meetings all over the country. And I ask people, tell me, do you think the health care system is working well?

Do you think it's broken? Overwhelmingly, people understand that this system is fundamentally broken. And we cannot just simply tinker. around the edges. What does it mean? In terms of costs, do you know how much we are spending per person on health care now?

Take a wild and crazy guess. I can't even venture to guess. Go ahead. If you add everything together, right? You add all health care expenditures in America and you divide it by 340 million people. We are spending some $15,000 for every man, woman, and child.

Family, or four, $60,000 a year, spending $5 trillion, $18% of our GDP. That is not only insane, it is double what most other countries are spending who guarantee health care to all people as a right. And I would add what those other countries are spending, and they have better metrics to show for it. They have higher, they have lower infant mortality rates, lower maternal mortality rates. They have higher rates of survival.

I mean, you know. Life expectancy. Absolutely. We are four years behind European countries in terms of life expectancy. So the story is if you bought a car for 40,000 and I bought a car for 80,000 and your car work better in all respects to my car, I got ripped off, right? All right? That is the story.

The system is wildly expensive. Its major function is to provide huge profits. for the insurance companies and the drug companies. And what we have got to do is demand a system whose function is to provide quality care to all Americans in a cost-effective way. And that is what Medicare for all does. What does Medicare for all do?

It is, the bill that I've introduced now has 19 co-sponsors here in the Senate, I think there's over 100 in the House. So I want everybody to know what it does. Healthcare and the system is complicated, we do not transform the system in one day. It is a four-year transition period. What it does do, in year one, it lowers the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 55. It does away with all out-of-pocket expenses, no more premiums, no more deductibles, no more copayments.

It includes children in the system. It expands Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing. Healthcare services, which should be part of a universal health care system. That's year one. Year two, it goes from 55 down to 45, year three, 45 down to 35, year four, everybody is in. Now the CBO, Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will save many hundreds of billions of dollars by doing that. Why is that? The answer is not just the profiteering

of the insurance companies and the drug companies. And when you have a national health care system, you can actually effectively negotiate prescription drug prices. So that's one part, your low prescription drug costs, you save a lot of money. But number two, the primary reason why healthcare in America is so expensive is in addition to the profiteering of the insurance companies

and our lack of the insurance companies, lack of focus on primary health care is that they have to administer hundreds of different health insurance programs. So you have a $5,000 deductible, I have a $10,000 deductible. You have your heart attack in network, and I have my heart attack out of network. You know, and it is everybody knows the system is so enormously complicated. Your health care program covers A, B, and C, mine covers D, E, and F, right? So you add all of that complexity.

It is an enormously difficult situation to administer, and we have zillions of people who work not as doctors or nurses providing health care, they are billing you. Oh, you're laid on your bill, and they're going to hound you for your bill, or they are in one way or another involved in administration. What we need is a simple system. Walk into an office, you go to any doctor you want, you take out your card, there's no worry about money because it is publicly funded. It's not free, it is publicly funded. And we fund it in a progressive way. The average American will save substantial sums of money in their health care. It'll be universal and I think it'll be a much improved situation of what we have today.

Well, you know the first question that any Republicans are going to ask or any Republicans are going to challenge you with is paying for it. And so what is your response to those people who say – and granted, I know the hypocrisy of people who are exploding the military budget, the same people who don't say – you know, dare not utter an ill word when Trump decides to use, you know, money to buy a couple of Gulfstream jets for Christy Nome. I understand all of that, but just in terms of the response to how do you pay for it, what's your response to that? The answer is this is not like education or information. infrastructure. You pay for it primarily by eliminating the huge amounts of waste and fraud that is in the system. And this is not me. This is the Congressional Budget Office that suggests that we could save many, many hundreds of billions of dollars a year by having a simpler system without all of the administrative costs. And second of all, being in a better position to negotiate

prescription drugs. We don't have to spend a nickel more. And we don't have to spend a nickel more. And we can provide health care to every man, woman, and child in this country. That's the simple truth of the matter. So it's not a question of spending more. We're spending a huge amount for health care right now. It's the question of creating a simple system not geared to the profits of the insurance companies and the drug companies and allowing an administrative nightmare. Right.

