No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Wow: Republicans INVESTIGATE Trump’s election meddling

Episode Date: August 30, 2026

Wyoming Republicans move to investigate Trump's poll monitor activities. Marc Elias joins to discuss that exact issue.Subscribe to Democracy Docket: https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/btcWritten 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.

Wyoming Republicans are now investigating Trump's election meddling, and I've got one interview. I'm joined by Mark Elias to discuss that exact issue. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So we've got some bombshell news here. Wyoming's governor has sounded the alarm about the Trump administration's poll monitor activities and has directed the state's attorney general to investigate the matter.

According to the New York Times, two election monitors from the DOJ tried to interview voters and examine voting machines at polling places during Wyoming's primary last week, Local officials said, drawing pushback from the state's Republican governor, the federal election monitors arrived at a polling site in Cheyenne, Washington's capital and largest city, without advance notice at around 7 a.m. on Tuesday, they asked to interview voters and inspect the machines but were denied. Quote, it was aggressive, unexpected, disruptive, certainly didn't seem to show respect for the state. Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming

said an interview on Thursday. Quote, we're going to get to the bottom of it best we can. I feel very strongly about the federal government coming in and taking our guns. I don't like that, Mr. Gordon said, and I don't like the federal government coming in and taking our votes either. The monitors ultimately visited six polling places showing their credentials only when asked for them, Mr. Gordon said, describing their behavior as very odd. He said he had asked the state attorney general, Keith Coutts, to investigate the matter. So if that wasn't bad enough, the Wyoming governor revealed that the DOJ's poll monitors had cited statutes related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, and the Civil Rights Act.

In other words, they are exploiting protections for disabled Americans and minorities while executing actions that expressly undermine those very groups of people. And that was a sentiment that was echoed by Wyoming officials. This is another excerpt from the New York Times. Their questions appeared to be, quote, outside the scope of federal voting rights laws, said the Laramie County Clerk. Quote, they included questions about the nature, length, and timing of poll worker training. Monitors requested training guides and asked how our new election equipment was acquired and wanted to examine our tabulators. The conduct, Ms. Lee said, displayed a complete disregard for our state laws and administration of our elections, end

quote. And of course, look, she's right that they're showing a complete disregard for state laws and the administration of elections because the federal government does not play a role in administering elections. And yet, still that hasn't stopped Trump and his lackeys from trying to usurp that exact control. The White House is right now in court attempting to advance his illegal executive order seeking to ban mail-in ballots, except for a narrow set of circumstances, which is power that, again, the federal government does not have. Now, you may have heard about a Supreme Court ruling on this topic in Trump's favor. I want to be clear about what that SCOTUS ruling did.

It did not rule on the merits of Trump's mail ballot executive order. It only ruled on the issue of what's called ripeness. Ripeness is a legal doctrine that requires a dispute to have developed into an actual concrete controversy rather than just a hypothetical one before a court would agree to hear and decide the case. So, for example, the Postal Service hadn't finalized its rule when the issue was first litigated, so it was merely hypothetical. It wasn't ripe. Now they finalized the rule, which means the issue can be litigated. It's ripe.

That's all. But when it comes time to actually litigate this issue on the merits, it is a massively uphill battle for two reasons. First, the federal government, again, has no say in the facilitation or administration of elections. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution is about as clear as it gets, the power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections belongs to the states and to Congress, not the executive branch. Trump doesn't get a vote on how Massachusetts or California or any other state

runs its own elections, period. Second, the Purcell doctrine, which if you listen to my podcast, you're probably familiar with by now, the idea that you can't make changes too close to an election, or you risk causing undue chaos. We are two months out.

