B (4:21)

Great to be with you.

A (4:22)

So, first and foremost, we have seen the ways in which Donald Trump has continued to target his political enemies. We've seen indictments from James Comey of Letitia James, when Donald Trump wrote a message that we now know, thanks to the Wall Street Journal, was supposed to be a DM to Pam Bondi, he included. Pam, I've reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially, same old story as last time. All talk, no action, nothing's being done. What about Comey Adam, Shifty, Schiff, Leticia, they're all guilty as hell, but nothing's gonna be done. So we have seen that since that message to Pam Bondi that Comey and Letitia James have both been indicted, have both been caught up in the dragnet that is Trump's weaponized Department of Justice. You're the third name. And so to what extent are you concerned about the prospect of Trump weaponizing the DOJ against you?

B (5:10)

Well, look, I think anyone who's on the president's enemies list has to expect that Donald Trump may very well go after them. And this is the thing. This is a growing list. And yes, I'm apparently near the top of the list, but it's a long, growing list. We saw the president add Jack Smith to the list and Lisa Monaco to the list and others, Andrew Weissman to the list. Every day, every week, it's the mayor of Chicago, the governor of Illinois gets put on the president's enemies list and threatened with prosecution. Now, I spent almost six years with the Justice Department in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, and this is unprecedented. I would have never dreamed that a president would instruct an attorney general to basically try to prosecute his political opponents. And in the case of Letitia James and James Comey, the U.S. attorney, the Republican U.S. attorney was fired because he didn't think there was any there there. And replaced by Donald Trump's personal lawyer who sought the indictments. So this is the worst abuse of the Justice Department we've ever seen. And the president certainly is making it clear he's only getting started. But it's also, Brian, of a piece with other actions by the president, by the administration, to weaponize the powers that of the federal government against the American people. So that includes using the military in American cities. It includes using the FCC to try to kick late night comedians off the air, or using the power to deprive media companies of mergers to extort payments to the president. All of these attacks on universities and law firms are part of the same effort to intimidate and silence critics. And I can tell you this, no matter what they throw my way, I am not going to be silenced. I'm not going to be intimidated. I'm going to continue to hold this president accountable.

A (7:06)

You know, a lot of the Republicans brand was predicated on this idea that they were against the weaponization of the government. They literally had a subcommittee about the weaponization of government when Joe Biden was president. And so in your conversations with your Republican colleagues, is there any sense of discomfort at them doing the very thing that they predicated their brands on purportedly being against.

B (7:29)

There's a lot of discomfort with how the administration is conducting whole lines of operations, whether they're military, use of the military in cities, abuse of the Justice Department, or, for example, Pam Bondi's stonewalling of congressional oversight. For those of your viewers who watched her before the Judiciary Committee a week or so ago, I had a number of Republicans afterwards basically say they thought her performance embarrassing and a charade. But are they willing to say anything publicly or willing to do anything legislatively? Thus far, the answer is no. They are fully intimidated. I had one Republican senator tell me it's not just that he will go after them the same way he's going after me, and they fear that, but it's also that he will punish their entire state. And so they acknowledge what a vindictive, personally vindictive president this is and his willingness to abuse the powers of the government to punish them and their states.

A (8:32)

Given that we've seen him abuse those powers, given that we've seen him, you know, subvert the Constitution to be able to send ICE into cities and federal troops into cities in defiance of Posse Comitatus, and that really, he's not bound by any law, statute, or even the Constitution. Do you have any concern that he may try to take this to its logical, natural conclusion and invoke the Insurrection Act? Whether he uses the no Kings protest as a pretext to be able to do that, or whether he just has no pretext to be able to do that, but says we're facing an invasion, a rebellion, an insurrection from the radical Marxist leftists out there. And so we have no choice but to. But to, you know, allow me, as, as president to usurp all power and invoke the Insurrection Act.

B (9:23)

I'm increasingly concerned that he will do exactly that. And most particularly because his actions keep getting struck down in court. So he's deploying the National Guard and the active duty military to American cities to be used against American citizens. And increasingly, courts are striking it down. The federal district court in Portland, Oregon, for example, said that the presentation the Justice Department made in support of this, what were clearly violations of the law against using the military for law enforcement, that their presentations were untethered by facts. They were basically devoid of any factual basis.

A (10:02)

And that was a judge, by the way, who Trump himself appointed Judge Immergut.

