No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump's vile Ghislaine Maxwell plan comes into clear focus

Episode Date: July 27, 2025

Trump sprints toward a very insidious plan using Ghislaine Maxwell to absolve himself of any culpability in the Epstein files. Brian interviewsGavin Newsom, Jasmine Crockett, Summer Lee, and Beto O’Rourke– all to discuss the Epstein files, the DOJ’s meeting with Maxwell, and Trump’s effort to gerrymander Texas.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 sprints toward a very insidious plan using Ghislaine Maxwell to absolve himself of any culpability in the Epstein files. And I've got four interviews this week. I interview Gavin Newsom, Jasmine Crockett, Summer Lee, and Beto O'Rourke all to discuss the Epstein files, the DOJ's meeting with Maxwell, and Trump's effort to gerrymander Texas. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and you're listening to No Lie. What is almost as striking as how slow Trump has been to release the still not released

Epstein files is how fast the DOJ moved to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell. And the reason for the speed here is obvious. Congress passed a motion compelling both the release of the Epstein files and compelling a deposition from Maxwell. And that deposition happens in person on August 11th, which means that the Trump administration had to get to her before August 11th in case, oh, I don't know, they needed to make sure that her story didn't involve any accusations against a certain president of the United States.

And they knew that they had some leverage, right? She's serving out a 20-year prison sentence and Trump just so happens to wield the power of the pardon. So there are certainly the ingredients for a quid pro quo from a president who is a pro at quid pro quoing. And so Trump's former personal criminal defense attorney Todd Blanch sprinted on down to the prison in Florida and had a two-day long meeting with Maxwell, whose attorney then wasted no time in telling everybody that yes, she is indeed in the market for a pardon. Surprise, surprise.

All of which is to say, if Trump wanted to fix this situation, he very clearly could. Which raises the big question here, how does Trump get out of this without it looking like just a massive PR disaster? Well, everybody wants a list. So Trump gets Maxwell to throw some Democrats names out there. That would be the list who the DOJ then goes after. She says Trump had nothing to do with Epstein, thereby absolving him of any and all culpability. And then as a little thank you for her great service to the nation by exposing all of these

evil pedophile Democrats, she gets a pardon and maybe even a medal of honor by Donald Trump. So it's a win,win-win for him, right? He gets to prosecute some Democrats, he gets to declare innocence for himself, and all it cost him is a pardon that he's already abused literally thousands of times, including day one of his presidency with 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists. Now, of course, there will always be the usual right-wing sycophants who are gonna buy this story and look I I Love my dog more than anything in the world Even my dog is not as loyal as Charlie Kirk is to Donald Trump

So if Trump offers up this very thin veneer of an excuse people like Charlie Kirk will lap up that slop like it's the only meal he's gotten all week and he'll happily serve it out to his audience and there are plenty, people like Charlie Kirk will lap up that slop like it's the only meal he's gotten all week. And he'll happily serve it out to his audience. And there are plenty of people like that. Greg Kelly from Newsmax is already saying out loud that Ghislaine Maxwell is the victim here. Maxwell, the woman who literally trafficked and abused girls for herself and Epstein, the victim. You know, I'm sure we'll see Megyn Kelly falling over herself to protect Trump and spew the party line.

But then there are people who are a lot more skeptical. And we've seen a lot of those folks start to talk out. And those are not the MAGA sick of fans. They're more of the people in the broader atmosphere. Certainly people who are helpful in terms of getting Trump elected, but aren't bought in in the same way that these political operatives are. So, naive though this may be, Trump elected but aren't bought in in the same way that these political operatives are. So naive though this may be, I really do hope that those people see through the bullshit. Because if I can call it out right now before it's even happened, if and when it does happen,

it's going to be just as easy to see through. And more importantly, I do hope that they call it out if and when it happens. The reality is we're going to learn a lot by their response to what happens here because if they truly care about transparency and accountability for the victims and the perpetrators like they claimed during the campaign, then this blatant cover-up that again we can see from a mile away isn't going to cut it. But if it was only ever about protecting Trump, then this is going to be all they need to fall right back in line. The truth is that we already know Trump is implicated.

If the guy was any less subtle about his links to Epstein, he'd have tattooed it on his forehead. But we're going to learn a lot about the MAGA base right now. Do they have a shred of dignity? Or is allegiance to the God King more important than accountability for literal pedophiles? I have a strong feeling that we're about to find out. Next up are my interviews with Gavin Newsom, Jasmine Crockett, Summer Lee, and Beto O'Rourke. No Lie is brought to you by Armour Colostrum. Why are elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers using Armour Colostrum?

Armour Colostrum is nature's first whole food with over 400 bioactive nutrients working at the cellular level to build lean muscle, accelerate recovery, and fuel performance, all without artificial stimulants or synthetic junk. When you're running a business, training hard, or just want an edge, armor colostrum optimizes your body for peak output. So let's talk about one of those instances in particular. Metabolism. Armor strengthens your gut barrier to guard against toxins, chemicals, and pollutants that can drive inflammation and slow down metabolism. Armour helps enhance nutrient absorption, stabilize blood sugar levels,

and modulate hormones like leptin that ignite your body's fat burning capacity for your peak metabolic performance. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to triarmour.com slash BTC or enter BTC to get 15% off your first order. I'm joined now by the governor of California. We're here in Sacramento in the governor's mansion. I appreciate you taking the time. No, great to be with you.

Thanks for coming up. So you met today with the delegation from Texas. Obviously, Greg Abbott in Texas is looking to gerrymander those maps even further. So first and foremost, what is the state of possible mid-cycle redistricting right now? In California, we have an independent redistricting, which I supported. It was one of the few Democrats at the time that publicly supported it, elected Democrats at the time, to move away from partisan gerrymandering, which should happen. And the point we made then when it was on the ballot was it should happen all across

the United States. That didn't happen, hasn't taken shape. And so what's happened is now we're at a disadvantage. We're trying to play by one set of rules, and these folks on the other side are played by a completely different set of rules, so much so that the President of the United States called Greg Abbott and told him in essence, find five additional seats so we can rig the election next year and maintain the power and authority with the House of Representatives, which de facto amounts to no power, no authority, complete capitulation so Trump can continue

to run roughshod over our rights and liberties. So what are the options presented to us right now? I know that there's going to be some legal hurdles that if push comes to shove, we'll have to look at, but what's on the table as of right now? So right now, the most important caucus is the delegation of Democratic representatives in the state of California that would have their districts changed mid-decade. Then number two, we need to get two-thirds of our California legislature to put it on the ballot to create a special election.

And then three, the ultimate authority will be vested in the people of the state of California that would have to make the determination of whether or not we should continue to play by one set of rules as these guys continue to rig the game and play by a wholly different set of rules. So that's one process. The second one is a legislative process. Independent of the independent redistricting, there's a novel legal theory that there's it's silent about redistricting mid-decade, mid-census. And so on that basis it would be

to test that theory. It'd be an easier path in some respect, but it's also a path that wouldn't necessarily give voice and choice to the public. And so I have my own preferred path, but the legislature will ultimately make the determination. Can those two things happen concurrently? This way, if one fails at the courts or whatever it may be, then you at least have another process you can look at? Look, conceivably that's the case.