Ballots are being printed and sent out basically now. The notion that Trump would be able to suddenly ban mail-in ballots now is a very, virtual impossibility. Doesn't mean he won't try, but I want to be clear-eyed about what success looks like for him. So that raises the question. Why do it? Well, here's the thing. Trump benefits either way. Like best case scenario, the Supreme Court agrees with his insane executive order and he can ban mail-in ballots. I would bet the farm that that won't happen, but just hypothetically speaking, that's the best-case scenario. Worse-case scenario, he doesn't get what he wants

on mail-in ballots, and then he gets to use the fact that he didn't get what he wanted. as an excuse to undermine the legitimacy of the election. So he'll say, oh, well, the reason that we lost is because there was mail-in ballot fraud, and if only my executive order went through, we could have fixed it, but the Democrats fought it because they knew that it was the only way they can win the election. So really, he has set himself up to be able to claim victory either way. Either he can block the ballots or he won't, and he gets to point to that as an excuse for why he lost. All of which puts on full display that this Republican Party exists solely to consolidate power

for itself. They do not operate in a democracy. This is an autocratic government and an autocratic Republican Party. They do not believe that Democrats have the right to govern. They will only accept the results when they win, which only underscores the need to win with as big a margin as we can to eliminate all doubt. And to be clear, I believe we'll win. I wouldn't do this work if I didn't think so. Trump is operating from a position of severe weakness, and it is expressly because he knows his party is going to lose their power in two months. Our job is to make sure that it is undeniable. Next up is my interview with Mark Elias on this exact topic.

No Li is brought to you by Simply Safe. Security is a big issue for me, considering politics is a little less safe and a little more crazy than it used to be. But as I was considering home security systems, I realized that all of these security systems are designed for after, after the window breaks, after someone's inside, after you get the notification, after the police come. Simply Safe is the first system designed for before, stopping a break in before it even begins. And there's a ton of peace of mind in that, especially if I'm leaving my dog at home or I have

all of my gear in my house or my family's at home. I don't want to have to worry over a long weekend. But knowing that I've got real protection, that peace of mind is legitimately priceless. So here's how SimpliSafe makes that happen. It is designed to help stop intruders before they get inside. Smart AI powered outdoor cameras detect suspicious activity at the perimeter and alert live US-based agents to step in. SimplySafe's agents assess the threat, intervene through the outdoor camera to scare off trespassers and call for 911 dispatch. SimpliSafe has been protecting your world for 20 years. Celebrate their anniversary with us and save 60% on your new SimpliSafe system at

Simplysafe.com slash BTC. That's 60% off at Simpliceaf.com slash BTC. Plus, when you order, write in our show name in the How Did You Hear About Us survey and let them know that I sent you. Don't forget, there's no safe like SimpliSafe. It looks like we have crossed the Rubicon here because now it's not just blue states that are pushing back against Donald Trump's efforts to subvert upcoming elections. But now we have a deep red state that's pushing back.

Mark, can you explain what this news is here? Yeah, this is a really troubling story that should send shivers down the spines of everyone in all the states as we head towards the critical midterms. Because the Department of Justice sent election monitors to Wyoming on an unannounced basis and their behavior raised such concerns and was so unusual that even the Republican governor of Wyoming said that it was out of bounds and is seeking to get his questions answered. And look, Donald Trump's Department of Justice is not sending these monitors because they're trying to make sure that the civil rights laws are followed.

They're not sending them to make sure that the Americans of Disability Act is followed. They're doing it because they want to undermine confidence in the outcome of these elections. And part of what we saw out of Wyoming was these DOJ monitors trying to interview voters and trying to, you know, get information and access to voting equipment. None of that has anything to do with protecting the civil rights and the voting rights of citizens of this country. Well, I think importantly in this story, you have the governor of the state who directed the attorney general to start investigating this matter. To what extent do you think that this is kind of just a way for him to have some plausible

deniability and say, well, look, I'm investigating it. This kind of bolsters a little bit of these Wyoming Republicans independent bona fides versus, you know, them actually looking into it because they truly believe that the government is overreached here. Look, I think they think they've really overreached. I mean, this is not the first time we've seen a red state, you know, raised concerns about overreaching by the Trump administration with respect to elections. You may remember that Idaho was one of the states sued by the Trump administration for refusing to turn over their voter files. That's a case that actually my law firm is involved in defending voters in Idaho on the same side as the state of Idaho, you know, in that overreach.

