Loading summary
Transcript108 lines
- [00:01]
A
Republicans are facing the worst case scenario in Texas. And I've got three Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the Democrat running against Maryland State Senate President Bill Ferguson, Bobby Lapin. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen and you're listening to no Lie. I'm not sure that the Texas primary could have gone any worse for Republicans. So it looks like James Talarico will advance to the general election. Dave Wasserman called this race early on for James, which is usually all it takes for this thing to be completely over. Importantly, Talarico's path to victory was his over performance among Latinos in South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley. And Latinos will not only have an outsized impact on the 2026 election, they'll probably decide the 2026 election. Meaning it's helpful to have advanced a Democrat who is supported by the most important voting block in Texas. But the real problem for Republicans lies in what happened in their primary between John Cornyn and Ken Paxton. Both candidates failed to reach that 50% threshold, which means the Republican primary is officially going into a runo. So what does that mean? It means three more months of infighting between Paxton and Cornyn, which means their favorability ratings will only be driven further down after 90 days of infighting. And also importantly, more money is going to be set on fire for three months now. Already this is the most expensive Senate primary ever. The Texas Senate primaries cost almost $130 million, with about 90 million of that on the Republican side. So now, instead of spending money going after Tel Rico, Republicans are going to dump God knows how much more money into the Senate Republican runoff. So that is an absolute nightmare scenario. And let's be clear, the fact that this much money is being spent in Texas in ruby red Texas is a testament to how bad the environment is right now for the GOP. If 100 million bucks is being spent in that state, imagine what that means for North Carolina and Alaska and Maine and Ohio, which are generally considered even closer than Texas. And by the way, we've got excellent candidates running there too. Mary Peltola, Sherrod Brown, Roy Cooper, and then either Graham Platner or Janet Mills. Those people can win. All of those people can win. And they can definitely win in an environment where Democrats are overperforming 12, 14, 16 points compared to 2024. And let's be clear, things are only gonna get more difficult for Trump and Republicans as time marches on, because he seems only capable of doing things that drive down favorables for himself and his party, whether it's the fact that costs are surging thanks to war, the Epstein coverup happening in real time, a new war in the Middle east that Trump said could last forever. The fact that said war is raising gas prices and crashing the stock market. I mean, if you were to engineer actions that could depress turnout for your own party and drive up enthusiasm for the other party, it would look exactly like what the GOP is doing right now. So I want to be clear, the point of this isn't to make anybody complacent. It's actually the opposite. It is to show you that something that seemed impossible a few months ago is actually within reach. We could win statewide in Texas for the first time since 1994. We could win the Senate and we can own both chambers of Congress, serving as the ultimate check on Trump's abuses. And we can transform what the Democratic Party looks like so that it is less establishment, younger, more dynamic, more progressive, more tech savvy and better representative of their communities. That is how we fix the Democrats brand problems, by ushering in a new party that's ready to meet this moment in a way that we haven't seen before. And we just took the first step toward doing exactly that. Next up are my interviews with Gavin Newsom, Rob Bonta, and Bobby Lapin. No Lie is brought to you by Rocket Money. So what is the most ridiculous hidden fee or subscription that you discovered you were still paying for? For me, I've got music service subscriptions that I haven't logged into since like 2022 that I've been paying for every single month. I know that people watching have got gym memberships and streaming services, you name it, that you're charged for every month and you're not even using. Well, Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so that you can grow your savings. Rocket Money allows you to track subscriptions and cancel them within the app with just a few taps, saving you time and helping you avoid charges. You can even categorize automatic transactions across your accounts and customize categories with tags to help shed light on your spending patterns, set budgets and goals, get personalized insights and regular reports on your spending habits. You can even receive real time alerts for large transactions, upcoming bills, refunds, and low balances. Let Rocket Money help you reach your finance goals faster. Join@RocketMoney.com Brian that's RocketMoney.com Brian RocketMoney.com B R I A N I'm joined now by the governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Thanks for joining me.
- [04:49]
B
Good to be with you in person.
- [04:50]
A
I appreciate it. First, I have to ask a question to get this out of the way. Is there anything you want to let us know about aliens? Any, any information you want to divulge go viral.
- [04:58]
B
Go viral. You know, I, I prefer to keep that between myself and my, my state security team.
- [05:06]
A
Well, I feel like I'm obliged to ask.
- [05:08]
B
No. Are you sure? I just, there's only so much the public can absorb. I actually have, I just want to be careful.
- [05:14]
A
I do have a serious question. If there was something would, would, you know, would they tell you something?
- [05:21]
B
You know, that's just something I just wish not to discuss publicly. I don't want, you know, you giving
- [05:26]
A
this open ended answer, by the way,
- [05:28]
B
I'll never forget I asked some other presidents, some other living presidents, the same ex, but I never got a good. So you got, you got a much more revelatory answer from Obama than these others. They're tight lipped. Tight lipped, you know, so I don't know, I don't know if that leads more conspiracies or, or eliminates it. It does. It definitely does. Yeah, it definitely does. But they are, I say people believe like chemtrail. So they honestly, they like you're part of that conspiracy.
- [05:52]
A
Conspiracy theories are the currency of the Internet right now. So everything, by the way, including why
- [05:57]
B
we're dressed exactly the same today, which.
- [06:00]
A
Leave it, we'll just leave it, leave it vague. Ok, so let's, let's jump into news of the day right now. We obviously have a lot going on, but a major story that's kind of been circulating on both the left and the right side of the aisle is the issue, the continued issue of the DOJ's throttling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Recently James Comer decided to haul the Clintons in front of the Oversight Committee to testify. Do you think that Donald Trump should be in front of that committee testifying?
- [06:30]
B
Well, I mean, what's good for the goose by definition. Come on. I mean, you know, they set the tone, the tenor. Homer's got to do it. Or if he doesn't do it, the next administration, the next oversight committee needs to do it by definition. Come on. They said they set the standard, they lowered the bar, raised the bar, depending on one's perspective. And they made a mistake in that respect. I mean, what they put out today and yesterday as it relates to some of the videos and how Hillary Clinton ran circles around him, even Bill did is, you know, indicative of the mistake that Colmer made, continues to make as it relates to his oversight functions. But, you know, by definition, the guy who appears more than anyone else in the Epstein piles and he's more responsible in more ways and more days for more of the distrust and mistrust, the redactions and the questions. The President himself must appear and testify.
- [07:21]
A
Why do you think that comer was so hell bent on trying to bring Bill Clinton in front of the committee
- [07:26]
B
and Hillary Clinton, he's just, I mean, it's the Pizzagate folks. Back to your conspiracy in the open question. These, these folks are just, they thrive and live in that muck, in that sort of dark corner of the world we're living in. I mean, this sort of q world, etc. And so many ways it made sense. Plus, they want to embarrass the Clintons. They want to make this a democratic thing. They want to do it through the lens of the prism of a political dynamic and they want to move the bright lights away from Donald Trump. They're doing his bidding, period, full stop. They're not supine. They are activists in the cause of protecting Trump and Trumpism and the MAGA movement. And he is, I mean, he's just so, he's, he's so bad at it. That's the difference here. Yeah, exactly. And he's, he's just, I mean, he is he flailing? He's only got a few more months. That's the saving grace here. Look out when the shoe's on the other foot, when you got guys that are approximate to where we are, Robert Garcia and these others that know what the hell they're doing. And so, you know, these folks better strap on, they better put, get ready for, you know, make sure they're not deleting anything, make sure they got lawyers and make sure that they're prepared to testify because a hell a lot of people are going to be brought, brought in, including the DOJ itself.
