B (6:24)

Brian, great to see you. Happy Holidays.

A (6:26)

Happy Holidays. So another big Epstein tranche release from the Epstein estate. Now we have seen this drip, drip, drip. To what extent do you think that this puts pressure on PAM BONDI? We're three weeks into this law having been passed 427 one in the House, unanimous in the Senate, signed into law begrudgingly, I'm sure by Trump. And yet still nothing released by Pam Bondi, who, by the way, had those files on her desk all the way back in February ready to be released. And so how much pressure do you think this puts on someone like her to get this thing out?

B (6:56)

Yeah. So the House Oversight committee, Democrats released 19 images today. They say they've received 95,000 from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. So I think what they're creating or what they're signaling to the Trump administration is we can create for you the worst of both worlds, where we are both releasing these documents, but you are refusing to, to put out what you have, which makes you look like you're staging a cover up while the truth is slowly getting out there. So I do think this puts pressure on Trump. At some point, someone in this political orbit is going to say, sir, no matter what is in these documents, no matter how bad it must be, ultimately it's probably not worse than everyone assuming the worst, which is where we're at now.

A (7:34)

Well, that, that raises the question. I mean, Trump has to know that, like, he's got political instincts, as much as, as much as nobody wants to admit it, like, he's got political instincts. It's gotten him to the point that he's at today.

B (7:44)

He won three presidential elections.

A (7:46)

Right, Right. You have been, you've been adamant about that point. And so he recognizes that by virtue of suppressing the files that the DOJ already has, that it's allowing everybody to assume the worst. And you and I have spoken in the past about how this is, this is the second worst thing that could, that could possibly happen. Because the first worst thing is that what's actually in the files is worse. And so do you presume that recognizing the narrative he's creating, that what's in the files is actually worse than just living in this hellish purgatory where everybody just assumes the worst anyway?

B (8:21)

Yeah, look, I mean, we don't know what he did. Right. He could have done some awful things. But do I think that there's, you know, specific documentation of Donald Trump with an underage woman sitting in the Epstein files? No, because I think he would have been prosecuted for that if, like, DOJ or the FBI was sitting on, you know, sort of, that kind of evidence. Right. So I think what's happening now is the old cliche is the COVID up is worse than the crime. And I think the COVID up right now is letting all of us think the worst. That he, you know, that he was at these parties, that he was on Epstein's island, that he flew on the plane that he did wildly inappropriate things with young women. And so I think you're right. Donald Trump is smart. He has good PR and marketing instincts. He did win two elections. Like, he has to know this is doing real damage. And for once, it's doing damage within the MAGA base. It's not just Democrats that are upset.

A (9:10)

I'm going to challenge one thing that you said, which is this idea that, that if he had done something, he would have been prosecuted. And I know that we're getting into a little bit of a conspiratorial rabbit hole, but, you know, humor me on this. If, I mean, there were a lot of people that were involved, none of whom have been prosecuted. Like, that's the whole point of this, whole, of this whole search is that there are, you know, presumably hundreds of Epstein's accomplices and we haven't seen accountability for any of those people. And so in the same way that Trump hasn't been prosecuted, none of these other people have been prosecuted.

B (9:42)

Look, that's fair. I mean, I guess what I'm, what I'm getting at is like the most lurid sort of version of what is assumed to be in these files is like video cameras from bedrooms on Epstein island or at his house in New York that were filming individuals kind of in the various acts. Right. Like, we haven't seen that. I think if that, that evidence existed of, let's say, Bill Clinton or Alan Dershowitz, like, I think those people would have been prosecuted by now. I don't think there's been an email that's like, Donald Trump did X on Y date with this underage individual.

A (10:11)

Right.

B (10:12)

So I'm talking about things that are like that clear cut, like such a.

A (10:15)

Blatant smoking gun that it would just be like, ah, we've got the document that he's trying to suppress.

B (10:19)

Now certainly there's also allegations that Jeffrey Epstein was primarily helping people like money launder and avoid taxes and doing all sorts of financial crimes. So, like, there could be evidence of activities like that in these files that I would agree, like, haven't been followed up on, haven't been prosecuted because the focus has been on other stuff.

A (10:37)

Do you presume that at the end of this whole process, so four weeks from the time that the, that the law was passed, which I believe was, was, you know, whatever, at the end of, at the end of November, do you think that Pam Bondi does go ahead and actually release these files?

B (10:50)

I just, unfortunately, I will have no confidence ever that they've released everything yeah, you know, I think there's an ongoing effort to probably remember there was a story about the FBI spending like hundreds of hours redacting Trump's name and stuff like, shit like that really worries me.

