Loading summary
Transcript103 lines
- [00:01]
A
Todd Blanche issues an announcement to salvage his confirmation as Attorney General. And I've got two interviews. Former Obama communications director Dan Pfeiffer and former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vitor. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to no Lie. So we have got a stunning new announcement from Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's embattled acting Attorney General, who's doing his level best to salvage his failed confirmation. He issued a statement saying, in part, The Attorney General's May 18, 2026 order establishing the anti weaponization fund is rescinded and shall have no force or effect. Okay, so here's what you need to know about this, and I'm going to try to simplify this as much as possible. Blanche's new order rescinds the implementation of the $1.8 billion slush fund, but not the overarching settlement agreement out of which the slush fund was born. In other words, the underlying settlement agreement itself is still intact. Which means that While this specific $1.8 billion slush fund go, there is nothing stopping Blanche or Trump from standing up a brand new slush fund five minutes after Blanche gets confirmed. Like if Blanche was looking to truly rescind the settlement agreement that the $1.8 billion slush fund was born out of, those terms can only be changed with a written agreement between the Trumps and the government. And this rescission order was signed only by Todd Blanche, not by Trump, not by his sons, not by the Trump organization. So if the settlement agreement needed to be rewritten, you would expect that Trump's side would have signed off on it. But they didn't. Because what got killed was just this specific fund mechanism, not the contract at the heart of the matter. Meaning that the underlying settlement is still on the books. What's dead for now is just the particular $1.8 billion implementing structure. Whether Trump's team could push the DOJ to stand up a differently named or differently structured fund under that same settlement agreement is exactly why the whole thing is a farce. And yet, apparently, it being a farce is perfectly acceptable for John Cornyn and Thom Tillis. Those were the holdouts who demanded a written confirmation that none of this would go forward. And yet, even despite this flimsy offering by Todd Blanche, both Cornyn and Tillis decided to cave. Cornyn tweeted a statement basically saying that he was completely satisfied with this flimsy offering by Todd Blanche and that he and Thom Tillis were looking forward to advancing Blanche's nomination out of the Senate jud committee. That's going to happen on Tuesday morning. So my question to Cornyn and Tillis is this. Did you truly want this slush fund to go away, or were you just looking to put up a pretend fight so that you could cosplay for a weekend as independent fighters? Cornyn knows that this fund is not dead because he himself questioned Blanche on this exact point at his confirmation hearing. He is fully aware that the settlement agreement isn't dead, only the specific fund itself, and that Trump can and will resurrect it the second he has the chance. So are Cornyn and Attilus okay with being rolled? And the answer is, as the answer always is, yes. Because as far as Republicans are concerned, you must always grovel at the feet of the God King, even if he himself is responsible for your demise. If you want to exist in this ecosystem after your time in office, you have to kiss the ring always and forever. So Cornyn and Attilus need to fold like cheap lawn chairs if they want to go on TV in the future or become lobbyists in the future, or in any way stay in the good graces of this right wing ecosystem. Meaning cowardice isn't some fluke. It is a feature of today's gop. In fact, if you need proof that Trump has zero intention of letting this go, this is what he said after Todd Blanche's confirmation looked like it was dead. Is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead, or is it on hold?
- [03:44]
B
It's. I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know. I know one thing. The weaponization. Are you talking about the weaponization fund? Yeah. What's your decision? The weaponization fund, as far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. It was something. I was. I didn't make it, but I was. I heard that. I thought that was the greatest thing. Because people like you have abused our people so badly. The fake news, like cnn, like the New York Times, and like others, have abused our people.
- [04:11]
C
Wait a minute.
- [04:12]
B
Be quiet.