B (10:05)

That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And we're seeing judges in Illinois, in California and elsewhere reach the same conclusion, that the Department of Justice representing the administration in these cases is acting in bad faith, representing things that simply are not true, are provably false, and in fact, are making the situation in these cities more dangerous than before the introduction of troops. Now, it may very well be, and I think Stephen Miller is signaling this, that if they keep losing on the lawless rationale they're using, they may try to invoke a different lawless rationale, and that is invoke the Insurrection Act. And that also clearly doesn't apply here. But it gives them another bite at the apple, gives them another chance to deploy American troops against the will of mayors and governors and the American people. So I am increasingly concerned about it. And when these cases or a challenge to that act goes to the Supreme Court, I have no confidence in the Supreme Court and its willingness to stand up this president because they simply have refused to do so up to this point.

A (11:12)

You know, as it relates to this doj, we have seen so much egregious lawlessness from the federal agencies. From ice, for example, there are so many videos and images of ICE just barreling people down with no justification to do so, crashing their cars into people, tackling people to the ground, injuring them, refusing to identify themselves, refusing to wear any insignia, basically acting as. As, like Donald Trump's personal secret police force, accountable to no one and nothing. And so when we see such lawlessness at the hands of the federal government, is there any remedy when. When they, like, knowing full well that the DOJ is never going to rein in their own agents? Is there any remedy here for Americans who are. Who are the victims of this lawlessness?

B (12:04)

Well, there is a near term remedy which has often been successful, and that is litigation. People are suing the government and they are winning. Cities are suing, governors are suing, private organizations are suing, and they're often winning. You have people who are US Citizens, for example, suing over their illegal detention. We just saw a report today from ProPublica about, I think, about 170 U.S. citizens unlawfully detained, sometimes for days. So that litigation is really one of the most important tools we have. Is there some broader form of accountability that will come later, though, for these lawless actions? For a Department of justice, misrepresenting the facts to the courts, hard to see that happening at all during this administration. Will it happen in the future during a different administration? We can only hope there'll be some form of accountability for this, you know, harm they're doing and the flagrant lawlessness of it.

A (13:07)

Do you think that Democrats have the stomach, though, for that? I mean, the reality is that we saw a lawless Trump 1.1.0. And what followed was a DOJ led by Merrick Garland, who, who I think was more focused on preserving the optics of a non politicized DOJ than actually, than actually looking to hold people accountable for what they'd done. Certainly much more circumspect and judicious than any DOJ that we'd seen recently and certainly more than the Trump, than Donald Trump and his acolytes deserved. And so do you think that in the event that we are fortunate enough to see democracy survive this and for Democrats to actually get into power, that they will have the stomach to really hold the folks who are engaged in all of this lawlessness to account to the extent that they need to be held accountable?

B (14:07)

There has to be accountability. Otherwise those that are engaged in these lawless actions will feel there's no repercussion now or even in the future. And you're right, the Republicans have continually tried to paint this false picture of terrible weaponization of that under that well known partisan, they say Merrick Garland, as if Merrick Garland was some kind of a rabid partisan, far from the truth. And they want to draw this false equivalence between investigating and prosecuting a president for inciting a violent attack on the Capitol in which hundreds of police officers were beaten illegally, bringing boxes and boxes of classified documents to his home and then obstructing the investigation into it. They want to somehow equate that those lawful actions to hold someone responsible with the lawless actions of this president who is unlike Joe Biden, anything Joe Biden ever did, basically telling department, I want you to prosecute this enemy, I want you to prosecute that enemy. I want you to prosecute this other enemy. And for those who lawlessly carry out those directives, who violate the Justice Department manuals, who violate the ethics laws under their state bar organizations, there has to be accountability. And it may not come now, but it has to come at some point in the future.

A (15:30)

Do you think that the bar, for example, should also be revisiting its own standards in terms of giving power to people who are very clearly content to abuse it? I mean, we have seen many instances in which Trump's attorneys have been disbarred, have lost their law licenses. We've seen Jenna Ellis and John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, Rudy Giuliani. But the reality is there are plenty more lawyers who are out there working for him. And I feel like a lot of the remedy to this is just kind of retroactively, you know, once the damage has been done, you know, wait a year or two before there's finally some accountability. But that doesn't help us in the situation that we're in right now. And Trump himself knows full well that he can always find another attorney who's willing to use their power to kind of give some legal weight to carry out his illegal plans. And so does there need to be some change, as far as the bar is concerned, to not empower these people to do what very clearly they're perfectly content to do if it means they get to get into Trump's good graces and have some proximity to power?