- [08:38]
A
What would your message be to all of these Magaverse figures, The cash Patel's, Dan Bonginos, Pam Bondies, Alina Habas, all of these members of Congress, these senators who all threw their, even J.D. vance who threw their weight behind this idea that the only way to usher in some degree of transparency, some degree of accountability was to elect Donald Trump because they were the ones who would expose this criminal cabal of pedophiles who wrote to the highest levels of government. And then you've got Donald Trump in office, you have all these people who Built their brands off of, off of condemning what was happening in the government who are then put in positions of power like Ash Patel and Dan Bongino. And all of a sudden we are immersed in yet another government wide cover up, the very one that they claim to condemn.
- [09:21]
B
Yeah, the difference is their fingerprints are all over this and they're caught, you know, in plain sight. So they're all going to be held to their own standards, their own standards of accountability. The ones that they were purporting and promoting, those they were trying to hold everyone else to. Now they are part of the problem. They're not on the outside looking in. Bond, Bongino, whatever is, he's back on the outside. But he whiffed, failed. And so he either was lying, knowingly lying the entire time, he's yet to apologize for knowingly, blatantly lying about everything, or he's completely in on that cover up. And that will be uncovered. The difference is there will be accountability on the other side. Now, the only thing that can stop that, and it's something we need to be open our eyes wide open to, is the fact that these guys could all get presidential pardons on the way out. And I could see a scenario where Trump right now is deleting everything. Not just deleting things, literally removing any, just scrubbing everything.
- [10:17]
A
We already found out that there's three files that contain information about, about allegations against Trump himself that miraculously, conveniently, didn't manage to get released.
- [10:27]
B
Yeah. So look, nothing about everything. It's not complicated. I mean, this is, it's just he's, he has done everything he could to stop these things from being made public. So by definition, there are things in there that imply that he is part of the problem. Something big is in those files, period, full size. It's not complicated. This is not, it's, there's no other rational conclusion. And it's always about him. He doesn't mind laying everybody else out. He may be a little uncomfortable about it, particularly if they're business partners, particularly if there's part of the grift and they're going to be part of the larger economic opportunities for him personally. But at the end of the day, it's always about him. So there's something in the files that implicate him in a profound and outsized way. Because Trump can absorb a lot and figures, he can shape shift, change the conversation, shock and awe, move to, you know, advance a different agenda and then move the media focus elsewhere. But even he recognizes whatever's in there. Is so immovable in terms of the impact and damage it would do to him that he cannot allow it to be made public.
- [11:36]
A
Well, it's interesting you say that, because there was some sound released by Marjorie Taylor Greene, who kind of revealed that Donald Trump told her that his friends would get hurt, which struck me as bizarre because Trump. Trump's the main character in all of the activities that he participates in. Like, he. Since when has Donald Trump done anything to protect anybody else not named Donald Trump? And so when he tells Marjorie Taylor Greene, we couldn't possibly release the files because I wouldn't want my dear friends to get hurt. And so I'll. I'll jump on. I'll fall on the grenade here, like. So do you buy that idea?
- [12:10]
B
Unless, again. And the only way I buy that as a component part, a partial rationale, is there's an economic interest that's tied to that. To your point, he'll lay anyone out. He'll run anyone over. But if there's an economic benefit of not doing it, if there's some residual damage that could incur from it, he won't. So it's, again, it's just not that complicated. We tend to overcomplicate these things. What's interesting is the. Some members of the Republican Party are waking up to it. And the fact that the Republican Party itself even released what they did release is remarkable because the public opinion is just so overwhelming that they could not even resist the reality of their political situation, and they had to buck their dear leader.
- [12:58]
A
So I want to switch gears a little bit here. You've written the new book, Young man in a Hurry.
- [13:02]
B
Epstein is not in it. So if you were looking for anything on it, Epstein, it's not in this book.
- [13:08]
A
And this has. This is out for sale. So for anybody looking to purchase a copy, again, the title is Young man in a Hurry, and you can get it anywhere books are sold. There's one particular excerpt that I wanted that I wanted to read. Ten months earlier, Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq after his administration's historic campaign of lies convinced the American people that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. We could not extricate ourselves from that costly conflict for another 17 years. And yet here we are in March of 2026, finding ourselves on the doorsteps of another war in a Middle Eastern country. And so, given what you've written about there and what we all live through during the Bush era, what do you foresee happening as Donald Trump continues to kind of jump headfirst into this thing?
- [13:50]
B
Clearly, with no plan, which is remarkable because how badly that was implemented, adopted and initiated, at least there was some vague attempt at building a coalition and a rationale.
- [14:03]
A
I forgot who it was. Somebody said at least. At least Bush had the. Had the decency to have a better lie.
- [14:09]
B
A better lie? Yeah. I mean, or at least put someone else up there to do it. Poor Powell. But he tried to build an alliance and he at least tried to build a rationale and try to get the public buying him. Trump didn't do any of that. And so it's consistent, by the way, as you know, he's had more military airstrikes than Biden did in his entire four years. In his first first year.
- [14:27]
A
Right. And that includes, I mean, there are military actions, not just in Iran, but Venezuela, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya.
- [14:35]
B
Yeah, People forget that as the guy who promoted. None of that. So, once again, Trump is consistent in his inconsistency. The fact that he said he would never do something like this and lied about it. J.D. vance did same. People like Tulsi Gabbard did the same. You go through the list of all these MAGA guys, they lied. And so that's unsurprising. But here we are with now a regional war. We've got the Gulf states under attack, we've got our allies under attack. We now have oil prices starting to skyrocket. We got straight Hormuz, which has 20% of the world's oil passing through it with not a lot of activity. We've seen the market volatility. We're now going to pay the price. Six members of the military have lost their lives. Others likely are going to lose their lives. And again, Trump can't land on a rationale. No imminent threat. Yes, there was an imminent threat. Oh, inevitably there would have been because Israel was going to go anyway, says Rubio. Then they shape shift again, say, well, no, it's about the nuclear program. Wait, you just said it was obliterated. So that doesn't falter. No, it's about the missiles. No, it's about the proxies and the militia. No, it's about the Navy. They cannot simply land on any rationale. And so it's a remarkable, remarkable expression of sort of this cluelessness in terms of the foreign policy, but the profound consequences in real time, unintended and intended, that we're all going to have to suffer through.
- [15:57]
A
Why do you presume he actually did this?
- [15:59]
B
So there's a few. Look, if I was going to give my best attempt to sort of give a rational theory of the case. Yeah, you know, it was.