- [04:13]
A
Does that sound like a guy who has no intention of resurrecting the slush fund? Come on, now. I mean, this is what Trump was saying even after Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing looked like it wasn't going anywhere. If ever there was a time for Trump to at least pretend that these people don't deserve to be paid out of a slush fund, it is at that moment. And yet, even then, Trump couldn't bring himself to just lie. You don't even have to think about this from a legal perspective. Just use common sense. That is not a man who has any intention of giving up on paying out violent insurrectionists who do his bidding. And that right there is the point. Trump and Blanche want this because it is their way to send a message to Trump supporters that you will not only not face consequences if you commit viol in his name on his behalf, you'll be rewarded, handsomely rewarded. You'll be pardoned and then paid. You will become a millionaire, as so many other Trump allies already have. He wants to create a permission structure to incentivize people to take matters into their own hands to help him consolidate power for himself. That is why it's so important to keep this fund in place. And that is why it's so disgusting, so disqualifying that Cornyn and Tillis are so predictably folding and allowing this to happen. Words to live by. You will never lose money betting on the cowardice of today's gop. Next up are my interviews with Dan Pfeiffer and Tommy Vitor. No lies brought to you by Shopify Starting a business is a big deal, and even just taking the leap to decide to do it is a major step. What surprised me was how much simpler Shopify made it. All the tools you need to launch are already included and ready from day one. One of my favorite features Design Launch. Shopify's templates and AI tools get you a stunning website up and running f no coding needed. You can create your storefront that actually reflects your business and your brand as opposed to just some standard fare that doesn't really reflect what you've built. Another amazing feature is how easy it is to check out. I will literally not buy something if the checkout process is too complex. Shopify checkout is not only easy, but it actually saves your customers details so that when they come back it's even easier the next time. One tap and they're done. Any business owner knows that making the lives of your customers easier makes your life easier. So this is a win win for everyone. And then there's Sidekick. Shopify's built in AI assistant tool. Sidekick helps you build and troubleshoot and keep moving. There is nothing better than getting help in real time so that you can get on with your day. All you need is the idea Shopify handles the rest. So if you're serious about hearing your first Start your free trial@shopify.com BTC today. You heard that right. Start your free trial today@shopify.com BTC that's shopify.com BTC I'm joined now by the former communications director for Barack Obama and co host of Pod Safe America, Dan Pfeiffer. Dan, you wrote something that caught my attention in a pretty big way. I'm gonna put it right here on the screen. If you're a Republican on the ballot, this is the number that should scare the shit out of you. And so what you were referring to was the fact that Trump's job approval among non college white voters in 2018 was nine points in the positive. In 2020 was eight points in the positive. In 2025 was 24 points in the positive. Now that number as of July 2026 is negative. Eight points, eight points in the negative. So we're looking at a 32 point swing from just when Trump was elected two years ago. Talk to me about that number and why that number in particular was such an important metric for you to comment on.
- [07:39]
B
Sure.
- [07:39]
C
To give you one other stat with this. According to exit polling, Trump won that group of voters by 34 points. Like White, non college educated voters, white working class voters are the core of maga. They are his base. They have been his most loyal voters. They're the ones who have stuck with him through two impeachments, an insurrection, mounds of corruption. And it seems like they are beginning to sour on him. And that has dramatic effects on what the MAGA coalition looks like, how big it is. But what would really worry me with Republicans is these are the voters you have to turn out. And if they are not going to turn out, if they are not excited about Trump, if they are pissed at Trump, if are they, they think they broke her promises, that is bad news for particularly Republicans in places like Wisconsin and Michigan where white, non college educated voters make up a huge swath of the population. And Maine as well made on that list.
- [08:29]
A
And so that's the point I want to dig into here because this is Trump's approval rating. So how do you reconcile the correlation between Trump's approval rating and the other Republicans who are not named Donald Trump, who are gonna be on the ballot? I mean, do they get any leeway or is Trump's approval rating going to be directly correlated with how poorly his own party does mean?
- [08:49]
C
I suspect if Republicans on the ballot cannot outperform Trump's approval rating, which is 32%, then they're going to lose in every seat in the country. Basically, they, yes, they will outperform Trump. But what it, what the way to think about it is, is every point that Trump's approval rating goes down, particularly among this group, the white, non, college educated voters who make up his base, that is more of an anvil on the shoulders of these Republicans. It makes it harder for them to win. It is there. It is more. They are swimming upstream against it. And so an unpopular Trump and a Trump who's like, there's a world in which Trump's, you know, is at 37, 38, but the bulk of it is independents, Democrats, some of these 20. These voters who will vote in presidential elections and not vote in midterms. This group right here, these are the people. These white, non, college educated voters are the ones he needs to turn out. And they're unhappy with him right now.
- [09:42]
A
Well, you know, the irony of this is like you look at one of the most criticized moments of Kamala Harris's campaign. It was on the View. She was asked what she would do differently than Joe Biden. She refused to break with him on anything. She refused to even put forward one single idea that she broke on him with. And so, you know, in effect, Biden's unpopularity became her, her unpopularity because she refused to put any space between them. Now, Republicans are falling for the exact same phenomenon where, you know, they have refused to serve as a check against him on anything except for, you know, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, both of whom don't have a job after this term, but the rest of them have hugged him. They haven't run away from him. And so in a way, even after having watched Kamala Harris fall for this exact phenomenon, they're doing the same. They're repeating her mistake in this election cycle where his unpopularity is weighing all of them down.
