D (6:19)

Ryan. Great to be back.

A (6:21)

So we have a big release of the Epstein files, about 3 million documents. Obviously everyone's going through them right now and we're going to see more and more from what has been uncovered. But something notable is that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has come out and basically said, sure, there were 6 million documents. What you're getting are 3 million documents. And so are you satisfied that it seems like the DOJ is basically wiping their hands of this thing after giving half of what was ultimately promised?

D (6:49)

No. And Massey and I are going to meet Blanche. He said he's open to meeting us. But here's what I want folks to put into context. The 50% that have been released is so disturbing, so concerning about how wealthy and powerful people in this country acted. Imagine what is in the files that they haven't released. I mean, this is a scandal that basically goes to the heart of this country. Rich and powerful people were getting away with going to Epstein's island with watching the abuse of underage girls. And so we're gonna fight to get everything out, especially given that they're concealing things.

A (7:36)

In terms of what we have seen thus far, I think something that was especially striking for me was Elon Musk's involvement in all of this. Can I have any reaction from your vantage on what we saw from Elon Musk, given the fact that the first indication that Trump was even in the files was from Elon himself? Only for us now to be able to see that he was negotiating helicopter rides to go back and forth. There was one point on Christmas Day, either on in 2013 or 2014, where he was trying to figure out what time he would come the following week on January 2nd or 3rd. And so just your general reaction to the fact that Elon is so prevalent here?

D (8:14)

Well, it's totally shocking. I mean, because Musk said released the files, Trump is in it. Well, it turns out Musk is in them. And Musk is saying that when is the party he's talking about visiting the island. And look, there are so many big tech names. Peter Thiel, Bill Gates, others were in this. And it's like there was some fraternity. If you were a billionaire and successful in America and you were a famous politician, then somehow you were connected to Epstein, and somehow you wanted to go to these parties on Epstein's island knowing he was a pedophile. I mean, let's be very clear. This is after he was convicted of pedophilia, knowing that there could be underage girls there. So this is just such a staggering scandal. I mean, imagine the average American thinking that all these people who run the country, business leaders, politicians, are showing up at a pedophile's island, some of them engaging in gratification with underage girls, some of them raping underage girls, some of them trafficking in these women, and some of them just standing around in the parties knowing what's going on. It is disgusting.

A (9:30)

Well, I think. I think something that's almost as disgusting as that is the fact that far from that being a disqualifying factor, you know, you're being invoked in these Epstein files is the fact that even now it still seems to be completely acceptable for these people to fill the highest ranks of power. I mean Warsh, who is Trump's pick to be the new Fed chair? His name was in the Epstein files. Howard Lutnick. His name is in the Epstein files. And so it's not some thing of a bygone era where we had all of the, where we had past tense, all of these people at the highest echelons of government who were in some way involved with Jeffrey Epstein. It's still happening. It's right in front of us. I mean how many people in Trump's administration or Trump's orbit from Trump himself to Steve Bannon again Lutnick worsh. There are so many people in even now who are in the highest echelons of power who are still hiding some, you know, some, some association with Jeffrey Epstein. And so recognizing that that gives me very little confidence that these people are actually gonna be willing to release what the files actually show or the full breadth of these files. Because it's not just that there's some nebulous blob of people that are. That that Trump and his orbit are trying to protect. The Trump orbit is the nebulous blob of people in part that they're trying.

D (10:47)

Well Brian, you nailed it. On what survivors tell me and why survivors lawyers are so concerned. It's not that they need closure for something that happened in the past. It's that they are seeing the people on the island who were part of this network who may have raped them or trafficked them on their TV sets being lionized, celebrated, still holding power in American society. And their view is that the entire Epstein class needs to go. But it is why I don't have confidence that there has been a full release. It's why I want to see what this 50% of documents that even Blanche says have hasn't been released. What is in them? Why are they more concerned about redactions that protect some of these rich and powerful men than they are actually protecting victims identity? It's going to take a new president to actually prosecute some of this. Remember the prosecution is statute of limitations is 5 years or to to release all the files. But we are going to continue to fight to get this done. And the scandal is beyond Trump. It's just the sense that the highest, richest, wealthiest people in our society were getting away with the most heinous thing. And it's feeds this narrative in this country that people intuitively sense which is that the Rich and powerful have a rigged game going on, and that ordinary Americans don't have the same sense of justice, and they don't certainly have the same stake of success in this country.

A (12:25)

You know, I spoke with Congressman Raskin, and he said that he would be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss the prospect of viewing the unredacted files. Because we have so many redactions in these files that the DOJ did, did actually deign to give over. So notwithstanding the 3 million documents that haven't been handed over yet and probably aren't gonna be handed over by this doj, even the documents that were put forward included a ton of redactions. And so are you gonna be involved in any way in that whole effort at the hands of Jamie Raskin to get some answers on what has been redacted thus far?

D (13:04)

Absolutely. We will coordinate with Jamie Raskin, but Thomas Massie and I also will be meeting Blanche, and we want to know why some of these redactions took place, what is in those files, how can we get the maximum information to be released, and why some of the 302 forms still haven't been released. The survivors naming these powerful men, and why survivors names were not redacted while these men are still being protected. The minor star is what the survivors and survivors lawyers say, and they are still very disappointed with the release. They acknowledge that this is the most significant release that has taken place over decades. They, in some sense, didn't even think that we'd get this far. But, you know, they think it's. This is a tactic for justice to say, look, we did gave you quite a lot. Now just leave us alone. And then we don't get the most nuclear information, the things that may prove criminal wrongdoing, and that really will disgust Americans.

A (14:07)

I want to say two things. One is a question. But before I get to that question, you know, the fact that we have gotten these documents Thus far, the 3 million documents, is in large part a testament to the work that you and Thomas Massie have done. So I just want to. I just want to put that out there for folks who are even surprised at the fact that we've gotten these documents. It would not have happened without the work that you guys have done. So I just want to say thanks, you know, on behalf of myself and everybody watching this right now. But the second point that I want to make is, you know, you and I have spoken in the past about, okay, you have people like Todd Blanche saying that no one's going to be prosecuted as the result of this. And in fact that's been kind of the line we've heard all along from Dan Bongino and Cash Patel that apparently there was this whole sex trafficking ring but nobody that the girls were sex trafficked to. That part is just completely nebulous. There's just, just Jeffrey Epstein and then a black hole, thousands of girls. I've also asked you about the fact that like, why not just have the survivors come out and start naming names? Like if the DOJ isn't going to do it, if they're going to be so hell bent on protecting these people, why not go to the primary sources and have them speak out? And you rightfully noted that you know, for the same reason that the DOJ feels compelled to protect these powerful and wealthy people. The survivors are reticent to name these powerful and wealthy people. And so is there going to come a point where that remains a possibility? Obviously with the, with, with whatever protection or backing needs to come with it, that that is a stopgap solution in the event the DOJ truly, truly doesn't comply. And we go three more years at the hands of Pam Bondi where we just don't get any more documents.