And I would add, you know, to your earlier point that this is something that other countries have already done, already done successfully and are already doing more successfully than the United States. So it's not some theoretical impossibility. We are the only, you know, people talk about American exceptionalism. Yeah. Well, we are exceptional. We are the only country. I want to repeat this.

The only major country, not to guarantee health care to all, 85 million uninsured or underinsured, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It is a failed system. and we have got to move toward to learn what other countries around the world are doing and in this country I think the best

way forward is a Medicare for all system a technical question really quick do you think that there is a way in which the parliamentarian would allow this to be budget related or and pass through reconciliation or is this something that would require the filibuster to be you know

nuked that's a very good question and I can't give you the answer right now but certainly, certainly, it has huge budgetary implications. So you can make the case. The other point that I wouldn't make, and sometimes we forget about it, I suspect you know many people, as I do,

who are at jobs they do not particularly like, but they stay at that job because they have decent health care for their families. Right, almost held hostage there. That's right. So think about what it means for all of us in terms of our well-being to say, you know what, I don't have to stay at a job

that I'm not good at, that I don't like, I want to do this, and I don't have to worry about health care because I get health care as a citizen of the United States. Final question here. If there's one thing I think we can take from the Trump era, isn't it this idea that you don't have to just settle for the crumbs of incrementalism that I think that we've been told we have to settle for

in the past? Like, isn't the one thing we can take from all of this is that Americans want some actual change? And so can you just speak on that idea of what we may have learned from the 2024 election and kind of the overall sense of exasperation that we have of just being told that we can't do something that, again, the rest of the world is doing? That is a great question. And I think you are absolutely right. I mean, the problem is Trump is bringing about great change, almost all of it, is making bad situations even worse. But your point is that you've got a president who is willing not to have to talk to 38 lawyers before he goes forward, but is going forward aggressively. What does that mean? It means right now

it's not only that our health care system is broken, our housing system is broken. The cost of housing in America is absolutely unaffordable young people can you know worry whether they wonder whether they're ever going to own their own home our educational system is broken childcare a disaster public schools primary secondary being really challenged cost the college unaffordable transportation system in deep problems with deep problems so you're looking at a system in many respects which overall is designed to make the one percent, much richer.

And people like Elon Musk and Zuckerberg, they're becoming unbelievably rich while ordinary people are struggling and in basic service after basic service, health care, education, food, you know, we have the food industry literally poisoning our kids with junk food to make increased profits, housing, et cetera. So what we need is leadership in this country which says we have a system designed to get the rich, richer. Most people are struggling. Let us move aggressively to improve life for all the people this country, not just the 1%. We'll leave it there. Senator Sanders, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it. Well, thank you very much. I'm joined now by Canada for the US Senate

in Texas. Jasmine Crockett, thanks so much for joining me. Absolutely. It's good to see you. So first off, congratulations on your announcement that you're going to be running for Senate. I want to dive into that race, but I want to tackle some breaking news first. Obviously, there was the tragic killing of Rob Reiner and his wife this weekend in Los Angeles. In the immediate aftermath of that tragedy, Trump had come out and basically posted, you know, posted a screed on truth social, you know, saying that he was, that he died because of Trump's arrangement syndrome. He had the opportunity to walk that back, doubled down on his comments. Can I have your reaction to the fact that in light of a tragic killing of a beloved figure in the entertainment industry

that Trump's initial reaction was to make it about himself and basically just dance over his grave. Yeah, you know, I really have no words for where we are in this country. And I think that that will be a great segue into our conversation about why it is that I'm running for the U.S. Senate. The fact that there are not more people that are disturbed. I mean, this stuff doesn't have to do with partisanship. Like, I don't really even understand the moment that we're in, where it is acceptable for any leader in any respect, let alone the president of the United States after a tragic death before having any information. And even if you had the information, the idea that you're like, yeah, it's basically because he was anti-Maga. And it's almost like

you're giving a pass for it. And it's almost like there's a permission structure that if something happens to you, but you were anti-Maga, it's okay. That is a problem. Like, as we are sitting here saying, hey, let's denounce political violence. He continues to kind of flam these flames or send these messages that if it's on behalf of this, then it's completely understandable. Like, I don't understand any of the tragic deaths that I have seen, no matter who it is that is dying in an untimely way. And frankly, I still struggle with some things that are technically timely and ask questions about some of those deaths. And so the fact that this was someone beloved and beloved or not, I just think it was inappropriate.