- [10:34]
C
It's interesting because the dynamics are both similar and different.
- [10:37]
B
Right.
- [10:37]
C
Where these Republicans on the ballot are dealing with an unpopular president of their own party. Kamala Harris was dealing with an unpopular president party. Now, Kamala Harris outran Joe Biden's popularity by, you know, 15 points or so. He was in the. Maybe about, maybe about 10, 10, 10, 11 points, I guess, is probably where Biden was at the end.
- [10:56]
A
Yeah.
- [10:56]
C
And some of these Republicans will outrun Trump by at least that. The reason why they're in a bigger pickle than Harris was is that Biden was, there was, there was not a ton of strong enthusiasm for Biden among Democratic voters. She had a freedom to break with him that these Republicans feel like they do not have because the, the, there are a couple, like when you look at polls, you can cut these in several ways.
- [11:20]
A
Right.
- [11:20]
C
You can do it by education, race. Like we're Talking about here, another way to do it is you get the Republican sample and you say, do you consider yourself a member of the MAGA movement or not? MAGA voters still love Trump. His numbers are in the 80s with them now. That group is getting smaller as people are leaving that group. But the problem for Republicans is they need those, quote, unquote, MAGA voters to turn out for them. And if they come, if they break with Trump, he will punish them publicly in a way that could further diminish turnout against their base. They really are in a situation, I imagine, in 2024, Kamala Harris could have broken with Biden on some issues, like Gaza or the border or inflation, and it would not have affected Democratic turnout in any measurable way. I think here these Republicans are really weighing what to do. You stick with Trump, you pay the price with swing voters and soft Republicans, you break with Trump, you pay the price with turnout. MAGA voters, and there's no good answer there for them.
- [12:15]
A
Why now? Why are we seeing this exodus away from MAGA at this point, after all of the depraved shit that's happened at the hands of this president and this administration? I mean, we have seen endless, endless corruption. We saw, you know, obviously, the January 6th insurrection, the self dealing. We saw a first term where Covid was handled abominably, where the only legislative priority was a tax cut that disproportionately favored millionaires and billionaires. He's never been a populist, even though he's claimed he has. But why this moment in particular, are we finally seeing some people get fed up in leaving the coalition?
- [12:50]
C
It's priceless. Inflation and high prices has been the driving force in American politics for five years now. It is why Biden's numbers went down. It's why Trump got a second chance at the presidency. And it's why Trump's numbers are going down now. And it's particularly magnified because of the war in Iran, which everyone thinks is stupid, it wants to be over. It makes Trump look weak and at the mercy of events instead of in control of events. And it's forcing gas prices up. And so when prices go up, Trump's numbers go down, and that's where we are.
- [13:23]
A
So I guess the flip side of that question is recognizing that there are fractures for the first time in his coalition. Why is Trump acting this way? Why does he continue to engage in a war that's just killing himself and his party? Why does he continue to. Well, I mean, I know why he continues to suppress the Epstein files. But the broader point, why does he continue to commit these actions and engage in behaviors that is so aggressively unpopular that it's taking people who were die hard MAGA voters and supporters for the last decade and driving them away?
- [13:58]
C
I think he does not care about the midterms. I think he, ideally, he would like to win the midterms. I think he, somewhere deep in his soul, dreads the investigations that will come. But he is unable or unwilling to do the things that would at least improve the chances of Republicans. He probably can't get out of this war in any terms that work for him.
- [14:20]
A
Right.
- [14:21]
C
He has no magic levers to pull that will lower prices. I mean, he could stop raising them by putting tariffs in place.
- [14:27]
A
I mean, couldn't he just end the war tomorrow and pull out? Yeah. He would have to suffer, you know, the indignity and embarrassment of a war that America isn't winning. But is it any worse than, you know, the continued pain that he's enduring and that the rest of America is enduring by virtue of continuing it?
- [14:44]
C
I feel like I'm swimming in Tommy Vitorin Ben Rhodes pool right now. But I think the challenge for Trump is if America were to say, we're stopping bombing now, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz.
- [14:55]
A
Yeah.
- [14:55]
C
And as long as Iran controls those straight up, something I will note they did not control before this.
- [15:00]
A
Right.
- [15:01]
C
That is going to have. That is going to affect oil prices. If we gave up and we stopped bombing, would oil futures go down? And maybe there'd be some gas relief, price relief, maybe. But all it takes, and this is the, there's like this asymmetric nature of this war, which is all it takes is one missile or drone from Iran to hit a ship or threaten a ship, and that will once again slow traffic to a trickle. He has no real ability, absent a massive ground invasion of Iran, to regain control of the Strait in a real way. And so he's stuck, at least for the time being, in a world of oil prices much higher than they were before this war started. Can they condemn a little bit? Might that help them on the margins? Maybe. But the fundamental dynamics are what they are, and they're gonna be that way for a while now.