D (15:46)

The reality is that these survivors will be sued. It's not theoretical. We know Alan Dershowitz went after Virginia Guthrie with a vengeance and made her life miserable. And Virginia Guthrie today isn't with us. So they know that they would face the wrath of these powerful billionaires.

A (16:09)

And would they just be sued? Because like the, the, the people who they name would just sue them for defamation, for example.

D (16:16)

That's, that's what Alan Dershowitz did. They would just be sued for defamation. They'd be so sued for causing pain and suffering, reputational damage.

A (16:24)

And so yes, won't someone look out for the poor, innocent perpetrators of these crimes? That's who would be, that's who's dealing with pain and suffering.

D (16:35)

I mean, it's shocking, but the scales of justice so far have made it easier for Dershowitz to prevail. And Virginia Guthrie is no longer with us. And so the reality is we now know that people's have been reputationally challenged based on already the release. Right. We've seen the files of people asking to go to the Epstein island of people talking about wild parties, about people corresponding in banter with Epstein knowing he's a pedophile. But what we don't have yet is the survivors basically statements or notes saying this person trafficked me, this person raped me. That is in the files. And the question is, how do we get that out? Why is it being protected? Yes, I guess we could find other ways of getting this out. The survivors have said they, they may publish an anonymous list or other things, but there's no reason that we have to go that route. We should just get these files. And the hope is, you know, for all those people saying, oh, this is a hoax, you know, some people are now saying, wow, there were a lot of people involved that I didn't even think. Some people are surprised on our side. They thought it maybe it'd just be Trump and Trump's associates. They didn't think it was that far reaching. And so I think it's just gonna build more demand to get a total cleansing in this country to have this Epstein class go to get the rest of the files and to really understand how we had a rotten elite in America.

A (18:02)

I'm gonna ask you a pretty easy one here. And that is the pushback or the narrative that's being woven on the right is this idea that, that you know what, Trump is actually the hero of this story because zero files were released during the Biden era and now we've got 3 million files released during the Trump era. So what would your reaction to that be?

D (18:20)

I don't know if Trump still realized he signed a Democrats law. I mean, I don't think he understands that it was the Epstein Transparency act that I wrote and then Massie did the discharge petition for and he opposed it every step of the way. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene gave up her career in Congress because of Donald Trump threatening her and endorsing someone who was going to run against her. And so you had him step after step after step try to avoid the release. Then we forced the thing to pass the House. He, because he would have lost Republicans, we forced it to go through the Senate 100 to 0. It wasn't just us, it was of course the survivors. And he had to sign it with being pushed into that. And then they tried to not release anything. And you remember December 19th, they had a total fluff release. I mean, it was nothing. It wasn't like this where at least they released significant. So they've resisted it every step of the way. But you know, at the end of the day, I don't really care about the credit. What I care about is that the files are released, that the survivors have justice and that we start to have a truth and reconciliation almost process in this country where people are held accountable who committed these heinous acts of crimes or moral depravity I mean, my view is if you said you want to go to Epstein's island knowing that Jeffrey Epstein's a pedophile, even if you didn't rape an underage girl, if you were there knowing that underage girls were being raped, then there's something seriously lacking in your moral judgment and moral core, and you should not have any part of being celebrated in by society.

A (19:55)

Right. I mean, a lot of the emails that we saw, including the ones from Elon Musk, were from the early 2010s. Jeffrey Epstein had already been charged in 2005 or 2006 with sex trafficking of a minor. And so it was no secret what he was doing or who he was. And so you're exactly right. These people have no excuse to have been even in communication with this guy, recognizing who he is or what he did. Last question here, Congressman. As we've gotten to this point, which, again, I think is a huge victory in and of itself, I fear that it will just get harder and harder because, you know, whatever you said it right at the top, what has been released thus far is already bad enough, which suggests that what hasn't been released is exponentially worse. Do you have confidence that in the remainder of the Trump administration, we will see the full files released?

D (20:47)

It's gonna be a fight. I think this is a very deliberate strategy. It shows how weak their hand was. They were getting disciplined or reprimanded by Judge Engelmayr. We were filing lawsuits. They were losing public opinion. So I think they came up with a strategy. Let's give them something substantial but not give them the worst. So now it's harder for a survivor to go to a court and say, well, they're only releasing 1%. And a judge will say no, they released 50%, and they released some pretty terrible things, and we have to say no, but they're hiding the worst of it. But I do believe that we will prevail on getting more. And the reason is that the courts, Judge Engelmeier and Judge Berman have been pretty sympathetic to what Massie and I said, what survivors have said. The public opinion, I think, is going to demand it even more after what's come out. And ultimately, the survivors who are the real heroes of this, they're saying it's not enough. So we have got to continue to go forward. We've got to recognize this is about something very deep, which is that rich and powerful people in America have been getting away with things at the expense of ordinary Americans. And this is the time to restore faith in democracy by holding the elites. Rotten elite accountable.

A (22:05)

Well, look, again, I'll repeat it as many times as I can. That effort in large part would not have happened if it wasn't for the work that you've been doing. So I appreciate the time, as always. We've come to kind of make this a standing weekend thing. So I'm sure I'll be speaking to you in a few days, and hopefully we have more updates moving forward. So, Congressman, with that said, thanks again for the time.

D (22:25)

Thank you. And thank you, Brian. I mean, the credit is, of course, first to the survivors, but you deserve credit as well, because if it weren't for independent media, if it weren't for the pressure and holding the bogus releases accountable, we wouldn't have gotten to this stage. And you and others like you give me confidence that this story isn't going away and we're going to get truth and justice.

A (22:53)

A few days ago, Trump's DOJ continued its assault on the First Amendment by arresting journalist Don Lemon. Now, fortunately, he's been released, and we are lucky enough to be able to speak with him in one of his first discussions post arrest. So, obviously, there's a lot to talk about, but the real question is, how are you doing? How, how, how has everything been in the aftermath of what I presume has been kind of a, a whirlwind last 48 or 72 hours here?

B (23:16)

You know what? That's a really great question, Brian, and I think a fair answer. Would you be surprised if I say it, If I said, I don't know.

A (23:24)

I think anything other than that would have been, you know, would have been difficult. Difficult to believe. I mean, I mean, talk about highs and lows from, from what happened just a few days ago to obviously, you know, there was a very viral clip of, of you at the Grammys. And so I'm curious, like, what, what was, what was the reception like for, for you in a room with all of those people? You know, look, not notwithstanding the fact that, that there are folks in the entertainment industry, but, you know, these are people who, who, who fight to, to push back against, against the excesses and abuses of this administration on a daily basis. And you are literally on the front lines.