I think it was an inappropriate thought, and it definitely was inappropriate to go out there and post publicly in this way. And frankly, he just would have been done better by living by the old adage that they tell you when you're a kid. If you don't have anything nice to say, they just don't say anything at all. You know, there was this whole crusade on the right in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's killing that the right was going to seek retribution against anybody who uttered an ill word, that people should be fired from their jobs.

you know, you had even come out in the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk's killing and basically lamented the fact that he died, as did every other elected official, as did all of the, you know, major political commentators, whoever it was. And so what does this do to any perceived moral high ground that the right was seeking to achieve in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death to have Donald Trump immediately cut out their legs from underneath them? Well, we know that the hypocrisy abounds. And so I think that this is yet just another example of that. But honestly, besides the hypocrisy, it's just kind of disgusting. I mean, I just can't imagine that anyone,

whether you're the president or not, would take this type of moment and let that be the conclusion that you come to. And when you think about, if this is where his head is, think about the very complicated issues that our president has to deal with. And if it's going to boil down to this kind of very simplistic, really concerning type of thought process,

I mean, just wonder, it makes me wonder more about like where is our country headed and how bad of a shape are we in with him at the helm. So I want to switch over to your race for the U.S. Senate in Texas. First and foremost, why did you think it was important to run this race? Yeah, listen, a lot of people don't believe in Texas. You know, we have gotten people's hopes up time and time again. And for me, you know, to be perfectly honest, this wasn't a race that I was looking at. I wasn't looking at a race to go to the U.S. House. And frankly, I wasn't looking at a race to go to the Texas. And frankly, I wasn't looking at a race to go through the Texas house when I went. And everyone gets into politics for

different reasons and runs for different races for different reasons. But ultimately, I have continued to kind of walk this path that I felt like was more of a calling than anything. So it's definitely not an easy walk. That is for sure. But, you know, I wasn't looking at this. I was sitting in the house. Everything was flowing. I'll say it that way. I won't say it was going great. But being in the House, you know, I've been sitting there and then the next thing you know, my name was put into a number of polls, you know, just like different names have been put into the presidential polls. And so I then started to look, but I still wasn't really like convinced that running for the U.S. Senate was really a good option because I know that from an infrastructure

standpoint, we have not necessarily been in the best position as Democrats. We've not had the investments made. And the state of Texas is a vast state. So it was very concerned that we, lacked the organization to really get this done. So I still was like, yeah, you know, whatever. And then ultimately, as we started to move somewhere with the maps, I really started to get very frustrated when the president said, hey, we want five seats out of Texas. And when the legislature decided to act on that. And when ultimately we were waiting on the lower court to come out with the decision, I was like, who I can breathe a little bit because a Trump appointed just decided in a 160-page opinion that these maps on the face of them were racially discriminatory,

something that I have been arguing the entire time. So I was like, finally, okay, here we go, right? Yeah. And then about four days before the filing deadline, the Supreme Court said, we're not going to necessarily weigh in on whether or not they are or aren't, but we're not going to allow you guys to stop them from going into effect at this moment. And there have been an interview I did that kind of caught a lot of people's attention. When I was on serious XM, I was doing an interview with Loree, and she asked me about the redistricting and Senate. And I said, if they snatched five of our house seats, I may have to come and snatch a Senate seat. And from that, people were like, wait a minute, maybe she is

serious. And so ultimately, when we look at the power that exists in the House versus the Senate, we can talk about how we want to save democracy and ultimately, like, my seat is a safe Democratic seat, and so another Democrat comes and fills that seat. But I thought that we need to run a different race. We have always run candidates that are amazing candidates. They're amazing people. They've got great resumes, but they have no name ID, and these races are already expensive. So by the time we spend all the money to get their name ID up, people are just now learning their name,

and we're behind the eight ball in such a big state. So Colin Allred, who obviously I serve with on the federal level, he was known in like the area that he was elected in, but he was not known throughout the state. So he had to do a lot to kind of get known. And so he was behind the eight ball. Same thing happened with Beto. Beto worked his butt off. I mean, he went to all 254 counties trying to make sure that people got to know who he was. But here it is, we have an opportunity for a Democrat to enter the race and have their name,

be as high as the person that actually has been elected statewide for almost 30 years, that is a significant advantage that we've never had. In addition to that, when we were looking at internal polling and trends, because I also wanted to see, can I bring new people into the fold? Because at the end of the day, if we have the same electorate, we can expect the same results. We have to expand the electorate. And so people have wondered, like, how do you get them expanded?

