Loading summary
Transcript112 lines
- [00:01]
A
Some Republicans are getting their revenge on Trump after he got them ousted from Congress. And I've got four. Jamie Raskin, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer, and former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to no Lie. So it's clear that Trump was successful in ousting a few more Republicans who committed the cardinal sin of even being mildly critical of him. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy lost his primary and Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie lost his primary. But what Trump is learning in real time is that every action has a reaction, and he's gonna be pretty pissed off about these. So immediately upon losing reelection, Thomas Massie offered up this warning. And while it was said at his concession speech, it was already abundantly clear who the intended audience was.
- [00:50]
B
And we need.
- [00:51]
A
We need basic decency.
- [00:54]
B
We need basic decency.
- [00:56]
A
That's what the Epstein Files Transparency act was all about. By the way, today is the six month anniversary of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
- [01:04]
C
We've taken out two dozen CEOs, an ambassador, a prince, a Prime minister,
- [01:15]
A
a
- [01:15]
C
Minister of culture,
- [01:20]
A
and that was just six months. I got seven months left in Congress, quote, I've got seven months left in Congress. Which means he's got not only a moral imperative to keep hammering away at the Epstein files, but now a personal one. And I don't have to explain to anyone listening here why Thomas Massie continuing to beat the drum on the Epstein files is a disaster for Trump, who, you know, descends into a full blown meltdown the moment anybody even utters the guy's name. There are still three and a half million files that have yet to be released. And the White House is doing its level best to talk about anything, literally anything other than the files. Although something tells me that Massie will be laser focused on making sure that it stays top of mind in his last remaining seven months in Congress. And it wasn't just Massie. Senator Bill Cassidy also poured cold water on one of Trump's most important priorities. And no, I'm not talking about health care, not food assistance, not jobs or groceries or housing or any of those annoying, pesky things that Trump campaigned on, but rather his ballroom.
- [02:25]
B
There's no architectural plans, there is no environmentals, there's no engineering. There's no sense of when we ask, how did it happen to cost exactly a billion? In my mind, that is, it could cost a lot less. It could cost a lot more. I just don't get it.
- [02:47]
A
And look, it would be one thing if Cassidy sought to block something that Trump doesn't actually care about, which is to say things that don't impact him personally. But his ballroom, that's obviously a bridge too far, considering it is basically the only thing that Trump does care about. And it's not just his attacks on Trump's ballroom. Cassidy also wasted no time switching his vote on a bill seeking to end the Iran War, the War Powers Resolution. And that's a bill that Cassidy hasn't initially supported. And if enough Republicans decide that they've had enough of sending billions of dollars to an unpopular war that Trump swore, by the way, would never happen, then that'll be yet another blow to his agenda. Although, look, especially as it relates to Bill Cassidy, I should note I'm really fucking tired of these Republicans managing to do the right thing only after they lose their primaries, because it tells us that they actually do know the difference between right and wrong. They just make the conscious decision to do what's wrong because it's more important for them to pander to Trump than actually deliver for their constituents. Like this guy has created an environment. Trump has created an environment where politicians in his party serve him, not their voters. And that really does put the problem on full display. These people are wholly owned subsidiaries of a megalomaniacal billionaire narcissist whose sole priority is building monuments to himself. And while it's great that people like Massie and Cassidy are now free to vote their conscience, the reality is that that should happen the entire time, not only when they're freed from the shackles of being Trump's bitches in Congress. Next up are my interviews with Jamie Raskin, Keith Ellison, Tom Steyer, and Harry Dunn. But just a quick note, my new book, the Day after, is now available for pre order. So if you'd like to support my work and support this podcast and my broader message of pushing Democrats to fight more and recognize the urgency of this moment, the best way to do is to pre order the book. I'm gonna put the link in the show notes of this episode. I really appreciate it. No Lie is brought to you by Incogni. Ever wonder how random companies get your cell phone number? It's not a coincidence. It is data brokers selling your life behind your back. It's invasive, exhausting, and honestly a total nightmare to actually manage alone. You have the right to opt out, but they make the process a bureaucratic maze. That's why I use Incogni. They act as your personal privacy advocate, automatically handling the takedown request so that you don't have to. And the Best part, they don't just do it once. Incogni continuously monitors these sites to keep your info off the market for the ultimate protection. Their custom data removals feature in the unlimited plan allows you to flag specific links for their team to manually remove. And look, I am a huge advocate for privacy online. Incogni makes it as easy as possible. I get an email delivered to me telling me exactly how many sites my info was removed from. It really is the perfect one stop shop. So take your personal data back with Incogni. It's even independently verified by Deloitte, so you know that they're the real deal. Go to incogni.com BTC and use code BTC to get 60% off an annual plan. That's code BTC@incogni.com BTC for 60% off plus try it risk free for 30 days with their money back guarantee. I'm joined now by Congressman Jamie Raskin. Congressman, we've all heard about Donald Trump's $1.7 billion slush fund where he would pay out these January 6th insurrectionists for apparently a gift, for having been prosecuted rightfully so for their participation in the insurrection. You and congressional Democrats are now taking steps to block that. Can you explain what's happening on your end?
- [06:15]
C
Well, first of all, let's understand what we're talking about. If you do the math, it comes to more than a million dollars per insurrectionist Proud boy, Oath keeper. So they want to take money from the taxpayers and give it to people who violently assaulted our police officers and tried to overthrow a presidential election. Congress never appropriated a dollar for that and never would appropriate any money for that. So this is just highway robbery. They're ste money from the government and from the taxpayers. So we're gonna be doing everything in our power to block it. We need some Republicans in order to come with us in order to legislate that no money can be spent in that way. But we will be asking for Republicans to take that position. And if they don't, the whole country and their districts will see exactly where they where they are. But we need three or four of them in order to sign the discharge petition to get it out, to block the spending of the money in this way. And then, you know, it's a lawless situation with the administration, a lawless administrative situation with the Supreme Court. But there might be federal district courts and appeals courts that are willing to take seriously the fact that this is an absolute violation of the appropriations powers of Congress. And it's also a violation of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which says that no federal doll should be going to pay for the debts of insurrection and rebellion against the United States.
- [07:43]
A
Right. It was important enough to put that exact clause in the Constitution. So important was it not to have this happen? You know, you had mentioned that we need three Republicans, three or four Republicans on board. Is there any indication that any Republicans have an appetite for this? And I ask that, especially in light of the fact that Bill Cassidy just lost his primary, that Thomas Massie is. May very well be on the verge of losing his primary. And so this is kind of a shot across the bow by Trump, that if you defy him, even on an issue where Republicans kind of coalesced around, like Thomas Massie only broke with Trump on Epstein. So the notion that he's getting punished now for being consistent on that issue is, you know, obviously absurd, other than the fact that really the ultimate goal has to just be blind deference to Trump. All of that is to say, is there any appetite among Republicans that you know of to really defy Trump and sign on to this effort to block this allocation of spending?