A (11:03)

There was also, there's also the fact that Pam Bondi has kind of couched her, her vow to release these files in this idea that, that she's going to release whatever she can release pending, you know, barring any ongoing investigation. And of course, at the 11th hour, Trump had posted that, that he's certain that Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, JP Morgan, Chase, Reid Hoffman were all involved in this. And so Pam Bondi should, should definitely totally open up some investigation. It took four hours for Pam Bondi to then get onto Twitter and say, we're hereby opening investigation into these Democrats. And so if that gives her some pretext to be able to say, hey, we're, you know, we're, we're looking ongoing investigations, ongoing investigation, we can't release all the files, then now she has, now she has the justification to be able to do that.

B (11:48)

Yeah, look, Pam Bondi is an idiot. Cash Patel is an idiot. They were only put in their jobs because they will do Trump's bidding. And I have absolute confidence that that is what's happening right now. They are going to try to clean up these files, cover up what they can, and release what they think is politically damaging to others and not Donald. And it'll just be on investigative journalists and Congress and good people who are still working at the FBI and DOJ to make sure the rest gets out there.

A (12:14)

On the point of the people that Trump has surrounded himself with, the people who built their brands on releasing these very files. There was a point just a few days ago where Dan Bongino said this. I don't know if you remember this.

C (12:25)

This is before you became the Deputy FBI director.

B (12:29)

You put a post on X right.

D (12:31)

After this happened and you said there's.

B (12:33)

A massive cover up because the person that planted those pipe bombs, they don't.

D (12:38)

Want you to know who it is.

B (12:39)

Because it's either a connected anti Trump insider or an inside job. You said that, you know, long before you even thought of as Deputy FBI Director. Yeah. That's why I said to you, this investigation's just begun. We are pretty comfortable.

D (12:58)

We have our guy.

B (12:59)

I think, again, legal process starts to surface and information, facts start to come out. The public's gonna be very comfortable with the investigation that was conducted under Director Patel and his leadership. He's been great on this, but I don't Wanna, you know, listen, I was paid in the past, Sean, for my opinions. That's clear. And one day I'll be back in that space. But that's not what I'm paid for now. I'm paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts.

A (13:26)

And so that's, that's Bongino.

B (13:28)

Incredible clip.

A (13:29)

Basically, basically suggesting that, that when he was but a mere podcaster, he was free to lie because that was obviously the more lucrative path. But now that he's in a job where you have to have some adherence to facts, things are different now. And so first and foremost, your, your reaction to that.

B (13:45)

I was just like, oh my God, he just gave up the whole game.

A (13:47)

Yeah.

B (13:47)

You know, he's like, look, I used to get paid to lie. I used to get paid to incite people and get everyone spun up about this stuff. Now I'm just focused on the facts. Well, you know what, Dan? You probably should have focused a little more on the facts in your previous job because then your day to day right now wouldn't quite be so hard, so difficult. Because everyone who used to listen to your show thinks that you and Cash Patel are covering this shit up, man. You know, I mean like you did real damage and like harmed victims, harmed real investigations. It was an unbelievable admission in a softball interview, by the way.

A (14:15)

I think one of the most striking points of that was when he says or he implies that he's going to go back to that world at some point after. I'm so curious what your thoughts are on this idea that, that Dan Bongino will have retained enough credibility after building his brand again on, on, on this issue of releasing these Epstein files to then be the deputy FBI director in charge of the, of the biggest cover up of a pedophile ring in history. Like how do you go back to that job and have any audience that, that isn't there expressly because they just want to be lied to.

B (14:48)

I mean, he's losing that far right group of people that were, were his biggest supporters. And it's happening on the Epstein files. It's also happening on the assassination of Charlie Kirk because there's a lot of people in right wing circles that don't believe the FBI story. They don't trust what's been put out. They don't believe that the shooter is in US captivity at the moment. So yeah, the idea that Cash Patel and Dan Bongino can just hit the government ejector seat sometime soon and go back to some lucrative career selling brain supplements like Joe Rogan or whatever, Doomsday prepper packs and then do their podcast again. Good luck with that. Guys.

A (15:28)

I am curious and I think that's a good segue into what's happening on the right. And admittedly I'm not as tuned into this because, because I'm, I'm a masochist, but not a masochist degree. But you, Tommy, I love this shit. You are a masochist. And so I just want, I just want you to give a lay of the land of what's happening with the whole Erica Kirk, Candace Owens TP USA situation that's unfolding right now that's really kind of enveloped the right and created, sparked off a civil war that, that unlike anything I've seen recently on the right.