- [15:49]
A
But there are domestic priorities, too. I mean, him sacrificing the prospect of Todd Blanche becoming his Attorney general because he wouldn't offer in writing an end to some of these egregiously unpopular policies, like giving himself protection from audits for him and his family. This $1.8 billion slush fund that's so corrupt even Republicans aren't willing to stomach it. Even right now he's contin fight this stuff in the courts, won't offer any written confirmation that this fund is actually dead. These are easy wins for him to do. And yet even on this stuff, he's not relenting.
- [16:28]
C
Yeah, no, he is thoroughly self obsessed and megalomaniacal. Like he, he can't get out of his own way here. And you know, all the things he's doing, like whether it's, you know, obsessing about the reflecting pool, the arch to Trump that he wants to build, the putting his name on the Kennedy center, the ballroom, all of that stuff, each individual thing is, doesn't matter to voters that much. Like they think it's probably stupid. They, you know, if their taxpayer dollars, well, they don't want it wasted on that. But what they all do together is they tell a story about the things that Trump cares about besides helping you, besides lowering your prices. These are the things he is doing. The war is the biggest one. But all this other dumb stuff that seems like it shouldn't matter, it matters to him. Because the thing that I tell every Democratic politician I talk to is the way to think about this is everything's an affordability issue. The Epstein files and him fighting about the stupid Top lynch thing is an affordability issue. Because that's what Trump's doing when instead of doing something to help you or even talking about how much he wants to help you, he's talking about things that you do not care about that affect him. It's about him, not you.
- [17:38]
A
So the way I've thought about this is the fact that Trump continues to engage in this behavior and do these things is really just. You know, there's one part of me that's like, oh, he's clearly given up on the midterms, but I think that he's given up on the midterms in a different way. He's given up on the midterms in terms of trying to win them on the merits, but he hasn't given up on the midterms in terms of trying to just rig the rules of the game in his favor. That's why he's expending all of his political capital not on passing the housing, but signing the housing bill or, or, you know, dropping this absurd idea of the slush fund or the protection from audits, but instead trying to pass the Save America Act. I mean, he was literally willing to exploit the corpse of Lindsey Graham and be like, the last thing he said to me on the phone was that he wanted the Save America act pass. So clearly this is a priority for him. Do you view this as the same way as he's done trying to win the midterms on the merits, but is now throwing all of his weight behind just trying to win them in a different way by rigging the rules of the midterms in his favor?
- [18:35]
C
It's just hard to know what actual information and data Trump has about how bad his political position is. You know, his, his Maga Pac has $400 million in the bank. There was reports this week they're going to start deploying that money to help Ken Paxton in Texas. So there are some things happening on the margins. I, if he, Trump can steal the midterms, he will steal the midterms. I just, I want to remind people that's a much harder prospect than I think he wants people to know. Like, even put it even, let's say he signed the SAVE act tomorrow, right? Senate ends the filibuster, they pass it, House passes it, goes to Trump, he signs it. One, almost impossible to implement before the midterms.
- [19:16]
A
Right.
- [19:16]
C
Two, and even more important than that, almost certainly hurts Republicans more than Democrats because of the, the people most likely to have a passport or the birth certificate on hand are more likely Democrats than Republicans. And so he's just, he's kind of just focused on himself, casting about, spend most of his time on making monuments to himself and lining his pockets and the rest of it' kind of noise.
- [19:38]
A
So this is a question kind of going to what you just mentioned about the financial advantage that Republicans had. It's a question that I explored a little bit with Tommy on Thursday. But, you know, we found out that Elon Musk's PAC is gonna donate between 100 and $120 million. Obviously there's a massive disparity in terms of what the RNC has versus what the DNC I would say has, but doesn't have.
- [19:59]
C
Yes, exactly.
- [20:01]
A
How are you thinking about the financial advantage and the impact that that's gonna have? And I asked this question on the backdrop of the fact that we are in this cycle right now where Republicans have this financial advantage right now, and yet in the off year elections, in the, in the special elections and in polling, Democrats have continued to enjoy, you know, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 point over performance from 2024, even amid this backdrop of the financial disparity.