We're in session right now, so I don't need to call a special session, which is good. And as a consequence of that, the legislature will kick tires and relates to these options and make the best judgment they possibly can. The cleanest path, I think just being candid with folks, the cleanest path would be to go back in front of the voters to make the case that things have radically changed since the last time this was presented in front of the voters. And as a consequence, we need to change.

They would recognize the stakes as it relates to Texas. We can in essence likely neuter the total number of districts that Trump is looking to get with Abbott in rigging those maps here in the state of California. Hope other governors consider doing similar things. You've got to fight fire with fire. This is an existential moment. We have agency, we can act superior, we can act holier than thou,

and watch the last half century wiped out in real time. I think we need to be held to a higher level of accountability and meet this moment and lean in on this and get tough. And I wanna talk about those other governors in a moment, but first right here in California there is a little bit of I guess opposition to this. There was an assembly member Alex Lee who had come out and said that doing this would kick off a cycle of gerrymandering that would kind of lead us down to a bad place in politics.

My response to this when I look this, is we're already there. We're already there. I mean, Republicans have gerrymandered Ohio, Florida, they're looking to do it in Texas right now, Utah, North Carolina, it's within an inch of its life. And so what is your response to those folks in the assembly, in the California legislature, who I guess are opposing this

because they think it's gonna set some type of a bad precedent? Yeah, I mean, I think that was a minority view, meaning he's deeply an exception. I've not heard any other utterance from any other member of the Democratic caucus. In fact, quite the contrary. It's been a chorus of support saying, what can we do to help? What are the pathways? What are our considerations? What's the timing on this? And I'm not even sure at the end of the day, the final analysis, he would in essence even agree with his own statement.

He's a friend and I don't want to cast aspersions on that. I don't think he fully absorbed the lay of the land as you just laid out. These guys have been rigging, they're gerrymandering these districts. I mean, look what happened in North Carolina a few years ago. In essence, it was a balance. It was the difference, by the way way between speaker Jeffries today versus speaker Johnson was just what they did in North Carolina I mean the consequences what more evidence of the consequences do we need so I think in the final analysis There'll be overwhelming support here. How committed to getting this done. Are you and I asked I asked this because

Look, I'm I'm a Democrat and part of being a Democrat is seeing that when the Republicans want to get this done, are you? And I ask this because, look, I'm a Democrat, and part of being a Democrat is seeing that when the Republicans wanna get something done, they won't let anything stand in their way, not the laws, not judges, not the US Constitution, and if Trump wants to do something, he'll just do it. And that's obviously a point of consternation among Democrats who are at the opposite end of the spectrum where we had HR1, our top priority, when Democrats had full control the house the Senate and the White House granted

We didn't have enough to overcome the filibuster But we did have enough votes to eliminate the filibuster if we wanted to which is to say that was our top priority Yeah, and we couldn't get it done with full control. It's exhausting. I'm sick of it And I don't want to be on the receiving end of that anymore I'm sick and tired of being on our heels got to be on our toes. It's not About you know fighting back. It's about leaning forward and it's about setting the tone and tenor. I'm sick of this party needs to wake up.

These guys aren't screwing around. And I say this not in literal sense, but they're assassins when it comes to the way they weaponize grievance and the way they play politics. Enough. I mean, what more goddamn evidence do we need? Excuse my language. the way they weaponize grievance and the way they play politics. Enough. I mean, what more goddamn evidence do we need? Excuse my language. I mean, they've rolled back the last half century.

In real time, that's just six months. Can you imagine this guy having an additional 42 months with no system of checks and balances, no oversight? I mean, seriously, the hell else more evidence do you need? This is an existential moment. And so Democrats, if we want to have a party, if we want to be functioning not just as a party but as a democracy, if we want a system of checks and balances, we believe in the rule of law, if you believe in popular sovereignty, this is not about popular

sovereignty. This guy wants to wire. He tried to break this democracy, tried to light it on fire on January 6? He just made a call to the governor of Texas saying in this case not find me the votes But find me new seats to rig the game If we want to still be in this game, we need to disabuse ourselves Disenthrall ourselves of the status quo in the past. We have got to enter a new mindset and we've got to get back on this playing field and we've got to do with the kind of vigor that our kids and grandkids deserve, that liberty and

freedom deserves this moment. The founding fathers deserve the principles that define the best of Roman public and Greek democracy. That's on the line unless we stand the line and stand guard of this democracy and Greek democracy. That's on the line unless we stand the line and stand guard of this democracy. And that means we gotta go on offense. No more defense, go on offense, fight fire with fire. So you ask me, am I in? I'm all in.

You ask me, am I committed? I'm all in, committed and resolved. And so this is not a bluff. This is a moment to be held to a higher level of accountability. So to that point then, we know that Texas is gonna do this. Trump has already issued his clarion call to other states.

We've heard of Republicans in Missouri possibly doing this. And look, there are states across the country where Democrats deign to have one congressional seat or two congressional seats in an otherwise red state. And those are obviously all gonna be on the table as far as Republicans are concerned because Trump says jump, they say how high. And so what would your message be in this moment

to governors of other states where Democrats control the process, states like New York, states like New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, where we can, using your exact words, fight fire with fire. I'm encouraged in the last few days. You're seeing governors now publicly state what I believe they believe privately in a

more assertive way. The Texas delegation, to their credit, have helped us, think you know develop a little more courage on this. I mean the fact that they took time to fly out of their state to meet with me, they're meeting with other governors, they met with them today, they're reaching out. I am a little more confident that we're going to wake up to this reality in a way that's a lot more aggressive and more assertive. You're seeing it take shape. There's been a little timidity, which I understand. Because again, when they go high, we get all that.

I mean, I get all that. It's just, come on. Things have changed. You gotta act in the- It's the slogan of a past era at this point. Just is, with Trump, all bets are off. I think part of the benefit for them is they recognize, they factor it in, that they have a weak adversary.

And so that kind of emboldens them to know that they can run roughshod over the Constitution, over laws, over Democrats if they want to, because historically Democrats haven't fought back. So what would the impediment be for them? Yeah, as you're saying that there's just a vivid image of McConnell in the Supreme Court. Exactly. I mean, Jesus, Democrats, come on. Wake up, wake up.

This thing may be gone, this whole thing, in a matter of years. I mean, I feel like it's a matter of months. So this is like, if you're not gonna do it step, I mean, it's one of those things, it's just like, come on. It's defined. No, but that's exactly right.

If you're not willing to fight at a moment where what's required is fighting, then you can't step aside. And again, I have a romantic view of the world as well. I want the sort of Sorkin music in the background and the soaring speech to our higher angels to find that. So but not at this moment. We're in a war right now and we're in the trenches and this guy is rolling us and he thinks we're weak.