- [08:43]
C
Well, I mean, you saw what just happened in Louisiana, and you see what's going on in Kentucky. I mean, Trump comes down like a ton of bricks on anybody who departs 2cm away from his absolute autocratic rule. But then there are also some Republicans who've got to be listening to independents and Democrats. Otherwise they're not going to. They have no prayer of getting elected. Look at Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania. And people should be saying to him now, will you sign on to a discharge petition to get a bill out of the House of Representatives to block this outrageous, illegal, unconstitutional expenditure of money? And he can't get away with saying, oh, there's not going to be a bill. There will be a bill. Will you sign it or will you not? Your constituents want to know any Republican? My friend Kevin Kiley from California. He's running as an independent now, left the Republican Party. Will he try to do everything in his power to block this outrageous spending of money for insurrectionists? So people in those districts have got to put pressure on them now to take the position.
- [09:43]
A
Would this create a precedent? And I asked this because, you know, Republicans may be in a position where there's a Democratic president. What if he or she decides four years from now that, you know, why not create a $500 billion slush fund using the Trump precedent and fully fund Planned Parenthood from now until the end of time? Fund the naacp, fund Everytown for gun safety, fund any pro democracy or left wing priority and use the Trump precedent. I mean, is that what it would create or is it just, you know, that he's relying on this idea that judges will defer to him if they
- [10:23]
C
can get away with it, then that does open the door to it. He does think that he's got the judges in his pocket like a mob boss. But look, this is not his first slush fund. I mean, let's be clear about it. The Board of Peace is nothing but a global slush fund for Donald Trump. He took $1.5 billion from the state Department. That was money that was set aside for disaster relief around the world. He gave it to the Board of Peace. He took a billion from the Saudis, he took a billion from the United Arab Emirates, took a billion from the Qataris. I don't know how he's got in there now. We don't know. Is it public? Is it private, Is it not for profit? Is it profit? Is it international? We don't know anything other than he is chairman for life. He is decreed it and he controls who's going to be on the board. And with his $1.7 billion slush fund, courtesy of the American taxpayers, that will be run by a committee that reports exclusively to him for people who he feels were victims of, quote, weaponization of the Biden Justice Department. We'll tell you what, if somebody thinks their rights were violated, they can go in and sue. You know who did that? Michael Flynn. He lost in court. And yet the Trump DOJ. DOJ just gave him $1.25 million. The same thing with Carter Page. He wasn't able to get anything, any satisfaction in court because these people don't have a cause of action. Their rights weren't violated, they weren't damaged in any way. And yet now Trump is just giving them all the money. And it's going to be the same with the riders and the insurrectionists and the Oath keepers, the, you know, the proud boys, and on and on. It's to pay for his private militia. So they've got some money.
- [11:59]
A
What do you make of the fact that Donald Trump came into office pretending to be this populist champion? He was talking about helping the forgotten American, the little guy talking about housing and rent and groceries and eggs, comes into office, first thing he does is cut healthcare, then food assistance, raised the cost of everything through his trade war. Now, gas is nearly the highest it's ever been as the result of this Iran war. And no money to fix any of those things. But apparently, there are just endless funds for ballrooms and Qatari jets and renovating the Rose Garden and building arches and redoing the reflecting pool, and now a $1.7 billion slush fund for his insurrectionist pals. How do you make sense of the fact that there's no money for any of the things he actually campaigned on, but endless sums of money when it comes to his own pet projects?
- [12:44]
C
Because he told us last week, he said, literally, I don't care about the finances of the American people. He doesn't care that people are suffering under his ruinous, illegal tariffs, that people are suffering with a buck 50 more, you gotta pay for a gallon of gasoline because of his illegal, unconstitutional, disastrous war in Iran. He doesn't care. I mean, he barely cares about anybody outside of his family. I'm not sure he does. I'm not sure he cares about everybody in his family. I mean, he's an absolute narcissist, and he's driven to. To pillage the federal government, and that's what's going on. The reason he wants to support his insurrectionists is because that's his private militia for political purposes. He knows his poll numbers are sinking like a stone. They're absolutely cratering. And so all he's got is his lingering ability to control, with all he can, with all of his might, the federal government of the United States and his hold on power. We've got to keep people organizing and people engaged against all the racist gerrymandering, against the voter suppression tactics that are going on, because we need a landslide, we need an exorcism of this kind of authoritarian politics.
- [14:01]
A
Last question, Congressman. I think you had rightfully pointed out that, that Trump is kind of giving a green light to these insurrectionists around the country who are looking to go out there and commit violence on his behalf, and knowing that not only will they not be prosecuted, you know, he's pardoned 1500 of them, but it's actually a financially advantageous exercise to do this. Now. He wants to make all of them millionaires. And so how are you looking at this in light of the fact that this is somebody who's already shown to be. To be ready and willing to commit violence if it means it can help him steal an election as we head toward other elections where he's acting increasingly desperate?
- [14:40]
C
Well, he is accompanying all of these financial maneuvers with the claim that once his ridiculous, ludicrous case against the IRS for $10 billion is settled, that that will be a statement that he, in fact, won the 2020 presidential election, even though there's nothing in his case about the 2020 presidential election, even though 60 different federal and state court judges, including eight that he appointed to the bench himself, determined that there was no election fraud and there was no electoral corruption, and that Joe Biden beat him by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral College. And yet that now is the defining litmus test issue within the Republican Party. And if you cross him on that, like you know, Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney or Adam Kinziger, if you cross him, then he will bring down the full weight of his mega apparatus against you. But if you stand with him so far as to commit violence against police officers, he will do anything for you. It's like who Wants to be a MAGA Millionaire? You go to war for us and we'll find a way to give you a million dollars of the taxpayer's money.
- [15:56]
A
Yeah, I think that's well said, Congressman. Thank you for fighting back against this. Thanks for taking the time today.
- [16:02]
C
Thanks for having me, Brian Hang tough man.
- [16:06]
A
No lie is brought to you by hims. So if you really want to know what's really worth your time when it comes to losing weight, skip the guesswork and get weight loss by HIMS. HIMS offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications that now includes the WeGovy pill and the WeGovy pen, plus lifestyle tips to support you along the way. With WeGovy at HIMSs, lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise, it helps you regulate your appetite and eat less, so success is within reach. Plus, WeGovy is the first ever GLP1 pill for weight loss, so there are no needles needed. Through hims, everything happens online. You'll connect with a licensed provider who is going to determine if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door, no insurance necessary. And it doesn't stop there. HIMSS makes hitting your goal seamless by offering access to 24.7 messaging with your care team and in app lifestyle and nutrition support like recipes, meal plans, fitness videos, sleep content and more. Even better, with a range of affordable GLP1 options, HIMSS makes it simple to find a weight loss approach that fits into your world and your wallet. If eligible, you'll get a treatment plan personalized to you and unlimited dosage changes as needed. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.com BTC to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you that's H I M S.com BTC.com hims.com BTC Weight loss by HIMSS is not available in all 50 states. WeGovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. As to get started and learn more including important safety information, WeGovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit HIMSS.com I'm joined now by the Attorney General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison. Thanks so much for taking the time.