How do you get them involved? But we were asking the questions. If these candidates were on the ballot, would you be more or less inclined to vote? And consistently we saw a trend that people would be more inclined to vote who typically don't pay attention to politics. So with all these things, we decided to go for it because democracy requires it. And frankly, we know that the Supreme Court needs some oversight, and there's only one body that has oversight over the Supreme Court, and that is the Senate. the Senate, we know that there's only one body in which justices are confirmed through,

and that is the Senate. And as a trained attorney, I think that I can add so much value to listening to people as they're going through the confirmation process and being able to ask them very real questions because I've been in those courtrooms, and I know what to look for in a justice. You know, I think when we see Democrats running in red states, as, you know, Texas has shown itself to be. The question I often ask candidates is, what's your plan on getting independence or Republican voters to vote for you since they have that edge in terms of who their electorate actually is? Are you going for independent or Republican voters? Are you trying to build out a new subset of the electorate that hadn't voted before? I know that I had spoken to Beto in the

past, and he's adamant about the fact that Texas is not necessarily a red state. It's a non-voted. state. And so I'm just curious in trying to win this state, which tack are you taking here? Are you trying to reach out to voters who had otherwise cast ballots for Republicans or are you going to go for a different tack, which is to bring about a new swath of the electorate that hadn't previously come out? It's a little bit of both, but I will tell you it's more of the people that haven't been talked to than it is going and trying to win over Republicans. And I'm glad that you brought up Beto because Beto is the last Democrat that came anywhere near clenching one of these statewide seats.

And so he thought about adding different people to the mix. Here's the deal. We're not turning away anyone who wants better access to health care, education, housing, jobs. We're not turning anybody away, right? But at the same time, where we are making our investments, we're making our investments into those people that haven't been talked to. And the reason is this. Texas has one of the lowest voter turnout in the entire country. We're only turning out approximately 50% of the registered voters.

So that means that there's a lot of people that you can still talk to. I mean, only 50% are coming out. That means you got another 50% that you can talk to. And we've not seen excitement. And excitement really matters in races like this. It can't just be enough to be anti-Trump. You got to have people to be excited for something and someone. And I think that that's something that we bring.

I will tell you this quick story about a young man who approached one of our state representatives. In fact, you are probably very familiar with her, Nicole Collier. Nicole Collier is the state representative out of Texas who was locked in the chamber soon after everyone returned from the quorum break this most recent time. Nicole Collier walks into a car wash. There's a guy there that asks her, are you planning to vote for Jasmine Crockett? Because she's running for U.S. Senate. This is like a random conversation. I don't think he knew that she was an elected. And she was like, yeah, she's actually my friend. And so she calls me and I said, hey, I'm getting on an elevator.

I'll call you right back. I FaceTime her back. And when I facetime her back, we're on FaceTime. And I'm like, so, you know, Representative Collier told me that you were asking her about the Senate race. He said, I'm going to tell you right now that I've never paid attention to politics and never cared until you came along. And I am so excited to vote for you. This was a young black man.

So I was like, you know what? I said, Nicole, now go tell everybody what you just experienced because this is the test study. This is my theory of the case and is playing out already. The fact is, this was less than a week after I announced my candidacy. And here it was, this gentleman who doesn't pay attention to politics not only knows that I announced, but he knows what I announced for. And he's not only planning on going to vote, I did have to ask him if he was registered.