So let's not act weak. He thinks we're meek. Let's not act weak. He thinks we're meek. Let's not act meekly. Let's meet this moment head on. And we have two things. We have formal authority. We still have it in so many of these states. We have states like California with a state of mind where you can pick up five plus seats

and we can push back. But we also have moral authority because we know what we're fighting for. We know who we're fighting for. We know who we're fighting against. And so when you have moral authority and formal authority, you need to exercise it. At peril of being judged not to have lived. And all of us will judge ourselves, even more extraordinarily, extremely that is,

if we don't meet this moment. So let's not dream of regretting. Those that have the privilege like I do, public service, at this moment. I'm so blessed. I mean, if I was on the sideline kicking and screaming, just trying to throw things at, or just sending messages, watching something like this, that's hard, I empathize with that.

And so I'm just, I'm so lucky to be that voice to the extent I can. And so I'm just, I'm gonna do my best. I don't wanna over promise here. There's still a lot of issues we're trying to address and kick the tires on. But if we don't win back this house, if we don't take back the house, we may not have an election in 2028.

That is not a gross exaggeration. I mean, when you receive in the mail a Trump 2028 hat, by one of Trump's biggest influencers. They mean business. This is a moral moment. This is the game. This is it. And we cannot tap out. Right. This is the saying where they tell you who they are. Believe them. Believe them. Okay. I want to switch topics a little bit right now because I would be remiss not to ask you about the biggest story happening in the saying where they tell you who they are, believe them. Right? Believe them. OK, I want to switch topics a little bit right now, because I would be remiss not to ask you about the biggest

story happening in the country right now, which is Epstein. Just today, Trump came out and said that when he was asked if he was briefed by the DOJ about being in the Epstein files, he said no. Two days ago, it came out in the Wall Street Journal that, in fact, Pam Bondi did brief the president. And so what's your reaction to the fact that he is still perpetuating this lie? Well, he's lying to cover up his prior lies and then lying again.

Now he doesn't even know truth from fiction. And so look, he's caught it red handed. He's in the files. We know it. Period. Full stop. That's not that's not that's not even accurate. We know he's in the file. We know what. Period. Full stop. That's not even accurate. We know he's in the file. We know what this is all about. He told Bonde, Pam, Bonde not to move forward. It's the idea that he has to fire her. He should step down himself if he fires her because he directed

her not to release these files. I always assumed that. Now we know that she briefed him. So he's lying. He's part of this cover up. And he has confused even the most ardent observers here. I mean, you can't get the guys a pretzel on this issue every hour. He contradicts a statement. The Olympics coming in California in 2028. You can join the gymnastics. I'm not even sure. I think that would have to be an additional sports because even gymnastics doesn't have enough just you know, yeah flips and turns and everything I look it's a hell of a thing. And so I'm look at this guy. Yeah, you reap what you sow He created this he weaponized. He's done it from the birth certificate on down. He plays He does this little thing with Q the whole thing too, too cute by half. And now he's caught.

And real people, I mean, I was on a podcast with Sean Ryan, who's a remarkable person in many ways, incredible supporter of Trump. And he expressed in real terms how disappointed and now he's he's questioning everything and I think this is a real political problem for Trump in a way that prior Patches of problems have not been well, you know You've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of these right-wing influencers You just mentioned one you've also spoken to Charlie Kirk And so you know these guys and a lot of them spent the campaign staking their support building up their reputation on

This issue and so as you kind of see them trying to contort themselves to figure out where they're gonna go, and we've seen moments where some of them decide that, hey, I'm gonna just attach my lips to Trump's ass and that'll be how it goes. And then you have some others who are actually showing a little bit of spine and speaking out. So what's your message to these folks

in the right-wing media ecosystem who are figuring out where they want to go right now, whether it's just to follow Trump at all costs, no matter what he says, or to show some independence in light of these new updates? Well, I mean, people come and go. Reputations can be destroyed in a moment. I mean, your reputation is the only thing you've got. I mean, the coin of the realm is trust. You've built audiences, you have incredible influence. Trump is not gonna be president forever even if he gets a third term or tries to

manipulate a third term. You know fate and life. There's an expiration date for all of us. These folks want to continue to build their platforms and they're losing a lot of people and you know you start to lose people on this, they don't trust you on not just Trump, they won't trust these guys, continue to have these guys back. He'll turn his back on all of them. There's not one of them.

I mean, he all but said that. He laid these guys out. His biggest supporters may have been the difference in the election. And he turned on them. He has zero loyalty. At least be loyal to your followers. On your own, you built these unbelievable platforms.

And people are following you. Have the decency, I think, to have the back of those that are following you. Trump doesn't care about the people following him, but those that run these platforms, I hope they consider their audience. He was also asked whether he was considering pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell. This is somebody who is completely depraved, who is an accomplice to a notorious famed

pedophile who has since died. And instead of giving the correct answer, which is, no, I would not consider offering a pardon to somebody like this, he said, I have the right. He reasserted his right to be able to do that, sending a pretty clear signal. We also found out from Glane Maxwell's attorney that she is seeking a pardon. So we have Trump who's not ruling it out.

We have her attorney who is overtly saying that's what she wants. Sick offense, her attorney. Trump's a great deal maker. We've had so many candid conversations. What he knows is required, right? This is sick stuff. This is sick.

I mean, if you're a conspiracy theorist, I mean, they're gonna turn me into one. Why the hell are we even talking to her? Yeah. What, pardon for what? No, seriously, for what? Why is your personal attorney now at the DOJ meeting with her personal attorney?

For what purpose? What is this about? You said, forget this, move on. I don't even understand what this is about. To pardon her for what? To have your back? To lie for her? I mean, now we're going deeper.

Now I'm starting to think, maybe it's not just on these files. Maybe this is even deeper. I'm not kidding. This is starting. Even things where I'm like, okay, this guy just didn't want the association, wanted to make this about Democrats or some fancy mutual friends he may have had, didn't want to association want to make this about Democrats or some five fancy mutual friends He may have had didn't want to embarrass them and there's been pressure there people have written big checks to him Maybe they're part of his crypto

scams and that but When you're meeting with her With your former personal attorney and you're literally socializing what she does. This is what he does He tests the wall theory throw something out starts. Starts to lay the groundwork. Lays the groundwork. He's serious about it. For what? Why?

I mean, so this, where he's on the other side, this guy's, I said this to you a few months ago, and more and more evidence every single day, he's lost a step. This is not the same Trump 1.0. This is, something's Trump 1.0. This is something's off increasingly off And he's getting he said unmoored in ways even like Trump's standards I haven't seen I don't want to overstate this moment, but you can't understate this something something ain't right as they say and finally

Let's finish off with this to that exact point on being unmoored. I suppose you don't think it's especially presidential to go on some spree talking about changing the Washington commander's name, denaturalizing Rosie O'Donnell, getting cane sugar and Coca-Cola, re-litigating Hillary's emails in the year 2025, and then of course arresting Barack Obama. And so in light of his kind of dissembling

that's happening on the public stage, what's your response to what we're seeing from the president? It reminds me of a punch drunk boxer. He's just wildly flailing. He's flailing. He's just zigging and zagging. He's desperate. He's trying anything, trying to chum the waters, and it's not working.

