Jamie Raskin (7:47)

Thank you for having me, Brian.

Brian Tyler Cohen (7:49)

So we have watched as Donald Trump engaged in this almost comical corruption scheme where he is seeking 200 and almost a quarter of a billion dollars from the DOJ to pay himself, basically using the US treasury as his own piggy bank. You've now led the effort to take action against him. Can you explain what the new move is?

Jamie Raskin (8:08)

Well, the mind blowing thing about this one is that it could almost all happen in secret. In fact, we only know about it because somebody leaked out that he'd filed this administrative claim asking for $230 million from the US government because he felt he was injured under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That's usually for deaths, violent injuries. I found one with a baby who was born with brain damage because of malpractice in a military hospital, a federal hospital, and that one was extraordinary. And that was only for like $10 million. And he's asking for $230 million for things that are not even torts, not even civil wrongs committed against him. He's asking for that money because he didn't like the fact was a judicial search warrant executed at Mar? A Lago. I'm sorry, but that happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. And everybody who is the subject of a judicial search warrant and remember, you have to go to a judge and prove that there's probable cause that a crime is taking place or crime has taken place and Then, of course, it produced all this documentation, all these photographs of classified documents in his bathroom and in the pool table and all that. But any event, he thinks he should get $230 million for. Included in his stupid complaint is a request for $75 million for punitive damages, which are not even allowed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Even when you've got a real tort, like somebody, you know being killed by a federal doctor or run over by a federal truck or something like that.

Jared Moskowitz (10:00)

Yeah.

Brian Tyler Cohen (10:01)

So now, in terms of what can be done, I mean, what is the new action being taken in Congress to. To expose this?

Jamie Raskin (10:10)

So. So here's the thing. This is not a lawsuit. The public is not represented. There's no court, there's no trial, there's no jury, there's no judge. All he's doing is asking for two officials in the Department of Justice, one of two officials to approve his petition for $230 million. And one of them is his own deputy Attorney general.

Tommy Vietor (10:36)

Yeah.

Jamie Raskin (10:38)

Who got famous for going out and talking to Ghislaine Maxwell. Right. And effectuating her transfer to a camp. Extremely minimum security facility in Texas when he was satisfied with the things that she was saying and not saying about Donald Trump and. And the Jeffrey Epstein affair. So these are his sycophantic underlings. We're going to be deciding whether he gets $230 million. So what I'm focused on right now is that all of this could be happening in secret. It's all behind the scenes in the back rooms. And for all we know, Brian, it's already happened. Right. Because they don't have to report it to anybody until the end of the year when a list of the Department of Justice's expenditures are made. Understand, generally, this is phenomenally difficult to win a suit, even when there's a real violent tort. I mean, think about all the people who are being roughed up and manhandled by ICE in these raids across the country. If they. If these people have any way of getting any compensation for, you know, being falsely imprisoned for five days or being roughed up and thrown on the ground, it's through the Federal Tort Claims act, and they never settle it out. Right. And it's extremely difficult to win, even in court, because there's so many legal doctrines that you gotta jump over before you can actually get a real hearing on it.

Brian Tyler Cohen (12:14)

So you're launching an investigation, a public investigation into all of this. But I guess the broader question here, and the question, I'm sure most people who are watching, are asking is, can anything be done to stop this? I mean, if Donald Trump just has carte blanche, if his only obstacle to being able to pull a quarter of a billion dollars is his own criminal defense attorney and his own attorney general, who are perfectly content to be doormats for the guy, then what's to stop him? And by the way, what's to stop him from doing it again or doing it for $500 million? Why not take a billion? Why not take 5 billion? If there's a billion dollars.

Jared Moskowitz (12:52)

Yeah, right.

Jamie Raskin (12:53)

And this number happens to match exactly what he seems to have been committed in the White House demolition of the East Wing and the construction of his new Marie Antoinette La Di Da ballroom for the CEOs and the billionaires. So it may be that, you know, there will undoubtedly be major cost overruns with that project. Maybe he's just looking to take that money and put it over there. God knows he doesn't want to reach into his own pocket, even though those pockets have been filled with more than $3 billion in crypto money since the beginning of the year. But look what can be done. Like everything else during this nightmarish Trump period, it's a case of first impression, by which I mean it's never happened before. So we don't have a mechanism necessarily to stop this. Which is why the first thing I want to do is to let the sunlight pour in so everybody can see exactly what's going on, because they're definitely trying to finagle this behind closed doors. And I don't know who leaked it out and who made it available, but whoever is out there, I hope, and I trust, is trying to make known everything that's going on with respect to this. But we have demanded, and I've sent a letter demanding from the Department of Justice, all documentation, all correspondence, all conversations have taken place between the White House and the President and the Department of Justice about this matter. And obviously, once Congress is put back in the hands of rational people, we've got to make it impossible for this ever to happen again by saying that if a President, United States, if government officials have a federal tort claims action against the government, it's something that must go to court. So we actually have plaintiff, defendant, the offering of evidence, a neutral, impartial magistrate, and not the President's own employees making a decision about whether or not to give him $230 million or $2.3 billion or whatever he might ask for.

Brian Tyler Cohen (15:01)

Is there any discomfort from your Republican colleagues about this, or do they really want to be on record supporting the President of the United States, who may at some point be a Democrat in the future, being able to just use the U.S. treasury as his or her own personal bank account? Like their silence here right now is gonna establish that precedent. Whether they just think that any president of any party is allowed to just pilfer money from the Treasury, I mean.

Jamie Raskin (15:25)

It'S a great question. Of course, our Republican colleagues would have to be coming to work in order for us to answer that. None of them have been around for this, and they've not uttered a peep. And when Mike Johnson has been at a press conference, he continues to feign ignorance about the whole thing and say, oh, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I mean, can you imagine if Joe Biden or Barack Obama had actually said, I'm gonna shake down the federal government for $230 million and I'm gonna have my Attorney general's people decide on it? Oh, and by the way, they happen to be my private lawyers. The way Todd Blanche worked for him before, I mean, it's just astounding. It's astonishing. So when you say, well, aren't they afraid that, you know, turnabout is fair play and a Democratic president's gonna do that in the future, the reality is, when they really think about it, they know that you. We're not going to nominate somebody who's going to come in like this compulsive, you know, kleptocrat and just start pilfering the government. And, by the way, violating the Constitution, too, because this violates the domestic emoluments clause, which says that the president is confined to his salary in office, which cannot be increased by $1 from a federal source, and it can't be reduced either. And they're just trampling that. So I think they think, well, the Democrats play by the rules, but we don't play by the rules, and we're gonna support our dict to take it as far as he can go.

Brian Tyler Cohen (16:49)

Right. The reality is that that's the perfect point, because they don't have to worry about, you know, the whole adage of what goes around comes around because they know that Democrats are not going to nominate or elect somebody who would do this in the first place. And so they're covered in that respect. But you touched on the part.

Jamie Raskin (17:05)

And also, if they throw caution to the winds and they allow Trump everything he wants, they think the Democrats will never get back in.

Brian Tyler Cohen (17:12)

Right.

Jamie Raskin (17:12)

They will gerrymander themselves into power. They will cement themselves into power with Citizens United and all the corporate dark. And, you know, it'll be like the Hunger Games where, you know, the capital city will be this embedded financial military fortress against the peasants.

Brian Tyler Cohen (17:30)

Yeah, I did want to ask about something that you touched on, which is the fact that this is blatantly unconstitutional. I have Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 in front of me that says the president shall receive services for. Receive compensation for his services, but, but that he shall not receive within that pay, period, any other emolument from the United States. And so this is clearly blatantly unconstitutional. I understand that the Constitution itself is not self executing, but what is the recourse here? What's the remedy when you have such a blatant violation of the Constitution, such a blatant violation of the emoluments clause? Who has standing to bring this into court and to push back against this?

Jamie Raskin (18:12)

Well, two different questions. One, who has standing? Well, the Roberts court would pretty much say no, nobody's got standing to challenge Donald Trump over anything. Right? So that's a serious problem. On the other hand, if we can take the Congress back, we can use the power of the purse in order to cut off equivalent amounts of money to the Department of Justice, demand restitution, we can impose all kinds of penalties and fines and for them doing this, and we can make sure we get the people's money back. It's just a lawless situation. And by the way, we got to compare and contrast the domestic and the foreign emoluments clauses. Right. The foreign emoluments clause says that a president or nobody in federal office shall receive a present, an emolument, which means a payment in office or a title of any kind whatever from a king, a prince, or a foreign state without the consent of Congress. Okay, so there's loophole that Congress could say, you know what, we approve your $400 million jet you're bringing back from Qatar. We will vote for that. Okay. Which we never would vote for it. Even the Republicans, I think, would be hard pressed to cast that vote. But Trump hasn't come to us. All right, but now compare that to the domestic emoluments clause. There's no saving clause which says it's all right if Congress votes for it. It just says categorically, as you quoted it, Brian, that the President can receive no other emoluments from the federal government or from a state. You can't use your presidential office to rip off the taxpayers.