Donald Trump's Department of Justice sued 30 states, and that's not just all blue states. I mean, they sued a number of red states as well because those red states refused to give the Trump administration access to the most sensitive voter data that they have. In a story that Democracy Dogg had reported in July, the Utah lieutenant governor, who is the chief election officer in that state, she publicly criticized the Department of Justice for sending her a threatening letter, you know, to try to gain access to their information. She called it truly bizarre behavior by the federal government, which is charged with protecting civil rights. That's coming from a conservative Republican in Utah. So I do think in a number of these states, they are genuinely offended by federal overreach into their control of their elections, which the Constitution obviously gives them. Mark, when you litigate on behalf of a state like Idaho or when you hear sympathizing, comments, as you just described from the lieutenant governor in a state like Utah, does that help

you build a relationship with the folks in those states? If they're able to see clearly what the federal government is doing with regard to this one specific issue, does that not allow you to build a bridge and say, hey, if he's doing this here, can you also see, can you also acknowledge that he's doing it here, here and here? Like, doesn't that help kind of, um, build a bridge between the pro-democracy movement and these red states that are otherwise captured by Trump and Republicans? You'd like to think so. I mean, you'd like to think that these red states, when they find themselves on the wrong

end of Donald Trump, that they would fundamentally change their approach to how they handle these challenges when they were brought elsewhere. You'd hope that Idaho and Utah would be objecting, along with the Democratic states, to the most recent executive order that Donald Trump is put forth to target mail-in voting, right? You'd like to think that those states would stand up and stand alongside Democrats and have there be a bipartisan coalition. But we're not seeing that. You know, what we see is that Republican elected officials will, in some instances, some narrow set of instances protect their own interest. But, you know, when it comes to a broader pro-democracy bent, they sort of ignored and

they retreat to their corners. So, you know, I'd love, I'd love to see some of these more libertarian attorneys general, more libertarian governors, more libertarian secretaries of state or chief election officials, you know, join the pro-democracy movement. But, but we don't really see much of that. And it doesn't garner any goodwill. It doesn't build up any relationship. There's no, there's no ability to say, hey, if you can acknowledge this, surely you can acknowledge that he's lying about the 2020 election that when he tries to ban mail-in ballots, that's not on the level. There's no there's no understanding beyond the narrow issue that that's at hand. Look, this is one of the philosophical points that I oftentimes make.

I'm not interested in making friends. I'm not interested in building relationships. I'm not interested in meeting the arsonist halfway. Okay. I'm here to put out the fires. And so anyone who wants to join in the effort to prevent Donald Trump from subverting free and fair elections, count me in and working with them and I will do so happily. But it isn't like I am then looking to go to lunch with them. I'm looking to see whether they will continue to do that. I mean, Brad Rastonberger stood up against Donald Trump once in January of 2020. But since then, he has attacked the voting rights act.

Since then, he has supported voter suppression measures. So like, I'm not, like I said, looking to give people a war. I'm not looking to get awards from them. I'm not looking to make friends. I'm just looking for people who are going to deliver results. And if they are not willing to stand up with Donald Trump the next time, and the time after that and the time after that, they can go build a relationship someplace else.

Yeah, I think that was perfectly put. And to that end, I mentioned the administration's efforts to undermine mail-in ballots. Obviously, Trump is still trying to push the issue of his executive order banning mail-in ballots, except for a narrow set of circumstances through the court system. saw a ruling just a few days ago by the Supreme Court deciding that this issue was ripe. So now they're going to go ahead and litigate this thing on the merits. Can you give a lay of the land of where we're at right now and whether you think the Supreme Court will ultimately hear it and how they might rule?

Yeah, I'm glad you asked that because honestly, this is really relevant to what we've been discussing about Wyoming and these other red states. Because what the Trump administration is trying to do through this executive order and through the U.S. Postal Service is trample all over states' rights. And, you know, these states, you know, include voters by mail. I mean, Utah has a predominant number of people who vote by mail, and Wyoming allows for voting by mail. So, like, they should care about this issue while they have remained largely silent because it will affect them as well. But essentially, a bunch of Democratic State Attorney General without these Republican states went to the federal courts,

and they won, and then they won again in the Court of Appeals. And then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the injunction issued by those lower courts, saying that the claims are not ripe. Well, now they are right. Like everybody agrees they're ripe. The Department of Justice even agrees they're ripe. So the question is, where do we go from here? Just to butt in, the issue of ripeness just means that it's an actual issue,

