No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - US Supreme Court makes cataclysmic move

Episode Date: August 3, 2025

The US Supreme Court just set the stage for the biggest change to our congressional maps that we’ve ever seen, and it’s flying completely under the radar. Brian interviews Governors Wes Moore, JB Pritzker, and Kathy Hochul– all of whom discuss their response to Texas redistricting. And Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau discusses Trump’s Epstein scandal and what’s next for Kamala Harris.Shop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The U.S. Supreme Court just set the stage for the biggest change to our congressional maps that we've ever seen and is flying completely under the radar. And I've got four interviews this week, governors Westmore, J.B. Pritzker and Kathy Hokel, all of whom discussed their response to Texas redistricting, and I talked to POTS of America's Jon Favreau about Trump's Epstein scandal and what's next for Kamala Harris. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen and you're listening to No Lie. The biggest story in the country right now is one that is flying completely under the

radar. So here is the very simple explanation. Last cycle, Louisiana Republicans were ordered to draw a second majority black district to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. But Republicans sued by saying that the creation of a second black majority district so that black voters in Louisiana have fair representation was actually discriminatory against white voters. Which is crazy because the whole point of the Voting Rights Act is to prevent white voters from precluding black voters from getting fair representation.

So again, a crazy lawsuit to claim that a black district to protect black voters is somehow discriminatory against white people. But the Supreme Court didn't think it was crazy. And they refused to rule on this question because they asked for new briefings from the parties on a brand new question, and that was on whether or not the very concept of black majority districts violate the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. So why does this matter? Because if the Supreme Court finds that these black majority districts do violate the Constitution and that the Voting Rights Act is actually unconstitutional,

then there is nothing stopping all of these states under Republican control from redrawing their maps without the required opportunity districts, the black majority districts. And there are dozens of those districts across the entire country to protect the voting power of minority voters, which means all of those could be drawn out of existence. Like right now, everybody's talking about Texas gerrymandering their maps even further in an effort to squeeze out five more seats for Republicans. But if the Voting Rights Act is gutted, those five seats that Texas is engaged in, that's

going to seem quaint because dozens and dozens of seats are going to be redrawn by Republicans. And the reality is that while California can and must counteract what Republicans are doing in Texas, we simply don't have enough seats to counteract what Republicans could do if the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court decides to gut the Voting Rights Act. That six-justice block could literally cement Republican control for good in the House. So what are our options? First off, the case still has to be litigated and we'll have good lawyers making as compelling a case as possible when they argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been upheld for decades, including by the most conservative justices who made a specific point to keep intact that provision.

But in the meantime, really this should serve as a major kick in the ass for Democratic governors that the Republicans are deploying all of their weapons from the states all the way up to the Supreme Court. So as we engage in the more immediate redistricting fight ahead of us, those governors need to understand that we are in a war, and we need them to fight as hard as humanly possible. As Mark Elias said to me this week, if Republicans go for five seats, we go for 30. Not just because we need to fight fire with fire, we do.

Not just because we actually need to offer a legitimate deterrent, we do. But because we need as much of a buffer as possible as we await a decision from the Supreme Court. And lastly, a reminder that we ultimately need legislation to pass a federal ban on gerrymandering. That is the only way to escape from this cycle. But important to remember that the only way we ever get into a position where we can do that in the first place

is to win. And the only way to win is into a position, or we can do that in the first place, is to win. And the only way to win is to gerrymander back. We gain nothing by unilaterally disarming. You don't get points for being the most moral. The victory here is doing whatever is necessary to fight back and get into power. And only then, once we have power, do we get good government reforms, but they have to apply to everyone.

Until then, the only way out of this is to fight, and that has to be our mantra from now every day moving forward. Next up are my interviews with Wes Moore, JB Pritzker, Kathy Hochul, and Jon Favs. No lie is brought to you by Uplift Desk. If you work in front of a desk like I do, I often find myself discouraged that I spent yet another day for a long period of time sitting in front of a desk like I do, I often find myself discouraged that I spent yet another day for a long period of time sitting in front of a desk. I seriously thought that this would be a lasting problem until I found Uplift Desk.

Uplift Desk is at the forefront of ergonomic solutions, promoting better posture and health through adjustable standing style desks designed to help you live a healthier lifestyle. For example, my favorite is that there is a stand for my monitor so that I have all of the real estate of my desk. A desk really should fit the user, which is why Uplift Desk has a lot of customization options so you can build your perfect workspace.

With more than 200,000 configurations, Uplift Desk allows you to tailor your workspace to perfectly suit your style and needs, empowering you to create an environment that inspires productivity and creativity. Their desk configurator lets you build out a complete workstation with storage, seating, wire management, and more. Make this your yours by going to upliftdesk.com slash BTC and use our code BTC to get four free accessories, free same day shipping, free returns, and an industry leading 15 year warranty

that covers your entire desk and an extra discount off of your entire order. That's U-P-L-I-F-T-D-E-S-K dot com slash BTC for a special offer. And it's only available at our link. Stand, Move, Thrive with Uplift Desk. I'm joined now by the governor of Maryland, Westmore. Thanks for joining me. Of course, man. It's my pleasure. So I wanted to talk to you because I've spoken to a lot of governors in states across the country, spoken with Governor Newsom, spoken with Governor Pritzker, Governor Hokel. Right now, we are watching Republicans yet again, gerrymander the

state of Texas even further. They're in the midst of the special legislative session right now. This is on the back of Republicans already having gerrymandered into oblivion, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, Utah, Florida, Texas, the first time. And so, and so this is a moment where I think finally Democrats are recognizing that we have to fight fire with fire. We don't have that many states that serve as weapons for the left to counteract what Republicans are doing on the right. And so given the fact that you are in a state that is fully under Democratic control, what weapons do we have at your disposal and what can you commit to doing to counteract

what they're doing? Yeah, I mean, we just continue seeing how their ability and they're the only thought that they have about how to win elections is actually to to to change the rules that we are continually having to fight against their ability to keep people from voting, from restricting voting laws. And so now this is just another very bold and very blatant attempt for them to be able to alter the rules so they can try to win more elections, particularly because they're going to have an impossible time trying to justify to the American people why they passed

this bill that literally just was a gift to millionaires and holds everybody else. And so, and so, you know, the thing that we know is that when you're looking at the, at the rules for redistricting that have taken place before that we have created an entire country where frankly, we have, uh, you know, where the majority of the races are not competitive, where, where people really are, where you have representatives, oftentimes that are picking their voters and not voters who are picking their representatives. And so there has to be a way of being able to come up with a fair way of thinking about redistricting.

But what they're talking about doing in Texas is not that. What they're talking about doing in Texas is literally just trying to change the rules so you can try to win more elections. That's not fair redistricting. And so I do think it's important for all of us and you know, for Maryland included where I know we're looking at all options as well to be able to say yes, you got to fight fire with fire. And you have to be able to say that if we believe in

fair elections, if you believe in transparent elections, if you believe in elections where the president of the United States cannot in the middle of an election cycle decide, well, I need to find six votes here, seven votes there. So how do I get a state to be able to rejigger or completely alter their redistricting laws? Then we have to be able to say we have to stand up for something for something better and make sure they cannot just get away with this. So I know for the state of Maryland, you know, I we're saying all things are on the table and we have to make sure that we are thinking about a fair way for people to be seen in their elections because you know, if not, we are we are both

going to as as Dr. King and mentioned before, it's about both, you know, making sure that people have the right to vote, but also reminding people that they have something to vote for. Right. I mean, the reality is that we can good government ourselves into obscurity. And that's what we're doing right now. And it's the Democrats who put forward HR one, which included a provision that would ban partisan gerrymandering. My contention here is that that was our first priority was HR one. And it should be our first priority. But the only way that happens is if we fight fire with fire and actually give ourselves the ability to get in the majority. And we can't do that right now if Republicans continue to gerrymander

themselves into permanent majorities and Democrats into obscurity at this point. So I want to dig into the specifics a little bit. What are you able to do? What were the options in front of you in Maryland? Yeah, so we're actually, you know, we have members of our general assembly and we go back into session, you know,

back in a session in January. Okay. But we're actually able to be able to take a look at how are the maps laid out about where you're looking at where Maryland is right now and what happened after the census tracking of 2020, and then being able to say, do we think that is a fair representation

of our population? Right now, frankly, we have something where for a lot of the Republicans within the state of Maryland are very much crammed into one congressional district. And if you look at the way that Maryland is laid out right now, you have a higher threat of a challenge coming to a flank than you do during a general election processes.