- [16:07]
A
By the way, this might be imbuing rationality where there exists, where there isn't,
- [16:10]
B
that, that after October 7th and what's happened in terms of Israel, not just in Gaza, but the impact to Hamas and the impact to Hezbollah in some of the Iranian proxies, what happened in that 12 day war last year and the degradation of their nuclear program, not to obliteration, but the success of those early strikes. They had a degraded regime and they had this sort of once in a lifetime opportunity, at least once in 37 years of the current former regime leader, 47 years overall, to hit them hard and finally deliver that punch. You have Netanyahu, who's facing elections, potential, facing corruption charges, have his opportunity to move forward with an extreme agenda, sort of Israeli apartheid with the annexation of the west bank, he's trying to take over any most influence in the Supreme Court. His own political survival, obviously prodding and pushing in this respect. And Trump had sort of set himself up by putting so many military assets and I think it was Napoleon or someone said the only use that you can't, that that is not appropriate for a sword is sitting on it. And so he couldn't sit on those assets. And so they moved. And in some ways that was not necessarily shocking, particularly after Trump's sort of drunkenness in terms of his forays in the Western hemisphere with Maduro and how they're going to try to do, you know, we'll see where they are adjacent to that in Cuba in this sense of purity as it came out of that, that those military strikes on those, on those nuclear sites. So, you know, from that position and his position of weakness domestically, his desire to always be the star, doesn't care if he's the heel or the hero, the ease to which the executive branch can move those operations and challenge norms, traditions, even the war Powers act in that respect, it wasn't shocking. But beyond that, what is equally shocking is the fact that it's clear they didn't even think through who would operate. They said, well, oh yeah, we killed. That was the guy we were hoping would take over. We killed him as well. And May or that person too. And well, we'll see. Maybe, maybe the person he said today could be worse. I don't know. Jesus, this all happened. It could be worse. Yeah, I mean, it's jaw dropping, the incompetency at full display.
- [18:26]
A
You know, I've gotten the question and I'm sure you've seen this question floating around too, is this idea that, you know, while all of this stuff is happening, happening at the hands of somebody who feels completely reckless, is this some entrance into World War iii? And so what would you say to that if somebody asked you that question?
- [18:41]
B
I just, we can't allow that to happen. And that just, that's a pit in the stomach that I just, you know, we, we, we have agency, we can shape the future. Congress can shape the future. They being more assertive, I appreciate.
- [18:51]
A
More, more assertive.
- [18:52]
B
Well, at least members of our party,
- [18:53]
A
you have to have some assertiveness to be more, I know.
- [18:55]
B
Well, I'm talking about not the majority, but at least members of the minority that have, are aggressively calling out, which I appreciate.
- [19:01]
A
So they vote in favor of bringing back their, their own authority.
- [19:04]
B
I don't know. I mean I, I've, I, I still vaguely remember and, and I think it was eighth grade or freshman sophomore year high school. The Constitution and this notion of co, equal branches of government, war powers and, and the War Powers Act, I mean little, it's not that complicated. And so by definition that's an easy vote for Democrats. But, but look, the, the nature that this is now in your seeing the uae, you're seeing it obviously Lebanon's getting more and more serious back and forth with Israel. The fact that this now is a regional war is alarming beyond words. And obviously seeing what's where China is in relationship to this, the impacts on oil and any oil impacts are going to disproportionately hurt them and their and Asian allies, United States allies, at least in Asia, where this plays as it relates to Ukraine vis a vis Putin. I mean Putin's over three here. I mean the only good thing, look, is Supreme Leader was a tyrant. Unquestionable, that's just a fact. But there are a lot of tyrants out there. So was Saddam. There's consequences when you take out the tyrant, you take out the leader and you try to impress upon this notion of a regime change. And so that's the consequence we're gonna have to live with and we have to contain that. And, and so I hope that Congress public opinion in here is what really matters. The markets contain seems to be the only one, bond market, stock market and the oil markets.
- [20:30]
A
So you had mentioned, you had mentioned Donald Trump's trying to basically usurp some authority domestically as it relates to these foreign incursions. And one concern that I've had is we saw just a few days ago the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration was basically putting together a memo that would declared that they have extraordinary powers in the aftermath of what they say was China interfering in the 2020 election. This would allow them. And I think the word that the Washington Post used was to unlock extraordinary presidential powers over voting. And then, of course, once the bombing started in Iran, one of the first things Trump posted was Iran had interfered in the 2020 and 2024 elections. And this is the consequence of that. And so we can seen numerous instances where Trump is looking for some foreign scapegoat to give himself the pretext to declare, you know, extraordinary powers domestically as far as our elections are concerned. If he does issue some executive order as the governor of California, what do you do in the immediate aftermath of that?
- [21:34]
B
And there was some implication that he was trying to connect the Fulton county issues with Maduro as well. I mean, so we've seen this over and over. He tries to exercise these emergency powers so he can have more authoritarian opportunities to assert himself without any oversight and without any rational engagement with a co. Equal branch of government. Only thing that stopped him ultimately are the courts, which is interesting. The only. There's a vague heartbeat. I don't want to oversell the U.S. supreme Court right now, but there have been at least two decent opinions as it relates to tariffs and obviously the National Guard. So look, where we are is we're calling this out in real time. We continue to make the point future happens here first, when it comes to so many of these things that we are America's coming attraction. We saw that in the federalization of the National Guard. We saw that Greg Bovino and his masked men, the secret police. We saw that as relates to what he tried to do on election day with the BORTAC teams to chill free expression and speech. What he did with the doj, what he did by saying this election was rigged before one vote was cast on election morning through True Social. We made the point. And a lawsuit months ago, before the lawsuit was highlighted in Minneapolis, in Minnesota, related to the DOJ going after our voting rules roles. So we're in litigation. I was in Fulton county talking to their elections officials and what he's trying to do there to take over that. I mean, this guy is not screwing around the federalization of the. Of. Of or nationalization rather of the vote. And then looking at 15 states in particular. Why did we do Prop 50. It was all a relationship that he will go to the ends of the earth to rig the election, to steal this election in plain sight. So, yeah, we have to draw the line. Litigation, formal authority, use our moral authority. Continue to remind people what's at stake. Call every one of these things out. None of this is. We're not overstating things here. We may be understating. And that report only highlights that this guy is not screwing around. And this is it for us. This is. This is the whole, whole game, 2026. The only thing that matters is getting Speaker Jeffries in office. Only thing that matters is that we put everything on the line to save this republic, to save this democracy, so we can celebrate 220, you know, 251 years of this historic project.
- [23:51]
A
When you went to Fulton county, what did they have to say?
- [23:54]
B
It's jaw dropping. What's going on there. I mean, it's actually shocking beyond words.
- [23:59]
A
Was there, was there, was there a mechanism wherein that. Wherein they don't allow Tulsi Gabbard get the. Get the ballots because she was able to do that.