B (24:02)

Yeah. And you heard that. I mean, look, they were not shy about their criticism of this administration at the Grammys. Right, right. And some major artists, and usually as of late, we've seen people trying to, you know, you know, move away from politics in this, but they were very open to speaking about it. And usually when I cover these things like the Grammys or something like that. You know, I'm not looking to talk to them about politics or foreign policy or anything like that. You know, it's, it's, you know, things that have to relate to the industry. Like last year at the Grammys, we talked about the fires and they were raising money for people with the fires. And of course there were other things that sometimes they bring up. But this year people were very focused on ice. They were wearing, you know, the ice out buttons and just not really shying away from it. But for me, Brian, what this is, is freedom. It's the First Amendment. And you know, and art artists are, I think some of the, you know, artists and obviously journalists are the, the true sort of examples of the First Amendment at its finest and what it's supposed to be, right? And I believe artists and journalists, if, you know, if journalists, especially corporate journalists sort of do some self correction, they could actually save our democracy in this moment. And so that's why I wanted to talk. I'm glad you brought that up, but it was a little odd, first of all, being the story, right? I don't like being the story, but if I'm going to have to be the story, then I want to conduct myself properly and I want to make sure that I stand up for what is right. But that's why I wanted to talk to you, because you're an example of journalism, of the freedom of the press, especially now that we're in this independent space and, you know, we are close to the ground. We don't have the corporate filters. And I think it's important that we bring people the information without fear of favor and without it being filtered through gatekeepers.

A (25:54)

You know, I was thinking about, I've been thinking about this a lot, and of course I have friends and family, as I'm sure you do, who constantly bring up this idea of, like, are you worried? What about the administration going after you? And I think, like, we've all been asked that question, especially by our loved ones. But I think the alternative to not speaking up and not, you know, leaning 10 toes in is, okay, you kind of take it, take a backseat, allow this administration to censor you and silence you. And of course they're doing it without, without much pushback as far as legacy media is concerned. And they're doing it without pushback with tech CEOs and universities and law firms and other world leaders. And so if he has kind of a glide path to just full censorship, think about what's on the other side of that, I mean, that is what true, like, autocracy looks like. And so we're a bulwark here. That. And so, you know, not saying anything is. Is even worse because then we end up in an administration or a regime really, where Trump has achieved what he wants because he's. He successfully quashed any dissent. And that doesn't leave us any more safe. And so while this might be a dangerous and difficult position, you can speak to that more than anybody at this point. The alternative is so much worse. And so there is an obligation and a duty to continue doing this, this work, no matter what, like, the dangers are. And again, you can, you know, you can attest to that better than anybody.

B (27:18)

Yeah, but listen, not. I don't want to be selfish about this, because I know that you have a much broader answer, which you've kind of touched on and what you were just saying. But when you heard about what happened to me and to the other journalists, what did you think, Brian?

A (27:33)

Look, I, the sad part is I wasn't surprised. It kind of feels like a matter of time, the fact that Trump is going down this list. I mean, he started with Letitia James and James Comey, and, and, you know, Adam Schiff is on there, and then he moves over to, like, Tim Walls and Jacob Fry, and he's arrested judges, and we've seen Padilla get arrested. And so it's, you know, not to.

B (27:59)

Mention, don't forget suing journalists and suing.

A (28:01)

News, suing journalists, suing the New York Times, suing, I mean, anybody, you know, who. CBS and Paramount and ABC for $16 million. And, and I think he has been successful in normalizing us to this idea that, that this is just what happens in the United States. And, and that's the part I want to push back against because, like, we cannot become accustomed to this idea where the President of the United States just sues people or silences people or FCC against comedians for the crime of telling jokes. And, and I think that, what, what kind of heartened me to see was, like, all of the pushback left, right and center against what had happened to you. And, and that needs to happen every single time. Like, that cannot diminish just because, oh, we've seen this before. Was, was that something that, that surprised you? You know, to see all of the pushback, even in a world where everybody kind of expects Trump to go after his enemies And.

B (28:57)

Well, I got it. Yes. The very simple answer, straightforward answer to your question is yes. And can you imagine, though, we're so connected to our devices, right? Especially in what we do. We're there and we're like, oh, well, we got to report it. This is what we do. We have some breaking news or this just happened, and imagine not having any communications for, you know, 12 hours. Right? And so I had no idea what was going on in the world, none, until I walked out. And when I saw the scrum of cameras and news people there, I was floored. I was like, really? Are you kidding me? I had no idea. And I was very pleasantly surprised. I mean, there were helicopters following me like I was O.J. simpson on the interstate. It was crazy. But I had no idea until I got to, you know, to my friend's house where I'm staying, and I looked at the news coverage and I said, holy shit.

A (29:49)

Is the biggest, is the biggest story probably in the world.

B (29:52)

Yeah, yeah, but I mean, like, how.

A (29:54)

How bizarre that, that even while you're in there, you have no idea, and you could have very well walked out to, you know, one or two people and, and, you know, God knows how many other things could have happened that day that just might have, you know, taken all the attention, sucked up all the oxygen.

B (30:09)

Yeah, but I wondered, Brian, and you can answer this better than I can, I think I'm too close to it. Is this the thing that gets people to say, especially journalism and the media, I'm not talking about the corporate bosses because they still want to make their money and they still want their mergers and acquisitions, but for the journalists to say, okay, enough already, I, I can't do this. I can't have the false equivalence. I can't do it. And just before you answer, I say, maybe it is because people who I didn't have such great relationships with, and for whatever reasons, I don't know why, you know, professional jealousy or competition or whatever, reached out and said, you know, I know we haven't been friendly lately, but I just want to tell you this is fucked up, and I'm sorry this happened to you, and I'd love to, like, sit down and have a drink with you soon. So is this a thing? Maybe. I, I would love if that would happen. That just gets journalists to say, fuck, no, we're not doing this anymore.

A (31:03)

Look, I, I, I hope so. And I think for two reasons. One, this isn't about, like, this isn't about whether somebody agrees with you or your coverage. This is about, this is about the precedent that it establishes moving forward. And I think Republicans are starting to realize that if Trump establishes precedents, that could turn around and bite them in the ass as we move forward. I mean, like there, I think that that's a very pronounced worry for them. Like this idea of, of, okay, so everybody here in the right wing media ecosystem is going to just sit idly by and be silent as this happens. What can happen when we have a Democratic president in office? And I think that's been a worry for them as they see things get like the abuses grow more and more. On the flip side, look, there are always going to be people for whom Trump can do no wrong. And, and we've seen some of them too. And you know, the reality is that, that those people would, would sacrifice their firstborn if Trump asked them to. And so I think that we're seeing a growing dichot, you know, the, the slavish devotees to Trump, these people on right wing media who are just going to be his mouthpieces no matter what, no matter what ICE agents, you know, what, what crimes they commit or who they shoot or what journalists they arrest, those people are always going to be on board. But there's a growing, there's a growing disparity between those people and, and even the people they speak with, like, even just any, even right wing regular Americans. And I think that they're recognizing, oh, that's, that shit's cultish behavior, you know, like that's, that's not necessarily reflective of me. Maybe in 2024 things felt a little bit different. I could, I could align myself with a more right wing government, right wing campaign, but like, this is what right wing governance looks like in action. And if that's, if that's what it looks like where you've got, you know, Caroline Levitt basically doing her best North Korea lady impression on a daily basis. It's like, I don't know, I'm, I'm seeing people get more and more uncomfortable with that on, on a daily basis.