B (16:38)

You know, I think the bar has rules of ethical conduct that are being violated all the time. Now, whether the bar has the wherewithal to enforce those rules of conduct is very difficult. Whether the bar, in a disciplinary proceeding, could get the kind of discovery it would need to hold people accountable. But what we see, really, one effective check we've had, though it has its limits, is people who are willing to uphold their oath of office and their ethical obligations are quitting rather than engage in unlawful conduct or immoral conduct. We're seeing that at the Department of Justice, where people are being fired because they won't do unethical things, or they're quitting because they won't do unethical things. I keep thinking, for example, the prosecutors who are working on. Who were working on the corruption case against the mayor of New York and were instructed to dismiss the case because the mayor was useful to the president on a completely unrelated policy matter, that is immigration. And they asked these senior prosecutors, these public corruption prosecutors, to dismiss the case, and they refused. And one of them said, you may be able to find some coward or some fool to take this action, but that was never going to be me. And people like that who are demonstrating courage, and not just at the Justice Department, they're at the CDC and refusing to bless vaccine recommendations that are at odds with the science and give in to conspiracy thinking, and at every agency who are saying, no, I'm not doing that. That would violate my code of ethics and the law. That's been really important. These people are heroes. And others who step in and say, okay, if they won't do it, I'll do it. I'll do whatever I can to get that appointment, to get that advancement. I hope they're held accountable for violating their ethical requirements, for violating their department policies. I hope there is accountability.

A (18:40)

We'll leave it there. Senator Schiff, appreciate your time.

B (18:42)

Thank you.

A (18:46)

I'm joined now by Congressman Dan Goldman. Congressman, thanks so much for joining me.

C (18:49)

Thanks for having me again, Brian.

A (18:51)

So can you give us a lay of the land right now in terms of the continued opposition by Mike Johnson and the Republicans to swear in Adelita Grijalva into her district. And of course she would be the 218th vote forcing this discharge petition on the Epstein files.

D (19:06)

Yeah.

C (19:06)

I mean, you remember in, at the end of July when Speaker Johnson closed the House early for our August recess because he didn't want this discharge petition to come to the floor and his members didn't want to have to vote on releasing the Epstein files anymore. So now we've come back, the discharge petition has been on the floor. There are 217 signatures. You need 218. And what that means if you get 218, is that it has to come to the floor for a full vote in the House. And so as we know, Speaker Johnson has kept the Republicans out of D.C. on vacation for the last three weeks. He shut down the House right at the last week of the, the fiscal year. So we didn't come in the 29th or 30th when we were scheduled to. And he has kept us out and has not brought us back into session. And while we've been out, he refuses to swear in a new representative elect Adelita Grijalva from the Arizona 7th district, who won her election, I believe 22 days ago, has been in D.C. has asked to be sworn in, but Johnson refuses to swear her in even though he has on a number of occasions in recent months sworn in new members who won special elections within 24 hours without any pomp and circumstance.

A (20:40)

And so what's the long term play here? Is it just to never come back into session? I mean like really like truly like what, what is, what is the plan here other than just taking this thing day by day? And every single 24 hour period that Mike Johnson can do, Trump's bidding by suppressing the Epstein files is just a victory in his mind.

C (21:02)

I do think that's the way Mike Johnson thinks about it. I think in fact that's how he's thought about his role as speaker from the very beginning. And he even has said that at various points. I'm just trying to get to the next day. That's basically the Mike Johnson strategy. Just get me to the next day. And what's, what's really important is that he is very disingenuously and deceptively lying about what's going on. And he says, oh, he wants her to have the full opportunity to make a speech to the House when we're in session. Well, she doesn't want that. And he hasn't insisted on that for two of his Florida representatives back in April when he needed their votes. So that one doesn't make any sense because she says, I don't care. I just want to be sworn in so I can actually represent my constituents. You can't do any constituent work. They have no representation. And then he'll say, well, no, this is not about Epstein, because the oversight. We're all for transparency. The Oversight Committee has an investigation into Epstein and those files are going to be released in due course. Well, that's total hogwash too, because the Oversight Committee's investigation and the authorizing document for that is much narrower than the discharge petition and it does not include types of evidence such as video recordings, audio recordings, photographs, witness interviews. Now, if you were doing, if you were looking, combing through a massive investigative file and you wanted to find out who the accomplices might be, those documents and recordings are exactly where you would look for. So he's acting as if, oh, no, we're for transparency. We have an oversight investigation, but it's all part of the COVID up, because that investigation does not include what is going to be the critical evidence that will reveal whether or not Donald Trump is included in there or any of the other accomplices.