B (15:59)

It is, it is remarkable what's happening. I mean there is, there are like, there's a massive civil war happening and kind of the mad mega media, right? And there's skirmishes breaking out everywhere between kind of like individual influencers. So for those who don't know, Candace Owens, she worked at TPUSA under Charlie Kirk. Then she went to the Daily Wire for a few years. She was basically pushed out over charges of anti Semitism, which she has gone on in her independent career to seem to back up, were reasonable. Candace does not believe the official story about Charlie Kirk's murder. She has suggested that the Israeli government was behind it. More recently she suggested that the French Foreign Legion was behind the assassination. She's also suggested that the French Foreign Legion and some Israeli, because there's always got to be a Jew in there is trying to assassinate her as well.

A (16:47)

And probably as retribution for suggesting that Brigitte Macron is a man.

B (16:53)

She has also done like hundreds of hours of content alleging that the first lady of France is actually a man. In fact, not just any man. She's alleging that Brigitte Macron is her own brother. This like 80 year old dude who is still alive, who still lives in France, who has been photographed with Brigitte like recently, like at the presidential inauguration. Like everything about this is just bonkers. And so the macarons are suing her for libel. We'll see what happens. For defamation. I mean, both, I guess. So we'll see what happens with that. But it is sparked off this civil war where like Candace is fighting with other online podcasters like Tim Pool. She's fighting with tpusa. Like we're talking on a Friday, I think on Monday is going to hold this live stream event when they're going to go through all of Candace's allegations and fact check them one by one. And they asked Candace if she wanted to join, but she said she can't because it's her husband's birthday. Like it's crazy man. I can't over state how wild it is over there.

A (17:50)

And so, you know, with, with all of this stuff.

B (17:53)

We need beefs like this, by the way. We need to manufacture a beef. I don't know where you want to start.

A (17:58)

I don't know if you've been on, I don't know if you've been on Twitter or Threads or Blue sky lately. Trust me, the left has a, has a 10 year long ongoing beef.

B (18:07)

Okay, okay, I'll don't piggyback on that.

A (18:10)

I don't think we have to worry about Dems being in disarray.

B (18:13)

Fair enough.

A (18:15)

To what extent do you think that this is going to have some, some lasting impact on the coalition? Look, a coalition that was largely held together by Trump. Trump is a lame duck president right now. And, and with him leaving, I mean, who knows if, if J.D. vance is gonna have the juice to hold, hold these people together. There is no cult like figure on, on the right right now that, that kind of kept everybody in line in the same way that Trump did. And so to what extent do you think that this is the beginning of the, the beginning of us seeing how the edges are fraying and threads are being pulled? That's ultimately going to, that's ultimately going to show what happens in a post Trump world.

B (18:50)

Yeah. So I think there's two pieces of it. One is like Charlie Kirk filled a lot of space in the conservative media and sort of organizing world. And when he was killed, there's a lot of people trying to jockey and take that position. But I think more broadly and far more importantly is what you just said, which is they know Trump's a lame duck, his polling's in the tank. Everyone is kind of trying to position to see where the MAGA world goes next. And they want to like get in front of that, you know, train and call it a parade and say I'm leading it. Right. And so you're seeing that from Ben Shapiro is all of a sudden on CNN and doing more mainstream media stuff. This literal neo Nazi Nick Fuentes is like on Piers Morgan and he's talking to Tucker Carlson. Like there's all these voices emerging and trying to push the party in different directions. Some of them are for or against J.D. vance, for example, like you said, and I'm with you, man. I don't think J.D. vance has much juice at all in this world, but I guess we'll see. But yeah, it is, it is fascinating to watch and I don't, I don't see an end to it in sight.

A (19:49)

No lies brought to you by Aura Frames. We are in this moment right now where everybody's looking for the perfect gift. It is very difficult. I always don't know what to get from my own family. That's when I found Aura Frames. Aura Frames is basically the cheat code for winning the holidays. It's personal, easy and unforgettable. So do you have anybody in your family who is notoriously difficult to buy a gift for? I do. And our Frames is perfect for that person because now instead of feeling like you've just given them some one off gift that they may or may not like, they get to be a part of your life on a daily basis. See what you're doing. Follow along with Photos and Videos so the deal with Aura Frames is that you get unlimited free photos and video. Just download the Aura app and connect to WI Fi. You can preload photos before it ships, meaning it comes from fully personalized and you can keep adding from anywhere, anytime. Share photos and videos effortlessly straight from your phone all year long. And it includes a gift box. So every frame comes packaged with a premium gift box and no price tag. Don't wait. Win the holidays now with Aura Frames. For a limited time, visit auraframes.com and get 45% off Aura's best selling Carver mat frames named number one by Wirecutter by using promo code BTC at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com, promo code BTC. This exclusive black Friday Cyber Monday deal is their best of the year. So order now before it ends. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. I'm joined now by the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta. Thanks so much for joining me.