Brian Tyler Cohen (19:54)

So can you just explain a little bit about why it's allowed to happen if it's, if it is blatantly unconstitutional. And what happens in the event that not just the emoluments clause is violated, but any clause of the Constitution is violated? What remedy is there if somebody violates the Constitution? And you know, we're in a situation like we're in right now, the Trump.

Jamie Raskin (20:13)

Period is showing that we have the Constitution that we're willing to fight for. If you're not willing to fight for the foreign emoluments clause and say the president must bring his $400 million theocrat Qatari jet to us for approval, he's just going to go ahead and do it.

Brian Tyler Cohen (20:31)

Right.

Jamie Raskin (20:32)

If we don't somehow insist as a self respecting Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, that the President not be looting the public treasury for hundreds of millions of dollars simply by telling his own underling to write him the check, well then he's going to get away with that violation, the domestic emoluments clause. It's like what the whole country is agape, just astounded to watch this week, which is the bulldozing the White House like how can this happen? And if we don't have control of Congress and we can't stop him and we've never, you know, there is a criminal statute called destruction of government property. And that's the closest that I can find to saying he's destroying government property outside of the law and he has no permission or authorization for it. But that would require the Department of Justice to bring a prosecution to go and try and stop it. And what are the chances of Pam Bondi doing that? Not great. Not great.

Brian Tyler Cohen (21:33)

Well, I appreciate you bringing this to the, to the forefront and for fighting for this. And I hope that the point is made to your Republican colleagues that again, what goes around comes around. There will be a point when Democrats are back in office despite Trump and Republicans best efforts to entrench permanent rule for themselves. And if they really want to establish the precedent that any president of any party can just decide how big of a check he or she wants to write himself or herself, then that's what they're doing right now by virtue of having, failing to have enough of a spine to actually speak up. So again, appreciate your work on this issue, Congressman. Thanks so much for the time.

Jamie Raskin (22:09)

Thanks for having me. BRIAN hangs up.

Brian Tyler Cohen (22:14)

No lie is brought to you by Prize Picks. So you and I make decisions every day. But on prize picks, being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this football season on Prize picks where it's good to be right. So I am an avid NFL fan. I watch football every Sunday. It is the one respite that I have from politics and part of what makes it so much fun is being able to gamify the whole experience. So I love watching the people that I have on my fantasy team. Justin Jefferson, CD Lamb, Daniel Jones, who kind of breaks my heart because he used to be a giant. That notwithstanding, now there are ways where I can actually make money as the result of the players that I love watching anyway so prizepix is simple to play. Just pick more or less on at least two player stats. If you get your picks right, you can cash in play prizepix to get action on football. In more than 40 states, including California, Texas and Georgia, prizepix is the only app that offers stacks, meaning you can pick the same player up to three times in the same lineup. So you want to pick more on Josh Allen's pass yards, rush yards, and touchdowns. Now you can pick all of them in the same lineup only on Prize Picks. Also, you can follow other prizepix players directly on the app and copy their lineups in one click. Whether it's a friend, a celebrity partner, or just someone whose picks you like. And there are plenty of those people, hit the follow button and check out every lineup they create in the new Feed tab on Prize Picks. On Prize Picks, how you play is up to you. If you want flexibility, choose Flexplay, where you can get paid even if only one of your picks misses. And if you want the biggest payouts, go for power play. So no matter how you play, prizepix is a great way to put your takes to the test. Prizepix also offers injury reboots, so if one of your players leaves the game in the first half and doesn't return, Prize Picks won't count that as a loss. And this season that seems to be especially helpful. Prizepix is the best way to win cash this football season. Which players are going off? Which ones are overhyped? Make your picks in less than 60 seconds and turn your hot takes into cash all season long on Prize Picks. Download the Prize Picks app today and use code BTC to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code BTC to get $50 in Lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks it's good to be right. I'm joined now by Congressman Jared Moskowitz. Thanks so much for joining me.

Jared Moskowitz (24:22)

Thanks for being with you, Brian.

Brian Tyler Cohen (24:24)

So we have some breaking news here as it relates to the Epstein files. I'm going to throw to a clip from your buddy James Comer. Let's be clear. Democrats don't care about transparency or accountability in this matter.

Alex Michelson (24:36)

The evidence we've gathered does not implicate.

Brian Tyler Cohen (24:38)

President Trump in any way. Public reporting, survivor testimony and official documents.

Alex Michelson (24:45)

Show that Bill Clinton had far closer ties to Epstein.

Brian Tyler Cohen (24:50)

All right, so that was James Comer saying that nothing to see here as far as it relates to Donald Trump, that the real issue here is Bill Clinton. So first and foremost, can I have your reaction to that?

Jared Moskowitz (24:59)

Well, first of all, I want to. It's good to see confirmation of something I always knew about my friend James Comer is that he can read at a ninth grade level. But I mean, here we go again. Colmer coming out saying, I conducted an investigation. Right. You know, this was the guy who was taking, you know, Russian disinformation and was using a Chinese spy during the fake faux Biden impeachment which was so successful the by. By Colmer. Right. So, yeah, Comers looked at it by America. Really? Here we go. Everyone can sleep. Everyone can sleep at night. James Comer has looked at the Epstein files and he's concluded there's no there there. Well, then guess what? If there's no there there, guess what we can do, Brian? We can release it. We can release the files. James, man, I love when you do these things to yourself. Oh, it's such a. I, first of all, I miss him. I haven't seen him in weeks. And so, yeah, look, if Trump is not in it and it's just Bill Clinton, then release him.

Brian Tyler Cohen (25:58)

But isn't that, isn't that even more incentive? I mean, if it's Bill Clinton. Look, I'm, I certainly have no allegiance to, to Bill Clinton. I'm not here to uncover for.

Jared Moskowitz (26:05)

So wait, so wait, all House Republicans and all Senate Republicans, the White House, President Trump. Right. Right wing media are now just protecting Bill Clinton.

Brian Tyler Cohen (26:15)

Yeah. Well, can I have your reaction to the fact that we are now in nearing week four of this shutdown and that Mike Johnson has put forward a myriad of different excuses as to why he won't swear in Adelina grupova?

Jared Moskowitz (26:31)

They keep changing. They keep changing, right?

Brian Tyler Cohen (26:32)

I mean, first it was this idea that it was the Pelosi precedent. Then it was this idea that, that he's looking forward to doing it. He just has to wait for the House to come in session. We can't do it in pro forma sessions. Except for the fact that we already literally did it in Pro forma sessions. So what do you make of the fact that Mike Johnson seems to be drowning in his own pond of different excuses here?

Jared Moskowitz (26:51)

Well, by the way, you forget the first one he said, which is, we'll swear in when she wants to. Okay? That was his first thing. And then she's like, I'm ready to be sworn in. And then he was like, wait, well, then, yeah. And then he was like, well, there's this pro forma thing. We can't do it. And then Democrats are like, well, you just swore in two Republicans during pro forma. And he's like, the Pelosi president. They didn't swear in a rep from Louisiana for 23 days. Okay, well, we're there, Mike. Right? And now there's this other thing. Well, you know who. We'll get to it when we're back. Everyone knows the reason they're not bringing us back, okay, is because they're trying to avoid this Epstein vote, and they're trying to get Republicans to take their names off of that list. Okay, off to. Off the petition that will force the vote again. You have to ask yourselves, why are they going through all of this, okay, all of this for months now, okay? Using political capital, significant political capital, just to stop a House vote. By the way, just because the House votes on it doesn't mean the files get released. You still need the Senate to do it, right? And yet they're putting all this political capital to stop it. I don't know. It's funny. Like, Speaker Johnson's like, the speaker of the House, but we, like, don't have a House. Like, we don't have it. We're not. We're not even allowed to come back. Okay. Which is elongating the shutdown, by the way. Usually in a shutdown, you force members to stay, which forces members to talk. I know that's bad, you know, and make a deal. But now, no, they've sent us home. We're home with our families and kids, which I appreciate. But now, as a result, there's no pressure to get a deal, which is elongating the shutdown. It's hurting Americans. It's hurting federal workers. It's going to hurt air travel. As we get close to Thanksgiving, Brian, I think there's a good chance that we could be closed, really close up to Thanksgiving. It appears there's no exit at the moment.

Brian Tyler Cohen (28:41)

Is this all not just an academic exercise? Considering even if the discharge petition works and the Senate votes in favor of it and the Epstein files are released, isn't It Pam Bondi's DOJ who has full control of what in the Epstein files.

Jared Moskowitz (28:56)

Hold on a second. I'll give you a step further than that. Okay. Before we get to Pam, Bonnie, Trump could just veto it.

Brian Tyler Cohen (29:03)

Yeah, right. I mean, unless there's a.

Jared Moskowitz (29:05)

The Senate versus it and Trump does vetoes it.