- [24:06]
B
At the end of the day, they took everything. And now what they're trying to do is potentially use again, some authority, some mysterious authority. Right. To then appoint their own election commissioners to oversee one of the most critical counties. Election in the next. When the next ballot. I mean, this is. It's happening in plain sight.
- [24:25]
A
Yeah.
- [24:25]
B
So it's. It's not. They're not, you know, we may, you know, people may tune in and say, geez, these guys are a little bit, you know, unhinged in their comments. No, no, this guy's unhinged in his action.
- [24:40]
A
Yes.
- [24:41]
B
And it's happening with the complicit propaganda network and Fox in this media that's not calling them out. And at supine Congress, to your point, and as current speaker, who's in on this and all of the folks out there that in the national security and these sort of power agencies and these sort of, you know, the O.J. iRS, all these others that are all part of. Of this larger effort to suppress free speech, free expression, and ultimately impact the outcome of the election. And remember, if it goes south, he'll likely suggest that it was rigged, and then the vote count will be in doubt, and the prospects of even Speaker Jeffries is going to be put into question because Speaker Johnson may play games on the back end of this.
- [25:27]
A
So I want to use something that you said to go into our last topic here, and that is you had mentioned the idea of a complicit media. And of course, we're here in Los Angeles and we just found out that moving forward is the merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers, Discovery beating out Netflix to do so, which means if it does go through that David Ellison, the Ellison family, the pro Trump Ellison family, would consolidate even more of their hold on the entertainment industry and specifically on the news. Because it's not just CBS where Bari Weiss is in charge, but now we've got cnn, which would be under the thumb of the Ellison family as well. And so I've spoken to the attorney general, Rob Bonta. Obviously he has some authority, he has some standing to challenge this if he decides to. You know that his investigation shows that there's grounds to do so. From what you've seen on your vantage, and I know that your office is different from his office, but just based on what you've seen, do you think that this is a violation of antitrust law?
- [26:25]
B
Well, they're going to end. Look, they have a responsibility to review it. So do other ags, not just the state of California. No state's going to be more impacted than California. We're going to be impacted in many different ways. You could just go to the, you know, to the immediate reality of the creative community impacts and the loss of jobs. We've seen with these mergers in the past, even the Fox Disney merger, the number of productions that were substantially reduced, the marketing teams, the cloud computing and the cost for consumers going to also be impacted because you've got more consolidation, less competition in the space, who also have impact on real estate here in Southern California and obviously the streaming components that are emerging. But you saw CAR at the federal level already say everything looks rosy and fine. And the fact that you began with saying the Ellison family mean David, who I know and, but, you know, he's there with Lindsey Graham at the State of the Union. And they're not even faking it. They're not even faking it. And so, you know, this is, it's code Red, you know, and no one wants to see this kind of consolidation. It's TikTok now. It's CBS and CNN. I mean, do you think for a second Trump is not going through the list of primetime candidates to replace the current PrimeTime lineup at CNN? I mean, I was just at CNN a couple days ago with Anderson Cooper and doing his podcast. You felt the chill there.
- [27:48]
A
Yeah.
- [27:48]
B
And I mean, it's. This is a chill. And now you have. That chill is also going to be reflected. It's what's not said on CNN starting yesterday, the day before, the segments they don't produce as everyone's preening and auditioning right now, just trying to keep their careers going to save their jobs, where producers start moving everybody's in the shape shifting space and that's what's so insidious about what's going on. So yeah, I'm glad Rob's taking a look at it. He of course sent a letter even if Netflix was going to do this deal, to both suitors saying he's taking a look at that's his legal response and obligation. But I hope all this stuff gets the kind of vetting that the American people deserve before it's too late.
- [28:31]
A
So I know that that is more of a national issue, but as far as the entertainment industry in California, I want to go a little bit local here because again, we are here in LA and over the last decade or so the industry has been pretty decimated. Not just, and we've spoken about this virtually every time that we have an interview, we speak about this issue. Not just because other states have been able to grab business from Los Angeles, but now other countries are doing the same. And so what needs to be done to get work back to Los Angeles, to get the industry back into Los Angeles?
- [29:03]
B
Well, I mean, obviously doubling, if you
- [29:06]
A
had a magic wand.
- [29:07]
B
So doubling tax credits was great, it was important, but it was a stopgap measure. We need to substantially streamline all the local permitting, which is a huge issue, remains a massive issue. You do not have the local permitting problems in a lot of other states that continue to persist here in Los Angeles and in the region. We have to have a simple one stop shop as it relates to that. Not just state permits, federal permits to the extent there are some overlays, but notably local permits. So localism is determinative in that respect. Number two, the debate about above the line as it relates to the tax credit, the ability to get folks from overseas particularly compete with the uk. You have to start looking above the line. New Jersey did a version. Their tax credits have actually produced some results in that respect. That has a lot of support and a lot of opposition. But again, I'm magic wand right now so you'd start to address that. You combine those two things, you have a much more proactive and assertive combination of state, regional and local support for the industry, support for advocating to writers to write scripts that are place based, which is a critical component of this. One of the things we've seen with a lot of production that has landed here, it started with the writer that started drafting and writing in a landscape.
- [30:23]
A
So we just need every writer to place their projects on Sunset Boulevard.
- [30:27]
B
Basically, you got it. So it's a combination of all those factors.
- [30:32]
A
If you're able to say that. And by the way, I have a crew here that's looking at you and nodding as you're saying, streamlining the permitting process. And I know how it goes in Los Angeles versus other cities. If it's so easy for you to say that, why is it not easy enough for the city council, for example, to just enact it?
- [30:50]
B
Well, this is exactly what I'm doing when it comes to the rebuilding. I was just in the Palisades talking about some of the continuing issues as it relates to permits and rebuild for the fires itself. You know, it's just. You know what it is? It's just layers and layers of jurisdiction and bureaucracy. La county has 88 cities. We just think about the functionality or lack thereof as it relates to just different jurisdictions and how you navigate in within the county when you're doing shoots in multiple cities within the county. So it starts from that labyrinth and that perspective. And so you just got to break down all these damn barriers. And that's about local leadership. At the end of the day, yeah, we can assert ourselves. We have executive orders, we can do the tax cuts as it relates to the film tax credits that we did at the state level. But localism, I'll say it again, is determinative in that respect. And it's getting everybody to understand how vulnerable this moment is. In Los Angeles. You've got so many great things happening, so much built investment in capital. This merger sort of offers. You know, they're going to have to double down on Burbank. In many respects, it's one of the big. It's a huge real estate portfolio play as well, which is important. Netflix still plays an outside role in terms of production down here. We're seeing the industry shift, and obviously that shift has its downside, but also there's some opportunities there. And so this is a critical moment. The state will play its role, but again, in terms of streamlining, reorganizing, recalibrating, deal with NIMBYism, not just from a housing mindset, but a filmmaking mindset. Everyone has to understand how vulnerable this moment is, how we can lose this. And I also hope that Trump I'll end on this, also takes this opportunity to do something for American filmmaking by creating some incentives federally so that we can bring back these productions domestically. And that also is a big part of this. Right?