B (33:03)

You're, you're very astute. Right on. Because the people I spoke to even at the Grammys said to me, hey, look, I'm Republican, I don't like what happened to you. That's not right. I'm a conservative. I voted for Donald Trump. And I don't necessarily agree with everything that you say, but this is wrong and I'm in your corner on this one. I'm seeing that from, I don't hear that a lot coming from conservatives now, the MAGA faithful and you know, the crazy people of the world. Like, God, what's this up like the Benny Johnson's and The Megyn Kelly's or whatever who just are grifting out there on the right, they're gonna keep, you know, fueling the fire and, and, and, and, and putting gasoline on the fire because that's how they get clicks and ratings. Right. Or, well, I don't know, money. But I think for most sensible people, whether you're a conservative or not, you realize, like, we need a, we need a, an independent free press.

A (33:58)

Yeah. You know what was so interesting, I think about the Grammys was just a year ago. I mean, these people wouldn't be caught dead talking about, about politics, but certainly not like some aligning themselves with liberal politics. It became so out of vogue to, to align yourself with the left. I mean, look, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a Democrat. Like, it's, it's, I would be the first. It sucks that I have to admit it. But, but you know, it was, it was toxic. It was cultural suicide to, to align yourself with the Democrats or some Democratic or progressive position just a year ago. And, and that's what, that's what gave birth to all of these manosphere podcasts. And I mean, the Democrats had lost culture and that, which was bizarre to say because I grew up like in the Barack Obama era and he was cool and we had, George W. Bush was decidedly uncool and, and I think in one fell swoop, we saw so much of that snap back downstream of culture and you have all of these, you know, all of these big names and, and voices and popular ones. I mean, musicians even, even have like a more prominent role in society than, than even actors do. Right?

B (35:11)

Yeah.

A (35:12)

And, and for all of those people to be so unapologetically outspoken in terms of, in terms of pushing back against what this administration is doing was, was a, was a really like, heartening thing to see because again, like, I, I, I didn't know when, when culture would, would swing back to the left. And I think we saw it happen thanks to Trump, way faster than anybody anticipated.

B (35:36)

We were talking about some of those, the manosphere. And now I'm seeing people like, is it Andrew Schultz? Is that his name?

A (35:43)

Andrew Schultz? Oh, yeah, he's just, you just, you just know he's like in pain right now. And as well, he, look, go, go on.

B (35:50)

No, I want you to finish that. But like, he didn't realize that this was going to happen. I mean, he supported him. He had him on the, on his show and they were talking him and Charlemagne. So all of these people and the other folks on. And now they're surprised that Donald Trump is doing what he's doing. Like, really, like, come on.

A (36:08)

Surprised that the guy who wielded like, mass deportation, now signs at his rallies, is doing mass deportations? I mean, like, there is no world in which you had almost 80 million people who saw this coming, but you have like six or seven assholes who had no fucking clue that any of this could, could come about. Like, the whole, like half the country, a whole half of the country was yelling about this exact thing happening. But now you've got, you know, Andrew Schultz and Joe Rogan who had no idea this was coming. And you can, you can hear in their voices how they kind of just have their tails between their legs now as this stuff happens and they have to talk about it because they host shows and the subtext to everything is like, well, you know, I was, this guy was sitting across, across the table from me as I was, you know, basically fellating him for my audience.

B (36:57)

That's vivid.

A (37:00)

Is that for some, for some imagery for you?

B (37:02)

Thank you for that, Brian. No, look, I, I'm, I'm surprised. Here's the thing that shows you that not everybody with a microphone should be talking about politics, especially if you don't. These, these people have no idea about politics and policy. Why are they doing it? Look, they're comedians. You can talk. Look, it's obviously freedom of speech, but sometimes things are so important that you have to leave the expert opinion to the experts. You know what I'm saying? And not everybody's meant to interview a presidential candidate or a president. And if you are, if you don't believe that you are, I don't know, maybe you should realize, maybe you should have some, some enough self awareness to realize, like, maybe this is beyond. I should leave this to the journalist. You know what I'm saying?

A (37:50)

Yeah. I mean, look there, there. I think these people are learning that there are consequences to their actions. And sometimes the consequences are small, you know, when you're dealing with podcasts, but then sometimes the consequences have global implications and, and I think these people are realizing that, that right now. So, Don, what's next now?

B (38:07)

Well, I wanted to.

A (38:08)

What does this process bring you?

B (38:10)

I will answer, I will answer that however I wanted to. I just saw that we have the video. When you asked me about knowing or not knowing, I think you can see like this look on my face. This is when I walked out. And you can play and just let play the sound low and I'll talk Over it. But this is when I walked out of jail and my husband is kind of leading the way, and I'm looking going, what the fuck is going on here? And I, you know, I kept. Then the cameraman right here, this cameraman there, so many people there, one of them falls down. I try to help him up and. And then I, you know, I had to make my way. Do you see Matt Gutman? There's one of the photographers who works for my team. But once I got to that thing and I saw the helicopters, it started really to sort of hit home about how big it was. But I'm just sort of looking around like, look at my face. I'm like, holy shit, what is going on here? So what is next for me? I don't really know, Brian, but I will tell you, I don't know. Look, I know what's next for me is that this is serious. These are criminal and federal charges, so I have to take them seriously, but they're not going to steal my joy. I still have to live and they're not going to silence me. I still have to report and do what I. What I do here on my channel and, and everywhere, you know, public speaking or whatever. I'm still going to do what I do. I have to. It's not. It's not just my livelihood. This is my profession. This is, you know, this is a mission for me to be able to tell the truth and to be closer to the people, closer to the ground without the corporate influence. And I have to say, people like you have, who've been so great, you know, in advising me, you know, just because I was like some big deal cable guy, you know, I told you coming into this, that doesn't mean that I'm going to be a big streamer. People don't know who I am. What's your advice, Brian? You know, and you gave me some advice and David gave me advice and others, and I really took that to heart. And I think the reason that I've been successful in that is that I did not come in thinking like I was some big shot or. I didn't. I don't judge it, I just do it. And I think that's part of the reason for the success, but also because of the support we have as independent in this independent media space. Do you disagree with that?

A (40:18)

No, I think. I think that's. I think that's spot on. And I think that, you know, what we've seen over the last few days is there is a. There's a big difference between how independent media operates and legacy media operates. And I think the scarcity mindset that exists in legacy media or corporate media doesn't exist in independent media. And, and there is a sense that, you know, we need to support each other. There is enough, enough to go around. And, and there is a broader mission, I think that, that all of us are focused on and that's, that's, that's why we do this. But look, I, I just want to say that, that I'm, I'm grateful for, for your voice. I'm grateful for the fact that you're, that you're fighting as hard as you are. I, I know that I speak on behalf of the, you know, myself and all of, all of these other folks in independent media and saying, we see, we see, you know, what could be a Tuesday for us in what you're dealing with right now. And so, and so any, any support, any help, any amplification you need, we're all, we're all, you know, behind you 100%. So just want to, just want to thank you for, for fighting as hard as you are.

B (41:21)

Thank you very much, Brian. It goes the same to you as well from me to you. So thank you so much and I'll see, I'll see you around these independent streets very soon.