a concrete issue that can be litigated, not just some hypothetical issue. All right. So Friday, and then continuing throughout the weekend, federal judge issued an injunction, again, same federal. judge, prohibiting this rule from being implemented by the U.S. Postal Service. The Department of Justice is appealing that temporary restraining order is what it actually is. Meanwhile, there is briefing going on in a more permanent injunction, and those briefs have been filed back and forth. Democracy Docket is covering this blow by blow. If you go to Democracydocket.com, you can read

the articles and see the pleadings on this. But essentially, Brian, this is all going to play out very, very fast because there are states that are going to start sending out their mail-in ballots as soon as this week. And that is required by their state law and state law, state law controls because the time plays a matter of federal elections is set by states, not by the federal government. So we may very well be headed towards a showdown here in which states have to make a decision. Do we just send out our mail-in ballots, as we always have, by following state law, and ignore the U.S. Postal Service's regulation that is currently being blocked, right? So it can't be put in effect. Or do we somehow try to split the difference and notwithstanding the fact that the regulation is blocked, this new rule is blocked, we try to comply with parts of it anyway, you know, because what happens if we send out the ballot? and then a court says that the rule is in effect.

Does that mean all those voters get disenfranchised? Presumably not, right? That would be another set of lawsuits. And I can promise Donald Trump and the U.S. Postal Service, I'll be first in line to file that if that were to happen. But look, Brian, if this all sounds very fast-moving and chaotic, it is fast-moving and chaotic. The fast-moving is a reason to subscribe to this channel.

The chaotic is the design, right? That is what Donald Trump wants. He wants this to be a messy process. He wants this to be a messy election so that he can later point back to this as evidence that there was fraud, even though there was not. Mark, last question on this point. It seems to me like it would be virtually impossible for the Supreme Court or any court to advance this executive order banning mail-in ballots just by virtue of how late we are

in this process. Do you think that it's a fair read of this that even if you have sympathetic judges, just the impossibility of trying to change. all of these ballots is just so steep right now that it's, again, virtually impossible, virtually completely unlikely that it will happen. Yeah, so look, this is the big question. I think what Donald Trump hopes is that if he gets the Supreme Court to rule, maybe all these ballots get thrown out.

You know, like, I mean, I can't, you know, I'm not saying the Supreme Court's going to do that. The Supreme Court would be crazy to do that. But, but I think that, like, he hopes, like, okay, state sends out the ballots. Supreme Court rules a week later that the rule is is lawful. And then they try to throw a ballot. Now, again, I will be the first in line to file a lawsuit if that happens and will win. I mean, like, that's not actually a thing. You don't get to do that. But I think Donald Trump, like, in his addled brain, you know, where, where, like, the reflecting pool was perfectly repaired and vandals, you know, put a, put a 200 yard or whatever he said, 250 yard or whatever

crazy number, gash in it, right? Like, like in his crazy. mind, he may think that. But the other possibility, Brian, is that the Supreme Court does something. And yes, these ballots for 2026 count. But it allows Donald Trump to say after the election that the rules weren't followed, that all these states did something that was untoward or illegal or improper and allows Donald Trump to spread more lies. And what we have seen with Donald Trump is a pattern. It starts with a lie. And then that, lie gets bigger. Then he tries to use the courts and the law to effectuate the law. When that fails, he turns to violence. That's what we saw in 2020. It's what we see his administration do

in different forms in other ways. It's not always, obviously, him engaging in violence. It may be him inspiring violence. It may be the federal government using excessive violence, right? But like, there is this escalation where he starts with a lie and escalates it. And then, then when the courts don't do what he wants, he doesn't stop. And so that's what I'm worried about for this fall. But I can assure everyone, you know, we'll be fighting them every step of the way in court. We'll be protecting your right to vote. And at Democracy Docket, we will be exposing what's going on and explaining it without both sides, without there, without the false equivalency, without the compromises that the legacy media makes.

Thanks again to Mark Elias. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Wednesday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellsey, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app

and leave a five-star rating in a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels, or you can go to Brian Tyler Cohen.com to learn more.