- [17:41]
D
Great to be with you Brian.
- [17:43]
A
So you've now taken some action against some of the ICE agents in Minnesota. Can you explain some of the action that's been taken just as of today?
- [17:52]
D
Well, as of today the Hennepin County Attorney's office and the attorney General's office together have filed charges against the people who shot Julio Sosa Solis in north Minneapolis on January 14th. The officer involved is a fellow who is now there's an active arrest warrant for for him and you know he is an individual who is being sought out. His name is Christian Castro. He is a Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and he is charged with shooting Julio Sosa Solis as I noted before. So that's what's going on. That charge is as of today already the Hennepin county attorney without my involvement is charged individuals who in a road rage incident were pointing guns at a moving car in traffic and that was charged out as a second degree assault terroristic threat only a few days ago. And that individual is not yet in custody but there is an active warrant for his or his arrest. So right now there have been two criminal charges and there is an active investigation on the individuals who you may remember this dragged a Hmong individual among man out of his home in the freezing cold. The man had on under he had on underwear and crocs and he was the wrong person. They weren't look he wasn't even the guy they wanted but they dragged him out of his home and had him in sub zero temperature there. The Ramsey county attorney is actively pursuing that matter. Now you may want to know about the good natter and the and the predi matter. They are under active investigation right now. We still have not received any cooperation from the federal government. That is no deterrent. There's no such thing as absolute immunity in the context of this matter. So those just because you don't see it every day doesn't mean we're not working on it every day.
- [20:04]
E
We are working on it every day.
- [20:06]
A
Now in terms of these cases, prior to you discussing Preddy and Renee Goode, has the federal government been an obstacle to those charges or have they been cooperative or neither?
- [20:20]
D
They have never been cooperative in any sense. They simply have not been helpful. And this is. You know, I will tell you, Brian, this is weird because we work with the feds all the time, right? We work with the feds on task forces involving everything from sex trafficking, human trafficking, labor trafficking, you know, fentanyl, drug trafficking. We work with the feds on the regular. And I'm saying FBI, dea, treasury, different types of officers are very familiar to us around here. So simply because Trump wants to do this, what I regard as an illegal action against the state of Minnesota, and we filed a civil lawsuit on that, but that is when the cooperation ended. By the way, Brian, let me just remind everybody, these folks are always saying, oh, the state of Minnesota should have just cooperated when it came to Operation Metro Surge. Well, we did, but they, they. They never cooperated with us on anything, and they demand cooperation. But, you know, the fact is, we've always complied with what the law required.
- [21:39]
A
Has the federal government threatened to deprive you of any resources given the fact that you've gone after ICE agents who've broken the law?
- [21:47]
D
They. Not in connection with that. So we haven't heard. You're now prosecuting these people, so we're gonna take this from you. Not that, but they've done it in multiple other occasions, Right? So they're saying that they're withholding our Medicaid funding, they're withholding our educational funds, they're withholding funds connected to. They try to. Regarding National Institute of Health. We sued them and got that back. They try to withhold money regarding AmeriCorps. We sued them on that one. They try to withhold money on a whole range of things. I could keep naming them, but I don't know. If you want a comprehensive list, folks can go to my website and see it all. But, like, whether it's National Institute of Health, AmeriCorps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, they have been trying to take money that has rightfully supposed to come to Minnesota on multiple occasions. The total, Brian, is 7.3 billion that they've tried to take from us, but we have successfully defended from them in
- [22:50]
A
terms of the impending or possible prosecutions of the ICE agents who shot and killed Renee Good and Alex Preddy. Is there some concern that the federal government might try and bigfoot you guys at the state level so that they can take over the prosecution and then, of course, just basically seek to dismiss it? Very much.
- [23:12]
D
Basically, yeah.
- [23:13]
A
I mean, they're very much in the same way that they did for Eric Adams in New York, where they have. I mean, they can. You know, they wanted to be able to wield him as a tool at the local level, but ultimately their goal was never to prosecute him.
- [23:26]
D
Well, what you're saying, I mean, I had no role in the Kyle Rittenhauer case, but when I watch it, I look at a prosecutor who doesn't seem very motivated to get a conviction. So, I mean, if you're thinking that, you know, we're gonna take the case and then not really prosecute the case, yeah, there is that. That could happen. But the state has an independent and separate right to prosecute this case all on its own. So we would never do what Trump does and engage in vindictive prosecution. I think that's morally wrong. But we certainly would charge out a case where the facts of the matter violate the law and hold those people accountable. And they can't stop us from doing that. The reason that we haven't charged the case out isn't because they. They can stop us. It's because they have withheld the file. And, you know, I tell you, Brian, I used to be a criminal defense lawyer for 16 years, and if I was a criminal defense lawyer, first thing I'd say is, where's the file? They. They didn't have the whole file, you know, so I think there's probable cause in both pretty and good to charge the case. I just think that we should try to do all we can to get the file. You may know we have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security because they're with. They have a final agency action denying us access, and there's no legal basis for them to do so. So that matter is being litigated in the civil context to make them give us the documents and materials that we're entitled to, to complete our investigation there.
- [25:07]
A
There was reports of some federal prosecutors who had left the DOJ as the result of how the DOJ was comporting itself, you know, with these ICE agents and so on. Are any of those folks working alongside you all at the state level? Given the fact that, you know, if the DOJ isn't going to do it, at least there are prosecutors, good prosecutors, who are willing to do this work at the Minnesota state level?
- [25:30]
D
Well, I'll tell you, man, I think I hired maybe about four or five of them.
- [25:33]
A
Okay.
- [25:34]
D
You know, we. We have a bunch of feds who, at former feds who are working here and are doing really good work.
- [25:39]
A
Yeah.
- [25:40]
D
And, you know, quite honestly, man, you know, as I told you, Brian, I used to be a criminal defense lawyer. Now I'm a prosecutor. I've done various, you know, roles in the criminal justice system. And what I learned over time is that a ethical, good, conscientious prosecutor is actually really a joy to work with because they'll dismiss cases that ought to be dismissed, they'll charge what they can prove, they'll ask for the proper amount of time or whatever the sentence should be. And you understand that you're going to have to argue with them because the defense counsel, you have a duty of zealous representation to your client, but you don't feel that there's something underhanded or bad going on. And the content, you know, so these. These folks had. They felt that a moral imperative, and they said, we cannot square working at this and under this Justice Department with our conscience. And so they quit. And I think that's what ethical people do.