He told me he is. He said he just doesn't vote. And he also was talking to other people without me ever meeting this man a day in my life. That is what is going to take. So obviously we, you know, the blessing and the curse of the U.S. Senate race in Texas, this primary, is that we have two young dynamic candidates who are both very popular, both have a lot of juice behind them. And so for people who are deciding between you and James Telerico in this primary, how do you differentiate yourself? from him. Yeah. So one of the things is experience. You know, right now, everyone always says we're living in unprecedented times. And James and I worked on the state level together. And so there's a lot that people can look to and understand kind of where he stands when the rubber meets the road when it

comes to state issues. But on federal issues, you're pretty much just kind of having to guess and hope. And it's different when you're in the ring. That's number one. Number two, when it comes down to kind of a continuation of policies that we've worked on, whether it's me working on some of the legislation that I worked on for veteran spouses and military spouses, or whether it's legislation that I've worked on as it relates to reproductive access or whatever the legislation may be. We are put into a stance in which we can kind of continue on our fight and hopefully elevate that fight, whereas Mr. Tala Rico has not necessarily played in this world, doesn't have these relationships built just yet to kind of continue to work on certain things.

Ultimately, I ended up coming to the federal level. It was voting rights, right? We broke quorum when I was in the state house. It was all about voting rights. So I've worked on voting rights legislation, and right now this is going to be so extremely invaluable in this moment. The other point is that we have to have someone that can really attract. a diverse coalition. And so it's been demonstrated that we have a real strength as

relates to our diversity within this state. And then the final point that I'll make is that I've traveled this country on behalf of other candidates, whether they were national candidates or more so local candidates. And so one of the things that I did when I was trying to figure out whether or not I would run was to see if we were going to get some outside help because Texas is a big state. It is a big lift. And so we've got assurances from elected officials all over the country, not just within the state, that they are ready to help and get their teams going. And so those are some of the things that we bring to the table, frankly, that no one else could. And I think when you look at something like what

happened in California with Prop 50, it seemed like it kind of sailed through. But the entire country got behind Prop 50, and everyone was pitching in. That's what we're going to need in Texas. And frankly, before I entered the race, what we saw is that nobody was talking about Texas. No one was really talking about the race. And once I got in, there was just this natural energy, whether it is love or not so much. There was this natural energy that came with my candidacy. And I think that that is going to be so helpful in not only moving the state of Texas to make sure that we can send a Democratic senator to the U.S. Senate, but honestly, this is a big deal for the entire her. country. When we're talking about being able to move some of the most important legislation,

the reason we've not been able to do so is because we didn't have the numbers in the Senate and we've got to change that Senate map. And that's exactly why, literally, I'm putting it all on the line and going in because I believe we can get it done. In the immediate aftermath of your announcement, you know, some Republicans, including Mike Johnson, offered up this public display of joy at the fact that you jumped into the race. I think Mike Johnson had some creepy moment where he rubbed his hands together. In any case, what was your reaction? What was your reaction to their response? And why do you think that they put that kind of display out there? Yeah, they absolutely don't want me to be the one that they face in the general. I mean, listen,

you don't normally put it out there. You know, I've been asked over and over, who is it you would rather face in the general election? Guess how many things? times I've answered that question. Zero, right? Like, I mean, I'm like, whoever comes forward is whoever it is that I plan to beat, right? But you would not normally play your poker hand and say, hey, this is what I've got. And so what they are trying to do is a head fake. And a lot of things that Republicans do is they love to throw bombs over to Democrats and get Democrats in disarray. We know that they were the first ones to say, oh, Biden is so old. He's too old to be president. And so then Democrats were like, wait a minute, Biden is so old. He's

too old to be president. And then what did they do? They elected an old senile man, right? And so they love to kind of stir the pot amongst us because they love to make us very nervous. But I know, I mean, and we've received information from various Republican strategists that they are concerned. Because when you look at a Barack Obama candidacy, when you look at a Donald Trump candidacy, what they were able to do is they were able to get to people that you couldn't even throw into the polls. And so if it is that I am within the margin of error in any polling that is available, that's just telling you about the people that plan to vote. Now you add to that my potential ability to bring people in, such as the gentleman at the car wash, that is what

makes them fearful. And they honestly want us to continue to say, let's just go try to get their voters. Let's ignore the 50% of voters that are on the rolls, but they really aren't voting because no one's talking to them. That is what they want us to do because they know that they're going to double down on their people. And frankly, by the time that they get to the polls, so many of those Republicans, no matter how dismayed they may be, they tend to come home. But we do know that we're seeing swings of approximately no less than 10 points all over the country in deep red parts of this state as well as obviously further up north. So I think we can ride a bit of a wave, but I think we're going to have to do some elbow grease, and we're going to have