So there's a lot of things that Maryland can and we will be taking a look at. Okay, and would any of it, I guess in an ideal scenario, would any of it apply to the upcoming midterm election in 26? Potentially, because I know we're looking at all these options that would, that some

of the options that I know that are being examined would be able to potentially have an impact by the midterm elections. What would your message be to other governors who are in states where they could be able to actually stand up and fight fire with fire, kind of in defiance of what we've seen from Democrats for so long, which is kind of alluding to what we were just talking about a moment ago, which is, you know, Democrats live and breathe good governance in hopes of some elusive reciprocation that never seems to arrive. And in fact, far from that, we're actually seeing them

abuse the system even further. And so in states where we have the ability to actually show them what the negative consequences of their actions would be, what would your message be to those governors? Well, you know, I can't tell other governors what to do, but I can tell you what we're doing in Maryland. We are done with this mentality of being a place in a state

or a party of no and slow, that we need to be a party of yes and now, that you have to understand what is happening to our people Right now that there are over a quarter of a million people Who are about to have their health care cut? Because of the speed that this administration is moving at that we are about to have about a quarter about no over 250 million dollars in Maryland alone That's about to be cut from our rural

hospitals because of the speed that the Trump administration is moving at. My point is this, is that we do not have time to have multi-year analysis. We do not have time to have multi-year studies. We do not have time for this right now. We've got to start thinking about this and being a party of not knowing slow, but yes and now. And especially when you're looking at the speed that this Trump administration is trying to dismantle a democratic system that's taking place within our states about thinking about what does the representation of the House of Representatives and the Senate actually look like? And so, again, I just think people should, you know, examine

the speed in how we are thinking about this in the state of Maryland. Well, perfectly put. You had mentioned that, you know, you can't speak for what other states are doing, but you can speak on what Maryland is doing. I want to, I want to point out a couple of things that are happening in your state. You have turned more than a $3 billion deficit into a surplus, which is weird because I've been told all of this time that the Democrats are the reckless spenders and the Republicans are the fiscal conservatives. And so what's your reaction to the fact that you in a Democratic governor in a true blue democratic state have managed to flip a budget surplus while watching all of those fiscal

conservatives and budget hawks in Washington come into office on the backs of these promises to rein in government spending from the communist Marxist Democrats on the left, only to add $4 trillion to the debt. Well, you know, people always talk about how I'm new to politics. And it's true, I'd never run for office before, my life far ran for governor, but I'm not new to math.

And I love math because math doesn't have a political opinion. Math is math, right? And the truth is, is that when we are now, we actually had the largest amount of cuts to Maryland state budget in 16 years. In the last budget that I just presented, we are the first administration in over a decade to now go three straight years of actually decreasing the size of the general fund. So basically we're producing more in Maryland by actually having a budget that is smaller than the year before. Ironically my predecessor, the Republican, during the seven years before

he came in office he actually increased spending by 70% in the state of Maryland and so the the party of fiscal responsibility have shown that they love to spend and they love to drive up debt. It's the same thing that we're seeing now from the Trump administration. The party of fiscal responsibility has now just added trillions of dollars of debt to this nation's bank account. And so we're really proud that in our time, that we've been able to turn a structural deficit into a surplus, that we've been able to give the middle class a tax cut and give the middle class

a little bit relief. And yes, unapologetically, I have asked millionaires to pay more in the state of Maryland. And I have said, if these are people, if you're doing very, very well in the state of Maryland, I do not have a problem asking you to invest a little bit more so we can have the country's best public schools.

So we can make sure we're not laying off our police officers and our firefighters. And so, yes, we can make sure that we are giving the middle class a tax cut. And so I think that the way we have structured this in Maryland is actually a really powerful example and showing that you can be both fiscally disciplined and also invest in really bold, innovative ideas. And you don't have to choose between those two things.

I don't know, man. I was told by Elon Musk that the only way to do this is to just give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. So but remains to be seen. Another point to kind of co-opting a lot of the talking points Republicans use is crime. Do you have any update in terms of what Maryland is seeing on that front? Yeah, you know, it's interesting because again, during my predecessor, a Republican, we saw how the homicide rate had nearly doubled in the eight year period that he was the governor. The nonfatal shooting rate did double while he was the governor that Baltimore City went

eight straight years of 300 plus homicides unabated. And I know I came on board and I said, you know, we're, I refuse to be a governor that's just going to sit there and attend funerals and offer eulogies. Yeah. And, and said that we're going to go with an all of the above approach when it comes to addressing public safety. We made historic investments in local law enforcement.

We made historic investments in technology and predictive analytics. And basically in using technologies and saying that if someone commits a homicide or a violent crime with a firearm, that I want them in handcuffs in 24 hours. And we made historic investments in community violence interruption and working with our mayor and working with our state's attorneys and our U.S. attorney. And the results have now been Maryland is amongst the fastest drops

of violent crime in the entire country. That Baltimore City, the last time the homicide rate was this low in Baltimore City, I was not born yet that we are seeing the largest drop, the lowest homicide rates in over 50 years in Baltimore City and across the state of Maryland. We are just watching historic numbers. And so I'm proud of the fact that, you know, when people said, well, do you, you know, do you believe that you have to invest in community groups or do you invest in law enforcement? Do you invest in this? The answer is in Maryland,

we're not choosing. In Maryland, we're actually choosing to work together. And in Maryland, we're delivering the kind of results that we promised to the people when we came on board. Is this a model that other governors or other states have been looking at that you've been working with other states at all to kind of export this model? Yeah, and I've been really thankful by the amount of outreach that we received from other states and other jurisdictions.

I was actually just recently selected by my peers to be the new vice chair of the National Governors Association. And I'm the chair of the Institute of Best Practices at the National Governors Association. So we're really grateful that, you know, there's been a significant amount of outreach about some of the work that we're doing about some of the things that are working in the state of Maryland.

And also the fact that Maryland is a is a eager, eager participant and listener to things that are good things that are working all across all across the country and other states as well. I want to switch gears a little bit here and just ask a quick question on the Epstein of it all. We have watched as Donald Trump kind of ran his whole campaign predicated on this idea that he's going to release these files, bring some accountability to the people that were involved, hired Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, Alina Haba, Pam Bondi, all these people who had been beating this drum for so long, only for him to then turn around once he had the opportunity to substantiate his claims and claim that there is no files,

that OK, there is files, but they were forgeries by Barack Obama. And in fact, we have to arrest Barack Obama. And while we're at it, arrest Kamala Harris, Beyonce, Oprah, Al Sharpton. Also that, you know, we've got to change the Washington commanders to the Redskins, take cane sugar, put it in Coca-Cola, I mean, anything under the sun. And so what's your general reaction to this bait and switch of the hands of Trump as it relates to Epstein? It's sad and it's consistent.

This is just, this is, nothing is surprising. As we're seeing with the way that this administration moves, this is literally just out of the Trump playbook about how to handle this. And I think that it's just really important that this administration moves. This is literally just out of the Trump playbook about how to handle this. And I think that it's just really important that people remember two things about this, where when people are asking all the shiny objects,

let's remember two things. One, we're talking about someone who was found guilty and was in prison for child molestation. Yeah. Let's not forget what it is that we're talking about here. Right? That Jeffrey Epstein and this ring that he was involved in was some of the most horrific accusations

that you could ever possibly imagine. The other thing that we should never forget in these conversations is Donald Trump did not have to make this a campaign issue. He chose to. Right. He chose to make this the thing that he was going to help rally his base around. He chose to make this the thing that he was going to garner votes and supports over.

He chose to make this one of the promises. He didn't have to, he chose to. So if we know we're talking about some absolutely horrific allegations, and we know we're talking about something that then candidate Trump said is of the highest of priorities to make sure we get to the bottom of it, that people cannot forget those two

realities. No matter what other distractions or shiny objects are thrown out there, those two things have to be reconciled. And so if he said that he was going to release the files, then release the files. If you said these are horrific things, we've got to get to the bottom of it, then help us get to the bottom of it. But you cannot, you cannot wipe away either one of those two very real realities when you're talking about what's happening and the horror of these allegations around Jeffrey Epstein. Yeah, and it also puts on full display the fact

that he will say and do anything he needs to say on the campaign trail to garner support from people, to get their votes with no intention of actually following through. And we saw that in his first term when he promised, you know, a jobs boom, a manufacturing renaissance, a health care plan that was cheaper and more comprehensive and infrastructure law. None of that stuff panned out.

And then he did it his second term right now where he's promised lower egg costs, his grocery costs, housing costs, rent costs. The only thing he did once he actually had power, the only thing he expended his political capital on was a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, just like it was his first term. The guy will lie to say whatever he needs to say, zero intention of actually following through.