- [26:39]
A
I mean, that. That's the reason that they're not in the doj, because you can see by the way the DOJ has comported itself over the last year and a half that their. Their allegiance is to. Is to Donald Trump. It's not to the law, it's not to the Constitution. It's right. I mean, they're there expressly because they are gonna be loyal to him and do his bidding. That's why there are prosecutors like Lindsey Halligan and Alina Haba who can stay in these positions as long, as long as they can before they're rightly. Rightly thrown out. But, like. But these people, their allegiance is to. Is to Trump and his. And, you know, his prosecuting his political opponents. And that's true.
- [27:17]
D
So let me say, Brian, you know, there were people in the Minnesota U.S. attorney's office who were told, no, you're not going to investigate and prosecute the people who killed Renee. Good. You are going to investigate and potentially prosecute her wife who was on scene.
- [27:36]
A
Yeah.
- [27:37]
D
And they said, where do I submit my resignation?
- [27:43]
A
Yeah.
- [27:44]
D
There were over 14 of them who fell into that category. Maybe more now. I haven't been keeping track, but it began. You begin to wonder who's there, Right. Well, for a while, they got a bunch of Judge Advocate General, people that just try to fill in. But, you know, Jags have their own jobs to do, you know, so you want to drop them into here and use their obligation to follow your orders, to do their. Do the work, but they've never done before and probably having done the same way. So that's what they were dealing with. That's why when under Operation Metro Surge, you had all these habeas corpus petitions that were not being addressed. And there were cases that were actually dismissed because they got rid of all the good people, they brought in some replacements, and then the real cases started piling up, and then you got up against the due process, the right to speedy trial. Right. And there had to be some cases dismissed. So they're actually. Trump's making us less safe.
- [28:53]
B
Yeah.
- [28:54]
A
Yeah. Well, I'm glad that y' all are working not only not allowing the federal government to dictate who gets to be above the law by allowing these ICE agents to commit criminal acts with impunity, that you're taking this on, but also that you've got prosecutors who weren't willing to allow that, you know, to allow themselves to be run roughshod over by staying at the doj. With the last couple of minutes that we have left, I wanted to ask one question on a different topic entirely, and that is the topic of redistricting. So can you give a lay of the land of. And I should let folks know that Minnesota's Congressional map is 4 4, Republican and Democrat. It's a pretty blue state. You know, I've been on a tear about redistricting since we've seen what the Republicans are doing in state after state after state across the country, be it from Texas to Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama. And what Democrats have to show to push back is, like, California, and that's it. And so can you talk about what the process would look like for redrawing the maps in Minnesota and the appetite for redrawing the maps in Minnesota? Obviously too late for 2026, but moving forward?
- [30:03]
D
Well, you know, there's a strong sense of basic fairness in Minnesota. There's a strong sense that if you want people to vote for you, you don't redraw the map. You go talk to them and sell them on the program that you're gonna govern on. And so it's nothing that we wanna rush into, but we have seriously considered it because of what Trump is doing in Texas and in other places, and it's deeply, deeply disturbing. And so I think that we're going to pick up some seats in Minnesota without changing the map at all. But to answer your question, it's something that we would entertain. But we're 50, 50 in the state House and we have a slight majority in the Senate, so we're really not in a position to do it. But would we do it as long as Trump is pushing Texas and Tennessee to cheat, what other choice do we have?
- [31:03]
B
Right.
- [31:04]
D
My, my, my hope would be we would have independent redistricting every state of the union. We don't need an unfair advantage, but we're not going to sit by and let them have an unfair advantage.
- [31:17]
A
Yeah. So I think, I think pushing back against this idea that the Republicans, that the Democrats will unilaterally disarm, I think is, is the right move. This.
- [31:26]
B
No.
- [31:27]
D
I mean, but at the same time, Democrats want to play by the rules and be fair, but they don't. So what do we do? Just sit back and take it on the chin? Absolutely not.
- [31:38]
A
Perfect. Perfectly put. We'll leave it there. Attorney General Ellison, thank you so much for taking the time.
- [31:42]
D
You have a good one, Brian. Stay in touch.
- [31:47]
A
No lie is brought to you by Ethos. So I don't really talk about my personal life at all, but I lost a family member that I was particularly close with a couple of years back. And when I was going through that process of him being in the hospital, I learned very quickly how little control we have over our health or the health of our loved ones when things are starting to get really dire. But one thing that we can control is making sure that we're all prepared. Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy. 100% online. You can get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes, and get same day coverage. There's no medical exam. Just answer a few simple health questions. You can get up to $3 million in coverage. Some policies are as low as 30 bucks a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers. So take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Go get your free quote@ethos.com BTC that's E T H O S.com BTC application times may vary. Rates may vary. I'm joined now by candidate for governor of California, Tom Steyer. Thanks so much for joining me, Brian.
- [32:47]
B
Thank you for having me.
- [32:49]
A
So I want to start off with a little bit of national news before we get into California. Specific news, but we just found out that Donald Trump has been so gracious as to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against his own federal government and instead offer up a compromise, a generous compromise where he only pillaged US taxpayers to the tune of $1.7 billion so that he could pay January 6th insurrectionists. So before we get into the California stuff, can I have your reaction to this latest move by Trump?
- [33:19]
B
I mean, Trump's a criminal. I got 8 million signatures to impeach him in 2017 and 2018 because been in enough boardrooms to know. A crook. He's a crook. This is a crooked, completely illegal thing to do. And it's completely consistent with his behavior throughout his first and second terms. But in the second terms, his grifting has moved to a completely different level, but it's consistent and it's completely illegal. And this is the idea of granting himself $1.7 billion of taxpayers money. You know, it's, it's a new level, but he's only going to get worse, honestly, Brian. And so, you know, yeah, this is completely wrong.
- [34:02]
A
So a lot of people are going to look at Trump and look at the fact that the way that he branded himself was as a wealthy businessman who would use the tricks that he learned to, I think his exact words, to be greedy for the nation instead of being greedy for himself. You know, a lot of your success is the fact that you are a wealthy businessman. And so for people who see that and say, well, that's a cautionary tale, then what would your reaction to those people be?
- [34:28]
B
Look, I started a business from scratch. He inherited $450 million from his poppy. I've said I started a business and walked away from it and left billions of dollars on the table. And my wife and I have said, we're giving the. While we're alive, he keeps stealing money. He's not a business person, he's a thief. That's a different thing. Brian, if you look at. He's one of the people who went. I think he went bankrupt four times in casinos. How do you do that? Yeah, you're the house. You know, it's like that's a math problem. So to a very large extent, I. Look, he is someone who has consistently been a crook. He continues to be a crook. I've never been a crook. I built a business and said I care about other things much more. And we're going to use the money to push progressive causes and protect working people and protect the natural world. You know, that is, you know, he also has two ears and two eyes, but that doesn't make us the same person either.
- [35:31]
A
Yeah. All right, so I want to go into a few of the priorities that I have in California, but before we do that, I want to give you the opportunity to let me know what your priorities are in California as you run this campaign.