D (21:14)

Thanks, Brian. Thanks for having me.

A (21:15)

So we got a major update today as it relates to Donald Trump's ongoing case here in this state. Can you explain what the news is?

D (21:22)

Yes. Today we got an order from Judge Charles Breyer in the District Court in Northern California, specifically San Francisco, granting our preliminary judgment and ending the unlawful federalization and deployment of National Guards people in California, specifically in and around Los Angeles. There were about 300 remaining National Guard that have been federalized and deployed since, for five months now, since June. And we argued to the court that there was no legal basis for their federalization and deployment. The court agreed and in Very, very strong terms found in our favor. Starting off the order by saying, the founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. But the Trump administration has made clear that it's only interested in one check, a blank one. And he found, he used words like, their position is. The federal government's position is shocking, it's concerning. It's incredible. And it is incredible, the positions that they've taken. They've suggested that they can deploy the National Guard forever and that the courts can't review their decision to do so based on one incident in one place at one time in Los Angeles back in June, and that they could deploy those troops based on what happened then months later and a thousand miles away in Oregon. And so it was a very gratifying order. It was thoughtful and well reasoned by Judge Breyer. And I'm very proud of my team for holding the line here and fighting the important fight to make sure that Trump is held accountable. It's a good day for democracy. It's a good day for the rule of law.

A (23:13)

Now, folks are gonna listen to this and say, I already thought that Judge Breyer did rule against Trump's ability to deploy the National Guard. And that case went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit. The three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit blocked that lower court decision. So how does that effort differ from what we just saw today?

D (23:32)

Back in June, we, when the National Guard and the Marines, 4,000 National Guards, people, 700 Marines were deployed in California. We went into court asking for a temporary restraining order. Judge Breyer granted it. So that was a temporary restraining order. And then the federal government, the Trump administration, asked for the 9th Circuit for a stay. They got a stay. And then we argued in front of a full 9th Circuit three judge panel a few weeks back on that issue of the tro. We then went into court asking for a preliminary injunction on the ongoing deployment of the National Guard. There was a demobilization, a reduction in the number of troops deployed. It went from 4700 down to 300. But we believe that when the orders were extended to deploy the 300 in California, there was no basis for it. There was absolutely no rebellion, no invasion, no inability to execute the federal laws with the regular forces. No legal basis, period. Full stop. And that is what the judge issued his order on today about the 300 and the lack of any basis for them being federalized and deployed.

A (24:39)

Which raises the obvious question. Now, this is inevitably going to be appealed to the 9th Circuit because that's what this administration does. And so is there any concern that for the same reason, the Ninth Circuit overturned Judge Breyer's ruling in the summer that they might do the same?

D (24:55)

I'm not concerned. The facts are very different. I think there was the deployment of the National Guard back in June in la, and the Marines was the first case in the United States of the federalization of the National Guard under the Trump administration. Since then, we've seen D.C. we've seen Chicago, we've seen Portland, and I think the judges are seeing what Trump is doing, and they're also very concerned about the facts on the ground at the time of the deployment, what's happening in that moment that could potentially justify the federalization and the deployment. And the facts on the ground in early June in LA are very different than the facts on the ground in October in California and in la? There's absolutely no justification, whether you're highly deferential or not, to the Trump administration's decision. There's just no colorable reason to justify the deployment. So I'm feeling confident going into the appellate levels, if that's what the Trump administration decides to do. And it is their habit and their practice and their routine to appeal to the 9th Circuit and the Circuit Court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. But based on the circumstances, the application of the law, the development of this body of law since June of this year, I'm feeling confident.

A (26:17)

So you're feeling confident there's no justification for Trump to do this. I heard that you mentioned the three conditions, any one of which had to be met, which is this idea that there was an invasion, a rebellion, a failure of the law, of the local government to be able to effectuate the law. None of those things were met. And so, given the fact that none of those conditions were met, what did the Trump administration actually argue in court, like when they were in front of Judge Breyer? What was their justification to continue in December of 2025, allowing 300 federal troops to continue to be deployed here in Los Angeles?