And what's even worse than just the lies is thinking that his base is so gullible, so stupid, that all he had to do was wave around a picture of Barack Obama and say that guy should be arrested and think that would be enough to satiate his base. And clearly it doesn't, you know, it's working for a few people, the Charlie Kirk's of the world who want to be manipulated and lied to. But for the vast majority of people out there, they know there's no there there. They know this thing stinks and it's it's bearing itself out in the polling and with a lot of what we've

seen, you know, in the in the general political zeitgeist here. And you know, and he did it again last week, for example, in the state of Maryland, where he said he was going to look out for the people who were most impacted and left behind, the ones who who oftentimes got no support when they needed it. And when there were when there was flooding in Western Maryland, in Allegheny and Garrett County, by the way, that's Appalachia, Republican areas, the areas that voted for Donald Trump

by over 75% in my state. And when we had historic floods there, floods that literally washed away firehouses, washed away schools, where children were literally being saved from the second floor of school buildings because the first floor is washed out and they were being saved by boats. That we had libraries. When I was walking around, because we were some of the first boots on ground, I was walking in the grounds with a Republican mayor,

Mayor Judy, who was just an absolute star. And when she was telling me that the building we were walking through was a library and she had to explain to me it was a library because I couldn't tell because there was just mud and debris everywhere. And when we put in for a federal disaster relief, something that we didn't just hit the benchmark more

or we exceeded it, that the only thing we got back from the White House was support for Maryland is not warranted. That there wasn't a single state that did not vote for Donald Trump that received any support at all. And what I had to explain to this administration is the people who you were hurting most were not just Marylanders. These were Marylanders who voted for you. Right. Right. They were the ones you were leaving behind. And so the narrative about what

he was going to do and the narrative about and the reality of what is actually being produced, unfortunately, I think is being felt by a lot of people in Maryland right now that they just feel deeply lied to about what the president said he was going to do. All right. And finally, let's finish off with this. And I wish I had a more graceful transition from talking about something terrible to talking about something upbeat, but this is it. You are a big football fan.

I'm a big football fan. As we're now in training camp season, season starts in a few weeks here, your prediction for your Baltimore Ravens as we head toward this next football season. I always, so here's the thing, I'm always. And I want your real prediction. I don't want the governor of Maryland prediction.

I want your real prediction here. No, because the thing is, is that like, I give my real prediction and people think I'm just being a homer, but I can back it up. It's like, I just do not know who legitimately and again, it's the start of the season, but not just do we win the division. Yes, we win the division like but but I who in the AFC is more talented than the Baltimore Ravens.

Yeah, we're not only like Liz. Like our football team is like a video game at this point. You know, I mean like it's like you have Lamar Jackson who was just universally just the singular most talented player in the NFL. And please, all my all you Josh Allen fans miss me. Like, Alan is a very good quarterback. Lamar Jackson is a transformational quarterback, there is a difference. You know, so you have Lamar, you have

Derek Henry in the backfield, who Derek Henry cannot be tackled by one person. Agree. So you really have to have a tackle by committee in order to take Derek Henry down. And then by the way, you got Zay, Zay Flowers as your lead receiver, you still have Isaiah Likely and Mark Andrewss two of the best tight ends on the same team on the ends. And we not only had and we just also added Deandre Hopkins. Yeah, it's actually silly. And by the way, our defense just got Mark remarkably better. We have probably one of the best safeties in the NFL and Kyle Hamilton right now, right? We probably picked up one of the best defensive pickups in the draft in starts and we just

picked up an all world cornerback in Alexander. Like, this team is solid. And I'm not just saying that as a governor of Maryland. I'm saying it because please somebody give me facts to show me why the Baltimore Ravens are not the best team in the AFC right now. No, I have beef with your quarterback for two reasons. One is because I'm a because I'm not a Ravens fan. It's because I'm a Giants fan.

And so I have beef with every other team in the NFL because we had a rough year, a rough year. But my second beef is because I had Zay Flowers on my fantasy team. And when you have a quarterback as good as yours and you have a receiver like Zay Flowers, you're not going to touch the ball too much. And I should have spent the money on Derek Henry, but I didn't because I thought that, I thought that, you know, I just, I thought Zay was a big enough, a big enough get that I wouldn't need Derek Henry, but I, that was, it was a rough go when you have somebody as good as him. that's that's that's that's fair beef.

I actually I get you on that because Zay is Zay is remarkable. The problem with the Ravens and on a fantasy level. Yeah, the problem with the Ravens, unless you are talking about Lamar or unless you were talking about Derek Henry, we have so many weapons. Yeah, that it's just difficult for a wide receiver to do really well with the Ravens because you're gonna get the ball thrown to you seven times a game, five times a game,

because we have so many weapons. Yeah, I mean, let's be clear. My beef with Ravens is completely, is 100% out of jealousy and like that's all it is. But but we'll see. I mean, we've got, you know, it's it's it's it's going to be an interesting year to watch. We've got we've got, you know, Russell Wilson with the Giants. So so we'll see what happens on that front.

Like we get. You know, I love Russell Wilson like as a human being. I think he's an amazing person. Good luck with that. Do you play fantasy Gov? I do play fantasy. All right. Let's do top top five picks for your fantasy league.

If you if you if you had to rank your top five, who would it be? So again, not being a homer, but I think that if I had my druthers, I think you've got to be able to get Derek Henry on there. I think Derek Henry is just, he's ridiculous. Saquon. Yeah. Is, is...

That one hurts too. And that one, yeah. I was about to say, especially the Giants fan, I don't know how y'all sleep right now, man. I don't know how y'all sleep. Letting this man go to a division rival? Yeah. That's crazy.

That's actually crazy. Three more. Three more? Well, I mean, you gotta go with the points to give you high points, so you gotta go with quarterbacks. And listen, I have a you got to go to the ones to give you high points. So you got to go with quarterbacks and listen, and I'm I am I have a deep seed seeded hatred for Patrick Mahomes. Yeah.

But if you're playing fantasy, he's going to get you points just because he is another one who just whips the ball around so well. And he just knows how to get into he knows how to get into the end zone. So I think that's a smart one. I actually think that you're going to do pretty well. If you have to go with a you have to go with a tight end. You also have to take a look at Kelsey. Kelsey is another one. He's just a big point getter. Yeah, because he just he's a magnet for the ball. He gets into the end zone. And again, not a big fan of him on a football field, but if you have him on a fantasy, on a fantasy team,

then you're actually doing pretty well. And how many more do I have? That might be five. I think that's five, unless I'm counting wrong. But- Okay. The only one, if I have one more, I would probably give you a wider receiver. So I'd probably go with Jamar Chase.

Yep, that's, yeah. All right, so- He's a right. So like it's actually crazy. They're another one who if they just had to play on one side of the ball. Yeah. Great football team. Agreed. Agreed. So, so I would go.

The defense has to show up. Yeah. I would go all, all receivers and, and running backs for the top five, because I think you can get, I think you can get a good enough quarterback later in the draft. So I would go Chase, Bajon Robinson, JJ, Sequon, and C.D. I think is gonna have a year.

So, so. Interesting. Now why? Because I feel like everyone says that every year. But actually he wasn't bad in fantasy. Fantasy is a little bit different. I had CD, was it last season or the season before? And he was top point getter.

He is so clutch. Dak loves him as a receiver and it's just been great. If I had to pick somebody out of those top five, I also want Malik neighbors because- That's actually a good call. Yeah, but he's been plagued with some injuries. So now I just got to hope that that he he holds himself together. So with that said, we'll see. We'll do another one after the season and see how we'll talk before then.

But we'll do one after the season and see who see who it panned out better for. But something tells me it's probably not going to be me. So go. You know, so funny when you come down and watch a game, people notice like I watch the game because I watch what's going on, but I also always have a, I always have a tablet and the tablet has two things on it. It has red zone.

Yeah. And it has my fantasy. So I will literally watch, you know. Oh, yeah. I'll literally watch and watch all of it while I'm watching Ravenous Plays. It's like your whole Bloomberg terminal there. So, Gov, I appreciate your time. Thanks for the work you're doing and we'll talk soon. Absolutely. Appreciate you, man. Thank you. No Lies brought to you by Armour Colostrum. So 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. Whether you're running a business, training hard, or just want an edge, armour optimizes your body for peak output. I have a tendency to eat poorly, especially when I'm stressed, and these are kind of stressful times. The benefit for armour colostrum is that it fortifies gut health. That combats bloating and makes me feel lighter. Probiotics are often touted as the gut health solution, but they only address one part of

the four-part gut wall, and most products on market are dead before they even reach your gut. Armour Colostrum naturally fortifies your entire gut wall system, optimizing your microbiome and strengthening the gut wall architecture, which can guard against irritants that can trigger symptoms like bloating and constipation. And beyond that, it also strengthens immunity, ignites metabolism, vitalizes hair growth, enhances skin radiance, and fuels performance and recovery. We've worked out a special offer for my audience.

Receive 15% off your first order. Go to triarmra.com slash BTC or enter BTC to get 15% off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash BTC or enter BTC to get 15% off your first order. That's T R Y A R M R A dot com slash BTC. I'm joined now by the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker. Thanks so much for joining me. Hey, Brian, great to be with you. So you had just met this past weekend with a group of Texas legislators. And obviously, Texas is in the news right now because Greg Abbott,

listening to the orders of Donald Trump, is seeking to further gerrymander that state's maps. And so there are a few weapons that Democrats have at our disposal where we can finally fight fire with fire. And we have, and I say this because for so long we have watched as Republicans have gerrymandered maps in North Carolina, in Utah, in Ohio, in Florida. Now they're looking at Texas. So all across the country, they have been able to wield this weapon against Democrats and it's largely been met with a refusal to actually act. Well, now it's happening in such an egregious way that it may actually be the reason

that even in what we expect 2026 to be, which is a wave year, Republicans might be able to actually retain power of the House or retain their majority in the House by virtue of these gerrymanders. And so from your vantage, in terms of what you're able to do in Illinois, are you willing to fight fire with fire here and respond in a commensurate way if indeed we see Greg Abbott engage in a partisan gerrymander in Texas? Well, I appreciate the question. I'll begin my answer by saying, I've been on team fight since I first got elected in 2018.