- [35:44]
B
Look, I've been very clear about this biggest problem in California is people can't afford to live in California anymore. So it's about the buzzword is affordability, but it's really about costs at the end of the month. And that starts with housing. It goes to healthcare, it goes to electricity rates, it goes to how much we're paying at the pump and it goes to food. And in every one of those, I have a specific policy solution. Many of them involve taking on corporate special interests that are driving up the costs and, you know, are feasting off California's misery. And I've also said I will. I'm the person in this race and the only person who will admit to be wanting to tax billionaires like me more, tax, close corporate tax loopholes and get the money to working people and basically have a system where, you know, we're the richest state and the richest country in the world and we have the highest poverty rate in the United States of America. That doesn't seem like success to me.
- [36:48]
A
So what does success look like at the end of your first four year term? Well, if you, if you had some benchmarks that you could point to, and I've asked this question to mayoral candidates, for example, as it relates to homelessness. And I've heard Nithya Raman tell me that, you know, she wants to see 50% reduction in homelessness in LA by the time the Olympics rolls around, 100% reduction in those encampments by the end of her first term. And so she, she was able to offer up some concrete examples, viability notwithstanding. What would some, what would some metrics be for you that, that, that you could point to as success long term?
- [37:23]
B
The way we're going to drive down housing costs, both rent and homeownership, is by producing houses much more inexpensively. And we have five points on this. I don't want to, I don't think we have enough time. But I'll say this. We're going to build a million houses. We're going to make it possible for people to buy a house and to afford rent. I've been saying we're going to create local competition for the electric monopolies that dominate this state and charge us twice as much as the rest of the United States and we're going to drive down the cost by 25%. That's a metric. We are going to close a corporate tax loophole and use the money part for health care to fill in the hole from HR1. Mr. Trump's throwing people off medical and partly for education. And we're going to use that education money to, to hire, train and support fantastic teachers so that our kids get Better outcomes and we're going to go back to being a top 10 education state. Those are three things right off the bat that to me, I could keep going. Honestly, I'm for single payer health care. I'm sitting here thinking of all the things for single payer health care. We have by far, Brian, our campaign and our website has by far the most and the most detailed policy prescriptions of how to change California. And we're not shy about it. And many of them involve structural change and change to the control that corporate special interests have. And that's why corporate special interests are spending tens of millions of dollars against me. And that's why billionaires are supporting everybody in this race but me. Because they know that I'm the only person here who's really for structural change, for working people to make this state affordable and to sort of rebuild, rejuvenate, make real the California dream. Great public education house we couldn't afford
- [39:12]
A
to buy in terms of building up housing and especially, you know, this, this metric hitting 1 million houses built, to what extent does, as we head toward the 2020, the 2030 census and the prospect of California losing electoral votes and not just losing them, but losing them to a state like Texas or Idaho, for example, to what extent is that important as well in all of this to make sure that California retains kind of its, its stature as a state that has 54 electoral votes and therefore has such an outsized impact in the presidential election?
- [39:51]
B
Well, what I'm really interested in, Brian, is for Californians lives to be materially improved by their government. And I believe that if we create the society I'm describing, which is so much more positive for people, that reinvigorates the idea of California and the California dream and that we have a different vision for the 21st century, everybody around the country and everybody around the world is going to go, you know what I want that? I want a successful society that has free health care, great schools, basically an incredibly beautiful place and as diverse as possibly could be imagined. I want that because that's the way you're supposed to be living in the 21st century. And I think that the job is to make sure that happens and everything else will follow.
- [40:42]
A
So one of the points of criticism that folks have of California is the fact that it's exceedingly difficult to build infrastructure here, not just housing. But we obviously have this train that was supposed to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco. What we ended up with was a train that went from the bustling metropolises of Merced to Bakersfield. And even then we don't have anything running right now. And so can you diagnose the issue that prevents us from being able to build basic infrastructure? I mean, I don't know the exact statistic but I mean if you look at what China was able to build in the time and with the amount of money that we are trying to build a train from one city to another city, it would, I mean it just, you know, it's just the right. And so, and so can you, can you diagnose the issue here and then how would something like that be solved so that actually build again?
- [41:38]
B
If you look at high speed rail, which is the example you're using in which everybody feels so embarrassed and upset about, and me too, as you said, we started with the wrong strategy. A rail system needs to have uses. You need to have people who want to ride the rail system that can make it pay for itself. And so as you said, we started in a place because that's where the federal government was willing to give us money. We knew it was a mistake, but we made the mistake because we thought first we'll get this done and then we'll do the one we want to do. Huge mistake. Secondly, the perfect is the enemy of the good. You know, we are trying to do everything so perfectly, you know, that we can't get anything done. And so there's been massive overthinking and consultants and you know, rethinking and all this stuff. Spending billions of dollars not on building a railroad, but on thinking about building a railroad. And so I think we, you know, I've talked to those guys and I'm a huge believer in public transportation is critical for California. Yeah, but we have, but it's like no, no, don't come to me with some plan that doesn't make sense that just is not going to work. You know, we are going to have to be results oriented in this and literally, you know, we're going to have to be hard nose that this has got to be done on a reasonable basis and we're going to have to do it fast and the longer it takes, the worse it is. And if we're not going to be efficient about it, that's not going to happen. But there is clearly a gigantic need for public transportation in the state of California and I'm a gigantic believer in that. And I'm also going to be really, you know, it's exactly like building houses. Like we have a five point plan on how to build houses in California much cheaper and it involves finance, how we do construction, how we get along with cities and counties, as well as what everybody else talks about, which is permitting and zoning.
- [43:33]
A
Yep. So in terms of another industry that obviously I have been following closely along with, and that is the entertainment industry, can you talk a little bit about what your plan would be to bring these jobs back to California? Because this was, you know, especially where I am in Los Angeles, this was, I mean, what this whole town was based off of. And in the 15 years that I've been here, I have watched the industry kind of crumble to the point where I have numerous friends who's not, who have not only left this state, but also this country in seeking worse work elsewhere. I have friends who've moved to the UK to follow the jobs. I have friends that move to Canada to follow those jobs. Toronto and Vancouver have bustling film industries. And of course everybody knows about the fact that we have Atlanta, New Jersey, New Orleans, New Mexico, New York, all
- [44:22]
B
of whom have taken New Zealand, Australia, England, Saudi Arabia.
- [44:28]
A
So what would the plan be to bring those jobs back, back to this state?