- [20:32]
C
So I think there are a couple things going on here. The, and it's worth noting that Democratic candidates themselves are massively outraising Republican candidates. And candidate dollars go much further than super PAC dollars. Because at least when you're talking about television ads, TV stations are legally required to charge candidates the lowest available rate. They can gouge Living Daylights out of super PACs. So one television ad from a campaign, you know, like John Ossoff, Roy Cooper, Sherrod Brown, Mary Patol are all massively outraising their Republican opponents.
- [21:05]
A
I mean, James.
- [21:07]
C
James raising money like you can't even imagine.
- [21:09]
A
Yeah.
- [21:10]
C
And so one, in terms of dollars, depending on the market, one ad from James Talarico is going to be worth three. They're going to have to basically pay two to three times what Talarico is paying for ads. Now, the fact that Republicans have more money means they're going to be. We are not going to be able to force them to make real decisions about where to run. They can probably spend all the money they need in Maine, all the money they need in North Carolina, maybe, maybe they'll spend money in church, I don't know. But they're just going to be able to. It's going to be harder to sneak one past them. We're not. By being competitive in as many places we are, Republicans will have the money to spend to do that. Like that is a real consequence of the fact that Democratic large donors are not giving not just to the dnc, but to the D SEC and the DCCC at the same rate the Republican donors are giving to their republic, the Republican version of those committees.
- [22:05]
A
All right, I want to end with one last question. I'm not going to ask you to predict anything, but I am going to ask you, given this moment, a snapshot in time, would you rather be the Democrats or the Republicans in the House and the Senate?
- [22:20]
C
I would almost certainly be. Rather be the Democrats. Democrats are incredibly well positioned. Republicans have a very narrow majority. Trump is very unpopular. We have some very good candidates.
- [22:30]
A
And this includes, by the way, the Senate, not just the House.
- [22:34]
C
And that's what I feel about the House. I'd rather be the Democrats than the Republicans for sure. I think we are very, very well positioned in the House. We are better positioned than we had any right to be hopeful for in the Senate. But it remains an uphill battle. We need a lot of things to go right for us. Right. You know, Michigan, Iowa, we basically have to draw an insight straight to do it. We have the chance to do it. We have the candidates to do it. But we need a little political luck.
- [22:59]
A
Right.
- [22:59]
C
And Trump seems to be wanting to give that to us.
- [23:00]
A
So, and this is exactly, this is the political environment to do it in. To that end, a good way to continue winning this uphill battle in large part is to subscribe, for those who are watching right now, to Dan's newsletter message box. I'm gonna put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. It is something that I read on a daily basis. Could not recommend any substack or newsletter higher than the message box. So if you're not yet subscribed, please do yourself a favor, subscribe, sign up and I promise you will not regret it. Dan, as always, thanks so much for the time.
- [23:32]
C
Thank you Brian. Great to talk to you.
- [23:37]
A
No lie is brought to you by BetterHelp. Now, you've heard me talk about BetterHelp for a long time, years at this point, but I don't know that we've ever actually talked about how much people love this service when they use it. You can check it out for yourself@betterhelp.com reviews to see amazing customer reviews in real time. They're updated every single day with hundreds of people saying how much they love BetterHelp and how helpful it's been to them. BetterHelp has an average live therapy session rating of 4.9 out of 5 based on over 1.7 million client session reviews. The feedback from people who have actually used this service speaks for itself. And why is that? Because more than 6 million people have used BetterHelp globally. The consistent feedback from real users makes it easy to see why so many people continue to choose BetterHelp. BetterHelp's therapists have at least three years and 1,000 hours of hands on experience. They also hold all required education, training and certifications across a range of mental health specialties. BetterHelp makes it easy to get started. You just answer a few questions, get matched with a therapist based on your needs, and switch therapists at any time. If it's not the right fit, you can see the reviews, see what stands out, and see if BetterHelp is right for you. Visit betterhelp.com Nolie that's betterhelp.com Nolie we have some major news as far as Todd Blanche's confirmation is concerned. This thing is on ice right now and it looks like Trump has accepted the fact that John Cornyn and Thom Tillis are not going to be votes to advance Todd Blanche's nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So I gotta ask Thomi first and foremost, as we kind of watch this shocking process play out where, for the first time that I can remember, it looks like Republicans not only had a spine, momentary though it may be, but are actually holding steady on this front. Do you think that Todd Blanche's confirmation is actually doa?