And normally it works for him. It's not working right now. I mean, that's why he's off promoting his golf courses in Scotland. Get me the hell out of here. Problem is, wherever he goes, his reputation, this sort of degenerate nature of who he currently is follows him.

And that's why I think this one is gonna have not just some more explaining to do, he's gonna have to do a lot more than he's done in the past to be able to dig his way out of this. Governor Newsom, appreciate you taking the time. It's good to be. Thanks for dressing up a little nicer than I am. I wore a tie this time for you. It's ready.

No lies brought to you by Smalls. So I am the biggest animal lover that you will ever find. I'm sure that if you've seen my content, you've often seen my dog sitting behind me. But I also have a cat. Although he's not specifically my cat, he's a neighborhood cat, comes to my door every single day to the point where I now buy food every single month for a cat that isn't technically mine. But I love this cat, he is my responsibility,

and I have to make sure to feed him every day and to feed him with food that is actually good. And that's why I love this cat. He is my responsibility. And I have to make sure to feed him every day and to feed him with food that is actually good. And that's why I love Smalls. Smalls cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients that you would find in your fridge. And it's delivered right to your door. That's why Cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. And you're probably wondering, why can't I just feed my cat Kibble? Believe it or not, your cute kitty descended from ferocious desert cats who hunted live prey for food, and your cat isn't any different. They still need fresh, protein-packed meals to be at their best. Other cat food brands know this, but they choose to put their

wallets first. They fill their food with mysterious meat, byproducts, artificial flavoring, and preservatives with names that I don't even want to try to pronounce. If that sounds gross, imagine having to eat it every day. After switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. That is a big deal. The team at Smalls is so confident that your cat is going to love their product that you can try it risk-free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. For a limited time only, because you're a NoLie listener, you can get 35% off Smalls, plus an additional 50% off your first order by using my code BTC That's an additional 50% off when you head to Smalls.com and use promo code BTC again

That's promo code BTC for an additional 50% off your first order plus free shipping at Smalls.com I'm joined now by Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. Thanks so much for joining me Absolutely. So the new news today is that the House may not be in session as long as it was supposed to be, because now we have Mike Johnson threatening to recess the House so as not to have to vote on the Epstein files. Is that correct as of right now?

I don't know if I would say that that's correct, but you are accurate. Right, right. I think there's a lot of wrong in what you just said. Yeah. But you are absolutely accurate in what is going on in the Do Nothing Congress, in the Congress in which they pretend to be about transparency until it's time to be transparent, in the Congress where they pretend to be about the people until it comes down to the votes

and the policies to protect the people and instead they inflict pain. I mean, this is kind of what this Congress is about, is about hypocrisy at the highest levels, even if it means that they are going to go out of their way to protect the criminality, most likely of this president, and basically waste taxpayer dollars in the process. That sounds about right. Yes, that's tracking. You said the word transparency, which I think is the right choice of word, because Mike Johnson had used that exact word while talking about the Epstein

files in the past. He said that we needed transparency as it relates to these files. And so how how do you square this now with what what what excuse could he possibly have to justify doing whatever he can, bending over backwards, twisting himself into pretzels so that there isn't any vote taken on the Epstein files when he himself is on record saying that we need transparency about this very issue. You're asking me to do the impossible. To get into Mike Johnson's head. Yeah. Because this idea of trying to explain the unexplainable, I just can't. I mean, this is part of the reason I'm not a Republican, right? Because they are consistently doing the things that really there is no explanation for,

including the fact that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths. And you pointed to the speaker, but let's be clear. This president has not been able to wield the level of influence and power that he is wielding without the help of so many minions, including the speaker, but not limited to, let's not forget this amazing attorney general that we have who also has been speaking out of both sides of her mouth. So you know what? There's not very many things that are bipartisan in this Congress. Every since the Republicans have had control of the House, there's not been very many things that are bipartisan in this Congress, ever since the Republicans have had

control of the House. There's not been very many things that are bipartisan, but in a very bipartisan way, we are absolutely pushing for the release of these files. And that is why the speaker is having to do cartwheels in order to prevent a number of his members from taking votes that they really can't square with their voters. And he's hoping that the news cycle will blow over over the next month as we are on recess and we can come back and everybody's like Jeffrey Epstein who? Right. Well, let's talk about recess for a moment then because Marjorie Taylor Greene had come

out earlier and said that she's gotten more calls about the Epstein issue than any other issue. And I believe if I'm not mistaken, she signed on as a co-sponsor for the Massey-Kana bill that would compel the release of these files. And so to what extent does folks calling congressional offices have an impact on their willingness to actually sign on to this kind of legislation? I don't really know. Interesting example you used, I'll say it that way. I mean, here's the deal. I think that people organized around the big ugly bill and they called and unfortunately their calls

fell on deaf ears. Now granted, they did know that they were doing wrong. And so that's why you saw immediate like, I'm quitting Congress after I take this bad vote. Or you see people like Senator Tillis who says, Never mind, I'm just not going to run for reelection. I mean, we are experiencing kind of this kind of thing. But like, does it actually change their actual votes? A lot of times, I would say absolutely not. It's not changing their vote. I think that this is really big for those that believe

that they have a large MAGA base of support because this is becoming one of those delineation points for MAGA, not 17 million people losing their healthcare, who cares, not dropping bombs without any congressional approval, not making sure that food insecurity is a thing of the past, but the Epstein vows. So this is where we are. Can you give some...

So the bill that we've been speaking about is, this is the discharge petition. It takes a certain amount of time for it to be able to come up for a vote. It's called ripening. This likely wouldn't happen until September now that Mike Johnson is gonna use this maneuver to deprive the session of the requisite amount of days that it needs. But in the meantime, can you explain

what the Oversight Committee is doing with regard to compelling the testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell? Yeah, so one of our subcommittees, the Government Operations Subcommittee, I don't currently serve on that one anymore. But there actually was a motion to subpoena this woman who is currently serving a sentence, I believe of 20 years,

to come and testify before the committee that subpoena was actually prompted by a motion by Tim Burchett, is what I understand. And that motion did go forward. So again, I fully anticipate this was a bipartisan effort by those that serve on the Subcommittee for Government Operations. And so there is, they are supposed to move forward with the subpoena. Now what that looks like, I don't know.