I really believe, you know, we have to make choices right now about whether you're gonna be on team fight or team cave. And the Republicans are using every, frankly, everything, whether it's cheating, breaking the law, you know, trying to do things that I think are non-traditional. And we Democrats can't live by the old rules.

We've got to live by the rules, but we've also got to react and fight. And so when I think about what they're trying to do in Texas, and by the way, they're also trying to do it next door to me here in Missouri, next to Illinois, and other places. I think, historically, that's, midstream redistricting was not something that we Democrats would do.

But if they force us, we've got to put everything on the table. We've got to make decisions that maybe we wouldn't have made before. And so that's why I'm on the team here. I think that governors across the country that have the ability, maybe it's the ones that where we've got trifectas,

we've got to do everything we can to stand up to what Donald Trump and Greg Abbott are trying to do. I just, I'm not going to countenance anymore the idea that we're going to sit around and watch them do it and complain from the sidelines when we have the ability to stop them. We're kind of in the world of hypotheticals, but the reality is that the special legislative session was already called in Texas. They are meeting right now in Texas. There's no indication, at least as of right now, that they're stepping back. And so if Greg Abbott continues on exactly the path that we're in right now, would it be fair to say to the extent that you can

say definitively that you would be willing to fight fire with fire and look toward calling a, I don't know what the process would be in Illinois, but calling a legislative session to do exactly what they're doing in Texas and what Gavin Newsom has said that he'd be willing to do In California. Yeah, like I said, everything's on the table. It's why I've spoken up about it's why I met with the Texas legislators You know, they walked in the door and I know that they were here in Chicago to convince me But before they open their mouths, I said, you had me at hello. And so again, I've been at this fight for a very long time. Again, when I got elected in 2018,

but also just days after Donald Trump got reelected in last November, I said, if you come for my people, you come through me. And I was saying that to Donald Trump. And I have fought every step of the way and almost been disappointed at how long it's taken many other Democrats who understand what's at stake here, but to get on to team fight. And can you dig into that a little bit?

Just this sense of fight? Because I mean, look, as long as I've been covering democratic politics, there has been a sense of our goal on the left has always been to preserve the institutions preserved. And look, I get it. I'm guilty of a two in the lead up to the 2024 election. I thought perhaps naively now in retrospect that just appealing to folks sense of the preservation of democracy was going to be enough to bring people to the table.

Clearly it wasn't. And so that's that's why we're in the position that we're in right now. But just this sense of of where Democrats have been in the past and what you would like to see for Democrats moving forward as, you know, we kind of look, it's going to the party has to look differently in 2026 than it did in 2024 by virtue of the fact that we lost the White House, the House and the Senate and, you know, by extension, the Supreme Court. So we don't control any branch of government here. And so we can either move forward and continue to make the same mistakes that we've made in the past or we can have a new North Star in the party. And so how does that kind of inform your worldview of the of the party moving forward? Well, you're right. Because we don't have control of the Congress, because we don't have control of

the presidency, and because we've got a cult of personality that's guiding the entire country right now, because the Congress won't do anything to stop Donald Trump. The locus of power really has moved to the states. And that's why I know you've interviewed other governors. I really think governors are the front line of defense right now, until we can take back the Congress. And I am confident that if we just play fair, if we just have a, you know, free and fair election in 2026, and these days that seems like asking a lot from Republicans, but a free and fair election 2026, I believe we will win the Congress

and be able to slow down or stop Donald Trump. But they're trying to cheat now. And so look, when I think about the obligations that we have, we're going to have to think out of the box as a party. And I've been doing that too. And I admitted several months ago when I spoke in New Hampshire, that, you know, never before in my life have I called for mass protest, for people to get out in the street and

make their voices heard. But I do now because I really believe that if we don't do it now, we may never be able to do it again. I built a Holocaust museum. I was involved in that for many years. I am Jewish. I understand what happened in Nazi Germany. And the analogy that I draw is simply that the rights of people in Germany were taken away in a very short period of time.

The constitutional republic that was the German republic was diminished and disappeared in 53 days. So think about what's happened in this country. Nobody could believe, and I said this before, many years ago, that nobody could believe me when I said, you know, this could happen in the United States. And I'm not talking about the Holocaust. I'm really talking about specifically the power that a dictator took. And then the whims of the dictator, you know, are whatever those are. But we have to be on guard right now as Democrats, not out there. The message about fighting for democracy. It's important.

It certainly gets our base moving, but that's not what, you know, you knock on a hundred doors and I've knocked on a lot of doors in my life and you start to talk to people about democracy going away. People kind of roll their eyes. Yeah. But you talked about the effects of it, which are the question of affordability. I mean, do you think tariffs are working? And yet it's one man who's imposing a change, a fundamental change

in our economy that's costing you, the taxpayers, to pay more for your goods. That's just one example. But I can go down the line of the things that are being taken away, the rights of people. I think most people are pro-civil rights, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, they believe in civil rights. He's taking those away and so is the Congress.

So I think we, as a party, we need to be out there messaging about affordability, messaging about civil rights, messaging about do you think that Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid should be taken away because that is what they're aiming to do. And even Republicans who used to be believers in those are just going along because they're afraid of Donald Trump.

Right. To that point of the impacts that, yes, Donald Trump as an authoritarian could have, but the actual impacts on regular people, you brought up the tariffs, you've signed an executive order in your state to push back against exactly that. Can you give some insight into what that would do and its effectiveness? Yeah, what we're trying to do is first to make clear what the costs really are, because I don't think most people understand what the tariffs are doing. They see it just, you know, in general as inflation and something natural. It's not. When you break out what's happening to the economy as a result of tariffs, we're talking about serious imposition of cost increases for people. You just heard today that he's imposing a

15% tariff on everything from Europe. The number of things that you buy, they're our largest trading partner, Europe. And the number of things that you and I and everybody else buys that are from Europe, from Canada and Mexico too, our best neighbors, our closest neighbors, our friends, and the imposition of tariffs on them. But these tariffs are really bringing down our economy slowly but surely. There's uncertainty associated with them, and then the tax. It doesn't get paid by foreigners. It doesn't get paid by other countries. It gets paid by American consumers. And so I just think we've got to make sure,

and that's what we're doing here in Illinois. We're making sure people understand the cost of government is going up because of tariffs. And so our aim here is to first highlight it and then address it as best we can. You know, I've tried very hard to work with the Canadians and the Mexicans, you know, there are two largest trading partners here in Illinois. And and what I've tried to do with them is to remind them that any retaliatory tariffs,

they need to take into account that we're not imposing these tariffs in Illinois. Indeed, we don't want the tariffs and they should be aiming those retaliatory tariffs elsewhere on the states where the congressmen and senators are going along with President Trump. And have they been receptive to that idea? We saw a little bit of that when the trade war first broke out between the U.S. and Canada. And we had heard, I can't remember if it was if it was Carney or Trudeau or another member of parliament or whoever it may be, did come out and say that we're going to focus our attention on the states and the governors who are actually empowering Donald Trump to do what he's doing right now. And so have they

been receptive to that idea? They indeed have. And I've had private conversations. I won't talk about the details of them or with whom, but I suffice to say that I've reached out to government officials, to diplomats representing Canada. And indeed, that is what they have said, that they're going to try to do their best to focus this. They understand politics, little d, democratic politics, just as well as anybody here in the United States. So I believe that they will do as you just described. Do you think that other democratic governors in this country should follow your lead

and talk to international trading partners and say, hey, recognize that we are on the same side as you all. We also don't want these tariffs. We also understand the negative impacts that it's going to have on the economy and on trade. And so if you want to retaliate against what the United States is doing on behalf of Donald Trump, target your ire to the people who are actually emboldening and supporting him.

Yeah. And remember, yes, I think other governors should be doing that. Remember that what we're talking about is this isn't about punishing some, not others. It is about, you know, affecting policy. That's what matters to the Canadians. It's what matters to the Canadians, it's what matters to the Europeans, right? It's about changing attitudes in those states that have representation that is standing with Donald Trump and against the American consumer. So they understand that. And again, most European countries, in fact, all the European countries are part

of the European Union are democracies. And so their voices, you know, they understand how our democracy works. And so they believe that they can help to shape American opinion. So I want to switch gears a little bit here to a different topic, certainly one that's kind of taken hold of our body politic for the last three and a half weeks. And that is the issue of Epstein. Can I have your reaction to the fact that, I mean, the most recent comment by Donald Trump was that he didn't he finally came out and said that he didn't have the privilege of going to Epstein's Island, which was an interesting choice

of words, but just this general a general response to the fact that, you know, this was plaguing him for several weeks, finally had the opportunity to run overseas. Do you think that his international trip was a way to offer up something of a distraction so that for the fourth week in a row, he wouldn't have to talk about the issue that's been dogging him that he doesn't want to talk about? We don't know whether he's been to Epstein Island or not, just because he says that he didn't have the privilege.