- [25:23]
D
Oh, man. I will never bet against Republicans eventually caving to Donald Trump. I wish I could be a little more optimistic. It is. Look, could we just imagine a world for a second where you didn't have to resign your seat to then find political courage? Imagine if they'd all just decided to, like, gut it out early on and
- [25:41]
A
it shows they all know better. Like the fact that it keeps happening over and over and over, going back to, like, John McCain and Jeff Flake and now, you know, Bill Cassidy and John Cornyn and Thom Tillis. It is always the people who lose their jobs who then suddenly find some modicum of a backbone. But, like, do these people not know about this beforehand? Like, they knew they knew better, but it was just more politically expedient to stay in Trump's good graces. And so only until the moment that they no longer have their jobs will they kowtow to Trump.
- [26:12]
D
Yeah, they were with him when January 6th happened, and then he pardoned all the people who committed violence, and then suddenly they were gone. When there's a weaponization fund to pay off those people. Like, I realize that's a bridge too far for everybody, and it's a terrible thing and shouldn't happen, but, like, you shouldn't have gotten this far. Look, I. My gut. I think Todd Blanche is going to find a way to massage this, to put something in writing that doesn't make Trump upset. What I don't understand is, if he's ruled it out verbally, why won't he just put it in writing? Go on, explain.
- [26:44]
A
Well, the reason is because they had no intention of actually doing it. There's nothing binding blocking the resurrection of the $1.8 billion slush fund if you just said it.
- [26:54]
D
But they could just lie in writing, too, right?
- [26:56]
A
No, I think it's. I think it's more difficult once you have this. Once you have a written confirmation that it's actually dead, that it won't be resurrected.
- [27:03]
D
I don't know, like so many Trump's
- [27:05]
A
nominees, because, remember, it'll be challenged in court. And then when they have this document saying that this thing is officially dead, then. Then that's going to be. That's going to be what's binding, not just, you know, some verbal confirmation in a. In a confirmation hearing where everybody lies all the time.
- [27:20]
D
Yeah. It's just like we're living in a world right now, right, where there's.
- [27:23]
C
We're.
- [27:23]
D
We're having a war in Iran that Trump says ended because of the ceasefire, and now there's a new conflict that has restarted that they're calling, like, overseas operations or something.
- [27:32]
A
Same people.
- [27:33]
D
They're literally listing casualties from the same conflict, but calling it a new war and saying it wasn't like Operation Epic Fury. I'm just saying, like, this feels like a paperwork thing, and these guys are just liars in their core, and they'll just rename the weaponization fund or try to reappropriate the money somewhere else and just ramp it back up if Trump wants.
- [27:53]
A
I actually completely agree. It's a great point that I hadn't even considered. It's like, are they going to even let some signed paperwork stop them from, yet again jumping back in the Constitution?
- [28:02]
D
Yeah, they don't give a shit.
- [28:04]
A
But I do think it's, you know, the. The most striking part of all of this is, like, this is all about Trump. Like, all of this is about one guy. This is not in deference to, like, millions of people or tens of millions of people or hundreds of thousands of people. This is about an issue where the beneficiary is a slush fund that Trump gets to wield so that he can pay off people who did his bidding and also protection from tax audits for him and his family. That's what all of this is about.
- [28:34]
D
That part is astounding. It should never happen.
- [28:36]
A
I mean, like, this whole thing is because Trump wants to make sure he can continue to derive maximum political and financial and personal benefit for himself and his family. Yeah, and his family. This is Donald Trump acting on behalf of Donald Trump. And this whole fucking circus that we're in, engaged in right now is all, like, all just filters down to the continued benefit of one man. That's it.
- [28:57]
D
And what's interesting about Trump is he's fighting for these staffers who are just not, like, impressive people, you know what I mean? Part of it is Trump will give no quarter, right? Like, he thinks if you ever back down, if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. Right? That's like the lesson from the first term. But in practice, it means he ends up fighting for guys like Kash Patel who are clowns, who are bad at the job, and who cause him political problems day after day after day. But I think ultimately, like, the reason you install someone like Todd Blanche is because you're Installing your personal lawyer who's going to protect you personally. And that is in service of this broader corruption project that you were talking about, which is one, getting out of tax audits going forward, but also making sure that no one bats an eye at the ongoing corruption like the crypto scams. Did you see this week. Apparently the Kushner family might back this plan by FIFA to privatize and sell off pieces of the World Cup. I wonder how that deal came together. Right? So it's like this constant, grifting, billion dollar process of Trump enriching himself. And, like, the only reason you fight this hard for Todd Blanche is because you know he's never going to come after you.