Brian Tyler Cohen (29:08)

But if there's a veto proof majority, like going 10 steps down the line. And first of all, the notion that there's going to be a veto proof majority full of Republicans who are willing to buck this precedent. I know, is. It feels otherworldly at this point. But, but let's just humor the notion. Do you have confidence that Pam Bondi's DOJ is gonna give up any files that in any way implicate this president, even if we do have a veto proof majority of Republicans who are willing to sign onto this thing?

Jared Moskowitz (29:35)

Well, first we have to find the desk that the original list was on. Remember that?

Brian Tyler Cohen (29:40)

That's right.

Jared Moskowitz (29:40)

The list is on my desk. And then it's like there's no list. It's like, well, what happened to the desk? Did she even have a desk? And so who knows? I mean, now Trump is asking Pambani for $250 million. So yeah, we, we are way outside of. Not just norms, we're way outside of imagination. Right. Like, like if I had said to you six months ago, okay, that Trump would be tearing down the East Wing while simultaneously having foreign governments, building a ballrooms and corporations while simultaneously asking the DOJ for 250 million, you would have said, I mean, I think I know things are gonna be crazy, Jared, but that's not gonna happen in the first nine months of the administration.

Brian Tyler Cohen (30:22)

Yeah. Can you talk about what your Republican colleagues are saying about all of this? I mean, like, I don't wanna play the what if Obama what if Biden did this, but we all know what would happen if Joe Biden decided to dip his hands in the US treasury to serve as a piggy bank for himself. And yet like they're all publicly silent right now. So notwithstanding the fact that this, that they are effectively validating the precedent where a president from either party can just use the US treasury as a piggy bank. Notwithstanding that point, can you just give some insight into what these people are saying? Are they okay with it? Are they not okay with it? I mean, clearly nobody's coming out and saying anything because God forbid you say an ill word of Dear Leader, but anything that you're hearing from, is there ever gonna be a step too far for these Republicans So, first of all.

Jared Moskowitz (31:08)

We don't have to go backwards. Let's go forwards. If, if a Democrat got elected in 28 and tried to do half of the stuff Trump is doing, Republicans all of a sudden would find a conscience. Yeah, right. Like they're against spending until they're in charge. Right. So, like, we don't have to go backwards, just go forwards. That they, they would, they would be jumping out of their seat if a Democrat tried to do half of this stuff. I mean, they were getting upset that Hunter Biden was painting and so forget all that. Right. And so. No. Is there a step too far? I mean, maybe when Trump starts, you know, floating again, that he's going to run in 2028, maybe step too far. There were a number of Republicans that talked about how that wasn't in the Constitution.

Brian Tyler Cohen (31:47)

For now. For now.

Jared Moskowitz (31:48)

But other than that, Brian. No, there's no step too far. He got a plane from Qatar. Okay. That I thought would have been like, oh, they're going to. That's a step too far. They're like, oh, he just, he just needs a spare mechanical device to use, you know, like tearing down the east wing. It's like, well, he's a builder. You know, he likes to build.

Brian Tyler Cohen (32:08)

In your conversations with constituents now that you've got plenty of time not to be in the House because. Because Mike Johnson won't let the House come back into session.

Jared Moskowitz (32:17)

Because, yeah, Congress is optional. That's great.

Brian Tyler Cohen (32:19)

Congress is optional. It's just a strong suggestion that you guys actually meet.

Jared Moskowitz (32:24)

That's what our founders envisioned as a. When they were like three separate branches of government. One of them will make part time.

Brian Tyler Cohen (32:31)

Yeah, that's right. In your conversations with folks, is anything seem to be resonating, even with folks? I'm especially concerned about, like independents or Trump voters. But folks that you've spoken with, what seems to be the most resonant point, because there's certainly a lot that's going on right now, we also may fall victim to the Steve Bannon model of flooding the zone with shit. And so, like, instead of everything resonating, nothing resonates. But there is so much happening right now, especially on the corruption front, especially on the trade war and rising prices front, especially on the farmers getting fucked front. And so is there something that's especially resonant in your conversations with people?

Jared Moskowitz (33:10)

So, again, yes, I think the flooding of the zone thing is working for them. Right. Because it keeps Democrats in a state of constant outrage. And I try not to do that, by the way, even though I could be in a state of constant outrage all day long. I kind of got to kind of pick the things.

Brian Tyler Cohen (33:22)

Oh, just come on in, the water's warm.

Jared Moskowitz (33:24)

Yeah. Pick the things to be outraged about. Because the problem is if you're. If you're outraged about everything, then you're outraged about nothing. Right. Then there. That. Then there's no. Then there's no different lines of outrage. There's no different outrage. You get outrage fatigue and outrage, and everything's a 10. Right. The sky is always falling. So some of the stuff, I don't take the bait. I don't go for. Right. Tearing down the east wing of the White House because it provides a nice visual different. But look, I think when you talk to voters, there are really two things that are resonating. One is the prices of. Everything is more expensive. Right. Trump said he would lower the costs, and that hasn't happened. Right. Tariffs have made everything more expensive. It's a tax on the American people. And whether they figured out the policy of that, they see the numbers at the store and they know they're paying more money. That's issue number one. Issue number two is health care. Healthcare is issue number two. They know health care is too expensive now, and they know healthcare is about to go up in November. They know those two things. Those are the things that are breaking through. And yes, it's expensive to continue the subsidies. And so when we talk about, hey, it's $30 billion to continue the subsidies, people would say, look, America's $38 trillion in debt now, a lot of it added by Donald Trump, as we know, you know, we don't have the money. And you would say, well, we would have had the money if we didn't just send $40 billion to Argentina, because Trump's friends with the leader there. Right. And so that stuff is breaking through. When you can explain that to people like, well, we did have the money, and then Trump sent it to Argentina. This is the state of things, Brian. Like, we just had a deal in the Middle east, which I support. But think about this for a second. Trump was willing to sit down with Hamas and negotiate a solution, which I support, but he's not willing to sit down with Democrats and negotiate a solution on health care for the American people. That's how broken things are in Washington.

Brian Tyler Cohen (35:10)

D.C. do you anticipate that the Democrats are in any way going to capitulate on this issue? And by the way, I should just note, for people watching right now, the whole shutdown is predicated on one major issue. That's Democrats are using what little leverage they have to make sure that ACA says subsidies don't leave your health care doubling, tripling or quadrupling as we head into 2026. That's it. So is there any sense among the Democratic caucus that, that there will be capitulation on this issue?

Jared Moskowitz (35:37)

Well, look, I'm ready to open government. I've been ready to open government. I wanted to vote for a CR that extended the subsidies. So if they take the subsidies extension and put it in, the CR government will be reopened. I will vote for that. Okay. And so there's a very easy solution out of it. In fact, this is something that has been discussed for six months. Everybody knew these things were going to expire. But Congress can't work unless there's an emergency. Right? We don't, we don't think, don't. We don't do proactive. We do reactive. And now everyone's in their corners because, you know, tough to negotiate with each other when, you know, both sides say they're un American. Right. Tough to make a deal. And so right now, no one's talking to each other. No one wants to be the first to take a step. But Republicans control the House, they control the Senate, they control the executive. They control the Supreme Court. They have all the. Everything, okay? And so this is their mess. They gotta find a way out of it. They have our number. They know what we want to do. We want to lower the cost of health care for the American people. They know what it's going to cost. They've known for a while. They've decided to spend money on other things, add trillions of dollars to the deficit instead. But there's a really easy way out of it. And so we got to come back to Washington. If they want to solve the problem, that's how, you know, the speaker doesn't really want to solve the problem. They, they like the situation they're in. They don't want to bring us back. In fact, they don't even want their own members back because they don't want their own members to talk to the press about maybe we should solve the problem on, on health care. And so, you know, your guess is good as mine, Brian. When, when we're going to come back, when we're going to, when we're going to solve this problem. It's hurting a lot of people. State of Virginia are declared a state of emergency to feed federal workers at food banks. Think about how disgusting that is, right? That those are missed one panel and they're at food banks.

Brian Tyler Cohen (37:24)

Those are those breadlines that Republicans kept warning about if Democrats got into power, that Democrats being in power would usher in communism and food lines and bread lines. And now that's exactly what we have under Republican control. I gotta ask, you know the excuse that Mike Johnson's putting forward is all the Democrats have to do is sign on to a clean CR and then come to the negotiating table. We hear you on the ACA stuff. We're gonna negotiate with you. But first sign onto the cr, first surrender all your leverage, and then just trust us, guys. We're definitely good for it. So would you trust the people who got us into this mess in the first place? Who were the ones to eliminate these subsidies in the first place? The party that eliminated a trillion dollars in healthcare funding and then gave 50 billion back for rural hospitals as some little, like, band aid to plug the hole that they created? Are these the people that you're gonna trust in terms of their promises that, like, hey, all you gotta do is give us a clean CR and then just come. Come negotiate with us?