A (23:12)

I want to talk about the process of what would happen if and when this discharge petition actually, actually has the requisite number of signatures in just a moment. But real quick, on Mike Johnson, how do you square this, this pious branding that he puts forward with the fact that, in effect, what he's doing right now is just protecting one of the most famed and notorious pedophile rings in modern American history?

C (23:36)

I think what Mike Johnson realizes is that Donald Trump has complete and total control over the Republican Party and that includes Speaker Johnson, and that he is essentially a mouthpiece, a puppet doing Donald Trump's bidding in the House. And every time that the Freedom Caucus or some Republicans try to stand up and tell Mike Johnson, no, we're not going to go along with you, he brings it to a vote, they vote no, and then he just defers them over to Donald Trump who twists their arm into voting how he wants them to vote. So Mike Johnson's entire utility is based on Donald Trump. And it is very clear, given the complete 180, that Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and Dan Bongino at the FBI have made about the Epstein files that they can't, that Trump campaigned on releasing them. These two guys in particular in the FBI made their name on hyping up all these conspiracy theories about the Epstein files and how they need to be released. Pam Bondi says in February, we're going to release all of them. I don't know why we haven't released all of them. They spent thousands of hours going through the evidence to redact the information about the victims, which is absolutely necessary. And then all of a sudden they don't want to release any of it. And we get reporting. That's because Donald Trump is in it. So Donald Trump is covering up what appears to be his own involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. And Mike Johnson, as a puppet of Donald Trump, is doing everything he can to perpetuate the COVID up.

A (25:22)

Are any of your Republican colleagues uncomfortable with this? I mean, like, aside from the four Republicans who've signed onto this discharge petition already, which I believe Massey, Mace, Greene and Boebert, if I'm not mistaken, Aside from them, do you hear things from, like your Republican colleagues in the gym? Do you hear things from them when the cameras are off? This seems so antithetical to their branding. It is so antithetical to their branding. But what are they saying when they're not somewhere where their words might be captured and God forbid, Trump might have an opportunity to see that they're not being, you know, supplicants in the way he needs them to be? What do you hear from these people, you know, when they're in private?

C (26:07)

Well, it's, it's fascinating because most of them will say that they're for the release of the Epstein files. Many of them have actually co sponsored this bill, the Massey bill, that is now subject of the discharge petition. But they won't sign the discharge petition because what they say is, well, you know, we follow what leadership wants to do. So they're basically saying we, if Mike Johnson wants to put it on the floor, we'll vote for it.

A (26:36)

Right.

C (26:36)

But if he decides he's not putting it on the floor, I'm not going to go around his back with a discharge petition to force him to bring it to the floor.

A (26:45)

Which, which is bullshit. I mean, they want, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to say that they're, that they're, you know, that they want transparency as it relates to the horrific crimes that Epstein perpetuated. And yet at the same time, don't want to actually do the thing to actually get that transparency.

D (27:00)

Right.

C (27:00)

Because we all that if it were up to Mike Johnson, he would never bring right that bill to the floor because it is now a part of the COVID up for Donald Trump and perhaps others that we don't know about. So if Johnson's not going to do it, the only way to get it to a floor vote is the discharge petition.

D (27:20)

Right.

C (27:21)

And so they know if they just blame the discharge petition, that's not the way we do things that they will. They are doing Donald Trump's bidding, which for all of them at this point, as we've seen for the last nine months, 10 months, that is everything that they are doing. They have completely, you use the right word, supplicated themselves to Donald Trump. There is no check and balance from Congress. There's no independent Article one authority that they're using to hold the administration accountable in any way, shape or form. They're doing nothing. They are rolling over as an additional vessel of Donald Trump and this is their way of continuing to do it. But they're in a pickle because they've already come out and said they want it to be these files to be released. There's no good explanation why they can say they don't want them to. So they're focusing on process, which as you say is total bullshit.

A (28:22)

So let's talk about that process for a moment. Is it true that if they get the requisite 218 votes to force this for the discharge petition to force a vote on the floor, then if it goes through, then it's just regular order after that and they need 60 votes in the Senate and they need a signature from, from Trump.

C (28:41)

Yes, it would be a regular legislation.

A (28:46)

Ok, so, so knowing full well that Trump is never going to sign this thing at the end of the day, do you think that if the dam broke and we actually did get over that hump of process where it, where finally we do have a vote for this thing on the floor, that in the event Trump doesn't sign it and there needs to be a veto proof majority, then do you think that there would be a flood of Republicans to reach that threshold to actually overcome a presidential veto?