- [30:06]
A
Right. I mean, that's why when you were saying, like, you. You stick your neck out for these clowns like Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi, like, yes, they are incompetent, but that's why they're there. Like, if they were competent, they wouldn't be in a position where they would blindly defer to him. So it is that very incompetence, it is that very malleability that is so appealing to Trump. Like, if they were in any way not clowns, they wouldn't be in that job. He's looking for people who are just gonna be basically empty suits. I mean, you remember the confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton, the dni, who literally, like, I mean, you might as well have asked him to speak Mandarin with. With. With the question of whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Couldn't do it. This is the DNI. This is the fucking Director of National Intelligence who can't answer a basic question about who won the 2020 election, who,
- [30:55]
D
by the way, had a pretty serious job as a prosecutor, was the Assistant U.S. attorney at the Southern District of New York. That's a very important post. They do a lot of counterterrorism prosecutions, et cetera. I think he was, what. He was the chairman of the SEC before that, like, just beclowning himself. This is a guy who's, like, in the. In the kind of world in the orbit of Trump officials was seen as credentialed. Like, actually someone that you could totally see getting nominated for this job under other administrations and getting confirmed in a bipartisan basis compared to, like, Bill Pulte.
- [31:23]
C
Right.
- [31:24]
D
Who's this bozo who, like, he ripped out of the, you know, the mortgage department.
- [31:29]
C
Yeah.
- [31:29]
D
Like, yeah, like, overseeing Franny and Fetty and put him in charge of the dni, which makes no sense because he's I don't. Whatever. Because he's just weaponizing the DNI to go after Trump's political opponents. But to watch someone relatively serious and credentialed like Jay Clayton just unravel and make a fool of himself over a question as simple as who won the 2020 election just, like, tells you everything about the mindset and the mentality.
- [31:52]
A
Yeah, well, I guess they didn't have issues that difficult to deal with, like who won the 2020 election when you were running the FEC, you know, or the SEC, rather. But I wanna move over to a different part of this whole Todd Blanche saga, and that is that Donald Trump just came out on True Social and said that he's willing to pull the nomination temporarily until Cornyn and Tillis are out of office. But that suggests. It suggests that he's gonna have a Republican majority in the Senate moving forward. And so I just think that that is, like you said, a risky bet. Because if it wasn't big, a big enough impetus for people to come out and vote against Republicans because of high prices, because of high inflation, because of high gas costs, because of the war in the Middle east that he swore would never happen, because of their refusal to release the Epstein files, because of the high price of groceries, because of health care getting gutted, food assistance getting cutted, you name it. Now, on top of that, this election, he's making sure, as a referendum on the idea that if you give him a Republican majority in the Senate, that that will mean our taxpayer dollars are gonna go toward paying out insurrectionists from January 6th and protecting Trump from IRS audits for himself, his family and his businesses. And I think that you're not gonna find a single Democrat in the campaign trail that's gonna bristle at the fact to make this election a referendum on that. Yet another unpopular idea.
- [33:12]
D
Well, that's really the key. I mean, I think it speaks to why, look, I hope we win the House. I desperately want to block Trump's legislative agenda going forward, but I also would be even more excited about winning the Senate because we can block these terrible nominees, too. And, you know, we've had this rough run in Maine where, like, Graham Platner flamed out, disappointed a lot of people. Everyone's angry. The establishment's angry about the lack of vetting. You know, the left is angry because they feel like, once again, they're getting screwed by the establishment. And we need to make sure that main Senate race is about Susan Collins, is a vote for the Trump agenda in the Senate, and passing people Like Todd Blanche and confirming a potential Supreme Court nominee.
- [33:49]
A
If she already has resigned, she already carries the baggage of confirming Brett Kavanaugh, who promised, you know, that, that he wasn't going to vote to overturn Roe. Susan Collins naively, you know, expressed concern, the requisite concern, but like, of course he voted to gut Roe, and now she shoulders the burden of having to deal with that on the campaign trail. I'm curious on that point because we have new reporting that Elon Musk is through his pack, even though he's not willing to be front and center anymore because he's so politically toxic. His PAC is willing to donate 100 to $120 million to Republican candidates in the 2026 election cycle. What kind of an impact do you think that that's gonna have? Because we're already seeing a massive disparity between what the RNC and DNC have. For example, how much does the RN125
- [34:35]
D
million on hand versus negative 2 million
- [34:38]
A
on hand for the agency. Now, there's other organizations, you know, there's
- [34:42]
D
the D Trip, there'll be super PACs.
- [34:43]
A
The D trip, yeah, super PACs. And of course, the candidates themselves have, have. You know, you and I were talking on, on our episode of Liberal Tears on podcast of America's YouTube channel. If you're not yet subscribed, make sure to subscribe about the. The massive sums of money that candidates like James Talarico and John Ossoff and even Troy Jackson are making on ActBlue. But curious what you think that just the glut of money from these right wing billionaires is going to have on this upcoming election.