We don't really know. What we know is that Donald Trump promised his supporters that he would release this information and then went through the charade in the first several months in office as if, oh yeah, we're going to go do that. And then I'm not sure what happened, right? Somebody must have told him something about information that would be released that made him change his mind. And so I think it's very suspicious that that that he didn't just say it during the campaign. He kept saying it while he was in office in the first several months. And then all of a

sudden, he's not going to do what he said he was going to do. I just now I really want to know before. You know, really, I mean, before I was like, I, you know, I'm not sure what to think about all of it. Um, now I, I, I, I think I, you know, agree with a whole bunch of his supporters that why don't you just tell us what, you know, and what, and what the justice department has, he's tried to point at the courts, of course, and blame judges for not releasing it. I mean, they have legal obligations to do the right thing, but the real question I guess I have to ask is what is he hiding?

Do you have any concern that, you know, look, if Trump wanted transparency on this issue, he would release the files. They're in his possession. They're in the DOJ's possession. Pam Bondi is an appendage of Donald Trump. If he says to release them, she'll release them. He, of course, to your exact point, goes off to try and release some grand jury testimonies that he knew full well the judges don't have the authority to release.

And so he's trying to point our attention in different directions. But if he really wanted transparency, he would just release the files. With that said, he then sends Todd Blanche, his second in command at the DOJ, to sprint down to the courthouse in Florida to meet with Glenn Maxwell, who is the only living person who might have information that could or could not incriminate Donald Trump himself. And so do you have some concern that the fact that, you know, under the guise of transparency, which again is complete bullshit because if they wanted transparency, they would just release the files that they have but under the guise of

transparency That they might offer something of a pardon or reduced sentence for a glen maxwell in Return for her saying something that would absolve donald trump in the public sphere I think we should all be deeply concerned about that because we've seen Donald trump offer deals to people to benefit himself personally. Right. So, I mean, why would you think this is any different? And then add to that the Cash Patel, who has got to be one of the biggest conspiracy theorists

out there, one of the leading advocates for release the files, release the files for I don't know how long before Donald Trump got elected. Now he's the FBI director and said that the FBI has these files and they're in the control of the director of the FBI and that they should be really, he's now the director of the FBI. Why is he not? And and not only that, but he's come out and said, oh, there's nothing there. Like there are no files. And Bondi who said they're sitting on my's nothing there. Like there are no files. And Bondi,

who said they're sitting on my desk, oh, now there are no files. I mean, I'm sorry, but it just doesn't match up with reality. I think we've got to not only ask questions, but demand answers. All right. Well, we will leave it there. Governor Pritzker, I appreciate your time and thank you for fighting as hard as you are. Great to talk to you, Brian. I'm joined by the governor of New York, Cathy Hogle. Thank you so much for taking the time. Thanks for having me, Brian. So we have watched right now as we are in the midst of a redistricting process in Texas that has really spilled out onto the whole country. We've heard Gavin Newsom come out and offer to

fight fire with fire. I spoke with Governor Pritzker from Illinois just a couple of days ago, and he offered to do the same thing in the event that this extreme partisan gerrymander, a gerrymander in Texas that goes even further than the already existing gerrymander in Texas goes. And so, I ask this because we have sat idly by and watched Republicans gerrymander North Carolina, Wisconsin, Utah, Florida, Texas, states all across the country with no response from Democrats because I think Democrats have been trying

to practice good governance in hopes that it will be reciprocated by Republicans. Not only is it not being reciprocated, but they're weaponizing it even further. And so we only have a few states that could serve as weapons for Democrats to push back against what Republicans are doing. You're the governor of one of those states. And so what are you able to do?

What could you commit to doing if this Texas gerrymander goes through? I'll use every power I have to push back against this blatant abuse of power. It has gone on too far, as you said. We have a strong advocacy group of good government people in our state. They want independent redistricting. They want all this. It's an ideal world, but when we have our combatants, the other side cheating, rigging the system. Like we can't sit on the sidelines.

So I'm saying I will do what I can, partially looking at our constitution because unlike other states constitution, we should say this, I think California does not have the same constraints that I have with my constitution. Mine says I cannot do anything for 10 years. Now, knowing that, guess what I'm planning to do? Push the legislature to change our constitution.

It takes two cycles of Congress. We'd have to pass in 2026, again in 2027, go on the ballot in the fall of 2027. But the earliest we could see a change would be for 2028. But I'll tell you why that's better than the status quo. Otherwise, we can't do anything until 2032. So I'll take four years ahead of the time. I wish I could do more for 2026, but our hands are tied with how we have to use the process to amend the Constitution. But I was sick and tired of this. They abuse us. We sit on the sidelines as a party,

and I'm all about fighting back and fighting back hard and making them regret that they even tried to do this. Is there a world in which Democrats can go forward with a map immediately and wait for it to be challenged in court? I mean, oftentimes Republicans, and they've abused this process before, but they will move forward with litigation

knowing that by the time it gets resolved, the Purcell doctrine kicks in, which is that it's too close to an election to change anything. And so when I say fight fire with fire, these are not novel theories, it's theories that have been used by the other party. And so is there any indication,

is there any appetite to do something like that? Listen, Brian, I like where you're going, okay? The extreme times call for extreme measures. But I also know our court system in New York, they struck down, our court of appeals in New York state struck down the last redistricting, a plan that was favorable to Democrats. It was written to help Democrats. I assure you, it was written to help Democrats. And they struck it down

immediately. So we can go through the exercise, but it also may create false expectations that we have any chance of being successful when just a couple of years ago, we lost trying to do the same thing. So that's something to talk about. I'll talk to our leaders. I'll talk to the legislature. I'm not averse to moves like that, but that is more messaging as opposed to any likelihood of success based on what we just went through. We tried it.

What does it say that Democrats have largely relied on these independent redistricting commissions and do you see a world in which there are, after a few years from now, any independent redistricting commissions left in democratic states? Well, there certainly is an awakening, isn't it? I think for a long time, people thought that this was the right outcome

when you wanna make sure that citizens are involved, that you don't have people getting their political hands into this. But you know what? We get screwed in the process. We have to, he will look out for our interests, which is making sure we save democracy, number one. That's rather important, particularly with this administration. But also, you know, I happen to think more Democrats is better for our state. I want to have, unlike the seven Republicans that we have in New York who just voted to harm their own

constituents with this horrific bill. So that's the outcome. I think more people hear about that. We need the good government groups who have enormous clout in this state to step back and say, you know what, we get it. We understand that was a nice reform, but not all of them make sense in the world we're living in today. These are different times. I understand that you're bound by certain laws in your state. There are other democratic states where, you know, California being one of them, obviously, which has different rules than yours. Again, I spoke to Governor Pritzker about what he's able to do in Illinois. We have Westmore down in Maryland. What would your advice be to other states where Democrats are in control either in the legislature or the governor's office, where they might have a little bit

more leeway than New York has in terms of redistricting? Don't sit on the sidelines. This is a battle for the ages. What Donald Trump has done by literally drawing out five Democratic elected members of Congress out of existence, disenfranchising, particularly communities of color. This is beyond the pale. So I want everyone who has any ounce of power in their state and third Democrat or Democratic majorities, stand up because this is the moment when your country relies on you to show some courage. because this is the moment when your country relies on you to show some courage. You know, you had mentioned the budget bill that was passed

with the help of those Republicans who are in these close districts in New York. What kind of an impact is that gonna have on their constituents as those effects start to kick in? Nearly 2 million New Yorkers will lose Medicaid, including 750,000 children. 300,000 families will lose the ability to put food on their table. Those are just the most immediate.

And I'm going to make sure that in the 2026 elections in those districts, all of those constituents and most of them are in rural areas or suburban areas, they've got a lot of people who take advantage of this. There's a lot of rural poverty in New York, districts like Elise-Stefonics in the North Country. We have five hospitals that are on the verge of closing. This could push them over the edge. So we have plenty to message on.

It is a shame that people have to suffer in order to get people to think about the consequences of elections, but they need to know who owns this. We'll do the best we can to help lift them up. But my gosh, they ought to have an awakening that someone that they trusted and believed in with their vote has turned their back and betrayed them. How do you navigate this issue knowing full well that they purposefully time this out

so that the worst impacts, especially as they relate to food assistance and healthcare, Medicaid, won't take effect until after the midterm election. So they wanted to exact the most amount of pain with the least amount of political consequences. And so, you know, there's a difference between being able to say this is what's happening right now, which is where Republicans often are, versus what is going to happen in the future, namely in this instance, right after midterms, which is often where Democrats are.