C (29:13)

Well, again, it would have to come to the floor for that vote which is controlled by Mike Johnson and Republican leadership. I think what Donald Trump does, it wants to avoid is being in a situation where he has to veto a bill that is requiring the transparency that he and all of his followers have called for and then it will just be completely the cab will be out of the bag, that he's just covering it up for himself. This way he's got plausible deniability. But you know, I think if it gets to a vote, there will be more than 2/3 of the House that does vote to in support of this bill. I don't know what will happen in the Senate and that remains to be seen. But it is supposed to come to the floor for a vote. If you get 218 and it's unclear to me, you know, what, what will happen after that. It is supposed to, but this Republican leadership has been able to manufacture so many different ways of obstructing regular order that I don't put anything past them.

B (30:34)

Right.

A (30:34)

I mean that, that was my other concern was, look, he can't keep Representative elect Grijalva out of the House forever. At some point he's going to have to swear her in. Maybe, look, maybe like, maybe he's thinking like, try me, you know, challenge accepted. But the reality is at some point she's gonna have to come in, she will sign this discharge petition, will be in a situation where it should then come to the floor for a vote. But even then, I mean, if Mike Johnson is willing to keep her out of the House for as long as he has almost three weeks, when usually these representative elects are sworn in within 24 hours, then who knows what he'll do when the rules, the norms stipulate that a discharge petition has to come to the floor.

C (31:18)

Let me give you an example. When Trump implements tariffs under some of the statutes it is required to come before Congress in order to be essentially ratified. Congress gets a say to endorse the tariffs and the rationale for the tariffs. And you've got it requires, I think there are 15 session days before it is ripe to come to the floor. Mike Johnson literally put in one of the rules that they Republicans generally have to pass in order to bring a bill to the floor for a simple majority vote. He literally put in the rules that the clock on that particular bill introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Greg Meeks would stop. So it would never get to 15 days and it would never be ripe for a vote, so that the Republicans would never have to vote on Trump's tariffs. So that just shows you the lengths he will go to to avoid normal process, regular order and frankly what the statute and law requires to protect Donald Trump and to supplicate himself to the President.

A (32:43)

Last question here, and I want to talk about an entirely different topic and just get your thoughts on this we have heard so many Republicans, Mike Johnson, Pam Bondi, come out and basically try and declare that the upcoming no Kings Day protest is some gathering of antifa. It's a hate America rally. We've heard this. This talking point over and over and over again. And so knowing that Donald Trump has already signed an executive order designating Antifa, this nebulous concept of antifa as a terrorist organization, is there any concern that, given the way that they're trying to brand the no Kings protest as some antifa gathering, that two and two can go together here and that they'll say, anybody who then goes to this protest, now that we've branded it an antifa Protestant, is subject to the jurisdiction of the executive order I signed, and everybody could be rounded up by federal agents.

C (33:38)

Yeah, it's a great point. And I actually made that point when he first issued the executive order. Chris Wray, as FBI director, said very clearly when he testified that antifa is an ideology. It is not an organization. So how you can name an ideology a domestic terrorist group is beyond me. But the point of doing it is to allow this massive flexibility and leeway because it's undefined to define it however you want to define it. And there's no question that they are doing this so that they are designated as a domestic terrorist group, which doesn't actually exist in statute in any meaningful way. There's no real enforceable definition. But optically, they can say, yeah, we're rounding these people up, they're domestic terrorists. And so I think that is an A.B.S. a real concern. And it's why, you know, I think everybody should go to these rallies, should strongly advocate and for our democracy, for our rule of law, for health care, but it has to be peaceful. And it's very important that all of the attendees at these rallies are peacefully protesting, which is how they have been to this point. So I don't expect anything else. But given that what we've seen with ICE essentially creating violence in cities in order to claim that there's anarchy and chaos, we also have to be careful as to how much the administration and the federal government will try to drum up some sort of violence, essentially.

A (35:32)

Yeah, that's an excellent point. We'll leave it there. Congressman, as always, thanks for the time.

C (35:37)

Thanks, Brian.

A (35:41)

I'm joined now by the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia. Thanks for joining me.

E (35:45)

Happy to be here. Thank you.

A (35:47)

So we are now fast approaching what will be the longest delay of a House member being prevented from being sworn in. And that is all owed to the fact that Mike Johnson continues to do Donald Trump's bidding and do whatever he can to prevent the discharge petition from being signed. As we know, Representative elect Grijalova would be the 218 signature. So do we have any update now in terms of Mike Johnson's willingness to actually do his job and swear in this new member of Congress?