to do this differently. And so I am that different candidate that starts out not needing to try to get my name ID up, not needing to use the dollars to do that, and also giving people whether you love my record, like my record, I hate my record, but knowing what a fight on the federal level looks like with me. For folks who are looking to help your campaign, where can they go? Then go to jasminefor-us.com. We are taking all the volunteers, and we are taking all the dollars. Great. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen

and also in the post-description of this video. Representative Crockett, thanks so much for your time. Best luck in the campaign trail. Thank you. I'm joined now by Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Thanks so much for joining me. Great to be with you. So we have some big news here in the House and a big humiliation, frankly, for Mike Johnson.

Can you speak about the discharge petition that reached 218 votes today? Well, Democrats have made clear for the last several months that we were in this fight until we win this fight and ensure that the Affordable Care Act tax credits are extended as part of our effort to protect the health care of the American people so that tens of millions of folks don't experience dramatically increased health insurance premium. So we launched this discharge petition shortly after the government was reopened to make clear that there was a path forward to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits in a straightforward fashion. All 214 Democrats signed that discharge petition within a matter of days. And over the last few weeks, we've been making the case that all we need are four House Republicans out of 220 to do. join us and we can force an up or down vote on the extension of the Affordable Care Act tax

credits. Today, we got four Republicans to join us. And now it's Mike Johnson's responsibility to bring this bill to the floor. All right. So I want to talk about a little bit of the technical aspects of this. If I'm not mistaken, this bill is, it's mandatory that this bill come to the floor at the latest on January 6th. Is that correct? That's correct. That's correct. Because it's seven legislative days. Seven legislative days. If it waits that long, that means that the whole purpose of this bill, which was to prevent, you know, doubling, tripling, quadrupling of people's health care costs in 2026, we would already be in January, which means that people will have already paid their premiums. And so can you talk about the urgency right now of this moment for Mike Johnson to not wait until the last minute, but to actually bring this vote to this bill to the floor for a vote now?

That's exactly right. Under the House rules, the Speaker is required to discharge the bill no later than seven legislative days. However, there's nothing to stop him from bringing the bill to the floor today or tomorrow. There's no circumstance where we should recess for the holidays, which is scheduled to take place at the end of this week before there's a vote on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. The Republicans have already done enough damage to the health care of the American. people. This year, in their one big ugly bill, largest cut to Medicaid in American history, ripping health care away from 14 million people. Because of their policies, their toxic policies, hospitals and nursing homes and community-based health centers are closing all across the country,

including in rural America. They are attacking the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of Health, the FDA, vaccine availability, all of the things. This is a Republican health care crisis. And now we've got a bipartisan coalition that is ready to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. And it cannot wait because, as you know, the tax credits expire on December 31st. You know, Mike Johnson was asked about this and he seems to continue taking this defiant posture. And he said, you know, we're not only concerned with the 24 million Americans who are going to lose their health care. We're actually looking to just protect 100 percent of American. So what is this, what is, and granted, look, I know we've been talking about some

elusive Republican health care plan for 15 years now, but what is Mike Johnson's new plan this week that will purportedly give 100% of Americans health care coverage? Because I'm assuming he's not talking about Medicare for all. Right. He's definitively not talking about anything close to universal health coverage. Basically, what Johnson is presumably talking about is this so-called Republican health care plan, which actually will stick the American people with junk insurance. In other words, everyday Americans will be required to pay premiums, but they're not going to get any health care coverage as a result of it. What they'll find is that the health insurance that they thought they had, if they get sick, won't cover emergency department visits, won't cover

surgeries won't even cover basic procedures which are needed for people to live with dignity. As you said, Brian, the reality of the Republican health care plan over the last 15 years has been they've tried more than 70 different times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They don't care about making life better for the American people. They don't care about driving down the high cost of living. all they care about are their billionaire donors who earlier this year they rewarded with massive tax breaks and made those tax breaks permanent. And now they can't be bothered to find a dime to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits for working class Americans, middle class Americans