Jared Moskowitz (38:24)

Well, first let me say I don't think this is about leverage. Right? This is about a CR that they put on the floor that didn't have the extensions in it. It's a policy debate for me. Right. It didn't have the policy in it that I wanted, so I voted no. But they're in charge. They could keep government open. The fact that they don't have the votes means maybe they should talk to us and figure out what is the policy that's missing from that cr. This is also the people that said they wouldn't do crs. They hated crs. They voted against all the Democratic crs. Okay. That they were going to fund the government with 12 appropriation bills. Still haven't done it. These are also the folks that closed the government on purpose and told the American people they were closing the government on purpose over Obamacare. These are also the people who have said they're gonna fix health insurance. Nine years. We're still on the concept of the plan phase.

Brian Tyler Cohen (39:12)

Yeah.

Jared Moskowitz (39:13)

Okay. And so this for me, of course, there's no trust between the parties. They haven't talked to us in nine months since they took power. Remember, Trifecta mandate. They don't need to talk to us. How's their mandate working out for them? Okay. And so they know what we want. It's not a leverage debate. It's a policy debate. We want to lower cost for the American people.

Alex Michelson (39:33)

Where's their plan?

Jared Moskowitz (39:34)

Brian? They don't like our idea. Fine. What's their idea? Why don't they take their idea and add it to the CR for an up or down vote? Why don't they do that? You know why? They're not. They got no ideas. Still in the drawing phase, still in the draft phase, version 12. Okay. They're not interested in lowering the cost of the American people. If they were, they would put forward their own plan to do it.

Brian Tyler Cohen (39:59)

Is there, is there no acknowledgement by these Republicans that, that ultimately Democrats are trying to help Republicans help themselves? Like, the reality is, if these subsidies are not extended, 24 million Americans are either going to lose their health insurance or see their premiums double, triple or quadruple. And it's going to be largely in states, by the way, that, that Trump won in 2024. Those are the states that have seen the biggest enrollment increases in the aca, including, you know, down south. We have states like Texas, states like West Virginia, states like Tennessee, states like Florida. And so is there no acknowledgement by these Republicans about the electoral implications of not allowing the Democrats to help the Republicans?

Jared Moskowitz (40:40)

Oh, no, no. There are many members that are concerned about those notices that go out on November 1st. In fact, I think if you put the extension subsidies on the floor, it'll pass. It'll pass. It'll be a bipartisan majority. That's what we're doing now.

Brian Tyler Cohen (40:54)

So what are we doing here? Well, that's why Mike Johnson.

Jared Moskowitz (40:56)

But that's why the Speaker's not putting it on the floor. He doesn't want it to pass. Okay. Cuz if he did, it would pass. So he doesn't want it. And that's.

Brian Tyler Cohen (41:02)

But why not? Why not? Why? What does Mike Johnson have to get out of this? Is he just.

Jared Moskowitz (41:06)

I don't know. You're asking me to figure out what Mike Johnson's doing.

Brian Tyler Cohen (41:09)

I mean, I mean, is it just that, like, Trump planted his flag here and so. And so Mike Johnson's job is just to.

Jared Moskowitz (41:16)

Let me.

Brian Tyler Cohen (41:17)

Just let me break down Trump's ego.

Jared Moskowitz (41:19)

Hold on. Let me break down House and Senate strategy. Let me break down Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune's strategy. When Trump says jump, we ask how high? That's it. It's super simple. If Trump tomorrow came out and said extend the subsidies, there'd be a vote in the House, there'd be a vote in the Senate, subsidies extended. We don't have to guess what Johnson and Thune are thinking. They're just saying to themselves, whatever Trump says right now, Trump's not engaged in the shutdown. Okay. And so, you know, that's why we're kind of listless. We don't really know where we're going. You know, they've been threatening to cut Democratic programs as, as. As kind of a threat. It's not working because we're watching them tear down the east Wing of the White House. We're a little past cutting programs. Yeah. And so that's why this is going on. But look, as we get closer to Thanksgiving and the FAA isn't working, which they're in charge of, and TSA isn't working, which they're in charge of, Okay. I mean, Americans are going to continue to ask their questions about why won't Republicans make a deal with. On health care? Why don't they propose something on health care? Where is their proposal? I mean, Johnson hasn't even put a single idea on the floor to. And make us vote on it. Make me vote on it, Mr. Speaker. Make me vote on your plan on lowering health care. Couldn't even figure that out. You want to know why Trump hasn't sent him a plan? Johnson can't come up with his own plan.

Brian Tyler Cohen (42:42)

Last question here. Should members of Congress get paid during shutdowns?

Jared Moskowitz (42:48)

The answer is no. Now, constitutionally, we have to get paid. I have sent a letter to administration, and they are withholding my pay because people in my office are not getting paid. So if they're not getting paid, I'm not getting paid. If the American workers not getting paid for the federal government, I'm not getting paid. If our military is not getting paid, I'm not getting paid. But to be quite honest, the pay thing isn't going to force us to have a deal. We got to be in Washington. If you're gonna. If the American people are captive to this broken system, then so should Congress. Congress should be captive as well. If the. If the federal worker, the military, tsa, FBI, if they have to work without a pay, I should have to work, too. Doing work in the district is work, but I should be in Washington doing real work, trying to solve this problem rather than being home. But that's. This is all by design to. To make sure we don't have the Epstein vote and to extend the shutdown.

Brian Tyler Cohen (43:44)

Quite frankly, we'll leave it there. Congressman, appreciate your time.

Jared Moskowitz (43:47)

Thank you.

Brian Tyler Cohen (43:50)

No lie is brought to you by uplift desk. Now, I know that I deal with the same issue as everybody else, which is I spend most of the day completely static, sitting down in my desk. It affects my posture. It affects My mood, the whole thing, which is why Uplift Desk has become so helpful for me. The new Uplift V3 standing desk transforms your desk into a productivity engine. Why sit still when you can stand out? The new Uplift V3 standing desk helps you move more and get more done. It has unmatched stability. It has fast assembly, industry leading cable management, which is especially important with all those cables sprawled everywhere. It has a smarter, more integrated design and it has the ultimate customization. So if you want more real estate on your desk, you can get it. That's what I love about my uplift desk. For example, I need as much real estate as possible because it always so happens that I have papers to the ends of the earth sprawled across my desk. So the more real estate that I can have, the better. So transform your workspace and unlock your full potential with the all new Uplift V3 standing desk. Go to upliftdesk.com 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 plus an extra discount off your entire order. That's U P l I f T-E-S-K.com BTC for this exclusive offer. It's only available through our link. I'm joined now by Pod Save America's Tommy Vietor. Tommy, we have seen a ton of scandals kind of envelop this White House over the last couple of weeks. But today we have a brand new one that surged into the news. I want to throw to a clip right now. Breaking news.

Alex Michelson (45:22)

President Trump just pardoned one of the most powerful people in the crypto world, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2023. He was sentenced to four months in.

Jared Moskowitz (45:36)

Prison after reaching a deal with the Justice Department. And it comes after a months long lobbying campaign from Binance to try and secure this pardon for Jeff.

Brian Tyler Cohen (45:46)

All right, Tommy, your reaction to just the latest iteration of what has been just egregious, nonstop corruption at the hands of this White House.

Tommy Vietor (45:53)

Yeah. So Trump pardoned the CEO of a company that was fined $3.4 billion by the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department said that Binance willfully failed to report financial transactions with Al Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas.

Brian Tyler Cohen (46:08)

Ah, the, the hat trick seems, seems bad.

Tommy Vietor (46:12)

So why, you ask, would Trump pardon this guy? Why would he want to be seen as in bed with Binance? Well, because essentially they bribed him. Binance helped facilitate this 2 billion dollar investment into Trump's crypto company. That will earn the Trump family about $80 million a year. So that was the price of this bribe.

Brian Tyler Cohen (46:29)

You know, we have seen so many instances of this. Do you think people care, like, when they watch all of this stuff happen, when it just kind of layers one on top of the next, on top of the next, on top of the next, do you think it breaks through, that it's having some impact on folks?

Tommy Vietor (46:43)

I think the biggest challenge we have is what you just said, which is that so many of these incidents don't.

Brian Tyler Cohen (46:47)

Break through, but by design. Like, this is the band and model of flooding the zone with shit.

Tommy Vietor (46:51)

They flood the zone. They do stuff all the time. Also, I think Trump bet benefits from just the cynicism that he pumps into the electorate all day long. Right? Like, a lot of people are like, you know what? They're all corrupt. All politicians are bad. They all do this thing. Though I do think when the, when these little details will break through to people, like the fact that this company helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of a Trump crypto asset called a stablecoin out of nowhere, like making it one of the biggest stablecoins in the world, it makes no sense. And then months later, this guy gets a pardon. It's like, it could not be more blatant and brazen, the corruption.