E (36:17)

Well, first, obviously very clear now that Mike Johnson is now involved in this cover up. It started with Donald Trump, Vance, the doj, Pam Bondi, you know, they had, they had the files. They want to release them. Mike Johnson had largely stayed out of the, stayed out of it. And now it's very clear that he is doing Donald Trump's bidding and ensuring that these files not see the light of day. He doesn't want to vote. Adelaide Grijalva, her election has been certified now by the Secretary of State and the governor. She has 800,000 constituents that are waiting for representation. She can be sat whether it's a shutdown or whether the government is open. There is no reason why she should not be right now a full member of Congress. But we know that Mike Johnson doesn't want her to be the deciding vote of which she will be. She's already pledged to, to actually get these files and a vote in Congress to get these released. And so it's, it's outrageous what it's doing right now.

A (37:11)

Arizona's Attorney General Mays has said that what Mike Johnson's doing is illegal and that they have lawyers right now drafting litigation. Can I have your reaction to the prospect of litigation? Because Mike Johnson is so hell bent on refusing to allow a duly elected member of Congress to actually be sworn in so that she can serve her constituents to the point where he risks being sued by the Attorney General of Arizona.

E (37:38)

That's exactly right. I think the Attorney General is completely right that that lawsuit hopefully will pressure Johnson to do the right thing. The reality is that she has been elected. She's been certified. She should be a full member of Congress. And it was sad to see her this last week. They've given her an office with no phone lines, no staff. She's at the Capitol trying to represent her constituents with no support. She can't, of course, vote. And so it's outrageous that other members of Congress have been sworn in immediately, even before certification, yet he refuses to do so for Adelita. So I think the speaker now is not only just on the verge of ripping away more people's health care, as we know, because of these premiums that are going to go up, which is a big reason why the shutdown is actually in place. But now he is denying the people of Arizona fair representation. So I'm hopeful that the attorney General in Arizona is successful.

A (38:37)

Well, it seems that while Mike Johnson is doing his best to help Donald Trump with that cover up, there actually does seem to be some movement here. Can I have your reaction to the fact that Britain's Prince Andrew has relinquished the entirety of his royal titles because of these continued accusations against him in very much the same world as what we're dealing with on the Epstein front?

E (39:01)

Well, you know, look, I, I, Prince Andrew is a, is a terrible, terrible person who's done horrific, horrific things to women and girls. And, and, and, and this is going to continue to come out. We, our investigation on the oversight committee, I mean, just about a month ago put out flight logs and would appear to be possible payments to, to Epstein and Maxwell through Prince Andrew. And the idea now that he is stepping down as more explosive information is to come out in the weeks ahead is the right decision. And I think that he is someone that is involved in horrific, horrific sexual violence. And look, this is a good day for justice for the survivors. And we're going to continue to put information out, and I think more information about Prince Andrew I think will be, will be coming out in the weeks ahead.

A (39:57)

Well, if it's serious enough that what still remains to be uncovered, still remains to be released, is bad enough to get him to step down and relinquish his royal title, wouldn't that be even more incentive for Mike Johnson to recognize that what is contained within the Epstein files is actually pretty serious, serious enough to scare Prince Andrew. And so maybe instead of burying it, maybe instead of making himself part of this coverup, he should actually be helping get some accountability, get some transparency on this issue.

E (40:29)

That's absolutely right. I mean, this is a moment where Mike Johnson can do the right thing. And he hypocrisy, he sat just right next to me. We were listening to the survivors when they were in D.C. and these women were looking and talking to the speaker and asking him for transparency and for justice. And look what he's doing right now.

A (40:53)

What did he say to them when they were appealing directly to Mike Johnson?

E (40:57)

I mean, look, he talked about his own faith and how horrible it was what had happened to them. But clearly he's not taking action on his words.

A (41:05)

I mean, like, he presents himself, and that's the thing, like, he presents himself as this pious guy. He leads with his religion, he predicates his whole identity on his Christianity. And even in this situation that you're describing, he talked about how this is, you know, the links here between what's happened and how it makes him think about his own religion. But then why use that as a shield and not actually do anything about it?

E (41:30)

I think that's exactly right. And he is a huge hypocrite here for saying, leaning into his faith, leaning into support for these women, and yet playing cover up and being a part of this massive cover up around Jeffrey Epstein for Donald Trump and for who, God knows who else. Because we know at the end of the day that there are very powerful men, very wealthy men in this country who right now are walking free, who have not been convicted or have had, have any type of justice or accountability for what they have done. And our job on the Oversight Committee is to get to the truth, but also to show women and girls across this country that if you commit these horrific crimes and acts that you are going to be held accountable because you are a powerful man. You don't get to just walk away. And we don't care again if you are a Democrat or a Republican or who is in these files. We're gonna expose every single person.