- [44:35]
B
So first I want to start by echoing what you said. Brian, L.A. invented the film business and entertainment business. The greatest group of people to work on this industry exists in Los Angeles. It's the best ecosystem by far in the world. And so I'm on team California. I'm 100% behind this industry, the people in this industry. So let's start. I want to get to that. But I want to start by saying this. I'm completely opposed to the mergers in this industry from an anti competitive standpoint. Basic antitrust law. Not even close. Not even close. Huge job destroyer. Obviously done so that Donald Trump could hand major information businesses CNN to another right wing crony so they could control the information in our industry. You know that the rule for a dictator is you have to do two things. You have to own the army and you have to own the TV station. He's in effect trying to own the TV station in the United States of America, controlling the information industry. It's a terrible decision. I think we should be fighting it every single way we can. I also believe that we cannot allow other people to buy our business. That's all they're really doing. They're giving tax credits at a much higher level so that they can buy our business with money, so that we'll go to Canada, so we'll go to New Zealand or Australia, so we'll go to Hungary. And we cannot allow them to do that. So that means we have to fight fire with fire. And let me say this, the way that I see those tax credits is they return $1.14 to California for every dollar that goes in. So I don't look at it as a cost, I look at as an investment. And I said I'm on Team California. And so I want to make sure that there are no regulations that stop us from shooting here, particularly small productions that are unnecessary and expensive. That's the other thing I definitely want to do. I want to make sure that we invest in apprenticeship programs so that we can continue to build the greatest ecosystem. I'm for public art funding and I want to say the last thing is this. It's not fair that AI can take the creativity and the output of people in this industry, steal it and not compensate. That's absolutely wrong. So let me be clear. I will state again, I'm competitive. I don't know if you know that, Brian. I may seem like a low key, friendly guy underneath that genial service. I'm really competitive. And I am on Team California. And I refuse to have the greatest industry in the world be looted by foreign countries with money, not talent, and take advantage of the people here, the tens of thousands of talented professionals in and around Los Angeles, by their paying, putting up tax credits. And the other thing I want to say is this. I'm talking about dropping the cost of housing, I'm talking about dropping the cost of healthcare. That is another critical long term way to make sure that the film and entertainment business can compete around the world based on talent. And so to a very large extent, everything I'm talking about, I want to make sure in the short run we keep this business, that we keep this ecosystem, that we keep your friends, incredibly talented friends from going to England or British Columbia. And I want to make sure in the long run we drive down costs so that in fact we're on even footing with those people. And if it's, if it's about the talent, we win. And we have to make sure it's about the talent.
- [48:11]
A
Recognizing that for every dollar spent, we get $1.14 back. And that the more money we put into this, the more money we get out. And it's not just money. It's making sure that people's livelihoods are protected. Making sure that our tourism industry is thriving. It's helping all of those people from transportation to craft services, to producers, editors, pas, you name it. I mean, the whole industry isn't just Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and George Clooney. It is the Millions of people who are doing work behind the camera, doing work in the offices, making sure that this whole industry can sustain itself, recognizing that all of those things exist and that we actually garner more money from investing more through these tax credits. Would you be in favor of an uncapped tax credit?
- [48:57]
B
So I don't have a limit on it, Brian, but I want to make sure that we are doing this in a careful way that we're controlling and not just going hog wild on. So I don't have a limit on it, but I do have a desire.
- [49:12]
A
Explain to me how, like, how does that work in practice?
- [49:16]
B
I think what it means is that people apply for tax credits. And, you know, it's not just, you know, you say, I'm a film producer, I need money. And so it's got to be a credible production. And so I think, I don't think that's. I think that's completely the way it works now. You know, you've got to be a credible production to get tax credits. And that should continue to be true. And we should have people from the industry, you know, who know what they're talking about, opining on that to make sure that in fact we're pushing stuff that really can succeed. I know this is a hits business and I know, if you can believe it, when I was at Fairlawn, we were the biggest financiers of independent films in the world for years. So I'm, I know sometimes these things happen and sometimes they don't happen. But I also know that there is something about understanding this business. It's not just the crapshoot.
- [50:07]
A
It's a lot more last question here as folks are trying to figure out who to vote for. I'm sure there's a lot of people who are undecided between you and Javier Becerra. And so for folks who are Democrats who are looking to vote for one of the Democratic candidates, why should they vote for you over your opponent?
- [50:24]
B
Well, let me put it to you this way. The oil companies are spending millions of dollars against me. They have maxed out to Javier Becerra. He has said we need more oil drilling in the state. He has said they're not bad guys and that we need Chevron. He has no environmental policy to speak of in terms of single payer. I've said we are going to push as hard as possible for single payer on day one, starting day one, no questions. And as a result, the nurses support me. He has said behind closed doors we're not going to go for Single payer. And the biggest lobby against single payer maxed out to him and endorsed him the next day. And he got $120,000 yesterday from the health insurers, which is the opposite of single payer yesterday. At the same time, he's saying, oh, I'm for single payer. So the truth is, it's not just what I say I'm going to do. Follow the money and the endorsements. I say I'm going to make the schools better. And the teachers and the school employees and the educators are all endorsing me. I don't know what he's saying, but the big oil companies are supporting him, the health insurers are supporting him, the electric monopolies. Look, this is a question of I'm trying to change things and I'm willing to take on the corporate special interest. He's paid for by the corporate special interest. So to me, if you think everything's fine and you want more of the same, that's what he's offering. I'm offering a change. I'm the only person offering a real change. I'm the only person willing to take on the big money interest in the state of California to say, working people, this game is rigged against you. We need to unrig it.
- [52:10]
A
For folks who are looking to help your campaign, where can they go?
- [52:13]
B
Tomstyer.com look, the biggest thing people can do at this point, if you support me, is to tell your friends, is to support me online, is to go out and spread the word. Because really, this is about people under. Look, I, Brian, I always say to people, this is a simple campaign. Do you want the billionaire who's going to work and fight tirelessly for working people, or do you want a career politician who's going to work and fight tirelessly for billionaires and big corporations? That is a strange choice.
- [52:46]
A
We'll leave it there. Tom Steyer, thank you so much for taking the time. Best of luck in the campaign trail.
- [52:49]
B
Thanks, Brian. Thanks for having me.
- [52:54]
A
I'm joined now by former Capitol Police officer and current candidate for Maryland's 5th congressional district, Harry Dunn. Harry, thanks so much for joining me. You have some big news today about a brand new lawsuit against one of Donald Trump's biggest priorities. Can you explain what that is?
- [53:08]
E
Yeah, man. I'm happy to announce that myself and Officer Daniel Hodges, a hero from January 6 and also one of the officers who testified before the January 6th select committee and is one of the many familiar faces that people know from that day, we have announced that we are suing Donald Trump. Todd Blanche and Scott Bessett. We believe that this is a continued attack on our democracy that started on January 6, at least for us, and it's a continuation of that. We believe that this slush fund, if you will, this 1.776 a billion dollars, and let's be clear, Donald Trump is trolling us with that number 1776. You know, everything is symbolic. And this isn't about, you know, so he's trolling us there. But we believe that one, this fund is illegal. And also that violates a lot of potential constitutional laws. We believe there's some 14th amendment violations going on with there, with being able to give aid and comfort to insurrectionists if that money indeed goes to the people responsible for attacking me and my coworkers and responsible for one of the darkest days in American history.