D (26:52)

I mean, it was remarkable what they argued and very shocking and disturbing, as Judge Breyer said. They argued one, that Judge Breyer has no ability to review their decision, that it is unreviewable by the courts, that the court has no jurisdiction, no authority to review what they've done and make a determination. No judge has found that. Judge Breyer did not find that. They didn't have any basis for that. They couldn't cite a case, they couldn't cite a statute, they couldn't cite any legal authority. Or law. They just made up that position.

A (27:26)

Have they tried bringing that position in front of any other judges in any other courtrooms?

D (27:30)

They've continued to argue it. They argued it in the ninth Circuit in Pasadena on the TRO appeal. This is a standard argument for them. And no judge has agreed, nor should they. But that hasn't stopped them. And the judges are just rejecting it out of hand and moving past that argument, not even taking it seriously, because it can't be taken seriously. They also argued, Brian, that the facts on the ground in June in Los Angeles justifies the ongoing federalization and deployment of the National Guard in October five months later.

A (28:08)

Why stop there? I mean, if. If something that happened months ago is justification to continue deploying the troops, why not just go back years, why not go back decades? Why not say the Rodney King riots were bad and so that that's justification to deploy the National Guard today in Los Angeles?

D (28:23)

I mean, you are pointing exactly to the absurdity of their argument. And there needs to be a temporal and geographic nexus to the draw deployment. You need to look at the, the moment and the place and what's happening factually on the ground to justify it. But they think if they had one moment, then, you know, say June in Los Angeles, then forever, literally forever, they can deploy the National Guard based on what happened in June, and not just forever time wise, but anywhere, geography wise. They can send them up to Portland.

A (28:57)

Right.

D (28:57)

Regardless of what's happening in Portland, based on what happened in LA in June. So it's truly a shocking, outrageous argument that Judge Breyer called it what it was. They also argued that there is a threat of a rebellion, and their reason was there was one single individual who threw two unlit Molotov cocktails at a federal building. No one was hurt, they never inflamed, and he was immediately arrested by federal forces that didn't include the National Guard, so that the regular forces were able to hold him accountable immediately. And they said that that was a threat of a rebellion. And Judge Breyer, you can't write laughing in your opinion, but it seemed like he had to be laughing at that argument and rejecting it out of hand because it's so outrageous. So, you know, these are the arguments that the federal government tried to make with a straight face in court. And you know, they didn't have any traction, nor should they, because they're shocking and incredible.

A (30:03)

Do you think the reason that this administration continues to defiantly claim that all of their decisions are completely unreviewable is not necessarily to try and convince Judge Breyer or even the Ninth Circuit, but just because they want to get this question in front of the Supreme Court.

D (30:17)

I think so. I think that's their play. I think they think that they might have better chances at the intermediate appellate level and then maybe even a better chance at the Supreme Court level. But the law is the law. The Constitution is the Constitution. It's not going to change just because this administration wants to trample over it and fail to comply with it. When I was in the U.S. supreme Court oral argument on the tariffs case, they were a lot of tough questions for the Solicitor General of the United States about the unlawfulness of these tariffs, and they were applying the law they were citing to Congress's authority and the inability of the executive branch, even under, you know, that case involved the International Emergency Economic Powers act, iepa. So I think here, you know, the Congress has given a very limited delegation of authority to the president to federalize the National Guard and deploy it under rare circumstances, emergency circumstances, exigent circumstances, and none of them existed here. So whatever they think, whatever their play is, whatever their hope is, their belief about the U.S. supreme Court, I just don't think there's any justification for the deployment. I feel very confident going into any courtroom taking the position that we have and believing that we're going to win because the facts and the law demand it's.

A (31:41)

You know, I've been especially focused on how Trump could abuse these troop deployments across the country, that it's not necessarily about deploying these troops so that he can use them right now, although that's certainly a problem, but more acutely so that he can get these troops into place where they might be able to serve as boots on the ground in the event that Trump wants to abuse his office and try to seize voting machines. As we head toward 2020 or even 2028, does the fact that this judge, Judge Breyer, ruled against these remaining 300 troops, because, again, there's no justification to have them here, does that assuage some of your concerns about how Trump could abuse troop deployments? Or does that, does that concern remain?