A (41:32)

I'm joined now by the co host of Pod Save America, Dan Pfeiffer. Dan, thanks for joining me.

C (41:36)

Happy to see you, Brian.

A (41:37)

So we've just watched as the Democratic candidate defeated a Republican in a district that Donald Trump won just last year by 17 points. And they did so by 14 points, meaning it's a 32 point swing. Already we've seen some Republicans coming out and offering some excuses like this is, you know, a low turnout election because, you know, special election were in an off year. How much of a problem are these election results in Texas for the GOP as we head toward midterms?

C (42:03)

Look, I've said many, many times over the years that special elections are not particularly predictive. They are things where Democrats tend to do better because our coalition is now disproportionately made up of people who vote all the time. And as we saw in 2024, Republicans benefit from higher turnout. And sometimes when you get results that are shocking, it's because one party got caught napping. Or as you mentioned, it's a really low turnout election. That's not what happened here. Right. Trump endorsed the Republican. The Republican Party spent money in this race. The Republican outsmart the Democrat by several fold. And the Democrats still won. And so if you're on the ballot anywhere in Texas or frankly around the country, this should scare the crap out of you because not, are you not saying that we're going to get a plus 31, plus 32 democratic environment, but this just means that a whole bunch of races that were not on the map before are on the map now?

A (42:59)

Can you talk about the fact that, you know, this, this electorate was 51% Republican, 35% Democrat and 14% independent. But the Democratic candidate, Taylor Remitt, won with like 57% of the vote. And so mathematically, the only way to have done that is to have gotten votes and support from Republican voters and independent voters. I mean, how are you thinking about that as we move forward?

C (43:26)

That's the part that should really scare Republicans because a lot of times when you see these Democratic results, sometimes you'll see it like it's a state House race in Montana and a district Trump won by 36, the Democrat loses by 12. And then you look at the results and you see there's just this massively disproportionate Democratic turnout. Just our, our party turned out at insane level. It's not enough to win sometimes in these districts, but to make the races much closer than they are. That is absolutely not what happened here. This district is in Tarrant County. It is the epicenter of the Texas Republican Party. It's sort of a power center for the MAGA movement, the far right Christian movement. And the way that the Democrat won is, yes, we had great turnout from the Democratic base, but persuaded basically every independent who voted to vote for the Democrat and a decent chunk of Republicans and that and notably also as well, this is important. I think this is, you can see this in the independent numbers is there are a number of heavily Latino precincts in this district. And from the early results we've seen, and we, you know, have to get some more granular detail, but it seems like in math would suggest that the Latino vote swung back hard to the Democrats.

A (44:31)

And I think that poses a pretty serious problem for Republicans as we move forward because they built their new map that would give them five new seats on this idea, predicated on this idea that Latinos swinging super heavily to the Republicans and Trump in 2024 was a permanent move and that's how they built their gerrymander. And so we could be in a world where not only do we not see five seats get handed from Democrats to Republicans, but if those margins were drawn so thin and we see a big blue wave election not Just where we're seeing high turnout from Democrats, but where we're seeing Republicans and independents defect and vote for the Democratic candidates in numbers that we saw just yesterday, we could see a world where this new map turns into a dummy mander. And actually Democrats net seats from.

C (45:18)

Yeah, this map still remains pretty hard because they did a pretty good job of fortifying some of their members as they did this. But the Democrats, they're trying to vote out along the border like Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez with. If the Republicans are really suffering this much, Latinos in Texas, those races are not going to be competitive. And some of the new districts they drew depend heavily on this. So we could draw leave in here potentially. Obviously, if you have a plus 31 democratic advantage, we're going to crush everywhere across Texas, across the country, we'll pick up 70, 80 seats or whatever that would be. But the Republicans made a bet here. And that bet, not only did it not last for a generation, it didn't even last for a year.

A (46:04)

We also, I'm sure both saw the numbers of, you know, in terms of the expenditures in this campaign. I'm going to put right up here on the screen an image that Amanda Lippman shared, the founder of Run for Something. This image right here shows like the massive disparity that we have between what the Republicans had and what the Democrats had. And yet still you had a Democratic candidate flip this seat by 32 points from what we saw in 2024. What does that suggest moving forward? That even a boatload of money wasn't enough to win this race for the gop?

C (46:33)

Yeah, I mean, it speaks to their problem because in these special elections, this is what we saw happen in the district in Tennessee, Tennessee 7 late last year, is the party with the partisan advantage can usually hold on and win because they have enough money to tell voters the election is happening. And this time they had that money and it did not work because it wasn't that they told Republicans to vote. And then some of those Republicans and all those independents voted against the Republicans. The other thing that I think is important here, and I think this provides a larger context for how much the politics have shifted over the last few months, is so this was a runoff election. The original election happened in November. And in November, when you added up all the Republicans and the Democrats, the Republicans had a five point advantage, which was very good for the Democrat, meant that they were in striking distance, is why some people had this election on their radar screen. And so it shifted dramatically from a 5 point Republican to a 14 point Democratic advantage over the since November to now. And that says a lot about, you know, we can't tribute this entirely to what's happening in Minnesota, ice, Venezuela, all of the things have been happening with Trump over the last few months, but it does speak to how fired up Democrats have gotten over the last few weeks and how disillusioned Republicans have gotten. And so delusion that they'll vote against the Republican.

A (47:47)

What do you think that principal driver is? And by the way, I say this knowing that it may very well not be one specific thing, but, but these are pretty huge numbers and especially the defection numbers are, are what I'm looking at.

C (47:59)

Yeah, it is. There's nothing that would suggest that there would be this huge increase in and people upset with Trump over affordability from November to now. And the thing that's really changed is just this feeling of chaos that is sort of permeating the country because of what's been happening in Minnesota and Maine and elsewhere. And so, you know, we, I really am hesitant to speculate because you, there's no exit polls here. We don't know what was on top of people's minds. But I don't think you can separate the shift from November till now from what's happening in the larger political environment. And that's been defined by ICE in Minnesota for almost a month now.

A (48:35)

So I guess the question becomes, does Trump see this and kind of like shift gears or because it's Trump, because any concession to the other side is viewed as capitulation, which is viewed as weakness. He's never gonna do that. And so what do you expect to see as far as Trump is concerned? Do you think that he uses this and says like, okay, we have to change course a little bit or just triple down?

C (49:00)

I think it's like one step forward, two steps backwards all the time with Trump. Maybe he'll feel like, maybe he'll call Tom Homan today and be like, slow it down. And then the next day Stephen Miller will be in his ear and we'll do the opposite. So you don't really know, I think where it has some impact is on Republicans as we debate in Congress what sort of ICE guardrails can be put into the spending bill. There's a world where in a different political environment, the Republicans be relishing a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security in ICE and the fact that they're not and that Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, is going to bend over backwards to try to get this bill passed. On Monday or Tuesday speaks to, I think just the increasing political pressure on this issue.