- [54:21]
A
Harry, you know, if you do the math, in terms of the people that were convicted for their participation in January 6th, these insurrectionists, and there were about 1,500 of them, if you divide $1.776 billion by the 1500 insurrectionists is over a million dollars a person. So he's trying to basically make all of these people into millionaires. What does that say in terms of creating a financial incentive? I mean, forget about disincentivizing them by virtue of prosecuting them and upholding the law, but rather incentivizing them to commit violence on his behalf.
- [54:58]
E
I'm glad that you brought that up, because we actually absolutely believe that this is an incentive right now. When Donald Trump got elected and inaugurated on January 20, 2025, he pardoned all of them, and a pardon served as, hey, we forgive you guys. You guys are forgiven. Thank you for carrying out this brutal assault on people that are against me, and thank you for standing up for me, said Donald Trump. And they were always forgiven. Now he's rewarding them with this, the creation of this fund of reward. And like you said, a reward turns into an incentive because now it's saying, wait, we could beat up cops, we could storm the Capitol. We can search through the building trying to hang Nancy Pelosi and hang Mike Pence. We can do that, and we can get paid for it. Absolutely. It's an incentive. And also, I would describe it as a retainer. A lot of people are familiar with retainers. And if you have a lawyer, you pay your retainer a little bit of money in advance. So when something does come up and you do need it, you're paid in full. I believe Donald Trump just put his own private militia on retainer. I don't believe that Donald Trump is going to leave the White house peacefully in 2029. I mean, he's already flirting with the idea of running for a third term. And unfortunately, we got some morons in Congress and also the justices that refuse to say that's impossible. We believe in the Constitution around here. So I believe he's securing himself a militia who's already showed what they're capable of.
- [56:36]
A
Right.
- [56:37]
E
And, you know, you don't need my words, you don't need you. I mean, the American people saw it like, yes, we all got opinions about what happened, but you don't need you or me or any other political pundit to describe and tell us what happened on January 6th. The American people saw it. That's why so many hundreds of millions of people are opposed to this. And this is taxpayer money, too, Brian. This is taxpayer money. It's not a GoFundMe account. It's not people dropping their cash app link in their bio and saying, support me. I mean, they have the right to do that. This is everyday working Americans who can't afford the price of gas right now, who inflation is through the roof, these illegal tariffs, all this money that Donald Trump says that he does not have. They don't have money for health care, they don't have money for childcare, they don't have money for this. But they got money for ballrooms, they got money for illegal wars that are going on. They got $1.776 billion for terrorists to this country. It's just a slap in the face.
- [57:36]
A
Harry, what is the, what is the reaction, not just, not just by you, but also of your former colleagues who were police officers at the Capitol, to hear Republicans out of one side of their mouth claim to be the party of law and order, the party of the police, and on the other hand, basically turn into millionaires every single January 6th insurrectionist who is perfectly content to kick the shit out of police officers because they wanted to try and hang Nancy Pelosi.
- [58:05]
E
I'm glad that you brought that up because I was very touched with the amount of people, my former coworkers, that reached out to me literally, with just the simple text, thank you. Thank you for doing this. And so many of them have been quiet and, you know, for good reason. Like, I still talk to a good, good amount of them, and they say they just got their head down trying to finish their 20, 25 years so they can retire and get the hell out of there. So a lot of them Are head down, let's hurry up and finish up so I can retire and get out of here. But the amount of people that reached out and just said thank you because. And also, let's be clear about what I'm asking for in this lawsuit. I'm not asking for damages. I'm not asking for, hey, give the money to me. I'm not saying give it to the co worker. I'm not doing that. It, I'm not applying for the fund. I'm not, I'm saying one, it's illegal and it's wrong and Donald Trump is supporting attackers and I wouldn't want to share one red cent with anybody that, that was involved in an insurrection. We're not, I, we're in this law, we're not asking for that. We are asking for this judge to stop this and dissolve this, this illegal fund because we absolutely believe that it is.
- [59:15]
A
How confident are you in this case that what Donald Trump is trying to do by creating a $1.8 billion slush fund to just dole out to his political allies is not gonna hold legal muster here?
- [59:27]
E
Well, the good thing about it is a lot of times when you do things, you do it because it's the right thing to do. And I feel like in this moment, especially in this country, we have a lot of cowards right now. I don't care what party you're in or non political people. There are a lot of people who just refuse to stand up and say this is where we are right now. I believe that this is wrong and I believe we have a legal argument to it now. Yes. Will it be challenging? Maybe. I mean, I see a lot of people in a lot of chatter online talking about the standing. Hey, yes, they're right. We agree this is wrong. But do the officers actually have standing this, we actually do believe it. And we wouldn't have brought the case forward if we don't believe, if we didn't believe that we could win. We do believe that we can win, but most importantly, we believe that we have the pulse of the American people on our side with no matter who they are, Republicans, Democrats. And we're seeing a little bit of pushback starting to grow. Senate Congressman Patrick Fitzpatrick is said that they want to introduce legislation to stop it. That's great. People that are not okay with this and that's what we want to do. So, you know, we hope we will be successful in our lawsuit, but what we are doing is we're putting people on notice that they need to take a stance and call this out as wrong. And we're seeing some of that as, I mean, it's been referenced all over the news, even in the judiciary hearings. Congressman Raskin.
- [60:49]
A
Yep.
- [60:50]
E
Quoted us today in the hearing. So, you know, we're encouraged that we are on the right side of history. That's what it all comes down to for us. But we do believe we have a strong case and we can win this.
- [61:01]
A
Harry, you know, look, there is going to be, for every one, Brian Fitzpatrick, there are going to be like 250 other Republicans who don't say anything. Especially in the aftermath of Thomas Massie being ousted in his primary and Bill Cassidy being ousted in his primary. All that's gonna do is scare a bunch of people who are already fucking cowards anyway into refusing to speak out. But have you heard from regular Americans while you've been on the campaign trail? And we're gonna talk about your run for Congress in just a moment here, but you've been speaking to regular Americans a hell of a lot more than I think these Republican members of Congress are.
- [61:34]
D
Yeah.
- [61:35]
A
As it relates to, again, a $2 billion slush fund. They apparently found all the money in the world for this. No money to protect health care, no money to protect food assistance. No money to bring costs down. No money to offer some relief to families who are paying more because of the trade war. No money to offer relief to families who are paying more because of record high gas prices as a result of a war that Trump promised would never happen. No money for any of those priorities. But all the money in the world that Donald Trump wants to make every criminal insurrection into a millionaire. And so in your conversations with folks who have heard about this $1.8 billion slush fund, what have they been saying?