A (42:28)

What is the long term play for Mike Johnson? Because he's clearly not gonna be able to keep Representative elect Grijalova out of Congress forever. There's gonna come a point where, you know, whether it's days from now, weeks from now, or months from now, and I wouldn't put it past Mike Johnson to make it months from now, but there's gonna come a point where she's gonna get into Congress and she will be that 218th vote. And so is this just a play for Mike Johnson where every day, every individual day, if he can just get through a 24 hour period where Grijalva doesn't sign on to this discharge position, that's a win in his book. Is there no long term thinking whatsoever? It's just, okay, let's get to tomorrow. Let's get to tomorrow. Let's get to tomorrow. And that's it.

E (43:09)

Look, I think they're gonna try to delay the release of the files and they're gonna try to stop our investigation every single chance they can. And you know, they're, they're gonna, they're gonna lie, they're gonna try to throw out misinformation, they're going to try to trick the public, the public. And so it's our job to cut through that and to just carry on every single day until we get the full truth and a full release of the files. That is what we are doing. That's what we're, we're. If Mike Johnson thinks we're going to stop or he's going to somehow tire us out, you know, he's crazy because we're not, we're going to, we're going to stay on this. And I think it's important for us on the Oversight committee to continue and press on every single day until we have justice for these women.

A (43:52)

Switching gears here, there's been some concerns, some rumblings that Donald Trump is going to look at no Kings Day or other cities where he's deployed the military and use any violence, violence that, by the way, he is trying his level best to gin up as some pretext to be able to take some severe action, like invoke the Insurrection act, for example. Do you have any worry that, that he'll try to do that?

E (44:15)

I'm always worried with Donald Trump. He's illegally deploying National Guard and military into our cities without any requests from governors or mayors. He's causing more problems by going into many of these cities and actually solving anything. And we know like in places like Portland and others where there is enormous amount of peace and folks are peacefully protesting and they're trying to just show their First Amendment rights and freedoms to peacefully protest and demonstrate. He has the military and ICE and federal agents and law enforcement. And so look, I don't, I don't put anything past him. I think what's important for those of us are going to be out and anyone that is going to be out for these no Kings rallies and parades is to peacefully protest, right to stay peaceful. Donald Trump wants folks to, to overreact or he wants a reason for, for folks to be deployed. And we just get, we can't give that to him. I think we've got to continue to do what we do, which is use our freedom to demand that in this country we do not have a king. And that is what this weekend's gonna be about.

A (45:18)

You know, we have seen judges in Los Angeles, Judge Breyer, judge in Portland, that's Judge Immergut and a judge in Chicago, Judge Perry, all deny Trump's basis for being able to deploy these troops. Judge Immergut, who Trump himself appointed, said that the pretext he used to be able to justify this troop deployment was untethered to the facts. The 7th Circuit just recently, recently in this latest ruling affirmed a lower court's decision to block the release of these troops to be deployed into Chicago. So can I have your reaction, first and foremost, to the unwillingness of the judiciary to bend to Trump's will in his bad faith efforts to try and justify these deployments?

E (46:04)

Look, this has been a real bright spot right in how we've been taking on Donald Trump is we are winning in the courts. And I think the courts overwhelmingly are doing the right thing. We're not winning every case, obviously, but in many of these instances, you are seeing judges, both judges that have been appointed by Republicans and Democrats in many cases do the right thing and really be that group of folks that are out there in this country saying, enough. And this presidential check of power has to be in place, that our Constitution matters. And I think you're seeing that in these judges. Very courageous. And right now you see the far right attacking judges. They're going out, in some cases, intimidating the courts. And so it's a shame that the court that is probably doing the most harm right now is the Supreme Court. And you're seeing the lower courts and the appellate courts and others largely doing the right thing. It's the Supreme Court that we have a lot to worry about, these cases move up that ladder. But right now, what's happening in Los Angeles, especially around some of the ICE activity and what Donald Trump's trying to do with the National Guard, there's obviously been good legal movement there.

A (47:10)

Yeah, I mean, obviously the Supreme Court is always cause for a concern. But as of right, at least as of right now, we could take, you know, there is some, some silver lining to take from what we're seeing at the, at the trial court and the circuit court level. So with that said, Congressman, I appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

E (47:26)

Thank you.

A (47:29)

I'm joined now by former senior State Department and CIA official Ned Price. Ned, thanks so much for joining me.