A (49:39)

What about from Democrats vantage? I'm seeing a lot of posts and statements from, you know, Hakeem Jeffries and Ken Martin and Chuck Schumer that they are, you know, look, I think if I was in their position too, I would, I would also be taking credit for what's happening right now. And frankly, at the end of the day, they are in charge, so they can take credit. But, but also I'm just curious because, you know, on one hand there is obviously a lot of anti Trump sentiment, if not all anti Trump sentiment that's driving this. And so to what extent do you think that Democrats should, should or could take credit here versus are just kind of coasting off of what we're seeing Trump do and reaping the benefits of that?

C (50:19)

I think most of what has been happening, almost all the positive things that have happened in terms of resisting Trump, sort of sending a message to Trump have happened from outside of Washington, not inside of Washington, from the bottom up, not the top down. I think the, the DNC spent money here, they should get credit for doing that. If the Democratic Legislative Committee spent money here, they should get credit for doing that. But the reality of what's happening is happening on the ground and it's happening in spite of, not because of leadership from Washington.

A (50:50)

And so is there some concern that will kind of like ping pong back and forth that because, because some of the leadership in the Democratic Party is going to look at this and say we fixed it, you know, the brand is fixed, we're winning again, we can take all this credit. We don't have to release any, any autopsies. Like, we'll just keep doing what we're doing and keep on keeping on and you know, kind of end up in a situation where, okay, we haven't really done anything substantively to fix the Democratic brands, but they've seen all these wins and so they get the wrong message out of it. And then, you know, we're in a position where Democrats have control and all of the things that led them to lose in 2024 rear their heads again because they were never actually rectified.

C (51:28)

Yeah. So I think there's a couple of things that are going to happen on the interim. I think in the short term, this election victory is going to stiffen some Democrats spines for to use the limited leverage they have in these negotiations over ICE guardrails. I think it will encourage more Democrats to speak out more boldly about what's happening with ice, although I think for the most part they've been pretty good since the killings of Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. Not everyone, but for the most part, you're getting less hemming and hauling from Democrats about what is what Trump is doing and what ICE is doing. So that's good. So I think it stiffens the spines. I think the big concern is if we have a very good 2026, does the party make the same mistake they made after 2022 and view that as a validation of themselves as opposed to a response to something else? Right. 2022 was about Dobbs, not a show of support for Joe Biden. Biden, White House A lot of Democrats read that as the wrong way. And so I think I, I could go on and on and on about the medium term and long term challenges the Democratic Party has regardless of what happens in 2026. But we have a ton of work to do. And so the hope is we have a great year. We recognize that we benefited greatly from anger against Trump, prices being high. But once we get into an actual election where a Democrat presidential candidate is on the ballot against Republican presidential candidate in that much larger electorate that, that doomed us in 2024, we got some real work to do.

A (52:57)

And to that end, in terms of what we can hope to accomplish as we head toward midterms, where's your head at? Obviously, I think we're all kind of aligned on the House, but where's your head at on the Senate?

C (53:08)

You know, I feel I am cautiously optimistic about the Senate. I think, look, you see these results in Texas, that should give you even additional belief that there is a path to a Senate seat in Texas with the right candidate running the right campaign. But, you know, the political environment, if it is in our favor, we have shots. Like, I think we can defend all of our incumbents. Not easy, right? Like, we have to, we have to keep, we have to win our open seat, NH winner seat in Minnesota. We have to win an open seat in Michigan, which is the toughest of them all. And John Ossoff's got to get reelected. Those are all about as good as you would expect them to be at this exact point. We have good candidates in all those races and the Republicans aren't awesome in those races. Although in Michigan, I think Mike Rogers is going to be, is hard to beat, not impossible. But he's, you know, he almost won in 2024. And then we got to do well in, we got to win in North Carolina. We have a great candidate and we got to win in Maine where we, you know, we have a primary coming and you know, because those are the purplish states. And then we got to win two of what I think is now five red states. So you were talking about Ohio with Sherrod Brown. We are talking about Texas. We were talking about Alaska with Mary Patola. We were talking about Iowa. We have a bunch of candidates, all interesting on paper. We'll see how they look as we go through this primary. And then you, you know, I think there is an interesting question about Florida. Like, Florida is a very, very hard state. You know, we now have Alexander Vindman running. He's a candidate who raised a ton of money on the first day. I'm always skeptical of a candidate who is like very famous to the resistance crowd is 100% Iowa, you know, MSNBC, Ponsi of America, name ID. But here's the thing. I'd say Florida is, Trump won Florida by the same amount he won Texas by.

A (54:55)

Yeah.

C (54:56)

And so like, we should keep an eye on it. And possibly, you know, the Republican is, cannot be more generic. It's the, it's the, it's the woman who took Marco Rubio's seat. No one has any idea who she is. She's a generic Republican is not what you want to be these days. So like, let's keep an eye on like basically, we want as many paths to 52 as we can. It's a 51 as we can get. And that's another potential one. And that's not even talking. We haven't even really brought up Nebraska where you have independent Dan Osborne running against Pete Ricketts.

A (55:23)

Yeah, well, a lot to, a lot to look forward. Look, I want to say for everybody who's watching, listening right now, the best analysis online is from Dan on Message Box, which is his newsletter. I could not recommend highly enough that if you've not yet subscribed to Message Box, please go ahead and do so. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. It is the smartest analysis, the best analysis, and it is always correct. So just go ahead and do that.

C (55:49)

Thank you, Brian.

A (55:49)

Go ahead and subscribe if you're not yet subscribed and I'll put that link again right here on the screen and also in the post description. Dan, as always, thanks for the time.

C (55:56)

Always good to talk to you, buddy.

A (56:00)

I'm joined now by the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner. Senator, thanks for joining me.

E (56:05)

Brian. Thanks again for having me.

A (56:07)

So we've had a lot of news pop up about this whistleblower complaint as it relates to Tulsi Gabbard, who was apparently present while the FBI was executing a search warrant in Fulton county to take the 2020 ballots. So first and foremost, what's being done to figure out what this whistleblower complaint that's apparently being suppressed actually says?

E (56:26)

Well, remember, Tulsi Gabbard swore under oath that she would observe the rules about whistleblower complaints when she was up for confirmation. This whistleblower complaint, which I've not seen yet, I will see shortly, was actually brought to the department, I believe, in June. Now, if you follow the rules and this whistleblower wanted the complaint reported to Congress, you know, there's like a 21 day processing period, so they should have reported the complaint. Well, I'll give them even the benefit of the doubt by the end of July. Yeah, we didn't even know there was a whistleblower complaint until November. And then it's taken literally the bipartisan Gang of Eight to say, what the hell, send it to us. And we are just getting it. Now, I've heard rumors about the subject matter. Once I see it, I won't be able to talk about it. The content. But even if the whistleblower complaint is.

C (57:25)

Not.

E (57:27)

Hair on fire, it does mean that this obligation she has, this is not just some, like, maybe I should, maybe I would. Now, this is the fricking law. She should have reported it to Congress within 21 days. And then once we did discover it, the fact that it still took almost two and a half, three months of negotiation. And remember, she's not just dissing me or Hakeem Jeffries, she's dissing Mike Johnson and John Thune and all the appropriate authorities. So it's. Yeah. Again, the litany on Tulsi Gabbard and her ineptness for this job goes on and on.