As someone who has practiced criminal defense, trying to get someone out of custody, and obviously we need to consult with her lawyer, I don't know if she still has things that are pending some way, somehow on appeal that would potentially impact the level of truthfulness that we would get out of this. So definitely a lot of questions to be answered. But it is interesting that the committee itself, the subcommittee on oversight decided to do this. And I think that I would

trust this process more than I would trust the Department of Justice kind of deciding that they're going to interview her and then ultimately potentially sanitizing the information that we get or potentially engaging in some type of threats or potentially offering a pardon if certain things were said, right? Or not said, you know? So we obviously don't have pardons to offer. And if for some reason there is testimony that takes place, it would take place and both sides would be able to participate. So ultimately, I actually have to say I would applaud Tim Burchette for attempting to get this done prior to the Department of Justice engaging in this type of conversation because I don't know what

may happen to that witness if the administration gets to her first. I think that's the perfect point here because it was released this morning that Todd Blanch, who is Trump's personal criminal defense attorney, who now has a job in the White House as deputy attorney general, reached out to Ghislaine Maxwell. And if the administration wanted transparency here, isn't it true that they could just release the tranche of files that they already have at their disposal? And so when we hear, for example, that they're going to go to unseal grand jury testimony,

knowing that that's like a fraction, it's like five or 10% of what's contained already within the files, it's clear that they're just doing this as a distraction method or a delay method. And then when they go after, when they propose to Glaine Maxwell that they want to have a conversation with her, well, again, all of the pertinent information, all of the relevant information as it relates to Glaine Maxwell is already available in the files, which leads me to believe that if you're doing anything with Glane Maxwell, you're not gonna find out any new information because that investigation has already occurred, she's already been convicted, she's serving a 20-year sentence in prison, so at this point, are

we crazy to think that that the options that would be available to them are, okay, if you have further information, or if you have information that may very well incriminate, oh I don't know, Donald Trump for instance, we have a vested interest in keeping you quiet. And so here's what we could potentially offer you. Yeah, it is sad to think that this is the type of thought process that we go through with our federal government here in the United States. But they have shown time and time again that they are crooked, that they are crooks, and they absolutely

Are not above any level of criminality And so it's honestly what we should expect we should expect them to do criminal things this is somebody who was a con man and a convict and so Unfortunately, we have seen him misuse You know things such as pard, where it looks like there's a bit of pay for play. And so I absolutely fully anticipate that he may most likely offer her a get out of jail free card, if she just fails to disclose certain things, or if she decides to say certain other things, right?

But I do think that considering the fact that she probably is the only person who was really intimately engaged with all levels of kind of, or the vast majority of criminality with Epstein, she is the person that can discredit or credit any information. And going back to this issue about the grand jury, it is a game that he's playing. He is playing on the fact that as a trained lawyer, I know that grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret.

Even after the convictions, if there's convictions, even with no convictions. It is the paramount part of our judicial system is the secrecy that exists within the grand jury process. So absolutely, I think what he's trying to do is he's trying to play both sides right now by saying, hey, we are going to make sure that we push for the judge to release the grand jury proceeding so that people ultimately will most likely get mad at the judge when the judge just kind of follows the law and potentially does not release that

information. And then he says, my hands are tied. I tried when the reality is that you didn't try. In fact, the only thing you tried to do was obstruct, which is why they are going to let us out early, is because clearly Mike Johnson has been given the heads up that he needs to obstruct any official, anything from happening as relates to the Epstein files. On the issue of obstruction and distraction, we have seen Trump throw everything at the wall. He's threatened to denaturalize Rosie O'Donnell, talked about

cane sugar in Coca-Cola, threatened to revoke the stadium of the Washington commanders if they don't change their name back to the Washington Redskins. He's talked about arresting Barack Obama, relitigating Hillary Clinton's emails in the year of our Lord 2025. And so this morning he really dove in to the Obama stuff, again calling for him and a bunch of other officials, Comey Brennan, to be arrested. And so what do you make of the fact that he is desperately trying to distract everybody by pointing instead to Obama to the point where Obama's office had to release a statement saying that, you know, the allegations are obviously completely baseless.

You know what? I think that we're actually doing good this time. He is the king of distractions, right? And so he has tried everything and his base is not letting up. And that's great because they tend to be easily distracted. But on this thing, for whatever reason, it has become just like that sore spot for him and they won't get off of it. I mean, he directly told them to stop talking about it.

He directly told them via his own social media, like, shut up about it. He directly told them via his own social media, shut up about it, right? And then he decided that he wanted to insult his followers who decided not to let it go, right? So it only looks like he's even more guilty. And here's the deal. Guilty of what? I don't know. Obviously there's all kinds of allegations out there,

but at the same time, I'm like, you still became the nominee and the president of the United States, even though you had been found liable for sexual abuse. Seemingly people did not care, at least your supporters. I mean, even though there was that Access Hollywood tape where you talked about being sexually abusive towards women, they still loved you. Even though there were allegations as it relates to the Miss America pageants that you participated in as well. They still supported you.

Even though E. Jean Carroll ended up with a significant amount of money that is owed to her because of your sexual abuse proclivities, I mean, is it a far cry that he somehow did something wrong with his bestie, okay? Because we got a gazillion pictures of the two of them. Like, is it a far cry? No, but is it gonna change anything?

Probably not, so just release it. You go around and you pretend like you're a gangster. You always wanna talk about Al Capone and all these other people and whatever, right? And how you're treated that way. So like do what you do. I think what's most striking there is if, if it's already out in the open that Donald Trump is an adjudicated, you know, sexual abuser, uh, there, you know, dozens of women who've come forward saying that they, that he's harassed them. There's the Access Hollywood tape where he's admitted on camera, although unwittingly, that he is sexually abusive and a predator.

You have all of these different allegations that show exactly who Trump is. So this would be nothing different. And yet what must be in those files for somebody who the whole world already knows all of his baggage as it relates to sexual abuse and being a predator and harassing women? What must be in those files that that guy with all this dirty laundry already aired out can't let us see it? I think that's the the most striking part of all of this. And let's finish off with this finally. What would your message be, you know, to to independents or or Republicans out there for whom this is

a real issue and they're staking their support for this administration on as they kind of see this thing unravel? I think that this is bigger than the Epstein case itself. I think you have to look at a couple of things. You have to look at the fact that this Department of Justice doesn't seemingly work for the American people, that this Department of Justice has become his personal henchman, right? That is and should be scary. And that is something that was talked about in Project 2025, it talks about this consolidation

of power, but it also talks about this lack of independence within the judiciary as well as the Department of Justice. And that's what we're seeing. So we should really be concerned about that. I mean, you talk about what he combined his kind of rhetoric around this week with was threatening a former president, Barack Obama, who absolutely definitely did not have the level of scandals when it came to his morality within his marriage that this one has had. So I mean, if there's anybody that probably is clean and anybody that's probably dirty,

I think we know which is which, right? But everyone should be concerned about the Department of Justice being used in this way. I mean, this also comes on the heels of this Department of Justice only recommending one-day time served in prison for someone who had been found guilty of a crime on the federal level as it relates to violating the civil rights of Breonna Taylor. Right. And then they were like, Oh, give them one day time served. Like we have to be concerned about this Department of Justice, the Department of Justice that

will go out and decide that they would try to and would indict sitting members of Congress, right? This Department of Justice that does not see the physical altercation that took place with a sitting senator and decided to go out and prosecute that. This Department of Justice that got rid of the Civil Rights Division while at the same time deciding that Ashley Babid, who was in the process of committing a series, a litany of crimes that her family should somehow get then $5 million.

We have to be concerned about the level of corruption and the level of violations of ethics that exists within this Department of Justice. We then also have to be concerned about if they are being this secretive on something that is very public, trying to pretend as if this Epstein thing is just like a whole hoax. When someone is literally sitting in prison, when we know that he had actually been charged and that he had additional charges that he was facing, and then to act like, oh, nope, nothing's here, we have to be concerned about what type of transparency are we getting in other parts of this federal government? Like when we have bombs that are dropped and then we have no real conversations around that, right?