D (32:26)

The concern remains. But today was a good day, you know, a good day for the, for the law, for democracy, for accountability, for imposition of the appropriate limits on the executive branch. And this is an area of law where it's not super well developed because there haven't been for good reason, there haven't been presidents that have so defiantly and brazenly blatantly broken the law. But now there's a lot More shaping of this area of the law, defining of this area of the law. And that's a good thing because it makes the boundaries clearer and cleaner and sharper, and we know when the boundaries overstepped. I still think this, this president, you know, he has a contempt for the law. He, he's. He's cruel. He. He just wants power. I think he would. And desperation. Like perhaps now with his poles in the tank and staring down a thrashing in the midterms next year, maybe he'll. He'll be more desperate and, and, you know, invoke the Insurrection act, which he hasn't invoked at this time. We're ready for it if he does or continue to try to deploy the troops as he has. I think there is an attempt to socialize, normalize, make acceptable troops in American cities. The first time it happens, it's shocking. I think his belief is the second time, the third time, the fourth time, the fifth time less so. But it should always be shocking. It's never acceptable. It's never normal. That's not something you can socialize into the American people's consciousness because it's, it's foundational to our nation and its founding that we shall not have the military policing our communities and having militarized cities. So I think that's his attempt, though, and I think he wants to sort of get some reps, if you will, deploy the military in a number of different places. So they can do it quickly, they can do it rapidly, they can do it when they want, where they want, for whatever outcome they want, and it's very, very dangerous. But I'm glad we're beating them back in court and delivering some losses. This is a massive, humiliating defeat for them, especially given the arguments that they dared to make, and they were completely rejected out of hand.

A (34:33)

Well, I appreciate on behalf of myself, who lives here in California and everybody else who lives in California, thanks for the work you're doing to prevent this overreach of the hands of this administration. And thanks for the time today.

D (34:44)

Thanks, Brian. Appreciate you.

A (34:47)

I'm joined now by the US Senator in Georgia, Jon Ossoff. Thanks so much for joining me.

C (34:51)

Hey, Brian, thanks for having me.

A (34:53)

So we have a major story that's coming up that very few people are talking about. Senate Democrats right now are introducing legislation on Thursday to extend the ACA subsidies as they exist for the next three years. So where does that stand as of right now? How are Republicans responding to this thing? There have been some news reports of them trying to just rework the entire system in the next 48 hours. So can you give some insight into where we're at right now?

C (35:17)

Well, they have no plan. They still have no plan. I mean, over the last how many years, they voted dozens of times to repeal the thing in its entirety. Trump had concepts of a plan when he was running for president. Back over the summer, I offered an amendment to their budget bill, the one that slashed Medicaid, to extend the ACA tax credits, because we could all see this was coming. And still now, at the 11th hour, when open enrollment has been open for many weeks, and with the deadline approaching, they have no plan. What they should do is join us this week in voting to extend these tax credits. And, and this is about life or death for many of my constituents and people across the country. I heard from a constituent just a few days ago, a woman in her early 60s, she waits tables for a living. She's fighting breast cancer. She's in the middle of chemotherapy. She has to get chemo every three or four weeks. And her premiums are about to go up to $500 a month. She can't afford that. She, she may lose her insurance in the middle of chemotherapy. And there are countless stories like that, countless human beings in that kind of situation, across my state and across the country. That's why Republicans need to put the politics aside and just join us in passing this extension. It will literally save lives. It will prevent preventable death and huge suffering for all the people already struggling with the cost of living who just can't afford it if health insurance premiums go up 100, 200, 300%.

A (37:08)

Can you help me understand this from a political perspective? As far as the Republicans are concerned, they know what the ramifications are gonna be heading into an election year where people's health insurance premiums can rise to your exact point. 1, 2, 3, 4, 500% from where they are in 2025. And so, and so they're not blind to the political realities here. So why are they so hell bent on trying to undo this system? Is it still because they're relitigating the same argument that they've been litigating for the last 15 years, where they're just so insistent on not allowing Barack Obama to have a win a decade after he's left office?

C (37:49)

Yeah, I think that they simply want.

D (37:51)

To.

C (37:53)

Dismantle not just subsidies that help people afford their premiums, but also protections for pre existing conditions, protections to let people stay on their family's plan until they're 26 years old. And What I've been trying to get through to my Republican colleagues with is just the human reality of this. Like in Washington, I think it's easy for some elected officials to slip into this mindset where it's all a game, and it's just about polling and it's just about statistics. We're talking about the people we're elected to represent having forced upon them. And it's a policy choice. Right. This is only going to happen because Republicans in Congress choose to impose huge increases in health insurance premiums. And, you know, they spent the whole summer gutting Medicaid, cutting taxes for the wealthiest people in the country, defunding hospitals and nursing homes. They were basically united behind that agenda, one of the most unpopular agendas in modern American history. It's already leading to the closure of clinics and hospital services across the country. They were very clear that that was what they wanted to do. And now when they're faced with a pretty straightforward policy and moral choice, should Americans health insurance premiums go up massively, they are all tied up in knots. And, you know, look, I'm not giving up. We're gonna keep fighting every hour of this week to get this done, to try to bring some Republicans along, to try to persuade them to do the right thing. But it doesn't look right now like they're about to help people in Georgia or people across the country, as far.