- [62:09]
E
Yeah, well, they're pissed off. And also, let's talk about talking to everyday Americans. Brian, I am an everyday American. I don't have. I'm not a political. I'm not an elected official. I'm running to be one. But I'm running to represent the people specifically of Maryland's 5th congressional district, which also in merit, by the way. This district has probably the highest percentage of federal workers in the, in the country, over 20% of the district, federal workers. And also, talk about wasteful spending. Doge fired. The amount of people in this district, the amount of people that were fired, wrongfully terminated, illegally fired for waste, fraud and abuse. Now, let's talk about. Want to talk about waste, fraud and abuse. We could, we could start at the top with this fund right here. This Fund this slush fund to reward insurrectionists. So people are pissed off. And this is me, this, and also Brian. This is my second lawsuit, second active lawsuit against this Department of Justice. And I'm doing this as citizen Harry Dunn, somebody who's just pissed off, you know, and I'm running for Congress just to do more, to continue more of this, because, you know, there's only so much that I can do. I alone can't, I alone can't fix it, contrary to what some other people say. But I do believe that this moment that we're in, it calls for people to do extraordinary things and take courageous action. Now, I, I don't believe that what I'm doing is courageous or any. I think that it's right and it's necessary and it's, you know, I appreciate all the kind words and everything to compliment. I appreciate that. But I couldn't live with myself not doing anything. And my initial reaction when this first came out was like, we're going to do something. I don't know what it is. But then actually getting my rational brain going and not my emotional one. We were able to formulate this lawsuit because people are pissed off and people around here are paying attention to the government, the unaffordability of life. But somehow Donald Trump can say on national television he's not thinking about the day to day cost of Americans because of this war. He's not thinking about the billions of the gas prices. He doesn't care. He's never been in touch with the American people and he's always been about himself. Meanwhile, everyday Americans are struggling, including myself.
- [64:32]
A
Well, look, Ari, I think pissed off citizen is as good a qualification right now as any to get in this race. And I know that, you know that you'll be modest and say that it's not courageous to do this, but in light of the fact that we have seen so much content capitulation from people all across the country, not just people, but these powerful institutions, these media companies, these law firms, people who have the resources and who should have the backbone, certainly who know better. When we see those people refuse to stand up to this administration and yet we have a former police officer who's gonna step up and do what so many of these other major institutions won't, then I think that courageous does fit the bill there. So to that end.
- [65:15]
E
Well, thank you. I will say real quick, that's great. I really appreciate that. And you're right. So. And I think this election comes down to not, not like, yes, we want to elect Democrats Clear. But that's. That's not enough. We need to make sure we're electing the right Democrats who actually understand the gravity of the situation that we're facing right now. We are in a constitutional crisis where this administration, while Donald Trump, only one third of the way through his presidency, can still do so much harm without any guardrails that Congress right now has forfeited their responsibility as a co equal body of government. It's a co equal. The Supreme Court has just said, done away with the Civil Rights Voting Act. They are refusing to hold Donald Trump account. There is nobody right now. And that's why we need to make sure we have the right Democrats, not just Democrats, but the right Democrats who understand that Republicans right now and this administration is using the Constitution as a suggestion manual and not the law of the land.
- [66:19]
A
So to that end, I want to talk a little bit about what you're gonna focus on in your run for Congress. I should note that you just got the endorsement of the Working Families Party, so congratulations on that endorsement.
- [66:29]
E
Thank you.
- [66:30]
A
You know, there are gonna be people running for this seat. This is Steny Hoyer's old seat. Grateful that I don't know how old Steny Hoyer was, but glad that we are finally at the moment where we can recognize there is an issue with the gerontocracy in the Democratic Party and offer up a bridge to the next generation. But there's gonna be a lot of candidates running in the seat. What sets you apart?
- [66:53]
E
Yeah. And you know what, that's interesting when you talk about who's gonna be the best fighter for this moment that we're in right now. And I think that's what we need to realize. Who's gonna do the absolute. Who's going to be the most effective and the most efficient during the work. Like, sure, if people go to these forums and they'll ask questions, who supports Medicare for all? And you'll get, you know, everybody raises their hand and who supports, you know, defunding ICE and, you know, all this stuff. And who thinks Donald Trump is bad. We all agree on the surface of what these issues are. So I don't think the issue is about getting a vote in favor of one particular line item, if you will. We're all going to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. We're all gonna support common sense gun reform. But who realizes right now that it's not time to play nice with these people? Like I said earlier, I have, as citizen Harry Dunn, filed two lawsuits in my personal capacity. Imagine What I can do with the subpoena power guaranteed to a member of Congress by the Constitution. I would love to serve on the Oversight Committee. The two main focus, the factions factors excuse me, that I'm focusing on on my campaign are accountability and affordability. And yes, all roads lead back to Donald Trump when you're talking about affordability which everybody in this country is struggling from when the big beautiful bill was passed that enriched Donald Trump and his billionaire friends. These terrorists are enriching nobody and they are Donald Trump's benefiting from them. But the American people, they are the ones that are suffering. It just blows my mind that so many people want to just a strongly worded letter or a strongly worded email list. I really believe in the phrase of hope like when President Obama ran on hope and that was so inspirational. But we're not going to hope our way out of this situation right now we need people that are going to stand and everybody says they're going to fight but I've literally done it. I've shed blood at the U.S. capitol. Defending the Capitol, defending the U.S. capitol and still showing up despite consistently. I mean go to any right wing influencer right now on social media, on any platform where they posted about this lawsuit and just go look at the comments. I guarantee you could find 5, 10 without even trying about suggesting death threats. So it's been a non stop and if they think they can scare me away or, or winning or losing an election is going to make me any less or powerful. I don't need a title in front of my name and I don't need initials after my name to realize that I'm in this fight and I am going to continue to stand up and fight for people because this sucks and it's not normal.
- [69:34]
A
Harry, that was perfectly put. For those who are looking to help your campaign, where can they go?
- [69:39]
E
Harry Dunn 4 f o r m d dot com Harry Dunn f o r m d dot com I'm on social medias except for Twitter. It's always going to be Twitter to me. Such a toxic place there and I, I just don't go there. I'm not going to support Elon Musk and just, just the, the cesspool that he's created over at Twitter. So I'm on threads, I'm on Instagram Blue sky substack, Libra done is my handle. Standing our ground is my sub stack and harry dunn4md.com Excellent.
- [70:14]
A
I'm gonna put the link to your website right here on the screen and also in the post description for those who are listening on the podcast, I'm gonna throw it in the show notes. Highly recommend for anybody who's watching right now. Please support this campaign. Support the fighters that we have who are actually standing up in this moment. Harry, thank you for the work you're doing. Thank you for bringing this lawsuit forward. Thanks for standing up for the people who don't have a voice in the same way that you do. And I appreciate you taking the time today.
- [70:36]
E
I appreciate your time, man. Thank you for all the work that you do. You're fantastic, brother.
- [70:40]
A
Thanks again to Jamie Raskin, Keith Ellison, Tom Steyer and Harry Dunn. 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 ryanteller Cohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.