- [32:41]
A
Like you said, I mean, the UK has taken a lot of work. Canada has been taking work for years and years and years. If you were so effective at mobilizing this state as it relates to Prop 50 and these maps to fight fire with fire and neutralize the power grab that we saw in Texas. Is there that same fervor to cut through red tape and kind of, you know, we've spoken about the abundance agenda and actually making liberal governance work. Is there that same desire among down ballot leadership in this state to do exactly that, to make liberal governance work?
- [33:18]
B
I think there is. I think the public's had it. They want liberalism that builds. I mean, that's why we got the Holy Grail housing reforms done last year. But of course I had to put it in the budget. Still wasn't easy. I had to link it, which is not where you do legislation, but it was on land use reforms and then ultimately what we refer to as sequel reforms. And it was profound and it will be profoundly consequential. It was interesting the people that opposed it initially, sort of protecting their local flank, were quietly supporting it, but publicly had to oppose it because of the politics. But that said, the politics is beginning to shift. And so Look, I've done 28 executive orders just waving, you name it, I've waived it. Coming back to the rebuild of LA Post, the fires, and to the extent there's an executive order I can sign in this space place, I'm happy to do it.
- [34:04]
A
Well, if you're able to waive, if you're able to waive those things as it relates to Pacific Palisades and the fire rebuild, what about statewide?
- [34:11]
B
It's all through an emergency lens back to Donald Trump in the manufacturing of emergencies. So it's, it's a, it's a cautionary point. But in that emergency mindset, of course, we had it at scale and Covid, and people can adjudicate the merits and demerits of that, but in these emergency frames, you have a lot more. Sorry. But when you have these sort of slower deaths, as it were, that are, you know, sort of flashing yellow lights, it's more difficult. But I think we're there with, with Hollywood and I think, look, everyone says the right things. Everyone I talk to in local government, all the members of the board, city council, all say the right things. It's just a question of leadership landing and doing the right things and being accountable.
- [34:54]
A
Well, to that end, I'm going to read a couple of sentences from your book here to end off on that note. And that was a conversation, I'm gonna read about a conversation that you had on the phone. It was, what the fuck are you doing here? Why do we work so hard to win if you can't do something bold. This is a short life, Gavin. Your time as a politician to get things done is just a blip. And so to that end, I mean, there is not that much time and, and we have the opportunity to, you know, rebuild this state and rebuild this city. And I do hope that people take that to heart and use the power that they do have to do exactly that.
- [35:26]
B
I love that. And that was a relationship to same sex marriage in 2004 before anyone was ready for it. And so look, that's the spirit that defines the time. It's the abundance mindset. It's the spirit, look, that I think we have to, in closing acknowledge that Trump is brought to the endeavor. He stretched the mind of possibility of what can be done. It's just destruction is not strength. He's not a builder, he's a destroyer. We need to be builders. The Democratic Party needs to be builders. But with that same mindset of urgency that's reflected in that quote and I think in the urgency of your question.
- [36:01]
A
Again, the book is Young man in a Hurry by Gavin Newsom. Again, I'm gonna put that link in the post description of this video and also on the screen. Governor Newsom, I appreciate you taking the time.
- [36:09]
B
It's good to be with you.
- [36:13]
A
No lie is brought to you by Huell. So my biggest problem in 2026 by a mile is that I have no time for even the basic stuff. Work is so busy. And as I'm sure all of you know, the first thing to fall by the wayside is meals. By the time I even realize that I miss breakfast, I've already missed lunch. I need something easy and fast and complete, which is why I drink Huel ready to drink literally every day. Right now I'm drinking chocolate peanut butter flavor, which is my favorite flavor of any drink. And this is delicious. It also legit fills me up, so I'm not immediately running back to the fridge to snack five minutes later. Which makes sense because it has 35 grams of protein, 27 essential vitamins and minerals, no artificial sweeteners, colors, or flavors. It's gluten free. All of which means that for under five bucks per meal, you get a complete meal that you can literally grab and go. I should also note that if you want to really control which ingredients are added, Huel also has a powder option so that you can add fruits or creatine or peanut butter or anything you want. So either way, whether you're on the go with this, ready to drink, or making it at home with the powder. You're all taken care of. So if you're trying to stay consistent, this combo makes it easier. It very easy. We've got a limited time offer. Get Huel today with my exclusive offer of 15% off online with my code BTC@huell.com BTC new customers only. Thank you to Huell for partnering and supporting this show. I'm joined now by the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta. Thanks for joining me.
- [37:36]
C
My pleasure. Good to see you, Brian.
- [37:37]
A
So news just broke that Paramount will be merging with Warner Brothers Discovery, beating out Netflix for this merger. And it consolidates a lot of the media under the pro Trump Ellison family. Obviously, this is what Trump wanted. He seems hell bent on making sure that Netflix didn't get this, didn't get this deal, that it would be Larry Ellison and David Ellison who actually got this deal so that they can turn cnn, for example, into what they've turned CBS into, which is a pro Trump media outlet. Recognizing that this isn't going to face any pushback at the hands of the DOJ or the ftc, who obviously wants this deal. And they exist as appendages of Trump himself. There still exists the possibility that state attorneys general can have some impact here. And nobody has more standing in terms of these two movie studios merging than California. And so as the Attorney General of California, can you give us some insight into the standing that you might have in terms of stopping this from happening?
- [38:37]
C
Absolutely. And first, I'll say this is not a done deal. To those who think it is, I say not so fast. There are regulatory hurdles, including my office's overview and review and on pending current investigation that need to be completed. And so we are looking at this merger and whether it violates antitrust law, whether it has, whether it's anti competitive, whether it is going to raise prices and lower wages for workers and reduce competition and quality and choice. All part of the analysis. And we have independent authority as a state and there are other states who are interested in conducting a review as well. Regardless of what the United States federal government does, regardless of what the US DOJ does, if the US DOJ approves the merger, we still have an opportunity to block the merger if we wish. You know, we have to finish the investigation and come to some final conclusions about what action is appropriate. Maybe we will agree that the merger can go through, maybe we think it should be blocked or maybe something in between. But the main point is we have independent authority and we're going to exercise that authority. We're going to do it right. No politics, just looking at the law, looking at the facts, looking at the impacts that are appropriate to look at under an antitrust analysis, get our experts under the hood and make a decision. So we're engaged in that process now and we will complete that process and make a final decision.
- [40:02]
A
In the event that you do find that this is a violation of antitrust law, who's the arbiter of whether or not that's, that's true? Is it the California state system or is it the federal court system?
- [40:14]
C
This is usually in federal court, but when we bring cases with the federal government or multi states and we're asserting something under federal law like the Sherman act or the Clayton act, often we're in federal court, not always. We have a case right now against Amazon where we have a state law antitrust claim under the Cartwright act only, and we're in San Francisco Superior Court and state court. But more often than not, particularly when it's a multi state action and when federal is a, what we call a federal question, a federal statute at issue, again the Clayton act or the, or the Sherman act, then we are in federal court, federal district court.