Brian Tyler Cohen (47:22)

I think the problem is that, that it is, it is a little, like, difficult to be explaining all of that. And unless you're a regular news consumer anyway, like, if you're a regular news consumer and this story, this, like, niche story is breaking through, you probably already have some political thoughts anyway. You probably already lie somewhere on the political spectrum, and it's going to either impact you greatly, as does everything else, or it's going to have no impact on you because you've decided that Trump is infallible. I guess our job right here is to, is to make sure that all of these individual instances continue to break through, because, you know, they're all a small part of a larger whole, which is that Donald Trump swept into office amid these promises of law and order and, and, and stemming the corruption happening at the hands of the Biden crime family. And yet now we're seeing daily instances of this administration just engaging in out and out corruption. I mean, taking a $400 million jet from, from Qatar and then retrofitting it to the tune of $1 billion in the backs of American taxpayers and then keeping it. And then if he leaves, having Kristi Noem take $173 million with a two.

Tommy Vietor (48:26)

Gulfstream jets those she needs to fly in comfort.

Brian Tyler Cohen (48:29)

In fairness to Kristi Noam, she does need to fly in comfort. That cosplaying doesn't come at a. At a low cost.

Tommy Vietor (48:34)

Yeah. You get to party city all over spirit, Halloween all over the globe.

Brian Tyler Cohen (48:38)

So, like, there are just instance after instance, instance after instant. We've seen these crypto dinners. We've seen Trump double his net worth. We've seen, you know, of course, the ballroom, which we'll talk about in a moment. But I think that. That, you know, even though this may be a niche story, it is a small part of a much more obvious larger whole, which is that this administration proudly and overtly traffics in corruptions so that they can enrich themselves.

Jared Moskowitz (49:00)

Yeah.

Tommy Vietor (49:00)

And look, remember, the most depressing part about this is the Supreme Court said it's totally fine. He's immune from any prosecution for anything to do with the pardon power. So that sucks. But I do think it's. It's on us to tie this into a bigger political story, which is that Donald Trump came into office and now he's looking out for his billionaire friends and people that give him money. And you're getting screwed. The government is closed. What is he doing? He's pardoning a crypto billionaire who is funneling money into his pocket. He's not leading negotiations to reopen the government. He's not leading negotiations to make sure that your healthcare premiums don't double. He's not doing anything to deal with inflation. He's just doing this stupid tariff bullshit. So, like, that's the story that Democrats need to tell. It's not any one thing. It's like making it a broader narrative.

Brian Tyler Cohen (49:42)

I think the most overt example is Donald Trump suing the federal government, suing himself, basically, so that he can give himself $230 million. He deserves that money as damages, as punitive damages, compensation for the fact that he was investigated and prosecuted by the federal government, where, by the way, all of it was completely well founded. And they found evidence of the exact thing that they were investigating and prosecuting him.

Jared Moskowitz (50:08)

4.

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:09)

You worked in the Obama administration, an administration rife with scandals like what color suit President Obama.

Tommy Vietor (50:16)

That was a bad, bad day.

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:17)

And.

Tommy Vietor (50:18)

And the kind of seven almonds scandal. Remember that one?

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:21)

I actually don't remember that one. I was gonna say that. I was gonna say the mustard almonds or something. Yeah.

Tommy Vietor (50:24)

Oh, there was the mustard.

Jared Moskowitz (50:25)

That was bad.

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:26)

Yeah, Great.

Jared Moskowitz (50:26)

Great.

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:26)

Grape. Great. Was it great?

Tommy Vietor (50:28)

Great. Poupon.

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:29)

Yeah. Way, way too, way too highbrow. Just.

Tommy Vietor (50:32)

He hates Ketchup. And he really scolds people that eat ketchup. Yeah, Obama does.

Brian Tyler Cohen (50:37)

Well, I'm just curious when you see a scandal like this one where Trump is just deciding to, to dip his fingers into the U.S. treasury and pay himself $230 million this time. And I mean, recognizing the fact that the only people standing in the way of that payment going through or not are Todd Blanche, his own personal criminal defense attorney, and Pam Bondi, handpicked because, because when she was Florida Attorney General, she was deciding whether or not to investigate Trump University, opted not to after her pac received a $25,000.

Tommy Vietor (51:08)

Got a little check.

Jamie Raskin (51:09)

Got a little check.

Brian Tyler Cohen (51:10)

So those are the two people in charge of deciding whether or not Donald Trump gets this payment. I'm curious from your vantage, having worked in the Obama White House, what it would have been like had Obama decided to just pay himself from the U.S. treasury?

Tommy Vietor (51:22)

I mean, what I think when I see these stories is, man, what a missed opportunity. You know what I mean? There's so many secrets I could have sold. There's so much access we could have peddled. You know, like the hosts of Fox News shows would have been like in front of the White House lighting themselves on fire if they said it happened. It would be a scandal until the end of time. Like this is Brian or I think the Democrats were really hurt by not controlling the media. You know, like Fox News, all these right wing outlets, conservative radio, all these, this entirely new press corps that the Pentagon has apparently handpicked since they kicked all the real reporters out like those guys are able.

Brian Tyler Cohen (51:58)

Are you suggesting that Tim Pool and Alex Jones and Infowars covering the Pentagon is not going to be a legitimate press corps for the Pentagon?

Tommy Vietor (52:05)

It is crazy and it just, it shows the power of propaganda because Fox News isn't going to cover this pardon today. They're not going to cover the lawsuit Donald Trump is waging against his own country. But if a Democrat did it, they would cover it nonstop. They would have roadblocked, you know, specials about all the corruption happening. And you know, here we are on the Pentagon thing.

Brian Tyler Cohen (52:26)

Just as a quick aside, what does that do to the US's foreign policy if there is basically a press corps that, that no longer operates as news, but just straight up operates as propaganda? Tim Pool posted something where he basically said, you know, if there's some story to look into, we'll of course look into it and defer to our, to our viewers who want this, you know, kind of investigative journalism. But we don't do investigative Journalism. So chances are it's just going to be that we regurgitate whatever the White House feeds us.

Jared Moskowitz (52:51)

Yeah.

Tommy Vietor (52:51)

He was like, I just want the press releases. I basically don't care. I mean, look, the Pentagon press corps, the resident Pentagon press corps are the people who have. A lot of them have worked there for decades. And the reason everyone wants a strong Pentagon press corps is because the Pentagon budget is nearly a trillion dollars. They decide whether we go to war. They can lie about intelligence, as we saw in Iraq. We are bombing boats off the coast of Venezuela, and there's real concern that we might be heading headlong into a regime change war with Venezuela. You want a strong Pentagon press corps in that building asking tough questions like ferreting out corruption, figuring out what the hell is going on, and for fucking this goofy little douche with a beanie, Tim Pool to suggest that, like, he's just going to sit there and be this pliant regurgitator of press releases. It's terrible. It's terrible for maga, by the way.

Brian Tyler Cohen (53:41)

And that's what I want to dig into. Because, you know, if you're blocking access from all of these outlets, usually the Trump administration would be more deferential to figuring. Figuring out how to get attention. Is this not counterintuitive in terms of the fact that they're blacking out all of these people who truly do? I mean, like, sure, Tim Pool and. And Alex Jones will have, you know, some contingent of an audience, but there is a massive audience out there who still consumes, you know, legacy media. As a whole.

Tommy Vietor (54:07)

As a whole. Yeah.

Brian Tyler Cohen (54:08)

And so how, like, how does that not conflict with their strategy of just wanting attention from everybody?

Tommy Vietor (54:14)

Yeah, look, I really do think this makes Pete Hex look incredibly weak. You know, like, I don't think he's done a single briefing or maybe one briefing for the press corps. Like, his spokesman doesn't brief the press. They look scared. They look like they are worried about too much scrutiny. They look like they're not doing things that are above board. So I do think they will have a harder time getting their message out. The Pentagon press corps will not stop reporting on the things they are doing because that is their job. They just won't be able to do it from the Pentagon. And it's also not clear whether these reporters who had their. Their badges stripped will be able to, like, travel with Hegseth when he goes on trips or access other military facilities in other parts of the world. I mean, it's.

Jamie Raskin (54:54)

It could be.

Tommy Vietor (54:55)

It could make it Incredibly difficult for these people to do their jobs.

Brian Tyler Cohen (54:58)

Is there a world where this backfires? Because now you've created such a hostile, acrimonious relationship with the people who are covering you, and it creates a bigger incentive structure for those people to say, hey, clearly you've got something to hide. Maybe I should dig harder and deeper.

Tommy Vietor (55:12)

Yeah, I think so. I mean, look, these folks are. These are dogged reporters. They're going to do their jobs no matter what. Hopefully this incentivizes them to go even harder the Trump administration. But also it may incentivize people inside the Pentagon who are like career military to start speaking out more because they know this is wrong. And a lot of them will be greatly bothered by Hegseth just destroying their relationship with the press and like, traditional role of the media and the transparency that is expected of the Pentagon.