A (58:03)

So I have a bunch of questions here. First is, are we certain that the whistleblower complaint is regarding Tulsi Gabbard?

E (58:10)

I do not know.

A (58:13)

The next question is, is there a chain of custody that shows who's at fault for suppressing this whistleblower complaint that was supposed to be transmitted to you this summer?

E (58:22)

Well, we got some, you know, letter. When the whole gang of eight was putting pressure. Well, that somehow she didn't know she had to do this. Well, that's why you have a lawyer. That's why you also, when you testify and say Senate, please confirm me. I'M going to follow the law. And then she chooses not to. There ought to be consequences. So we'll see whether my Republican colleagues are going to do anything or whether they'll just say, well, you know, it took longer than it should, but we're not going to hold her accountable. The fact that it took all eight of us almost three months within the Gang of Eight to kind of get it, I would hope they would be just on plain process grounds. Pretty pissed off, too.

A (59:09)

The next question I have is we have seen Tulsi Gabbard kind of come into the news because, again, as I mentioned at the top, she's now involved in this whole effort to get those ballots that were used in the 2020 election. Anybody who's watched politics over the last, you know, five years, six years, knows that the only reason Trump is interested in getting these ballots is he wants somebody, some, some, you know, stooge to be able to come out and say, you're right, President Trump, there was fraud in the election. There was some subversive, nefarious activity in the election that will give him a pretext to be able to say, oh, there was fraud, just like I thought in 2020. That means in 2026 or 2028, we have to really hunker down in a way that we didn't do before, before. And I should be able to oversee the elections. We should have Republicans in charge. We should be able to seize the voting machines. We should have access to the ballots. We should gain visibility into the voter rolls. All this stuff like this is Trump's fever dream. Tulsi Gabbard's involvement in this seems to me, and I'm curious what your thoughts are on this, because as dni, she should only be able to have kind of her area of focus should just be foreign interference in elections. If she can come forward and say, you know what? I've done my research, and we have Italy and Switzerland and China and Venezuela who conspired with Joe Biden's FBI and CIA. And I, as dni, can confirm there was foreign interference in the election. And then, of course, that would give Trump the pretext that I was talking about to be able to go ahead and meddle in the next election. Is there some concern that that's what Tulsi got average job is in all of this?

E (60:45)

Well, you've laid it out pretty well. I mean, let's look at this. The National Security act, which set up this whole notion of how we have oversight of national security, happened because Nixon and Watergate and so that was what the creation of the intelligence committees were to do, the oversight. And we made very clear in that one, our spying agencies are only supposed to look outside the country. They're not supposed to spy on Americans. The FBI, in terms of criminal stuff is supposed to deal with that. So Tulsi Gabbard has no jurisdiction on a domestic criminal investigation. She didn't even tell the FBI she was coming. What in the hell she was doing there, other than potentially trying to curry favor with Trump, I don't think there's any legitimate answer. And she has yet to give any fulsome. If she says okay, now all of a sudden, six years after the fact, lo and behold, I found all this foreign interference. Well, I read my intelligence briefs pretty damn well. And if there was any evidence of even hints of this, we would have heard about it within the normal intelligence channels. Or if she's been cooking up this theory and then doesn't report it to the intelligence committees, which are her oversight committees, she's breaking the log in there too. She said she would timely report to her committees on oversight. So this is, it is wacky. I mean, a year ago, and I was maybe slow because I didn't think that Trump a year ago would be this outrageous. When people said 26, 28, are you concerned about the security of the elections? I said a possibility, but I wasn't as concerned the last six months. In the last couple weeks, my concern level is really, really shot off. Coming on top of the outrageous activity in Minneapolis or the potential of using ICE patrols to show up around polling stations and then Gabbards beyond kind of the belief performance and then put all on top of that. And you don't have to speculate now, Donald Trump's own words that somehow say, yeah, Republicans should run the election, should nationalize elections. That is against the Constitution and every Republican state. When we tried to put in the first level of security for our elections after the 2016 election. And remember, this was Trump one. Anytime there was efforts to even like, for example, share cybersecurity standards with state local elections, they said, oh, we don't. We're sure not. We're not sure we want that. Cuz that could be federal intervention. So I know we live in the Alice in Down the rabbit hole, Alice in Wonderland, but up is down and down is up, where Trump is now calling for federalization and Republicans can take control of the election. And Gabbard as his kind of protege in this. Again, if you're not worried, you should.

A (63:38)

Be in terms of the fact that this whistleblower complaint exists. I think you and I could both agree that if the shoe is on the other foot and there was some Biden administration official for whom a whistleblower complaint was lodged against them and it was just sitting there and it wasn't being transmitted to Congress, this would be like the national outrage. Fox News would be talking about it 24 7. There would already be hearings about the fact that there should be a hearing about what the whistleblower complaint itself says. And so my concern here is that enough isn't being done given the fact that not just process, because I don't think that people really care about process. And in fact, I think that our collective adherence to focusing on process above all else has been a little bit of our downfall. But just the fact that this exists and the administration is allowed to police itself to the point where even legitimate whistleblower complaints about themselves are being suppressed, kind of in the same vein as how shootings done by DHS are being investigated by dhs. I mean, this should be a much bigger story. What is the plan among you and your Senate colleagues to get this thing out front and center given the fact that this is a really significant issue? And if, again, the shoe is on the other foot, but it's all we'd be hearing about.

E (64:56)

Amen. They would be completely. Their heads would be exploding. I think this is my 8th or 9th press it today on this. I did a big press conference trying to get this out into the bloodstream. But remember, we still have the DHS ICE hearings. The government just got funded. I will give Thune at least a margin of credit that he said today. Well, we don't think we can nationalize elections. But this is where if we can't get Americans upset, if we can't force our Republicans to find a spine, we can hold what we call a shadow hearing. But it won't get. It won't even get picked up by influencers.

A (65:40)

Well, I mean, look, if you host a shadow hearing, I'm telling you right now, I'll cover it and I'll reach out to other folks in the ecosystem.

E (65:47)

We will see if we. I am still. We know we're going to get Gabbard in front of our committee.

A (65:54)

Will that be public or private?

E (65:56)

That will be public. Right. And you know, unfortunately, it's not until next month, it's not until the beginning of March, but we will have her. We are going to do election security hearings in the Intelligence Committee. I'm still working with Cotton on how we get it done. And I'm concerned, frankly, not only because of what they do in the fall or what they could do in the primaries, but we could, we'll probably have a statewide voter referendum on redistricting in Virginia in April. So Virginia could be that. Let's try our new techniques here. So we are going to bang the drum. We are going to get folks as upset as possible. I mean, the challenge though, for example, when all of the awful stuff was happening in Minneapolis, it was, you know, it's awful, but it's true. Until Ms. Goode and then Mr. Pretty were brutally killed, we didn't get the Republicans to the floor or to the table on ICE reforms, even though there was a lot of bad stuff happening beforehand. And I am wide open for you or any of your viewers on what else we should do because you're right, if it sounds like all process and when you're supposed to report a whistleblower, when not, I mean that I think you can get lost in. I think the thing when President Trump says he wants to nationalize and have Republicans take over elections and when you've got a Director of National Intelligence not even telling initially the FBI that she was coming and showing up way outside her lane, people ought to get pissed.