- [40:55]
A
I asked that question because the end of the line for the federal court system is obviously the U.S. supreme Court, which is a political actor. I mean, they might claim that there's some neutral arbiter, but it is a political actor. And so does that play any role in, in the decision making process as to where this whole case is going to end up? Like, could that play some role in terms of whether, whether you look into violations of state versus federal law when you're determining where and how to bring this case?
- [41:27]
C
Generally not, you know, it's something that we're not unaware of. I will say recently some big victories for California and massive embarrassing losses for Trump in front of the US Supreme Court where he has three of his appointed justices serving, whether it be the National Guard case out of Illinois, the recent terrorist case last Friday, you know, his centerpiece economic policy, or Prop 50, California's lawful partisan redistricting measure, we want on all those in front of the U.S. supreme Court. And Trump very much wanted the opposite outcome. So I think the Supreme Court can be a place where when we bring the law on the facts and we bring in a compelling case, as we did in all those cases, we can prevail. But where we have like our Live Nation Ticketmaster case in the District of New Jersey, our Amazon case is really unique in being in superior court. So it's more likely than not that we'd be in federal court. And these cases don't often get to the U.S. supreme Court. They're usually addressed at the district court level, sometimes with appeals, but usually we have a judge assigned to the case and we get to an outcome on liability and then we move to damages and potentially injunctive relief. And the U.S. supreme Court doesn't usually have a role to play.
- [42:47]
A
And I do want to talk about those other cases that you have going on right now, including the case against Amazon and the case against Ticketmaster. Obviously, the latter is a highly publicized one because everybody knows what it's like to try and buy tickets these days. But I want to stick with the Paramount, Warner Brothers discovery merger for just another moment. In terms of the consolidation of these major media conglomerates, when we've seen other media companies merge together, what kind of an impact has that had on price? Because obviously, you know, the point of these antitrust laws is to make sure that, that, that it doesn't result in higher prices for consumers. It would, it would lend itself to reason that when these, you know, that when an already dwindling number of movie studios or media companies merge, they then have the ability to raise the, raise prices. And so I'm just curious, in, in navigating this question right off the bat, in previous mergers, have you seen that exact behavior happen? Because that might lend some insight into whether or not what we're going to see right now could be legal or illegal.
- [43:51]
C
Yes, we have seen this before. Generally, when you have corporate consolidation, prices go up, quality goes down, wages get lower, choice is decreased. And so, you know, there's less competition. We want high competition, we want affordable prices, we want choice for the consumer. And so corporate consolidation is antithetical to all those things. It could still be lawful. That's why we have to look. But there are some real red flags here based on the size of these, as you mentioned, these corporate conglomerates, they operate in multiple markets. They're not just studios. They also operate in the streaming market, as you mentioned, they also operate specifically in news. And so there are massive impacts across multiple markets of a potential merger here. But generally, yes, when you see corporate consolidation, you also see prices going up along with it.
- [44:49]
A
Okay, so I want to zoom out to the other to include the other cases that you spoke about. But before we get into the specifics, on Amazon and Live Nation, slash Ticketmaster, why is it the responsibility of attorneys general like yourself to take this on when you know, isn't this exactly what the FTC should be doing? At the federal level, like, isn't it their job to make sure that, especially in an administration that beat its chest about affordability, that they're not creating anti competitive behavior that only to your exact point, raises the prices for consumers by allowing mergers like we're seeing right now?
- [45:27]
C
A very astute question. Yes. The federal government has traditionally played this role to enforce antitrust law, whether it be the United States Department of Justice or the ftc, as you mentioned, both have big offices, big teams that have been able to do this work. These are high resource cases. They require economists and experts and large trial teams to present the case and apply the law. And traditionally, the federal government has been a central player, if not the central player in these cases. In addition to the tariffs which raise prices for consumers across our nation, not enforcing antitrust law is perhaps just as powerful or an additionally powerful driver of costs that the President is allowing for. A President who said he was going to reduce costs on day one. So if he didn't have his unlawful tariffs and just let them be struck down by the Supreme Court or never implemented unlawful tariffs in the first place, and if he just did what every other antitrust, Federal Antitrust Division did at the US DOJ and through the FTC and enforced the law, he would reduce prices. But he's going the opposite way. Costs are going up. So in the absence of the federal government doing their role, doing their job, states need to step up and fill that role and fill that gap. California is the largest state Department of Justice in the nation. The only Department of Justice larger than us is the US doj. We have a big team. We focus on and prioritize antitrust work. And we're prepared to do our due diligence on these cases, complete our investigations for the ones we're investigating, you know, go to trial if necessary, or resolve the case in a way that's consistent with our demands. If we're going to settle on all these cases, and we will, and we're not likely going to be operating alone, you know, we are. Our Ticketmaster Live Nation case is already a multi state case with multiple states in it. And I know there's interest from other states in Paramount, Warner Brothers as well.
- [47:35]
A
Can you talk about those two outstanding cases, the Ticketmaster Live Nation case and the Amazon case?
- [47:43]
C
Sure. I mean, we have a. We filed a suit already, we being the federal government and multiple states in the District Court of New Jersey against Live Nation Ticketmaster for violating federal antitrust law, specifically the Sherman Act.
- [47:57]
A
So this one actually includes the DOJ along with the state AGs. Is that correct?
- [48:01]
C
Yes, it does. And it started under Biden there in the live music, the live concert industry. Ticketmaster, Live Nation operates tickets, promotion and venue, all of them. And they leverage them against each other. They require sort of tying arrangements so that you have to use all three. And they stifle competition and they jack up prices. As you mentioned, this is an area where people who have been, you know, have their own personal experience with Ticketmaster, know that these prices are just way too high and it doesn't make sense. So there's a lot of public sentiment behind this, this legal case. It's moving towards trial. Now, we believe that the federal government might be not acting as we hope they would in staying strong and staying firm and having strong demands and a strong position for settlement. And if we can't get that in settlement, they're going to trial. So it's looking more and more unfortunately like states are going to have to carry the load, which we can and we will. But it is, to your point, very unfortunate that the federal government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to enforcing antitrust law and protecting consumers and protecting anti competitive conduct by these big corporations.
- [49:22]
A
And then the Amazon case, yes, Amazon
- [49:24]
C
is a case we brought on our own, just California. We were the only plaintiff. We're suing in California Superior Court in San Francisco. And we assert essentially a price fixing scheme where Amazon claims that they have the lowest price on their platform. But what they do is they actually raise prices. When there is a vendor on their platform has the same product on another platform, another retailer site at a lower price, they demand that the vendor raise the price on the other platform so it's the same as the higher price on Amazon. And Amazon can then claim it's the lowest. There's no lower price offered, but it's because they price fixed and raised prices across different retailer platforms. They might also ask the vendor to take their product off the other platform so there's no comparison price. And in this way, Amazon raises prices instead of lowers them by using their power, their leverage, their conduct to really squeeze these vendors who need Amazon to be able to sell their product and be able to be successful. So just this week we filed a preliminary injunction motion. During the course of our investigation, we found additional evidence supporting this scheme and providing additional documentary evidence to support it. And we are moving immediately to have that action and that conduct stopped. If you want to talk about lowering prices, so many people use Amazon and Amazon is raising their prices through this illegal price fixing scheme. And we think this can make a real difference in everyday Americans lives. And it's unlawful.