And so how do you exploit the reality of the situation knowing that it was scientifically engineered to make it so that they wouldn't face consequences in this upcoming election. Well, they're conniving without a doubt. They knew exactly what they were doing. As you said, inflict the pain, but delay the consequences to after the election. That's why my job and the job of every Democratic governor is to, from the rooftops, go to their districts. I've already gone to three congressional districts. I have another one on Monday that I'm going

to. I'm telling the constituents of these districts. I have another one on Monday that I'm going to. I'm telling the constituents of these Republicans what is in store for them. And some counties and hospitals are already making cuts in anticipation of this. And while someone's stomach may not be growling in 2026, it's deferred until 2027 without the food assistance, I'm gonna tell them it's coming.

So I will do my best. It's not, you know, again, they're masters at this game of deceit. Yeah. And they may have won this round, but it doesn't mean I have to sit there and take it without fighting back. Can you talk about the impacts on rural hospitals? Because that's a, that's an especially pronounced phenomenon that's going to hit areas that are predominantly Republican voting.

That's right. That's right. That's why this is areas that are predominantly Republican voting. That's right. That's right. That's why this is so short-sighted. Anyhow, our healthcare system is going to take a $13.5 billion hit, about 3 billion direct assistance taken away from our hospitals. And what does that mean? Hospitals will close. Now, when I get the message out to all these constituents in those districts, it's not only the people on Medicaid who will be denied health care because hospitals gone or

they have to scale back on their services and providers leave, everybody's going to be affected. You know, people are expecting babies, someone injured in a traffic accident. They're not going to have coverage. They're going to go to a place that was once open, and now it's going to be closed. So they'll have to travel great distance. I was just up in the most rural areas of our state. When I was a member of Congress, I won in the most Republican rural district we had. I fought hard because this is when Republicans were trying to take away Medicare. That was a lightning rod issue and I weaponized it against Republicans and no one thought I'd win this race in 2011. And I did, because I've learned that if you hit people where their, their pocketbook is,

their life livelihood is, or their healthcare is, they will respond. So I take encouragement from that outcome to what we're going to be doing it already are doing now to make them wear this. They have to be known and has to be known who did this to them. And finally, let's finish off with this. And I want to go back to what we were speaking about at the top. Are you able to commit for this legislative session that we're in right now to have that first vote since we need to before there's any change to the redistricting process? Are we able to do that right now for the first one?

We don't need to do it right now because the session goes from this year into next year. So our members are out of session right now. Otherwise I would be doing exactly what you're suggesting, but I can't speed up the process. Next year would be the same as this year. We still have to wait till 2027 for the second round. Is there an avenue in New York to call a special legislative session in very much the same

way that Texas is doing? We could do it, but it won't make a difference because we still have to get this. The legislative session is 2025 and 2026. So whether it's done in 2025 or 2026, it won't make a difference. I have examined every angle of this. I'm trying to get the advantage because I cannot stand the fact that they're going to put us at a disadvantage, harm our country and harm our democratic values. So we're fighting back, but the process I outlined is viewed as money bikes as extreme to change the constitution and get this advantage. But

to change the constitution and get this advantage, but. What else should you do? Extreme times call for extreme measures. Absolutely. And to be clear, it's not the Democrats who engaged in this process, but it certainly shouldn't be the Democrats who are gonna lay down and allow them to have their way without any pushback.

The, I understand how gerrymandering can be viewed as a race to the bottom, but the reality is, we're already in that race. And so at this point, you can either unilaterally disarm or you can push back. We're fighting back. We're fighting back, Brian. Don't worry about that.

I'm ready for this. We'll leave it there. Governor Hokel, I appreciate your time. All right. Thank you. I'm joined now by the co-host, the Potts of America, John Favreau. Favs, thanks for joining me. Good to be here. So we've seen that Donald Trump has been answering questions that he probably doesn't want to

be answering right now as it relates to Epstein, but this came into particular focus how bad this is for him in the last few days when he revealed that one of the women that was poached by Jeffrey Epstein was Virginia Gouffre. Now, the reason that this timeline doesn't work out is because he said that he understood that Jeffrey Epstein took Virginia Gouffre. Now, the reason that this timeline doesn't work out is because he said that he understood that Jeffrey Epstein took her from the spa at Mar-a-Lago. She worked for the spa at Mar-a-Lago around 2000. We know that she was trafficked and abused by Jeffrey Epstein in 2001.

And then Donald Trump gave a quote to New York Magazine in 2002, saying that, you know, he's been, that Jeffrey Epstein is a terrific guy, that he loves women almost as much as he does, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey loves his social life. And so, in terms of the potency with his base, with these people who voted on him, focused on this idea that he's going to release these files, how damaging do you think that this is? I mean, I don't know, but it's like,

there's not a lot of good explanations for the way the timeline works and what Donald Trump claims to have known and not known and said, because there is a scenario where you could imagine Donald Trump said, oh, I had no idea that it happened when it happened, but then I found out through court filings much later where you could imagine Donald Trump said, oh, I had no idea that it happened when it happened.

But then I found out through court filings much later that, oh, it was an employee of mine, blah, blah, blah. But the reason that that can't be true is because Trump says that when it happened, he said to Epstein, don't poach my people. And then said it again to him. So he is revealing that at the time he knew that he poached this girl when she was 16 years old. My question there is, one, why was Donald Trump involved in sort of the the HR goings-on at Mar-a-Lago?

How did he know about this employee? One random employee amid thousands maybe at his spa in one property. Did he, was he under the false impression that Jeffrey Epstein operated a competing spa and that he was hiring this girl for that? Yeah. Did he not think it was weird that Jeffrey Epstein was hiring a 16 year old girl to be his personal masseuse and then told him to knock it off. It's unbelievable. So like at the very least, best case scenario, Donald Trump knew that Jeffrey Epstein hired a 16 year old girl away from Mar-a-Lago

and told him to knock it off and then said that Jeffrey Epstein was great. That's the best case scenario. Right. What do you think then about the prospect of Glaine Maxwell speaking with the House Oversight Committee because they voted to force that deposition. So that's going to happen on August 11th.

But Todd Blanch already met with her. They had a two-day meeting. Look, the Trump administration has been dragging its feet on everything related to Epstein. They got Trump's pet Mike Johnson to literally kick Congress out of session so that we didn't have to have this thing come to a head. But they knew that the House Oversight Committee had voted this motion out of the Oversight Committee to compel the release of the files and to compel deposition from Ghislaine Maxwell.

And so even though they've been dragging their feet on everything, they did find time to get Todd Blanch down to that Florida prison immediately so that he could talk to her. So how much of what we find out from Ghislaine Maxwell when we see that deposition, do you put any stock in? Well, it may not happen now because now, now that she's met with Todd Blanch, her lawyers are saying she doesn't want to testify before Congress unless she gets full immunity. And now Congress, the Republicans

in the House Oversight Committee are saying, well, no, no full immunity. And so, you know, who knows whether it's gonna happen or not, but you could imagine a scenario where she talks to Todd Blanche and he's like, well, don't go testify before Congress if you can avoid it. So I don't know if we're gonna hear from her or not. And if we do hear from her, what is she gonna share?

What's she not gonna share? She was granted partial immunity, we know now, by Todd Blanche, for what? Well, the way I think about it, and this is, I always feel myself sounding conspiratorial, but if you're Todd Blanche and Glene Maxwell, and you've already promised her a pardon, let's say, which Trump has shown to be fully willing to abuse, I would also wanna just say, be transparent

about what I did offer so that nobody would think that I was hiding anything else. And look, the immunity stuff while he's talking to her, like what would they call it, Queen for a Day, be transparent about what I did offer so that nobody would think that I was hiding anything else. And look, the immunity stuff while he's talking to her, like what would they call it, Queen for a Day, or just this temporary immunity, that is bad enough. It's inappropriate enough for an accused pedophile and sex trafficker, bad enough on its own

that if we saw that, we would say, wow, that's that's really shitty They must be revealing it They must be telling the truth because otherwise why would they even say it but it's so that they can say look we Were being fully transparent even this thing that's pretty shitty We're letting you know but I would guess that it's so that if there was a pardon offered We would think we've already gotten full transparency on the immunity thing I think his plan going in there was probably to just first find out what she knows and what she could say. Yeah, and

He also then has to figure out if he's you know, if he's playing games here. He has to figure out. Okay What she said if she if she decides to say, okay, I won't say Anything about Trump in exchange for a pardon. He's also got to make sure that that what she knows Trump in exchange for a pardon, he's also got to make sure that what she knows isn't memorialized anywhere else and that no one else can say that because then they're in even bigger trouble. Well, yeah, I mean, there is the risk of if he does give her a pardon. First of all, it wouldn't happen until January 19th, 2029. But the reality is, if that was promised, the damage is already done and we wouldn't

know for years still. And what she admits when she's speaking with Congress will be just as important as what she actually says. I will say this though. Donald Trump gives Glenn Maxwell a pardon. I do not think that is going to solve his problems with his base because people thought that they were voting for Trump so he could release the Epstein files and said he

Released his co-conspirator, but did will it matter if it happens in January of 2029? The day before he leaves leaves office, you know, I don't even know that he'll wait that long I guess he could wait that long. Yeah, but he could also say I certainly wouldn't I certainly wouldn't want to see that news like if he waits that long then people are gonna be like well What's what's going on with glen maxwell? Yeah, why well, why don be like, well, what's going on with Glenn Maxwell? Yeah. Why don't we know more? What's going on with the Epstein file?