Like or when you make deals to get foreign planes in violation of the Constitution, like what all is up with that? Or when your family is making deals for new resorts with foreign governments. So you have to wonder, well, what else are you not being transparent about? And what types of vulnerabilities exist within our government because of how dirty you are, right? So I think that we should look at the totality of this situation

and be concerned about the Department of Justice and the fact that they don't know what justice is, as well as we should be concerned about the level of transparency or lack thereof, as well as finally, a lack of a moral compass within this federal government. That is really a big deal because when it comes down to policy, you should have policy that is orchestrated, is born of this idea of doing right. And everything that we've seen from this administration is that they only know how to do wrong. And this is just another kind of layer to that because if he is in these files, if he

did participate in any of the trafficking of little girls. If this is the type of person that is serving and sitting in the White House, then what do you think he's gonna do when it comes to policies for people or children or elders when this is the moral compass that he operates under? Right, and he and his Republican conference already put that on full display when they decided that,

you know, after running a campaign predicated on America first, that in fact they would strip health care away from, you know, millions upon millions of people, strip food assistance away to the tune of $300 billion, take jobs away from veterans, cut energy jobs away from Americans, all to basically dump money into ICE enforcement that will, by the way, you know, tear families apart at the hands of the pro-family party and hurt our economy in the meantime. So all of those things, I think, in aggregate are exactly right. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for the fight that you're bringing to this administration

on oversight and for taking the time today. Absolutely. Good to see you. I'm joined now by Congresswoman Summer Lee. Thanks so much for taking the time today. Absolutely. Good to see you. I'm joined now by Congresswoman Summer Lee. Thanks so much for taking the time. Yeah, thanks for having me. So you made some big news today in a subcommittee of the oversight committee as it relates to the Epstein file. Can you explain what happened to that committee hearing? Yeah. So it was a committee hearing that was explicitly about child sex trafficking. So we wanted to actually get to the bottom of this.

It was a lot of back and forth to even get that vote. I think that as we know, like the real piece, so that we didn't have to do this, but we really thought that this subcommittee was not just appropriate, but we thought it was going to be the most opportune moment to actually do that. We knew that there were members on the other side who also were interested publicly in making sure that there was transparency and making sure that the FC and fouls got back. So at the end of the day, we ended up with an eight to vote to subpoena those fouls. And now we've been told that Comer himself has said that the votes happen and he's expected to do it.

What was the sense among your Republican colleagues? Because this wasn't the first time within a committee or a subcommittee that Republicans have been faced with the prospect of voting for the Epstein files. It was brought up twice in the Rules Committee. Both of those efforts were voted down. And so can you talk a little bit about the pressure that these Republican lawmakers were in that ultimately led them to cave on this particular subcommittee? Yeah, I mean, you know what I want to say? It's a base. This is a truly a base issue for them,

but it's really just Americans across the country, you know, Democrats, Republicans, independents, all districts are calling for this level of transparency, right? This is the thing that, you know, I think is really unifying Americans right now. And not to diminish other things that are happening, but we've seen the amount of pressure that our constituents, that their constituents especially, have been putting on them. I'll say though, there's different makeup in every committee, right? So I can't speak to the rules committee.

I can't speak to what's happened in those particular committees, whether or not the particular Republicans that were on this committee with us were there or not, but that was a missed opportunity. And I think that, you know, they show that that opportunity and rules committee should have been done. It should have happened there. They were called out and they were proven to be hypocrites in that moment. So this was the moment for them to put their money where their mouth was. Okay. And, and now moving forward, what are next steps,

I guess, procedurally speaking, I know that you had mentioned that James Comer, that this vote is binding here as far as James Comer is concerned. So what happens next? Yeah. So what we saw even just this week in another one of the subcommittee hearings, they actually subpoenaed Jelaine Maxwell. Comer moved within 24 hours to verify that and to send that to the DOJ, right?

So we're expecting the same speed that he did it here, that he honors that, but it is a mandate, right? This was a binding subpoena that we issued today. So it will go to them. And what we expect then, as the language of the motion said, is that this would then be released to the minority and majority members of the federal law enforcement subcommittee. So we'll wait that.

Obviously, we're going to be out of session for a few weeks. But as we come back, we expect that that will come to before us. And to what degree are you certain that the files that you receive are going to be? I know there's been a lot of talk about, okay, we're going to discuss what pertinent files we can release. Obviously pertinent is in the eyes of the beholder here. And if the arbiter of this stuff is Pam Bondi, who we now know, thanks to this new Wall Street Journal story, has more information than she'd been letting on, that Trump himself was in these files.

Obviously, what's pertinent to her is going to be a lot different from what's pertinent to everybody else. And so are you confident that the files that are released are going to be the full files as opposed to just what she deems appropriate? So listen, you can never be confident that people who are prone to corruption won't do corrupt things. But what I will say is that in our motion, we accounted for that. We requested very specifically the unredacted full, complete files.

In fact, Nancy Mace actually tried to amend the motion and what her amendment was trying to do was add a word credible to it, right? So she wanted to add within the words that we had already like meticulously chosen, she attempted to add just one word credible. Higgins also really hard to, he was like, look, it's one word. Why are you all worried about one word? But we're like, well, legally, who decides what is credible? Whose standards are we going to implement here?

Ultimately, that amendment failed. So as of right now, based on our subpoena, it should be the full, unredacted, foul, complete. There is no subjectivity. There is no, well, this is the part that I would like, or this is the part that I think might be credible, credible, or the part that I think might be pertinent. None of that. We asked for it. We requested it is a mandate to get the full complete ones. This vote happened around the same time that the Wall Street Journal story broke. Is there

a sense, I'm curious, among Democrats, but also among Republicans in the Republican conference, is there a sense that the dam is breaking here? It really feels that way. You know, over the last days when we found out that this subcommittee was meeting, convening, and particularly on the topic that we were meeting around, we plan to do this then. So I didn't know that that was happening, but it does feel like not just a consistent drumbeat, right? But it's getting f***ed up that he's on this list.

I think that we can all say that we all knew that also, but that he has been alerted, right? That he's been on the list, right? All these leaks, these slow leaks, and then now our ability to actually access the fouls, I think is the damn breaking. Because I actually think that the real damn breaking are American people, right? This is one thing. Listen, we are in an attention economy. Every week, something is happening that one ups the thing that happened last week.

I mean, let's be honest, right? We've seen members of legislatures be assassinated. We've seen the president have an assassination attempt. We've seen so president, you know, have an assassination attempt. We've seen, you know, so much that's happened. And then, you know, add to that, just like the reconciliation bill, the cuts of Medicaid, the tax cuts, you know, all of the executive orders that have been coming down,

right, the fact that the American people have not been distracted by this one, right, all of the news that's becoming, every distraction that they've attempt to throw out, all is done is made the American people more resolved for this level of transparency, right? It's made them more concerned that there's something that must be hidden, right?