- [51:12]
A
In the event that California is successful, is there a way that other state AGs could copy the exact case that you've brought against Amazon and you know, replicate it 49 other times so that they can either, you know, put Amazon in a situation where they're going to lose 49 other times or recognize that if they're going to engage in monopolistic behavior or anti competitive behavior, that, that it's going to cost them a lot more money. And so that might force them into a position where they preemptively change their ways so that they're not, you know, so that there's some deterrent effect.
- [51:48]
C
Basically, yeah. You know, California drives markets a lot large, you know, fourth largest market in the nation, of course, fourth largest economy in the world, if we were a nation. So it might be that Amazon, should we prevail here and secure the relief that we believe is warranted, that they could change their practices throughout the United States of America? Don't know that. But that's not impossible. If not, then yes, we do provide us sort of blueprint and a guide book for how others might pursue similar cases. They'll need to have a similar law like our Cartwright act here. We have our own antitrust law here. The state of California under state law, I don't think all states have that. So they would need to have the appropriate tool. But yes, either we are able to deliver the result nationwide on our own or other states could join in the
- [52:42]
A
effort, and that's a good point to other states to consider adopting legislation like the Cartwright act so that in the event we have a Republican Party in power that is perfectly content to engage in the cronyism that we're seeing right now, at least there is some bulwark at the state level like the one that we're lucky enough to take advantage of here in our home state of California. So with that said, Attorney General Bonta, as always, I appreciate the time.
- [53:06]
C
I appreciate it too. Thanks, Brian. Good to see you. You.
- [53:11]
A
I'm joined now by Bobby Lapin, who is running in Maryland's 46th Senate District. Bobby, you are running against somebody who's been dubbed the most hated Democrat in America. You just found a way to get his attention in a way that you haven't been able to do before. Can you explain what you did?
- [53:28]
D
So coming into this race, you know what pulled me into this race to give you background, understand where this came from, the guy that I'm running against twice killed a provision in a bill that would have prevented Maryland law enforcement cooperation with ICE they call 287 agreements. I live in a pretty highly immigrant neighborhood, and so that really made me angry. I announced that I was running against him, and just hours after I announced my candidacy, he turned his, changed his position on 287 agreements. And we actually passed the band in this session. It's been signed into law. So with redistricting, because redistricting is such an important issue, you can't turn on the news without seeing the horrible things that are happening in this country. And I try to use my voice, my social media, my volunteers, my supporters to try to push redistricting into the point that in a representative democracy where we elect people to go to represent us, the last thing that should happen with any type of bill that is popular or impactful is that it dies behind closed doors. So the redistricting bill in Maryland overwhelmingly passed in the House of Delegates. In fact, each district in Maryland has one senator and three delegates. And the three delegates in the district that I'm running in, basically the three delegates that work with my opponent, Bill Ferguson, they all three of them voted for redistricting in the House of Delegates. When that bill was sent over to the Senate, Bill Ferguson used his power as Senate president to basically kill it in committee. Didn't have a hearing, didn't have a vote. So we started a petition through Move on. And the petition basically said, regardless of where you are in redistrict, whether you're for it or against it, I think we can all agree on this, that in a representative democracy, that only works if the people we elect actually represent us. And so by my opponent disallowing the rest of the 46 senators in the state of Maryland from even having a debate or a vote on the floor, it literally attacks the foundations of democracy itself. So we had almost 7,000 signatures for that petition, basically requiring that there be a debate and vote on the Senate floor. We got that in about a week. And I delivered it personally to the state House. I wasn't allowed to see him because I wanted to give it to him personally, face to face, man to man type of thing. But that wasn't accepted. So a nice police officer over there delivered it to his office for me. From that point, we heard nothing. The petition's still out there. It's getting more signatures. But in the reality of things, and I guess this is the sad part here, is, you know, our deadline to file for candidacy in Maryland was Tuesday. And in order for redistricting to even be still an option, we would have to pass now a series of new laws in both the House of Delegates and the State Senate. Basically moving back the deadline to file for candidacy and also moving back our primary, which if we couldn't even get redistricting, to have a simple debate in the Senate, it's just out of the question that these two additional laws will probably be introduced and voted on.
- [56:39]
A
Yeah. You know, Bobby, I think one of the biggest problems that Democrats are contending with is this idea that there are a lot of anti Democratic or undemocratic aspects of the party. You know, it's been plaguing us for a decade now. I mean, we saw the superdelegate situation with Bernie and Hillary and even in this latest general election cycle, there always felt like there wasn't enough of a choice. What is this? What is something like what Bill Ferguson is doing here or has done here? How does that further add to the brand problems that the Democrats are contending with?
- [57:16]
D
It's 100%. And I don't want to say it's all Democrats either. I just want to say that it's status quo establishment Democrats, the corporate backed Democrats, because there are a ton of people out there like me, progressives who aren't taking money from corporate PACs, who aren't taking money from developers, who are earnestly doing this. Because I'm a working person trying to fight for working person. And I feel both parties, Republicans and the establishment Democrats aren't fighting for me and people like me, obviously, and the redistricting goes into this, this deeper conversation about what's happening in America. When I was a government teacher in high school, I used to tell my students that the biggest impact on your life is local government. You know, all government is local. And if you think about what's happening throughout this country, it is horrible. Obviously, we need to win back Congress. I want to say that that's so super important. We need to fight back against authoritarianism. But while we're all focusing on Donald Trump and everyone is focusing on D.C. like all the Democrats, for the last decade, MAGA has quietly and methodically been looking at state races, they've been trying to take over school boards, they've been trying to take over city council races, they're trying to take over state legislators, legislatures. And meanwhile, the Democrat establishment is focusing so much on D.C. so much on an organization that has less than a 30% chance of actually passing meaningful legislation that working people by large amounts would agree to in this country, it's literally Congress. Just seems like if I was running for Congress and I won, I would feel like I'm going to D.C. to just bat my head against the wall, because it doesn't seem. We've seen it all, like, nothing happens. And the best that we can rely on from this Congress is strongly worded letters, Donald Trump, you know.
- [59:05]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [59:06]
A
Well, also, also, you know, I'm sure there's a post office or two getting renamed, so don't. Don't forget about.