- [35:11]
D
I mean, look, if, if Trump's approval is still like in the 30s, if gas prices are really high, if inflation's still high, it's going to be hard for them to kind of like outspend that. That said, $100 million on a bunch of Senate races or House races is a ton of money. It's on top of a ton of money. Trump is sitting on $382 million in his super PAC.
- [35:32]
A
But what about, like, the diminishing marginal returns? Like, what is the difference between spending 200 million and 300 million? You know?
- [35:39]
C
Yeah, I.
- [35:40]
D
Look, you could just swamp people on tv. You have a much bigger turnout operation. Like, look, every race, every election is one on the margin, right? You know, they're all like tens of thousands, hundred thousand dollars.
- [35:49]
A
We always see races in the aftermath of these cycles where it's like, oh man, this race was like 400 votes difference between, you know, and now at a moment where the speaker of the House can be determined by, you know, five or six different votes, you know, different elections, going a few, you know, going one way or the other in these legislative districts where maybe 1,000 people more voted for the Democrat than a Republican or vice versa. It matters.
- [36:12]
D
The other thing about Elon dumping and all this money is it comes on the heels of the Supreme Court essentially making big dollar donor money like that more valuable because it used to be the Democrats had an advantage because our candidates would raise more small dollars and then the candidates themselves would buy TV ads at the end and they would get a better rate on those ads than the super pacs and the RNC that came in late. And this essentially the Supreme Court ruling leveled the playing field there and said that the RNC and other committees like that can directly coordinate with campaigns and now get the same preferential ad rates. So that hurts us a lot.
- [36:47]
A
Yeah, 100%. And I feel like the exponential increase in the amount of money that's getting into politics, I feel like something's gotta give because, I mean, you know, you go from like, every campaign is the most expensive campaign in history. And now, I mean, I mean, you have people out here that are paying five bucks.
- [37:05]
D
And Elon Musk could spend $10 billion on the 2028 campaign and it would make no impact on his financial situation.
- [37:13]
A
It would be the equivalent of a regular person spending like a hundred bucks or a thousand bucks. And I think you're right. But I mean, the disparity is so egregious now in terms of what small dollar donations can do, grassroots donors can do versus just the glut of money that's coming from these billionaires. You know, I think that two things, I think obviously we need legislation to completely overturn this, but also you need to expand the Supreme Court, because until and unless you expand the court, this is the same court that just voted in FEC versus NRSC to eliminate that disparity. And so this is a Supreme Court that is perfectly content to allow unlimited sums of money to influence these elections. And so, yes, you have to pass legislation, which means you have to get Democratic majorities in the House, the Senate, and the White House. And I think that we're going to do that in 2028. But on top of that, if you're, if you're just looking to like, get caught trying, if you're looking to like, etch symbolic victories and say, ah, we, we, you know, we, we got the legislation passed and it lasted only so long as, as the Supreme Court was able to get their hands on it. Like, that's not going to be good enough. So I think that you do need Democrats who are going to look at a more holistic approach to what Democratic small d. Democratic governance is going to look like. And until and unless you have, you know, this, this glut of money out of politics and, and institutions of government that are willing to protect that idea, then nothing is going to change.
- [38:36]
D
The Citizens United ruling was one of the most damaging rulings in this country.
- [38:40]
A
But only to one side. I mean.
- [38:41]
D
Yeah, but look, I just. The system, like, it's terrible.
- [38:44]
A
Yeah.
- [38:45]
D
We should not be spending billions of dollars.
- [38:47]
A
I say, I say only to one side. But the reality is like, Republican voters are also contending with income inequality in this country. Republican voters are also contending with cut health care, cut food assistance, higher gas
- [38:57]
D
prices, issues of the. Just dumping money into these elections. It's just, it's awful. Something's gotta give. There's gotta be a better way. But it, yeah, it's a long road.
- [39:06]
A
Well, look, I think, I think key among, among all of the ways that we can move forward and try and usher in exactly that is to make sure that everybody watching right now can continue to support progressive independent media that keeps these issues at the forefront. So if you're not yet subscribed to Pod Save America's YouTube channel, I'm gonna put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description. If you're listening on the podcast, I'll throw it in the show notes. And if you're not subscribed to this channel, you can hit those subscribe buttons as well. Tommy, appreciate your time.
- [39:33]
D
Thanks, buddy.
- [39:35]
A
Thanks again to Dan and Tommy. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Wednesday. You've been listening to no Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graber, music by 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.