Brian Tyler Cohen (55:43)

That was the other part that I wanted to talk about is the fact that people within the Pentagon who clearly know that this is wrong, is there more incentive for them then to say, okay, if there's not gonna be some traditional relationship between the press and the Pentagon, I'll create that. I have an obligation, a duty to create that myself. And so there's, you know, more likelihood that some information will be leaked because they know that, okay, the, these reporters are put in a tough spot. They're not going to get the same access that they were going to get before. And so maybe I meet them a little bit further halfway than they. Than we would have met otherwise.

Tommy Vietor (56:15)

It's very possible. I certainly hope so. I mean, I think that, look, the people who signed up for a career in the military did so, like swearing an oath to the Constitution. They are not. They don't want a king. And so hopefully they will act accordingly. I will say, though, it comes with great risk because this is a super paranoid Department of Defense, our Department of War, they're super paranoid. They're constantly trying to ferret out leaks. They're constantly pointing the finger and firing people based on suspected leaking without even having evidence. Even though, by the way, Pete Hegseth's like, putting classified information. The signal chats that included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic, like, one of the dumbest things I've ever heard someone do. But if you get busted doing this stuff, you could get fired, you could go to jail. So there's a lot of risk here.

Brian Tyler Cohen (57:00)

And finally, on this, on this national security front, can you talk about the legality or illegality of Trump's decision to just kind of, by fiat, blow all these Ships up that are off the coast of Colombia or Venezuela.

Tommy Vietor (57:14)

There's no legal authorization. There is none there. That there has to be some sort of authorization by Congress. And the Trump administration is just asserting that the people in these boats are part of cartels or narco terrorists I think is what they're being called, and just blowing them up. And in the aftermath of these strikes, I think there have been six or seven of them so far. The President of Colombia was like, hey, there was a Colombian citizen on one of those boats. I'm told that he is just a fisherman, that his boat was in distress, that he had put out a distress signal and he was murdered anyway. And so look, I think that what is happening is extrajudicial murder. Like period, paragraph. Like when you, if you see someone smuggling drugs in open water, the thing you should do is interdict that boat, board it, arrest them and then prosecute them. The idea that you can just murder someone for suspected drug trafficking is absolutely insane. If Donald Trump leaves office and we have a new administration, like people should go to jail for what is happening right now. And apparently it's all part of a strategy being executed by Marco Rubio to topple the current regime in Venezuela to get rid of Maduro. So this is a regime change operation. The kind of thing that Donald Trump told us Republicans shouldn't have been doing for decades and was stupid and like that MAGA was against.

Brian Tyler Cohen (58:35)

Yeah. And yet this is a recurring theme where Trump runs on, on some idea that he's not gonna do something that happened in the past. He's gonna be the law and order president, he's gonna restore fiscal responsibility. All of it just completely complete bullshit. Just a pretext to be able to come into office and not just continue those policies, but continue them to the nth degree. With that said, for those who are watching right now, please help support independent progressive media. If you're not yet subscribed to pod Save America's YouTube channel, I'm going to put that link right here on the screen. And also in the post description of this video, help build up this ecosystem and get all of this kind of content into the algorithm. Tommy.

Tommy Vietor (59:08)

Gotta be Tim Pool.

Brian Tyler Cohen (59:09)

Gotta be Tim Pool.

Tommy Vietor (59:10)

Gotta be Tim Pool. That's so sad that we're losing it is really sad. That hurts my heart.

Brian Tyler Cohen (59:14)

We'll leave it there. Tommy, thanks for telling me.

Tommy Vietor (59:15)

Thanks, buddy.

Brian Tyler Cohen (59:18)

I'm joined now by the host of CNN's brand new show. The Story is with Alex Michelson. Alex, thanks so much for joining me.

Alex Michelson (59:25)

Thank you so much. This is my first interview with anybody after that announcement of the name. So it's weird to hear it.

Brian Tyler Cohen (59:33)

Well, look, we had, we had spoken quite a bit over the last few years while you were at FOX la. So a big congrats first and foremost on the move over to CNN prime time here. So yeah, congratulations.

Alex Michelson (59:45)

Thank you very much. Of course, the highlight of my time on the issue is our previous show was doing the first TV interview with Brian Tyler Cohen, I claim all responsibility for your success. And so the best part of the launch week of our new show the Story is is going to be you, Brian, joining us in studio checking out the new dig. And so for folks on the west coast, that'll be on Tuesday night from 9 to 11pm Check out BTC on the story is awesome.

Brian Tyler Cohen (60:15)

Well, looking forward to it. In the meantime, as always, you are the guy when it comes to California. I want to talk about Gavin Newsom for a moment. I know that your first interview on the Story is is gonna be with Governor Newsom here in California. We have seen him take a much more forward leaning approach as it relates relates to Trump, whether he's mocking him on Twitter or whether he's redrawing the maps here in California to counteract what Trump is trying to do across the country. To what extent do you think that that's having an impact on other Democrats across the country? And do you think we're gonna see other Democrats try and replicate the strategy taken by Newsom?

Alex Michelson (60:53)

Well, I mean, most politicians like success. They're looking at poll numbers, they're looking at fundraising numbers. And on both fronts, Gavin Newsom is way up since he has started to be more aggressive. He seems to be taking a lesson, frankly from you, Brian, which is that the online left especially wants a fighter and is sick and tired of the feeling of being run over by the Trump administration. If Gavin Newsom is able to win with Prop 50 on November 4th, it will be one of the first times that there is a real significant W on the board for the Democrats during this Trump administration, something that significantly will change the ability for Democrats to obtain power in 2026. And that hasn't really happened. And so you are seeing a lot of folks, especially the Democratic base that would vote in a primary in 2028, gravitate towards Gavin Newsom and his approach in a very significant way in a pretty short amount of time. And so the other politicians are seeing that and they might think I want that too and may start heading towards that direction. That being said, it's tough Because Democrats and Republicans often play by different rules. That's the whole point. Point of what Gavin Newsom is talking about here. So in a lot of Democratic states like California, you have this independent redistricting commission, which is why Gavin Newsom has to go to voters to try to change it. Whereas in a state like Texas, Greg Abbott, the Republican governor there, doesn't. And the legislature that can do this without going to the voters. So even in some of these Democratic states, there are steps that make it hard to gerrymander, harder than in many of the Republican states.

Brian Tyler Cohen (62:48)

Well, speaking of those Republican states, you know, we, we did view California as a way to neutralize what's happening in Texas. But then we had Missouri come forward and redraw their maps. We had North Carolina come forward and redraw their maps. We know the same thing is going to happen in Indiana and Florida and Ohio and Kansas. And yet we've had no other movement thus far, although there have been rumblings, but we've had no other concrete action taken by any other Democratic state states. And so to what extent do you think that the possibility of a win on Prop 50 is going to kind of serve as a kick in the ass for other governors, other state legislatures to do what would have been successful in California?

Alex Michelson (63:24)

I mean, that's certainly what Newsom hopes. He is publicly intentionally trying to not advocate for other governors to do this in order for them to kind of get there on their own. But that is what certainly he's hoping for. Yeah, but, you know, we are also seeing a little bit of pushback. You mentioned Indiana. It's significant that Indiana's Republican leaders chose not to gerrymander. This is something I talked about with Pete Buttigieg during an interview this week. Of course, he famously spent so much time in Indiana working behind the scenes on that. He pointed to the fact that this was a rare example of Republicans standing up to Trump and telling him no. And he says that that is an example that everybody around the country can look to as an example that not every Republican is going to follow his every word. And there is some value in fighting back, despite the fact that Donald Trump and J.D. vance were pressuring a lot of the Republican leaders there at the moment, at least they're not going forward with a gerrymandering process.

Brian Tyler Cohen (64:25)

To what extent do you think that we are going to see more or less of that? Is that just such a, an isolated incident that we're seeing at least momentary pushback in Indiana? Because, remember, they still can come forward? The governor of Indiana Governor Braun had come and said that they still intend on making this happen, even if it hasn't happened thus far. So it could go either way. But to what extent do you think that no Kings, for example, where we have 7 million people take to the streets, does that chip away at the perceived mandate that Trump has, the perceived total control that Trump has and that have kind of a cascade effect where maybe other Republicans don't view him as all powerful or view popular pressure as, as a little bit more significant than, than simply Trump's edicts being handed down.

Alex Michelson (65:11)

I mean, if you actually look at what's happening, it seems like there's an incentive structure to do anything but compromise. Both parties base want to give a middle finger to the other. I mean, Donald Trump's response to no Kinks was to put up on an official channel an AI generated image of him wearing a crown, getting into a fighter jet and dumping poop on the head of Democratic activists. So that wasn't exactly let's all get together. You didn't get the impression from that that let's find ways to compromise. They think that it's a positive. The President thinks that giving a middle finger, literally dumping shit on their head is such a good political move that he's highlighting that as a strategy. So he thinks it's a win for him. Democrats think that it's a win for them. But what you don't see is a lot of incentive on either side to get together and compromise. Why is the government shut down? Because right now Democratic poll numbers are going up because their base is finally happy that they feel like they're fighting, whereas earlier in the year they felt like they capitulated to Republicans. And meanwhile a lot of the Republican base doesn't necessarily want to see a compromise. When they start getting some of those letters with their health care premiums going up, could that change in a matter of weeks? It certainly could. But right now the media ecosystems are so separate that there is not a lot of incentive to bring people together.