A (39:58)

As the folks in Georgia are concerned. You know, you're running for reelection to the US Senate in Georgia, so you've been speaking to people all across the state. How has their perception of a Republican Party that swept into power on these promises that they were gonna deliver populous reforms and focus on the cost of housing and rent and groceries and eggs, how have those people reacted to the fact that in fact, none of those things have been made more affordable, but in fact, those issues have been exacerbated with healthcare stripped away on top of that, food assistance stripped away on top of that, and then almost to kind of poke all those people in the eye, they sit idly by while Trump adorns his office in more gold and builds a ballroom that none of those people are ever going to be able to step foot inside and on and on.

C (40:46)

Exactly. I mean, and it's like the contrast between those two things just makes it even worse. And the president is out here publicly dismissing affordability, saying it's some kind of hoax, saying people should stop being dramatic, making fun of people who are suffering. Our constituents are suffering. And while these policies rip health care away from people While the tariff chaos pushes prices higher and hammers small businesses. You said it. He's decorating the White House in gold like it's some kind of royal palace. He's building this massive ballroom funded by his corporate benefactors. But, and let me just say also, yeah, not just that personally enriching himself like the Trump economy is, is. And, and that the trade wars and the Medicaid cuts and what's about to happen to health insurance premiums, disastrous for people in Georgia. But you know who's doing better than they've ever done? The Trump family.

A (41:59)

Yeah. Has that fact broken through to the people who trusted him, though? Like, when you talk to voters out there in Georgia, are they recognizing the con that they've been sold?

C (42:08)

I think you see it every day. I mean, the president's increasingly unpopular, even among his own supporters. Like what I said to you when we spoke a few weeks ago. There's not a constituency in Georgia for this agenda. There's no one was raising their hand and saying, you know what America needs? Defund the hospitals and nursing homes and cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the country. While you're at it, drive up health insurance premiums 300%.

A (42:37)

In terms of your election, how have you looked at the state of Georgia, but in the context of, first of all, the election that happened a few Tuesdays ago, where these two statewide races not only flip blue for the first time in 20 some odd years, but they, they flip blue by a 20 some odd point margin. And then also we look at places like Tennessee, we look at places like, like Pennsylvania, where, you know, these are supposed to be either deep red states or districts, and Instead we're seeing 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 points to the left. How is that making you think about your race?

C (43:14)

Look, here's how I see it. First of all, the period of despair when folks were paralyzed by anxiety, that has to be over. And I think that is over. And we see in these recent election results just how galvanized and determined the American people are to push back, to restore checks and balances, to fight for health care, to fight for affordability. But we can't be complacent. I mean, you did see in Georgia these amazing statewide results, Public Service Commission elections with the cost of electricity, the light bill, the power bill being huge issues, massive Democratic victories statewide. But the reality of this situation and this crisis that we find ourselves in is that the only way out is victory in the midterms. That is the only solution. That is the only way to restore checks and balances. That is the only way to end egregious abuse of power and corruption that we're seeing every single day. And this race in Georgia, this Senate race in Georgia, where I will have hundreds of millions of dollars of GOP super PAC money thrown at me, where they will pull out every trick they can, where they will, we should expect dirty tricks, right? This is the state where the president called our chief elections officer and said, Find me 11,000 votes. This Senate race in Georgia is pivotal. I'm the only Democratic senator who is defending a Senate seat in a state that the president won. And I am asking, folks, if you are ready to take action, if you are ready to fight back, if you see that these midterms are crucial, that we have an obligation to win them, please chip into my reelection campaign. Please go to electjohn.com, electjo n.com and do what you can. Not for me, but for our republic.

A (45:13)

And by the way, I'm gonna put that link for folks who are watching right here on the screen. And also in the post description of this video, just wanted to ask more broadly, I know that something that has been in the news for a moment now is how Trump has kind of predicated so much of what very much looks to be like illegal strikes in the Caribbean on this idea that he will do anything to protect Americans from the scourge of drugs coming into this country, only to then turn around and pardon the former president of Honduras, who was, of course, convicted of bringing in and facilitating drugs into this country to the tune of far more than folks on these boats were doing. And so can I have your general reaction to that news?