and everyday Americans. Why do you think it is that Mike Johnson seems so hell-bent on deferring not to his members in his conference who represent Americans who are going to watch their health care premium surge, but rather just blindly deferring to Donald Trump, who, frankly, by and large, has been an anchor around Republicans next, not somebody who's actually helping them. Because Mike Johnson seems to think that we work for Donald Trump. The way in which Mike Johnson has conducted the House of Representatives throughout the year is as if we, mostly House Republicans, of course, he's in the majority, not us,

that House Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump cartel. That ain't anything that we've ever been down with. We don't work for Donald Trump. We don't work for J.D. Vance. We don't work for their billionaire donors. We work for the American people. But unfortunately, what House Republicans have continued to do is behave like a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda.

It ain't going well for these people. It's a disaster. Democrats are winning races all over the country. We saw that in the off of your elections in November. We just saw it again in Miami where Democrat won the mayorship for the first time in almost 30 years by 20 points in a very conservative Latino electorate with Cuban Americans and Venezuelan Americans breaking in our direction. It's very interesting because how it started in the beginning of the year, there was all this talk that the Democratic Party

is finished. How it's ending and how it's going is very different. Republican extremism is being rejected all across the country. And Democrats are articulating an affirmative vision for making life better for the American people, for dealing with the affordability crisis. That's very real. It's not a hoax. We want to drive down the high cost of living all across the country and, of course, fix our broken health care system. I want to ask for your reaction to a question that Mike Johnson was posed this morning, which is, are you losing control of your conference? There's a part of the me that feels like if you have to be asked the question, are you losing control of your

conference? The question kind of says more than any answer could say. But just your reaction to Mike Johnson being asked that question today. I think that's exactly right. Control has been lost. This is the third consecutive week where Democrats have successfully advanced a discharge petition to force an up or down vote on an issue that matters to the American people. We were successful with the Epstein discharge petition to require the Department of Justice to release the files and information to the American people. Last week, we were successful in overturning Donald Trump's executive order that ripped away collective bargaining rights for more than a million hardworking federal employees. It was a big victory for organized labor and for civil servants. We did that over Donald Trump's objection.

over Mike Johnson's objection. This week, we've now been successful in reaching the 218 votes necessary to force an up or down vote on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits. He's lost control of the House of Representatives. Donald Trump knows it because Donald Trump himself has said he has two jobs and two titles,

president and Speaker of the House. That's extraordinary. Mike Johnson is the deputy speaker right now at best. best, he has no control over what's going on in Congress right now. Last question here. Can you speak about what it says that all of these Republicans, whether it's in these three discharge petitions, whether it's these Indiana Republicans who have refused to bend the knee to Trump and redrawing their maps, what it says that they are now feeling emboldened or okay to publicly rebuke him, which is something

that I think, frankly, a few weeks ago we would have, or a few months ago we would have never seen. They've come to the conclusion that this so-called Maga Emperor has no close. It's been exposed. The whole strategy by Donald Trump and the Republicans was to flood the zone with the shock and all strategy during his first 100 days, try to disorient the American people, cause a big panic, and think that Democrats were going to collapse and not fight back. But of course, channeling the strength of the great John Lewis, we've shown up, we've spoken up, we've stood up. There's still a lot of work to be done. But it's clear that the American people are with us.

They want us to continue to fight to end this national nightmare and get things turned around. And we're going to continue to put victories on the table for the American people legislatively, even though we're governing in the minority. No one's ever seen anything like this before. They're more successful discharge petitions this year. As a matter of fact, in the last 30 days than we've seen in the last. 30 years in the United States Congress. And of course, electorally, whether that was in New Jersey or New York or Virginia or Pennsylvania or Prop 50 in California, statewide races for the first time in 20 years that we've won down south, overturning the supermajority in Mississippi in the

state Senate. And most recently, winning decisively in South Florida, we have the extremists on the run. We're going to keep the pressure on them and continue to deliver for everyday Americans. We'll leave it there. Leader Jeffries, thanks so much for taking the time. Thanks so much, man. Appreciate you.

Thanks again to Rokana, Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, and Hakeem Jeffries. 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 bryantaylorcoen.com to learn more.