A (67:32)

Right?

E (67:32)

I'm pissed.

A (67:34)

Well, I look forward to hearing more about that. On the issue of ICE funding itself because now this is, you know, gone. This, this bill to keep the government, you know, to reopen the government will obviously get signed, but that includes a two week continuing resolution just for DHS funding. There are, there seems to be a little bit of an impasse in terms of what the Democrats are asking for and the Republicans willingness to accept that stuff, which includes in part masks for ICE agents or cameras for ICE agents. Can you give us the thing? First and foremost, I have to ask, you know, there are a lot of people who don't have faith that even when Democrats put down their red line issues, that the Democrats are gonna abide by it. And we've seen other instances in the past where Democrats have caved even though they had imposed their red lines, like with ACA funding, for example. So is there a commitment that you can give that you know, on certain issues that DHS funding won't be given unless those demands are met.

E (68:37)

I'm not going to vote for any additional ICE funding unless we get some reforms. It's as simple as that. But I also would just ask for some folks to realize, and again, I come from Virginia, we got a lot of federal workers. We had A lot of. When you shut down the federal government, who you really hurting? You're hurting federal workers who may or may not get paid at the end of the day. And the thing that completely makes me a little crazy when I hear from some of my colleagues, well, let's shut it down. Shut it down. Shut it down. The very same folks who are being discriminated against in Minneapolis and elsewhere on these ICE raids are often the people who are the contractors, because the people who clean our federal buildings, the toilets, the people who do a lot of the jobs that used to be federal employees, they're all contractor jobs now. So you put that person out of work for a month and a month and a half, they get no reimbursement. And I just hope, as we think about all of our threats. Listen, I stuck all the way through on the health care fight. I thought health care was important enough. But there is sometimes a cavalier attitude about, well, shutting down the government. That's not gonna harm folks or it's not gonna bring a burden when frankly, federal workers are disproportionately, especially after doge on our side. So we're gonna stick to it. And do I think that Republicans are gonna give on everything, not counting on it. And I think we have to keep the pressure on. But I, but again, I go back to, we shut down dhs, let's have it. But God forbid we have a, a challenge at the airport when TSA agents aren't being paid.

C (70:30)

And.

E (70:31)

Yeah, and folks that are air traffic controllers and others, I mean, just, we gotta, we gotta push with all we can. But. And again, this is why I get the big bucks, because you gotta weigh these, you gotta weigh these, you know, these, these challenges. But it's not. There are people at the other end of a federal government shutdown that I just would ask everybody to think about. And they are, generally speaking, disproportionately, who support our point of view and want these reforms. And that's why one of the reasons why we all realized it was going to take a couple weeks. That's why, thank God, the other 95% of the government is going to be open. So we're not holding the Republicans, we're holding the rest of the government hostage. And the fact that we got that open, I think I'd call that a win, since we can now fight this battle entirely inside the dhs, entirely on the ICE issue, which I think is, again, a smarter thing for us both politically and for the numbers of people that will be affected if we go back into even a partial shutdown.

A (71:34)

Yeah, I agree with that. I think it is smart just to focus this narrowly on what's happening at Dages. And I hear you on the fact that, you know, there are gonna be people who are hurt, but the reality is there are people, there are people that are gonna be hurt regardless. Like if DHS has no guardrails, who's to say that there won't be another shooting, another Renee Goode, another Alex Preddy tomorrow? And so, you know, again, to your, to your point, you alluded to this. This is, this is, you know, this is the give and take. This. There, there is no, there is no, you know, silver bullet. There's no formula that's gonna be, that's gonna work perfectly for everybody. Somebody's gonna get hurt. And unfortunately that's, that's the situation that Republicans have put everybody in by trying to fund an agency that is completely lawless and then putting all of their weight behind getting no conditions behind DHS funding.

E (72:20)

And that's again where, and I think people get this in their gut. And I don't want to like get down in the weeds again, but there are so many freaking things that have blown past any kind of norm, any kind of law. I mean, if we just talked about the President of the United States saying we ought to nationalize elections, that in itself would be a week long story of old traditional front page. If we simply talked about the Director of National Intelligence somehow interfering in domestic criminal investigations, that would blow people's minds. If we thought about, obviously we were focused on the awful things that have happened in Minneapolis and elsewhere. When you focus on the fact that in my state, 75 to 80% of the people who've been picked are up on the ice, rates have created, committed, no criminal infraction. So there is this theory of they keep throwing crap at the wall. And again, I'm not complaining. I'm asking folks to hire me again. So it's part of the job. But it is a little overwhelming and I fear that people become almost numb to it. And when all of this behavior becomes quasi rationalized, that ain't good for the country. That isn't good for legitimate political discourse or legitimate political rule, regardless of what happens going forward.

A (73:44)

Yeah, look, and I do think the onus is on those of us in the pro democracy ecosystem to make sure not to normalize any of this behavior and to push back when there are whistleblower complaints against the dni, when there are efforts by the president to nationalize elections or put Republicans unilaterally in control of elections. And you know, that's, that's the work that I do. It's the work that you do. And, and you know, it's, it's, it's difficult when you are contending with an opponent who, whose, whose goal is to flood the zone with shit. But I think, you know, like you said, that's, that's the hard work that needs to be done.

E (74:13)

So one of the things I would ask Brian of you and everybody in the pro democracy and I'm pretty close with some of the folks some more on the legal end but you know, we need to have an organized timeline. Even if this goes fades from the news for a week, what are the key times that we got to make sure they're not pulling any more funny business through this whole process period in Virginia. That'll be. If there is an April referendum, it won't be on April 21, the referendum day, I think they've said. But it'll be weeks before the primaries. We've got to make sure we, we don't because I'm fearful now that they may go to subterfuge, they may try to, you know, and this is again goes back to why the whistleblowers have to be respected. They gotta have a due process. Even if they're not. Their claim is not valid, but they gotta still have a process. And I really, part of my job is to make sure that the rhythm of the election they don't screw things up even more. And the truth is a lot of the situations that were set up actually were set up in the first Trump administration after the Russian intervention. So the FBI center on Election Interference, that's been shut down. The Director of National Intelligence Formalign Influence center, that's by law, she shut that down. Cybersecurity, the CISA agency a third plus of the folks who are trying to give local election officials the tools they need to make their election systems more secure, that's been cut. So it's, it's. And that's again the part where if this was the shoe was on the other foot and I know we can.

A (75:54)

You know, this is a tired game.

E (75:58)

We got it. We gotta just keep fighting like hell.

A (76:00)

We'll leave it there. Senator Warner, thanks so much for taking the time.

E (76:03)

Thanks so much, Brian.

A (76:05)

Thanks again to Ro Khanna, Don Lemon, Dan Pfeiffer and Mark Warner. That's it for this episode. Talk to you this weekend. You've been listening to no Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graeber. 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 Ryan Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.