They must be covering up something. If they're gonna do, go to these lengths, I promise, to release. So it's actually, I think the Americans that broke the dam there, right? It was their persistence. It was them, you know, their base consistently taking to social media, calling letters, lobbying, right?

That was that was the dam breaking. I think that's such a good point. I mean, this is an issue that yes, Trump is pulling underwater on immigration, on on the economy, on his tariffs and trade war, but those things pale in comparison. He's underwater negative 37 points on Epstein and that's largely owed to the fact that he himself got into office on the back of this story and he surrounded himself with people in his cabinet who staked their reputations on this story, on not allowing the government to

continue covering up the heinous crimes of people who feel that they are completely immune to prosecution and and unaccountable and now they're doing the very thing that they claim to be railing against when you have Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and Dan Bongino hiding, secreting from the American people this idea that Trump is not in the Epstein files. If a president in the Democratic Party was in the same place as Republicans, do you think they really would want to hide this information?

Or do you think that this is something that they would want to get out to the American people? And finally, let's finish off with this. I mean, it gets right to it, right? This is this is the corruption story, right? That nobody is supposed to be above the law. That you know, to be above the law that You know to take these looks when when average joes, right if an average person

Did something like this, right? You wouldn't see you know all of the protections of the law But that's why people press this institution is why they don't trust our government, right? There's always just this idea that there is Some you know secret club where they get secret protections and they have secret laws that only they have to abide by. And there's other ones that the rest of us have to abide by. This is the one where people are really putting those like that puzzle piece together, right? Why should a president or a prince or anyone else be protected in ways that working class people never will be.

And finally, let's finish off with this. And this is I think we were kind of leading toward this anyway. But what would your message to voters out there be who predicated their vote, their support for Trump on this idea that he would expose this criminality and end this corruption that happens at the hands of people who, again, view themselves as completely unaccountable. What's your message to those people in light of what we've found out now? Trump has repeatedly peddled conspiracy theories, lies. He has been blatantly corrupt. This is the moment where he lied directly to you.

He lied directly to you. He lied directly to you. He said that he would release these files. He said that this was a top issue. They have all intimated that holding child sex traffickers, child sexual abusers accountable, but when the rubber met the road, they would not do it. When they were afraid that there would be accountability for themselves, they went to hide it.

So we have a responsibility. If you'll lie about this, what else are they lying about? I think that those of us who are of course, maybe not on that side recognize more of the lies, but for those who may be realizing this, right? He's not, this is not the fake Donald Trump. This is the real one, right? This is the one that does this consistently,

relies without a second thought, right? So we have to hold, we have to not just hold him accountable, but we have to believe that about him. Well, Congresswoman, I appreciate the fight that you brought to this issue today and not letting it fall by the wayside, even despite the fact that Republicans are trying to throw everything at the wall to get us not to pay attention to the Epstein files from cane sugar and Coca-Cola all the way up to arresting Barack Obama and even re-litigating Hillary's emails right now in 2025.

So again, thank you for fighting in the oversight committee as you have. Congratulations on getting this motion passed and I appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. I appreciate yours. I'm joined now by Beto O'Rourke. Thanks so much for taking the time. Thanks for having me. So Beto, right now we are watching as the Texas legislature has been called into session by Greg Abbott to push forward this this further gerrymandered that was ordered by Donald Trump. And I want to get into that in just a moment. But first, we obviously have some major breaking news handed down by the Wall Street Journal that shows that Donald Trump was informed back in May that by his own Department of Justice that he was named in the Epstein file. I guess, I guess blatant cover up by administration officials and law enforcement officials to train

our attention on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, all while knowing that Trump himself was in the files that he's trying to hide. I think this is what everyone and I don't mean every Democrat, but but every American long suspected that Trump, who is a long time friend of Jeffrey Epstein, Trump, who we learned from the Wall Street Journal as well just a few days ago, apparently sent Epstein a body birthday letter where he alludes to a secret that they have together. Something of course that Trump denies in unusual fashion

is trying to sue and intimidate and bully the Wall Street Journal to get them to retract this. But now we've learned why all this is going on. It's because he is named in the Epstein files that he and his administration refused to release to the American people. And you've seen this polling as well as I have, Brian. I mean, it's not Democrats, it's 90% of America. 90% like what does 90% of America even agree on anymore? 90% of America wants to see the full files released. That is what Trump is up against right now. And let's see what happens. You saw that Speaker Mike Johnson, you know, sent everybody back home until September from the House of Representatives, not able to do any work for anybody to make anyone's life better because they're afraid of taking votes on this. Let's see

if this doesn't go away over the course of the next month and a half and in fact just builds and grows as drip by drip new facts, new information come out and of all the places for us to find this, the Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch and his family, which arguably have helped to prop up Donald Trump in the past. This isn't from the New York Times. This isn't Brian Tyler Cohen breaking news, although I wish you had broken it first. This is the Wall Street Journal.

This is one of the most reputable papers of records still left in the country. So pretty damning stuff. Can I have your reaction to the fact that so many of the people Trump surrounded himself with in this administration, I'm talking about Dan Bongino, Cash Patel, these people who had staked their reputations on this idea that they have to get into the government because the government as it existed was filled with people who are just looking to protect the deep state, right? Protect people who are covered by this second tier of justice where they can commit heinous crimes and nothing ever happens

to them. And then they get into these positions where they can substantiate their own claims and when they find out that their own boss, the president of the United States, pretty newsworthy person to be in those files, when they find out that he's named in those files, they don't tell a soul. And it's been a couple of months now. And so what do you say to those people out there who trust folks like Dan Bongino,

who trust folks like Cash Patel, when they said that they would go in and expose these deep state actors, and instead it seems like they've just turned into exactly what they've railed against. You know, I don't know these guys well and I haven't really followed them in the past. I know them more by reputation than anything. But when I see them on TV in the midst of this exploding scandal, they look really uncomfortable. And the thing that Trump and Trump world have

always tried to master is this confidence game of whatever lie they're peddling, whatever conspiracy theory they want us to follow them into. They always speak with confidence and it's the tone of their voice, it's their body language, it's the assertiveness and certainty with which they pronounce every fucking word in every sentence. They don't look like that anymore. There's something completely changed in their body language, in the tone and tenor of their speech.

This con that they have been running for so long, that they have been perpetuating thinking that it would never ever come back and get them, has finally begun to bite them on the ass. And they just don't know what to do with it, especially as drip by drip, we learn that Trump is more and more implicated with Epstein. And you're right, it's this perverse irony

that these are the very people who inflated this conspiracy scandal to begin with used it in part to purchase the power that they now wield over this country. And wouldn't it be some pretty fitting cosmic poetic justice for that very same con to spell the end of their term? But I want to warn everybody about this. And I know you don't need this warning, but maybe some of us out there do. There are some who would take some satisfaction in this or even assume that this might spell the end of Trump's hold on his base or his political power going into 2026.