- [59:10]
D
Oh, yeah, right, right, right. And probably banners going up and so on and so forth. But, like, and this is what I mean, and this is what I want people to understand, because it's so super important to understand how local politics is. When Florida banned books, that wasn't Congress that did it. It was their state legislature. This week alone, we saw that transgender people in Kansas are being threatened with jail time if they don't turn in their driver's license and their IDs and change it to their birth gender. Literally, you'll go to jail. Either you out yourself or you go to jail. And that was a state legislature. You know, if we look at energy prices, if we look at the way SNAP is administered, if we look at how we spend money on education, that's all of your state legislature. Even redistricting itself. Let's be honest about this. Texas, California, Ohio, North Carolina, here in Maryland, wasn't Congress all state legislatures? And while it is important to win back Congress and it is important to support progressive candidates who are trying to shake up the party, the more you ignore the local and the state, you're your city councils, your county councils. That is how MAGA can have a lifetime hold on this country. I just want to remind people about. I mean, look at the guy that I'm running against. Okay, we already talked about that. You know, hundreds of Maryland families were deported because he failed to ban 287 agreements. Why? Because he said he was afraid of retaliation from Donald Trump. I entered the race as a good working person trying to do good by my community, and he changes his stance. I have poor folks, brown and black folks all over Baltimore City that live near a trash incinerator, a trash incinerator in which my candidate took money from. And Meanwhile, it's causing $100 million worth of health damages each year for working people. And while everybody is focusing on Donald Trump and the Congress and so on and so forth, we have state legislators out there all throughout this country who are taking advantage of local people. That is where I really want to implore people that they have to pay attention. The biggest investment you can make in life, the biggest investment is investing in someone who will go to, you know, whatever your state house is or whatever your city council is and literally bring your voice with them. Someone who is unbought by the corporations and only owes allegiance to the people, the working people of this country through Citizens United and through all of these things that we have seen, you know, in the past couple of years. You know, it feels hopeless out there, right, Brian? It feels hopeless. But here's the hope in this. Here's the hope in this. And I want to be clear about this. There's what, 537 elected federal politicians in D.C. there's roughly 8,000 elected state representatives throughout this country. There are 165 million working people in this country. So although the billionaires can use their money to buy elections like they buy a yacht, and our media owned by the same billionaires are trying to keep us distracted by fighting each other over cultural wars while they're trying to win this class war. We have to remember the strength that people have. 165 million working people in this country. If we rise up together, if those people would find a guy like me and donate 27 bucks to a campaign I'm running against a guy who's got 2 million, this is how we take our voices back. By one city council district at a time, by one county council district at a time, by one state at a time. And then we'll take the federal government.
- [62:49]
A
That was perfectly put. I'm gonna put the link to that point before we continue to donate to Bobby's campaign right here on the screen. And also in the post description of this video, if you've got a few bucks and you're looking to help elevate the voice of somebody whose voice clearly needs to be elevated, please take this opportunity right now. It can have a big impact. And look, there. There is a reason that, you know, I don't interview a lot of state senate candidates in various states across the country. In fact, I don't think I've interviewed any state senate candidates in any state across the country. But there's a reason that I'm interviewing Bobby and that I've interviewed Bobby before. It's because his voice is one that we need to elevate. This is somebody who should be in a position of power. So, again, if you're. If you have the opportunity. Opportunity to donate, please go ahead and do so.
- [63:32]
D
And I got to say, Brian, real quick and it's not about me, man. It's about all of us. Like, we all feel the same way. I'm just saying what everyone is saying at home in their living room, everybody watching this video and your videos, everyone's saying the same thing. We were just fed up, you know, and. But yes, I do need the help. So make good change dot com. I would appreciate you all if you can just pitch in what you can. 27 bucks for democracy all.
- [63:56]
A
Bobby, to that end, what is the focus of your campaign? I know. What was the impetus to kind of jump in and join? But let's say you have the opportunity to represent your constituents in the 46th district in Maryland. What's going to be your priority?
- [64:12]
D
Affordability. 100%. I mean, it's. I think it's the. You know, we listened to that ridiculous state of the union the other day, right? This ridiculous state of the Union that's trying to tell us, oh yeah, the economy's great, everything's good. The dowels at $50,000. But meanwhile, that doesn't really translate well into bread prices or the amount of money that we have in our bank accounts right now in Maryland and in Most in the 13 states in our energy grid are facing incredibly high energy bills. I mean, energy bills that are so high that senior citizens are now choosing between keeping the lights on or buying their prescription medication. Working families are having to choose between going out and like taking their kids to a movie or paying their electricity bill. I mean, I'm talking about my electricity bill. I live like in an 1100 square foot home. See guys, I'm truly a working person. I live in an 1100 square foot home with my wife. And our electric bill was nearly $500 for one month. How is that even possible? And in the end, you go back and you see that the guy I'm running against has taken over $100,000 as the Senate President from BGER local utility monopoly. He's taken personally tens of thousands of dollars from utility companies. And then he comes to the people and he says, oh, I'm blaming BGE on all this, but how can you simply stand there and tell working people that, oh, the utility company is super, super bad, when literally what were they paying you for, Bill? What did they give you? 25. He took in 2024. He hosted a $25,000 per ticket. It Colorado getaway. We live in Maryland, okay? Colorado Giveaway. Of which the CEO of BG attended and the CEO of Washington Gasoline and United Healthcare and Care First. $25,000 a ticket. And what's crazy is if you think about that, like, $25,000 is a ton of money to me, you know, as a working person. But if you step back and you look at how much profits the utility companies, how much profit exelon makes in 2024, $25,000 to them is the equivalent of 7 cents. So for 7 cents, Bill Ferguson sold these senior citizens out, sold these working families out. It's struggling young people trying just to afford a life. You know, we have rent prices that are spiraling out of control. The American dream is dead. Do you know, like, everyone is talking about rent stable stabilization and rent caps, and that is needed. But we also have to talk about this American dream where people can own a home. You know, we're pushing so many young people and just being renters, and no one is talking about, well, what should we do to make housing more affordable where young people can have that American dream that folks had decades ago, the pride of owning your own home and be able to have some spending cash in your pocket at the end of the day to go out to a movie, to go have a drink with friends, to go watch a football. Affordability is the biggest thing. And for years from the beginning, when they enslaved people to do the work of the rich, then the immigrants came to this country to do the work of the rich. All mistreated. All mistreated because the rich have always controlled the roost. But in the end of the day, the Hope is this. 537 federal politicians, 8,000 state politicians, 165 million of us hardworking Americans who built this country with our hands. That's the power, man.
- [67:46]
A
Perfectly put, Bobby. I'm gonna leave it there. He's running against Bill Ferguson, who has been dubbed the most hated Democrat in America. We don't have to settle for bad Democrats. We don't have to settle for bought and sold Democrats. We have a solution here. It's right in front of us. I would ask if you have the opportunity to donate. Donate. If you have the opportunity to volunteer for Bobby's campaign, volunteer for the campaign. If you know anybody in Maryland, please send them this video. Send them Bobby's information, subscribe to his social media and share his social media posts with them. We don't have to settle for what we don't deserve here. So, Bobby, best of luck in the campaign trail. As I. As I've said before, and thanks for taking the time today.
- [68:28]
D
Hey, thank you, Brian. And thank you for you using your voice too, man. I appreciate you.
- [68:32]
A
Thanks again. To Gavin Newsom, Rob Bonta and Bobby Lapin. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Sunday. 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 Nicoterra. 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.