C (45:58)

Right. And because the former Honduran president convicted in US Court of these crimes of facilitating massive narco trafficking into the United States, his political party, the Trump folks view as their allies, I mean, it's just, it's a mind blowing abuse of the pardon power, not just this case, but we're seeing it in case after case after case. And to say that you're going to do everything you can, as we should, to fight drug trafficking into the United States and then pardon somebody who was convicted in federal court for participation in a huge scheme to funnel drugs into the United States is astonishing. And I think it's another example of something that this White House believes they can get away with. They believe that people are so overwhelmed by everything going on that they can't pay attention to each outrage, can't draw our own conclusions as citizens about what's going on. But the Depth of the corruption and the abuse of power is so unprecedented in modern American history that we are seeing the American people turn against this. And it's not just Democrats. It's middle of the road, folks. It's independents. And it's a lot of Republicans, including MAGA Republicans, who didn't elect Donald Trump so that the first Family could get rich while health insurance premiums went up double or triple.

A (47:40)

Right. Can you talk about what reforms you would like to see? I mean, we're watching this corruption happen in real time. We're watching Donald Trump pardon 1600 insurrectionists, many of whom are getting rearrested now because of crimes, including crimes against children. We're watching him pardon. You know, you spoke about the crimes that took place in your state of Georgia. Pardon all the people that were involved in that regal prosecution. Now, granted, those don't apply to those people because that's a state prosecution, but even the state prosecution is not going forward, but basically giving a green light to folks who get indicted for trying to overturn elections on his behalf. And so that's clearly the message that he's sending. And he's doing it over and over. He's doing it to these criminals, he's doing it to the, to people involved in cryptocurrency. So any way he can benefit himself, anybody who's helped his family, anybody who's helped his bottom line, who has helped his political prospects, all of those people are getting pardoned. And so what would you like to see in terms of a reform take place? And then do you think that there's any likelihood that after Trump is out of office, those reforms will actually come to pass?

C (48:44)

I think this presidency is the wake up call that's long overdue about how presidential power over many decades has grown to this point where it can be so easily abused by a shameless and corruption president. I mean, generations of members of Congress, through negligence and cowardice, have paved the way for this, slowly but surely over many years, giving away more and more of the power that the Constitution invests in the people's elected representatives in Congress, taking that power and giving it to the executive. And now we have in the Oval.

D (49:39)

Office.

C (49:41)

What in many ways, the founders of our country and the framers of our Constitution most feared and built our constitutional structure to guard against, which is an executive so willing to abuse power for his own ends. The whole American project was a rejection of monarchy and the construction of a political system to contain the kind of autocratic and corrupt and abusive impulses of someone who would be A king. Congress over years has lost sight of that and has given the presidency powers that make a president who would abuse all of those powers like a king if he chooses to be. So there is going to have to be deep reform, anti corruption reform, restoration of checks and balances once we put Trump back in the box, restore checks and balances in the short term in these midterm elections. And that is our most essential task now and again. Please help me win this Senate race in Georgia. But once we do those things, if we don't attack the corruption in our political system and if we don't constrain a presidency, the institution of the presidency that can obviously be so easily abused, we're still going to be in a perilous place as a Republican, as a people.

A (51:13)

Last question here. If you could snap your fingers and get one piece of legislation passed day one of Democrats having full control of government, what would that be?

C (51:23)

Let me just say if I could snap my fingers and pass one piece of legislation right now, it would be this extension of ACA tax credits. Because it's in just a few weeks that my constituent with breast cancer is going to be unable to afford her health insurance. It's in just a few weeks that another constituent I just heard from single mother whose prescriptions, if she doesn't have insurance, will cost her $80,000 a year, is going to see her premiums go up 500%. And then when we have the power to do so, there is so much more to do to make health care a human right for the American people. I mean, the fact that you can lose your health insurance in the middle of chemotherapy in the richest country in the world is a moral outrage. And it's a policy choice. And it's something that we have to deal with not just by extending these ACA tax credits, but by making sure that no American goes without the health care that they need.

A (52:29)

I would remind folks who are watching right now that this race is going to be a principal target for Republicans. So if you have the opportunity to donate, if you know you're going to donate anyway, donating early helps the senator here define himself before Republican media has the opportunity to define him. So I'm gonna put the link to that website right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Senator Ossoff, thanks so much for taking the time. Best of luck in the campaign trail.

C (52:52)

Thanks, Brian. And again, for folks who Wanna help, it's electjohnjon.com thank you for helping me fight this fight in Georgia thank you for not giving up on the United States.

A (53:03)

Thanks again to Tommy Vitor, Rob Bonta and Jon Ossoff. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to no Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesley, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me Ryan Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantellercohen.com to learn more.