So he really is, I don't know, I think he's a little stuck. Not to get too meta on this, but you know, this has been a topic of conversation for almost a month now, which is an extraordinary amount of time for anything, unless you're a Republican talking about Hunter Biden, then you have an insatiable appetite for this. But I'm curious what you think the potency of something like this is as more and more time goes on and you know obviously other issues are coming into the zeitgeist. How could we how could we miss this Sydney Sweeney scandal that's enveloping this country? I certainly didn't. But but how how how are you thinking about this in terms of keeping it in the zeitgeist

and continuing to talk about it? I think this is part of a larger story about Donald Trump. That he so far, in his six months in office, has spent a lot of time protecting and helping fellow elites and not a lot of time doing what he promised people he would do, which is lower their costs. And so if you look at Donald Trump over the last six months, we're paying a billion dollars for him to retrofit a jet from Qatar that he got that He gets to take with him as a keepsake he had today He announced that he's a building 200 million dollar ballroom in the White House because he thinks that not what he promised the voters He you know, he's making money hand over fist from crypto

he was yelling at Josh Hawley because of, Josh Hawley was trying to work with Democrats to pass a ban on stock trading by members of Congress and the vice president and the president. And Trump thought that it was gonna force him to sell off Mar-a-Lago because it's gonna require people to divest of their assets if they're in office, even though they carved out an exception

to make sure it doesn't apply to Trump. The Republicans did. So like, he's doing great, he's protecting his friends, he's helping his friends, and everyone else who was hoping that there'd be lower prices, you know, the tariff rates just went out, and we're all gonna be paying more money for all the shit we buy from overseas, permanently.

10, 15 to 50% tax on shit. Yeah. Which, by the way, they're still, they're still bizarrely framing as some win. I mean, they are, when they announce a 15% tariff on the EU, that is a consumption tax on Americans. That means we pay 15% like, like, I don't know how these people continue to frame it as a win when they're just showing us how money they, how much money they are taxing Americans that, on a tax that did not exist before. But I think you're exactly right. This is a small part of a larger whole. Donald Trump has promised his supporters in his first term that he was going to usher in some

manufacturing renaissance that never materialized and a jobs boom that never materialized and an infrastructure law and a health care plan that was more comprehensive and more affordable. None of that happened. All he did was spend his political capital on tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. He did the same thing this term. Promised his supporters that he felt their pain on grocery prices, that bizarre term groceries, on eggs, on rent, on housing. And what did he do when he got into office besides start a trade war that sent the prices of all of those things fucking up, he also

passed another tax cut from millionaires to billionaires, rendered his tax cut permanent for those same people. So he will say whatever he needs to say on the campaign trail, including that he's going to be the guy that's going to go after this deep state cabal of people who are completely unaccountable to live on a second tier of justice that allows them to commit these crimes with impunity. And far from doing that, far from exposing these people, he's entrenching the very system he promised to take down

because these are the people that he's looking to help, not the people he's looking to expose. No, he cares about himself, and maybe he cares about people around him only to the extent that they can help him. Right, right. Okay, so I wanna switch gears a little bit here and talk about Kamala Harris's decision not to run for governor of California I think that we're probably both in agreement without even having spoken about this before that that means that she likely wants to run for

President of the United States curious about your thoughts on that. No, I know I don't think I think that this might be it for her Really? I do but I don't know. I mean the presidency is possible for sure, but I I was not surprised by her decision on governor for this reason we Being here in Los Angeles in California. Yeah, we've really been in the mix in the last six months in the national news Yeah, we've been in Trump sites on a lot of things and there were a lot of opportunities Kamala Harris had to like speak, and she definitely put out statements

and stuff like that. But having seen her sort of stay out of the limelight in these last months, it made me think that she just didn't really wanna run for governor, which is totally her right. Because I think if she wanted to run for governor, I even think she wants to run for president. You're out there, you're talking, you're fighting, you're doing all this stuff. And like, obviously, she was writing a book during this time. And after an election like that, you get a lot of time to just chill out, right? But it seemed to me that the lack of appearances or the minimal appearances meant that her heart was not in

the race, at least the governor's race, because that's 2026. I'm gonna be interested to see when she does this book tour, she's got a book coming out, that's in September, she's on Colbert, how she talks about the book and how she talks about everything that happened, because if it's backward looking,

if it's what she learned, stuff like that, then I feel like maybe she doesn't wanna run again. If she jumps right in and starts talking about Donald Trump and 2020 and all this kind of stuff, then maybe. But I do think that everyone else who might run in 2028 has been out there a lot. Yeah, but I actually, I got a different read of it. And I thought that the reason that she was, and I still think the reason that she's staying out of the spotlight right now is to kind of keep her powder dry and not let herself get overexposed in the same way that a lot of politicians do, thinking that, you know, look, Barack Obama doesn't speak often, and

when he does, it's a big deal, and it usually gets quite a bit of coverage. And so I think that she may be trying to go that avenue where, you know, okay, I'm only going to make a few comments, and when I do, it'll be big and splashy as opposed to getting too overexposed in this media environment, and that'll kind of give her, I don't know, a feeling of gravitas when she does speak that everybody listens. I think, and this goes for everyone in democratic politics, I don't think there's such a thing as overexposure anymore.

I think that after, for better or for worse, mostly worse, after Donald Trump's first term, American people have come to expect that their leaders and their presidents and other people who represent them are going to talk all the time and communicate to them all the time. And it's just, it's an expectation we have partly because of the information environment we're in, we're on our feeds all the time. And so like if someone's not in our face, we forget about them.

And yes, that's right about Obama. Obama's also not running for anything anymore. Right. And I would argue that I think Obama could talk more and it wouldn't make his voice less powerful. Like I think he could be out there more if he wanted. But again, he's not running. And if I do think for all the candidates who might run in 2028, I think the expectation in today's communication, in today's information environment is that in this political crisis that we're in right now, in this emergency that we're in with Trump, that you're going to be out there and you're going to be fighting and talking.

And I don't think it's too late for her to do that if she wants to run in 2028. I started thinking it was too late for governor, but I don't think it's too late for 2028. But I do think if she wants to run in 2028, like just like everyone else. And look, this goes for like, I haven't seen Josh Shapiro out there a lot and he's probably going to run in 2028. And then there are people like Newsom and Pritzker and and other folks who are out there a lot. Pete and yeah. Yeah, yeah. And they're out there a lot right now. And I think, and that may have been the right strategy years ago to like keep your powder dry. I think in this environment, you got to be out there as much as possible. OK, and finally, let's finish off with this.

As we are looking at kind of the evolution of the Democratic Party, we just spoke about who this next slate of twenty, twenty eight candidates might be. Although we'll talk more about the horse race stuff covered, you know, horse race stuff as we get closer to it. Some bit of a sea change that we're seeing in the Democratic Party is there was the Bernie Sanders amendment to block the sale of weapons to Israel, and we had a record number of Democrats vote in favor of it.

Ultimately, the amendment failed. But I'm curious how you think that this issue is impacting the Democratic Party moving forward, given what we saw out of the Senate. So Gallup had a new polling this week. 32% of Americans support Israeli military action in Gaza right now. Yeah. That's the lowest it's ever been. That was a 10-point drop from just this September,

last September. And when you break that down by party, only 8% of Democrats, 8% of Democrats support Israeli military action. And Netanyahu is at his worst approval that's ever been recorded by Gallup in that poll as well. And I think that the reason that so many Democrats and so many Americans have turned against this is because of the images that we're all seeing on our TV.

I think that just based on what's actually happening there, there were 500, 600 aid trucks coming into Gaza before the ceasefire was broken in late May. And then they issued blockade, they instituted a blockade for all food and aid. And they set up four sites in the whole, for two million people, so people could get food. Over a thousand people have been shot trying to get food. It's very difficult to go and get food when there's only four sites and there's basically no food allowed in, except for this GHF, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

So people are starving. Two million people right now are on the brink of starvation. And when you see that and you think, okay, well, yes, Hamas should of course release the hostages. Hamas is at fault for the horrific massacre on October 7th. Hamas, Israel has a right to retaliate, to try to eliminate Hamas for sure. But how many more kids are gonna die?