Brian Tyler Cohen (66:41)

Well, on that point of let's focus on the party in power right now, which is the Republicans on this idea of barreling ahead with an agenda that really does only, that's really only intended to appeal to like the 30% of the country, that's their die hard base. When you see them doing something like keeping the government shut down because they don't want to give an inch on health care, which by the way is going to impact Republican voters and Republican states, them tearing down the east wing so that Trump can build his Ballroom Trump moving forward and saying that he wants to reimburse himself and get damages for his rightful prosecutions to the tune of $230 million. Plucked out of the U.S. treasury when he's buying Kristi Noem two Gulfstream jets that cost $172 million. When he's doing all of this and taking these actions that are really intended to just appeal to this very small faction of his base, what do you think about the impact that that's gonna have on the broader electorate for whom these actions aren't exactly anything resembling popular.

Jared Moskowitz (67:42)

Yeah.

Alex Michelson (67:42)

And so that's the challenge for the Democratic Party is how do you message that? How do you fight back? Right. And it's interesting. A couple of our first guests on the story is our new show are Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg. And I'm speaking with both of them. And both of them have very different approaches on this. This is something I talked about with Pete Buttigieg, because Gavin Newsom has taken the argument to do memes and trolling and go as trumpy as you can go and sort of fighting back, give him his own medicine, which actually seems to be appealing to a lot of people in the base. Pete Buttigieg is not doing that. He believes in his heart that that sort of thing is exhausting to people and that people want a real focus on. Let's talk about the healthcare premiums themselves. People don't want memes. People don't want to be distracted. Let's get to the issues that people want, people care about. And so there's. There's a riff in terms of. Of how to not only what you should do to fight, whereas, like, somebody like Zoran Mandami is on a different place than somebody like Pete Buttigieg. But also how do you fight? What's the approach? And I know you've felt very strongly that you got to basically punch somebody in the face.

Tommy Vietor (68:54)

Yeah.

Alex Michelson (68:54)

Right. Because you feel like the base, that's what they want. But I think that's going to be an interesting messaging thing in terms of making sure that people actually understand who is responsible for a lot of this and where it's coming from.

Brian Tyler Cohen (69:08)

What do you think the right approach is going to be? I mean, you. You said it yourself, like, these guys do have polar opposite approaches. You have, like, the very buttoned up, you know, Pete Buttigieg, he's a really articulate communicator. You have Gavin Newsom, who's taking the complete opposite approach, which is just like, no, hold Holds barred, gloves off, punch him in the face. And so, and so how are you thinking about both of these as we head toward 2026, given the moment that we're in right now?

Alex Michelson (69:35)

Well, look, I think there is no question, if you just look at the data, the Democratic base right now prefers the approach of Gavin Newsom. That is breaking through with the Democratic base. The question is, is he peaking too early? And does that get exhausting? Does the, the, some of the tricks the memes does, does that act sort of get old when you're talking about a primary that would be happening in 2028 and, you know, the end of 2027?

Tommy Vietor (70:06)

Yeah.

Alex Michelson (70:07)

So that's, that's the question. We, we go through ups and downs, and at some point it might feel like, okay, enough of the games. I'm tired of that. I need a serious leader. We want somebody who's kept their head down. And it's interesting how all the different 2028 candidates are handling this. Somebody like Josh Shapiro, you don't see him very much. Right. He's not really engaging in these. It seems like his approach is to put your head down and wait for the moment later.

Brian Tyler Cohen (70:33)

Yeah.

Alex Michelson (70:34)

And maybe that'll work. I mean, when you think about some of the previous primary debates, like on the Republican side, especially, you know, even pre Trump, there would be like a flavor of the week every week. Like one candidate would go up and when you have a big field, and then the question is, who would peak at the right time? Even Joe Biden, when he got the nomination in 2020, he was not peaking until the very right moment. And other people had their moments. So right now it's Newsom's moment. Will that sustain for two years? Who knows?

Brian Tyler Cohen (71:05)

So you have the blessing or the curse? I'll let you be the decider of which one. That is of being able to speak to people not just on the left, but on the right.

Jared Moskowitz (71:14)

Right.

Brian Tyler Cohen (71:14)

When you were at Fox la, you had very, you very often had debate shows where you had folks on the left and right in, in talking about kind of the topic that we're, that we've been discussing about, which is this idea of, of, of a general sense of corruption, of Trump using his power not to help those farmers, not to help Americans who are going to lose their health care, not to lower costs for Americans who he promised he would lower costs for, but instead to really focus on himself, to build this ballroom for himself, to double his net worth, to host these crypto dinners, to buy Gulfstream jets, to give himself a Qatari jet worth $400 million that taxpayers are gonna pay a billion dollars to retrofit. So on example after example after example, even though he presented himself campaigned as some populist, he is governing as the biggest kleptocrat in the biggest gilded age that we've had in the history of this country. And so, given what we're seeing right now, how have folks who you've spoken to, not just on the left, but on the right, kind of defended or perceived what he's doing right now?

Alex Michelson (72:14)

So that's what you're focused on. They're focused on other things. They're focused.

Brian Tyler Cohen (72:21)

I'll bet they are focused.

Alex Michelson (72:23)

They see somebody who has finally dealt with a border that they thought was completely overrun and made real changes is there. And that was something he talked about for years. And they feel like that's a promise that he was delivered on. They, you know, maybe don't like the extent of it, but they like the idea that some people that are in this country illegally should be kicked out of this country. They like what he did in terms of tax cuts is something that drives a lot of the Republican Party base. They like what he's doing on some of the cultural issues in terms of highlighting the right issues. They like, like what some of what he's doing with the media in terms of giving a middle finger to the media. I mean, Donald Trump understands his base and he is very, very, very good at identifying the problems that they care about. And he is good at doing so many things and talking so much and being so out front and promising so many things that it feels like he's active and in charge. I know a lot of the people that listen to you and watch you disagree with that and will not like hearing that. But to his people, a part of his media strategy of just blitzing everybody with constant news and constant everything and being on camera all the time, it feels to especially his people like he's sort of omnipresent and on it. Whereas they felt like somebody like Joe Biden, who they barely ever saw and didn't really interact with people. They felt like he was asleep at the, at the wheel.

Brian Tyler Cohen (73:55)

Yes.

Alex Michelson (73:56)

A lot of what you said is not something that a lot of them, the, the, I mean, there's, there's maga, like that view him almost like a religious figure. That, that, that's a, that's one part of it. There's also the more sort of moderate, you know, Republican who's a little bit more in the middle, but voted for him Maybe sort of reluctantly. And a lot of them see him as an asshole. They don't really like him. They kind of laugh at a lot of that stuff, but they feel like he's getting them some results on some of the stuff they care about. And by and large, they feel like the Democratic Party is so far to the left, so out of touch with reality, so focused on identity politics and, and the wrong cultural issues, that they feel like it's still better to go with Trump.

Brian Tyler Cohen (74:42)

So Trump understands his base, but if you look at recent polling, I think Quinnipiac had him at his lowest point ever, including from his first term. He's at negative 19 net approval.

Alex Michelson (74:53)

Yeah, but how's the approval of the Democratic Party?

Brian Tyler Cohen (74:55)

Correct. Yeah, but that, not that notwithstanding the.

Alex Michelson (74:58)

Point though it is, it is, but.

Brian Tyler Cohen (75:00)

The point I'm trying to make here is that, is that clearly with numbers continuing to sink, it's not like there are, there are plenty of people, independents and even Republicans who are souring on him. Yes. He will always have, you know, the event, the evangelicals. Right. And I mean that in the sense of like the Trump event evangelists, and that's fine and he knows how to appeal to them, but he's continuing to chip away at support from the broader electorate, and that's presumably support that Republicans and he will need. And so, you know, you can say that, okay, Trump is continuing just to focus on immigration and his core issues, but the reality is that the issues that the vast majority of the country are speaking about, he's getting less and less popular and they're paying attention to those issues. So he can focus on immigration till he's blue in the face, and that's going to work with the faction of his base that will never leave him. But he is losing support by the day and the numbers bear that out.

Alex Michelson (75:55)

Yeah, but he doesn't have to run again. I mean, he may, we all know that whole thing, right?

Jared Moskowitz (76:00)

Yeah.