This guy is cornered. He understands that this stuff is coming out, hence him lashing out at President Obama, accusing him of treason, the punishment for which is the death penalty. Talking about taking his political enemies into jail and unleashing the full force and weight of federal law enforcement upon them. This is just the beginning. This is just the first week after is just the first, you know, week after this thing really starts to break loose. Imagine as the furor and the anger from his own base grows and the lengths to which he will go to try to distract people or to try to hold on to

power that he would otherwise lose. That also helps to explain why Donald Trump ordered the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott and the Republican majority in the state house to literally, I mean, he said this out loud, find me five Republican seats, not, I think these seats were drawn unconstitutionally. I think that they are gerrymandered. I think that folks aren't getting the representation they need. He's just being completely clear clear saying the quiet part out loud I'm gonna lose this fucking election I will have a a check on my power in the House of Representatives If I cannot maintain the slim majority and the only way we can get it done is Texas

So get me those five seats and as you pointed out in your opening that process in Texas just began this week on Monday the the the house gaveling in for a special session where the primary goal is to find Trump these five seats. Okay, so let's dig into that point right now. What is the mood on the ground, both from the Democrats and Republicans? Because remember, there is still the risk that by stretching themselves so thin to try and get so many seats, to try and grab these five extra seats that Trump issues his clarion call for, that now they're in much more competitive districts

than they were before. And if we have a wave year like 2026 right now looks like it's promising to be, then all of a sudden, you know, these, these, these current Texas legislators, members of Congress may very well be out of a job. Man, you nailed it. When you ask about the mood, you see even in the comments in the press from Republican members of Congress from Texas, they're very sheepish. They're not really even willing to answer questions. They don't want to talk about redistricting and gerrymandering and members of Congress

choosing their own voters, not just because people find gerrymandering distasteful, but you just nailed it. It's because they realize they're going to sacrifice potentially their own seats in Congress in order to pick up these other five seats. What do I mean by that? When they when they when they gerrymander if they're successful in doing this in order to make these Democrat led seats more competitive for Republicans if they're successful in doing this, in order to make these Democrat-led seats more competitive for Republicans, they're gonna have to move Republican voters out of so-called safe Republican districts

into these Democrat-represented districts. That's going to jeopardize their hold on power and what they were going to reliably be reelected into. And we might also be able to pick up these districts that are gerrymandered because as we saw in Trump's first midterm in 2018, this guy is deeply unpopular once America wakes up to what he's doing.

On immigration, arguably his most successful policy issue, he is polling at 35%, the big, beautiful bill, his handling of the economy, also in the tank. On Jeffrey Epstein, as we just talked about earlier, I mean, it is a complete washout. And so these Republicans have to run on the MAGA movement on Donald Trump. So try as they might in gerrymandering. And look, we shouldn't take it lightly. It's going to make our odds a little bit tougher on our side. They may also be setting themselves up for an epic failure where it's going to make our odds a little bit tougher on our side. They may also be setting themselves up for an epic failure where it's not five seats they pick up, potentially, you know,

eight or nine or 10 seats that they lose if it is a total blowout. But beyond that, beyond Democrats feeling electric right now and energized and yes, pissed off and angry, but channeling that anger into action and registering voters and recruiting candidates that are going to be competitive in these districts. There are more cards that we can play. You mentioned Gavin Newsom earlier, governor of California has threatened to redistrict to Democrats advantage in that state. I think he should do it. I don't think he should wait for Texas to go first. I think we should be bold. I think we should be on the offense. And then we also have the option of Texas Democrats in the state

legislature leaving the state to break quorum to deny the Republican colleagues the ability to move forward on these maps. It's a tough thing to ask them to do. They're leaving their families, their careers. They face arrest from state troopers in Texas. And as we can imagine in Donald Trump's America, you can see the FBI or DHS agents or the federal bureaucracy doing everything they can to hunt them down. But if, if they do this, I think it's going to be inspiring to the country. You were an absolute hero when they tried to do this in 2021 to stop Greg Abbott from rewriting our election laws to disenfranchise more Texans. They lasted for a pretty long time. I think this time, given the stakes, we might very well lose the Republic if we don't gain

the House of Representatives. I think everyone's going to have their back in this. So, look, it's a tough situation, but I feel more optimistic given the fight that I'm seeing from Democrats across the board in Texas and in California for that matter. And let's finish off with this. And you had alluded to this a little bit with California and going on the offense there. There are other states that could potentially be weapons in a redistricting fight. And that is Illinois, that's New York, Maryland. And so do you, what would you suggest for these governors? Because so often it feels like, and I know that we've spoken about this too,

so often feels like Democrats, if we're going to do anything, which is by no means a sure thing, at most it'll be okay, some tepid response to a major assault by Republicans. So Republicans gerrymandered the shit out of Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, this cycle. And we're like, OK, well, maybe we can squeeze a few seats out of California. But we do have other weapons.

And so would you recommend that all of these governors basically say, OK, you know what? Like, here's what's going to happen. If there's any more gerrymandering moving forward in advance of that happening, let's just go ahead and use every weapon we have at our disposal and let them know that if they want to engage in this cycle, this is what it's going to look like. Absolutely. You know, I would liken it to a basketball game where the refs have stopped making calls.

And so the other side is just punching us in the face, you know, kicking us in the nuts, doing everything they want to do without any consequence or accountability at all. And Democrats have been like, hey, where are the refs? This isn't right. The rules say that you can't do this. Why isn't somebody enforcing the rules? Or they're looking at the crowd who's watching the game and trying to garner their sympathy. Democrats need to punch back and Democrats don't need to wait for the next punch. I would punch first if I were in one of those positions of power to do so right now because we know where this is going.

Trump is ruthless. He will use violence if he has to, which he tried to incite in 2021 on January 6th. He will tear up the constitution right in front of our faces. He will break the law. He's doing all this stuff right now in broad daylight. And if we're going to be bound by the rule book or coloring within the lines or just, you know, left to complain and whine and

bitch and moan, you know, what is that going to look like down the road after we're no longer a democracy, after we no longer have a Constitution constitution when Trump is two years into his third term in office, there will be some explaining to do. So I think our message has to be to those democratic governors. We love you. We want to use every lever at your disposal to make sure that not only that we fight back, let's stop reacting and responding, but let's take the offense and fight forward. That was as perfect a distillation of the current environment we live in as I've ever heard. And look, my

message for anybody listening right now, especially elected officials, is that exact degree of fight that you just showed is what I hope that we can hear from every single Democratic elected official in the entire country right now. So Beto, as always, I appreciate the work you're doing in Texas. I would mention right now for anybody watching, Beto mentioned we still have work to do in terms of registering voters.

The work you do with Powered by People is second to none. So I'm gonna put a link on this screen and also in the post description. If you're listening on the podcast, go to poweredxpeople.org. That is the best organization in Texas to register voters, among a raft of other excellent organizations as well. But please support Beto's work,

support all of the great volunteers that are associated with Powered by People, and let's help continue to register voters in a state that is known to be the single most difficult state to register voters in the entire country. So again, I'll put that link on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Beto, as always, I appreciate the time.

Grateful to you, Brian. Thank you. Thanks again to Gavin Newsom, Jasmine Crockett, Summer Lee and Beto O'Rourke. 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 week.