How many more kids have to die before we say, okay, this is a country where our tax dollars are funding Netanyahu's military campaign. They are funding, so we are sending them bombs and guns, but they, and according to the Geneva Convention, if you are at war and you are the country that is occupying a place that you fought in a war, you are responsible for feeding and caring for that population. That is, and Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. They're not doing that. Okay? And they can say, we're trying, it's not happening. People are starving. And that's real. And so I think Americans are seeing that. I think Democrats

are seeing that. I think the Democratic senators who voted that way saw it. There's 27 senators voted with Bernie and Slotkin was on Colbert, so she couldn't vote, but she just released a statement saying that she would have voted to block it as well. These are senior establishment Democrats, moderate Democrats, Democrats who have been very strong supporters of Israel for a long, long time.

So this is not like lefties, you know? And I just think it's because of what we're seeing. Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, watching all of that unfold is beyond, I mean, it's one of the most horrific things that I've ever seen. And I think the most egregious part of this is watching Benjamin Netanyahu come forward and just, in a very Trumpian way, start to suggest that all of the things that we're seeing with our own eyes are not happening, that they're not blocking any of the food, that there's no starvation.

I mean, there was a point where he said that they're not starving, that there's no starvation happening. How do you square those two things? How do you look at the images that you're seeing, just sweeping across the internet, sweeping across television as well, and square the fact that what he says is not happening is very clearly happening. I mean, I've never seen sort of denial of reality in this severe. Right. I mean, the thing that will stick with me forever is, you know, the New York Times ran this picture of a mother holding her 18 month old, who just looks starving, ribs protruding,

it was horrible. I didn't think it was real when I saw it. And a bunch of people said, well, they have neglected to mention in the article that the kid was born with a pre-existing condition that made him look like this. But that doesn't mean he wasn't, he isn't also being starved, right?

So they got a correction in the New York Times for this, that the kid was born with a pre-existing condition. But then the reporting that says the kid is still starving is upheld. And no one is challenging that reporting. And I'm like, so your gotcha on this is that, hey, it wasn't just a picture of a starving kid, it was a picture of a starving disabled kid. I just, I don't understand. So, you know, it's

sad to me, it's infuriating too that people can't just see that maybe your pre-existing notions of what's going on, maybe they might be wrong, maybe just let a little doubt into your thoughts on what's happening in Israel, even if you've been a strong supporter of Israel, it's wrong. Maybe just like let a little doubt into your thoughts on what's happening in Israel, even if you've been a strong supporter of Israel, it's okay. But like just let that doubt creep in. Yeah, and I think one thing that really upsets me about all of this is the way where it's so unapologetically

to the benefit of Bibi to continue perpetuating this crisis so that nobody else is focusing on on any of his other legal issues. When in reality, I mean, look, as an American Jew, you know, Jews have obviously always faced some degree of anti-Semitism and discrimination, but like, if Bibi thinks that this is helping the Jewish cause by doing what he's doing and taking a hard line against all this stuff and perpetuating the starvation of these kids, like, all it's doing is, I mean, if you want to talk about eliminating the goodwill that the world had for Israel after October 7, that is, like, that is baked into the cake to the nth degree. But he's making it so that any Jew

around the world to have to defend this. I mean, the reality is, unfortunate though it may be, is that what happens in Israel in some kind of tangential way reflects on Jews across the world. And when we see that, that doesn't help the Jewish cause. It explodes anti-Semitism across the world. And so, like, you think that you're doing something good by taking a hard line in terms of what's happening in Gaza, when in reality, I mean, you've eviscerated any goodwill that the world had for Israel. We've seen now that France has announced that it will recognize statehood for Palestine. Canada will do the same thing. And so what is the benefit here? And I mean, I'm asking, this is, you know, we'll finish with this question, but like, what is the benefit here

as far as Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned, aside from offering up some distraction to benefit Benjamin Netanyahu. Yeah, even if you take the view that Israel's actions here should be helping Israel, by that standard, it is still a failure. Because there are kids, there are people who were just kids when October 7th happened now, who are now in the IDF, who are fighting and dying, right? There's Israeli soldiers that are still there. The thinking from Netanyahu was, oh, if we do this blockade, it'll squeeze Hamas and Hamas will release the hostages. There's one hostage that has been released

since the blockade of food in late May, and that was due to a Israeli-American, and that was due to a side deal, and that was due to a side deal between Hamas and the Trump administration. So Bibi has not negotiated the release of any hostages since then. Hamas is still, I think they've said like 25% of Hamas has been destroyed, and so they're still in the tunnels. He has not achieved that objective.

So he hasn't eliminated Hamas, he hasn't released the hostages, and the IDF Israeli soldiers are still fighting and dying, and two million people are on the brink of starvation, and 60,000 plus have died, and hundreds of thousands are wounded. Israel's reputations and tatters. So it was like, I don't know how this has helped Israel in any way. Yeah, yeah. How much of a sea change do you think that this is going to usher in? You had mentioned that even these pro-Israel Democrats are starting to vote for this stuff.

How much of a sea change do you think that this will kind of usher in as we look ahead? I mean, this is, unless, you know, Bibi relents, this is only gonna get worse. It can only get worse. Nothing gets better as people continue to starve. And so as you look forward into, you know, into the Democratic caucus and the Senate and in the House, how do you think this is gonna change things? Yeah, I mean, it very much, I think,

depends on what happens with the war, right? And so we don't know how the war's gonna go, when's it gonna end, if it's going to end, how much more damage is going to be caused. But I will say, if Bibi Netanyahu is in power and this thing is continuing, then I think in 26 and 28, I think you're going to see more Democrats say enough is enough. And just because Israel is an ally and a close ally, they have a right wing government led by a corrupt individual, Bibi Netanyahu, some much worse ministers in the government and continuing to use US tax dollars to fund this military campaign

that is killing people, starving people. Like I think you're gonna have more Democrats say like, no, we don't want to do that. We're gonna condition aid or we're gonna vote to block weapon sales like they did. So, okay, so that's the moral argument. I wanna ask one last political question here. And that is that, you know, for a long time,

Jews have been a larger base of support for Democrats than even evangelicals have been for Republicans. I can't remember if it was the Pew polling from 2022 that said something like 78 percent of Jews voted for Democrats, which was a higher number than even evangelicals who had voted for Republicans. So this is the base of support. There are going to be a lot of American Jews for whom their allegiance to Israel is important enough that, notwithstanding what's happening, they're still going to try to find a home in a political party that supports Israel. And so, could this be an instance where Republicans want this sea change to happen,

politically speaking, so that they can say, hey, there's a big swath of American Jews out there who used to identify as Democrats. Now because they see Democrats erring on the side of, you know, solving what's happening in Gaza, now there's political upside for us because these people are now gettable. How do you think about that? I think would you get to approval of what Israel's doing, down to 8% among Democrats, that is not just the Jewish population.

In fact, I think if you did a cross section of who that 8% is, it's probably people from all walks of life. And so I don't, and on the Republican side, you're already seeing sort of a split there where a lot of the younger MAGA types and everyone from Marjorie Taylor Greene to Steve Bennett to Tucker Carlson, all these people.

To Theo Vonn. Yeah, to, right, they are all very, they are starting to oppose what Israel is doing. And so you have the Dan Pfeiffer School of talk about issues that unite your party and divide the other party. And in fact, this falls pretty neatly into that bucket. If you have only 8% of Democrats who are supportive of what's going on and you see splintering

on the other side, then this is an issue that actually won't redound to the Republicans' benefit politically speaking. It's actually more advantageous on the left. Yes. it's actually more advantageous on the left. Yes, but I do think, and I think back to the debate around Iraq, and it is always tempting to figure out where you're gonna stand on these issues based on, at least partially, public opinion. And I think at the end of the day,

this is about war and peace, this is life and death, and you've gotta decide, as you're seeing these images unfold, as you know the facts on the ground, with all the information you have, I think if you're an elected official, you've gotta do the best job you can explaining why you feel that a different way. But I think it never, ask all the Democrats who voted for the authorization to fight in Iraq how they feel about voting for that authorization now. Looking back on it, because at the time, if you didn't vote for it, you were with the terrorists or you were weak.

So I think that it is important to do what you believe is right as always, but especially when it comes to issues of war and peace. Yeah, well, I highly recommend for everybody who's watching right now, if you are not yet subscribed to Pod Save America's YouTube channel, go ahead and subscribe. I'm gonna put the link right here on the screen

and also in the post description. If you're listening on the podcast, I'll put it in the show notes. Doesn't cost you anything to subscribe, but it's very important to help build up this progressive media ecosystem so that when somebody new comes online and is looking for content,

they're not automatically sorted into right-wing content. And as we know, right-wingers have a much bigger advantage than the left does in terms of getting their content out there. If you go online, you start scrolling, eventually you will fall into a right-wing rabbit hole. So we're trying to push back against that. So again, I'm gonna put that link on the screen and also in the post description. Favs, appreciate your time.

Thanks, Brian. Thanks again to Wes Moore, J.B. Pritzker, Kathy Hochel, and Jon Favs. 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 Wellsy, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support with Brian Tyler Cohen.