Alex Michelson (76:01)

Of some weird thing where he's running for vice president or they just, Steve Bannon, just this week, once again saying that Donald Trump is going to be in there. But under, under the most likely scenario is that he doesn't have to run again. That in some ways doesn't matter. And I don't think he's really focused on the long term strategy of the Republican Party. I think he's focused on, you know, the immediate issue at hand. But, but all that being said, you know, the Democratic Party in a lot of those polls in some ways is doing worse. So, you know, that's the argument you just asked me about, like the Pete approach versus the Gavin approach. Right. And which one works? And in some ways, the sort of Pete, Josh Shapiro, Andy Bashir argument of let's be a little bit more centrist, moderate, middle of the country kind of democratic approach is they're banking that those people are going to tire of him. They're going to be looking for some type of alternative, but they're not going to be open to, you know, what some may perceive as California crazy or aoc, you know, Democratic socialism or some of these extremes that, that there could be some sort of place in the middle for a center right, center left coalition that's exhausted of Trump and wants to get back to some of these issues, but doesn't want to be alienated by somebody they feel is resentful of them. And that is where they potentially see this as a long term strategy. We'll see. The middle has not always been, and oftentimes in American politics, the middle is what would win a general election. But our entire universe, our media environment, the way we consume information, all that has changed so much. We'll see if that's still true going forward.

Brian Tyler Cohen (77:41)

Let me play devil's advocate just on that point. We had Trump 1.0, the middle one out in 2020, and Joe Biden was president. And what we were left with was the most extreme Republican Party, the most extreme presidency in Donald Trump 2.0. But it came in the vacuum that was created from a very, you know, centrist, centrist candidate and centrist presidency from 2020 to 2024. Or do you think that that's going to have some impact on the attractiveness of an Andy Beshear or a Pete Buttigieg as we head into 2028, recognizing that, you know, this, this, this radical centrism, you know, already happened once and kind of landed us in a position that we're in today.

Alex Michelson (78:24)

Yeah, well, we could relitigate the Biden administration, but there are some people who feel like Joe Biden actually wasn't that centrist, that he ran to be a centrist, that they wanted him to be a centrist. They wanted him to be this bridge to the next generation to pass to younger people. And he went in there and tried to be fdr, that he tried to do very big, very progressive things. Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, sort of stopping him from doing some of the most progressive things, but that he, and he did some deals with Republicans, many of whom aren't even in the Senate anymore because, because of deal making. With Democrats has not been good politics for them, but that he wasn't necessarily as much of a centrist candidate. And because of his age and his inability to communicate to people, he didn't actually sell his centrist message because he didn't get out there and talk about those things. So I don't know if Joe Biden is the perfect case study in this. You look at somebody totally different era, totally different media era, somebody like Bill Clinton, who was, who was more centrist, especially in his second term, was very popular. And then obviously he got in his own trouble, which ended up hurting Al Gore and all of that kind of stuff. You know, he was one of the more popular figures of our lifetime when he was in there and when he was actually governing in the center.

Brian Tyler Cohen (79:45)

Let me ask one last question on this corruption front, because I know that we kind of sidestepped it in that you said that Republicans just aren't talking about it because there are issues that they would rather talk about it that they would rather talk about when confronting this issue head on, though. And the reality is that, you know, as, as, as much as the news cycle moves back and forth and lands on issues that Democrats don't want to talk about and then lands on issues that Republicans don't want to talk about. The main issue right now, the main story right now is the fact that Trump is in, Trump is engaged in quite a bit of corruption, is building this ballroom, is trying to pay himself a quarter of a billion dollars out of the US treasury because he thinks he's owed some damages from his rightful prosecutions. And so in taking those issues head on, where does that land a lot of these Republicans, whether it's folks that you've spoken with in the lead up to your show or just what you've seen from the news cycles otherwise, in terms of them having to defend this pretty indefensible stuff.

Alex Michelson (80:45)

Yeah, it's a tough putt to try to defend some of that stuff. And they usually try to, to, you know, switch to, well, Obama this or this. What about, you know, it's a tough place. I think the, the messaging opportunity and challenge for the Democrats is how do you make that matter? And, and I think a message that frankly was effective was one that I, Pete Buttigieg, who I interviewed this week had, which was, he says, look, I don't care about the East Wing construction, but what I care about is the fact that Trump cares about it and he cares about it at a moment when people in the middle of the country are opening letters that Say that their health premiums are about to skyrocket and they don't know how to make ends meet.

Tommy Vietor (81:32)

Yeah.

Alex Michelson (81:32)

And instead of being focused on those people, the President is being focused on his rich friends and building a gilded ballroom for them. So why, when that is happening to the middle of the country, is he focused on this construction? And so that, to me, is a message that could potentially break through because the, the average person is probably maybe not even knowing that there is construction in the east wind, but they are looking at their health insurance and think, oh, my God, can I even afford this? And if I don't afford this, if I get hit by a car, am I going to be, you know, catastrophic and I'm lucky enough to survive, Am I now going to be dead because I can't pay, pay for anything? I mean, so those are the real issues. And so I think it's great, and we all live in this online universe and clicks and all the rest of it, but in terms of the stuff that really breaks through to people is often those issues. And can the Democrats effectively connect this focus on taking care of your friends, which clearly Donald Trump is doing and pushing the limits of what's ever been acceptable? And how does that impact. And how is that a distraction from what he promised, which was to make life more affordable for the average American?

Brian Tyler Cohen (82:49)

Yeah, and frankly, I think it's a pretty clear story to tell. At the same time that you have these letters going out showing that healthcare premiums are gonna double, triple, or quadruple at the same time that, you know, that you have these, you know, ten tens of. And at the same time that you have 17 million Medicaid recipients recognizing that they're gonna lose their access to healthcare, that we have food stamp recipients that are gonna lose their access to food stamps. At the same time all of this is happening, farmers losing their crops, you have Donald Trump really, I mean, it's almost like a caricature of itself that he's building himself a ballroom that went from 100 million to 200 million to 250 to 300 to $350 million, at the same time that he's trying to pay himself out from the U.S. treasury. So I think it is a pretty clear story to tell for those who are looking to weave that, that together. With that said, Alex, as we had mentioned, you have your new show on cnn. The story is, what are you hoping to do with the show?

Alex Michelson (83:43)

Well, I, I think we're. We're hoping to do a few different things, one of which you you mentioned which is to bring different perspectives together to have a fun civil debate so you can hear multiple perspectives and you're going to be a part of that when you're on on Tuesday night. You're going to be debating Jesse Jessica Milan Patterson was the former chair of the California Republican Party who is the current chair of the no on 50 campaign running against Prop 50. You're one of the leading advocates for Prop 50 to big fundraiser with Governor Newsom. This is one of an issue you've been talking to me about privately for years. So it'll be interesting to have that discussion where people can hear both of you and hopefully not screaming at each other in a mean way, but actually listen to the arguments and then people can make make up their minds for themselves. We want to create the most fun place in cable news. So often so much of cable news is not joyful and obviously a lot of these issues are important and serious and when we're doing that we will be serious and appropriate. But there's also a lot of other stuff going on in the world that aren't just horrible political debates. We're going to lean into, you know, pop culture and sports and tech and a lot of the things especially on the west coast that we drive the global conversation on on. This is going to be CNN's first West coast based show in many, many years. It will be the only live show on at that time. The the our competitors are in reruns. We will be live when news is breaking. We will always be on. And and so I think it's going to be a really cool chance to, to meet and profile and do deep dives. We have two hours so we have a chance to not just do the, the seven second soundbite but do deep dive conversations, let issues breathe and have a really interesting fun time.

Brian Tyler Cohen (85:29)

Well look, no one is more deserving than you of the opportunity that you have right in front of you. I'm very excited to see what you do with this show. CNN scored a huge win with getting you on the air. So congratulations very much. Looking forward to it. And for everybody else who's watching, Alex, where can they, what time can they find you?

Alex Michelson (85:46)

You okay? So the show is going to be on weeknights from 9 to 11 o' clock Pacific time. That's midnight to 2am Eastern time. It's streaming. It's streaming. I should say it's broadcast live around the world also on CNN International. So I know a lot of your viewers are in other countries. They comment to me from other countries, all over the place. So it's a morning show in Europe, it's an afternoon show in Asia. You can watch it on CNN International in 200 countries, which, which is awesome. Also I hope people check out my YouTube page. YouTube.com AlexMichaelson I'm Alex Michaelson on all the social media pages. Love interacting with people and a big part of what we will be doing in the coming weeks. Our show's called the Story is we're going to have a big section called you'd Story is where we're going to be getting live feedback from our viewers and really want to make this as interactive an experience as possible. Learning a lot of the lessons from you.

Brian Tyler Cohen (86:39)

Brian Tyler Cohen Alex, as always, thanks for taking the time.

Alex Michelson (86:43)

Thank you so much for having me. Thank you for your support along the way to make this happen. Can't wait to see you on the show next week.

Jared Moskowitz (87:06)

Sa.

Brian Tyler Cohen (87:48)

You'Ve been listening to no Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesley and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at brianteller Cohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.