D (47:34)

Brian, thanks for having me back, Ned.

A (47:36)

There is a major story regarding Pete Hegseth that's in the news right now, and that is that he tried to put forward a brand new Pentagon policy expecting that everybody would fall in line. That is not happening in the slightest with news organizations, not just from the left, but even from the right or the far right opting to defy him here. So can you give a lay of the land of what's happening right now?

D (47:57)

Yeah, absolutely. Look, Brian, it's sometimes hard to keep a track, keep track of all this because there are so many things emanating from this Pentagon that are alarming, that are dangerous, that are even corrosive to our democracy. And I actually think this one fits into all three, There was a directive that came out from the Pentagon around mid last month, and it basically told reporters, you can continue to have access to the building as reporters have had for decades in places like the Pentagon and the White House and the State Department. But, and here's the big but, you can only do so if you agree to report only that information that the Pentagon itself has approved for release. So if you were to report on classified information, or even information that wasn't classified, but that we tell you is sensitive, you're going to lose your access to the Pentagon. And some people might say, well, here, who cares if reporters have or don't have access to the Pentagon? If you're a reporter whose beat is Pete Hegseth and his team and the generals around him and what the Pentagon, that's funded by $1 trillion annually in U.S. taxpayers, if that's your beat and you don't have access to the building, you're going to be at a steep disadvantage. And chances are you are not going to hear or gain access to the stories that are really important for the American people to know. Now, I should say Pentagon reporters have done an admirable, admirable job over the past month or so trying to soften this, and they've achieved some gains. But this is still a really pernicious policy that the Pentagon is putting forward. They're basically now saying, okay, fine, you don't have to show us your reporting before you print it, but look, you at least have to acknowledge that if you print something we don't like, you can lose your access to this building.

A (49:47)

And so is the ultimate goal here, basically just to put themselves in a situation where they feel like their own access, to be able to get to any of these people to continue doing their jobs is predicated on only publishing glowing stories about this administration in a way to kind of quash dissent.

D (50:07)

Yeah, it's absolutely an attempt to cow the press corps that covers the Pentagon and that has covered the Pentagon day in, day out for decades now. Essentially, what Pete Hegseth and the team around him wants, they don't want independent reporters. They want stenographers. They want people who are going to write press releases rather than stories about them. And look, if you're Pete Hegseth, you might understand why you're a little nervous about independent reporters walking around your building. After all, you're the one who's sending classified information over signal. You're the one who has fired or, or forced out all of your top advisors, nearly all of your top Advisors in the first month of your tenure, you're the one who has little access to the President and the broader administration. There are lots of unflattering things about this Secretary of defense and the team around him. But the answer is not to essentially clamp down on their First Amendment rights. If you're Pete Hegseth, I think the better advice would be to do a better job and to be perhaps a bit more proud of the work you're doing and how you're doing it.

A (51:15)

So I wanna put a list right here on the screen of all of the news outlets that refused to sign versus the one that did sign. So among those who refused to sign, I'm gonna read this as quickly as I can. We have ABC News, the Alabama Monitor, Associated Press, Atlantic, Aviation Week, Axios, Bloomberg, Breaking Defense, cbs, cnn, Defense, Defense Daily, Defense News, Defense One, the Economist, Financial Times, Federal Times, Fox, the Guardian, the Hill, HuffPost, Military Times, MSNBC, NBC, New York Times, Newsmax, NPR, PBS, Politico, real clear Politics, Reuters, Task and Purpose, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner, Washington Post, Washington Times, WTOP of those who decided to sign onto this was, and I hope you're all sitting down for this one America News. That's it. And so what does it say that even some of these very conservative outlets like these are not, this is not like the Coalition to Defend Black Lives Matter. Exactly. When you have, you know, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the Washington examiner, the Washington Times, all signing on, all refusing to sign on to this effort put put forward by Pete Hegseth. And so, so what's your reaction to the fact that the only organization they did get to sign onto this thing was One America News? And that even plenty of these right wing networks thought this was a bridge too far?

D (52:39)

Yeah, look, I mean, it's interesting and a very good thing that the Washington Times, the Washington examiner, among others, signed onto this. But I think the really important one is Fox. And I say that not because Fox has the market share really defines the narrative and the conversation on the right, but I say that because this is Pete Hegseth's former employer. You know, Pete Hegseth would not be Secretary of Defense were he not the Fox News weekend host over recent years. And so when you say it like.

A (53:09)

That, it makes it sound like it, like it wasn't the sterling qualification that set somebody up to be Secretary of Defense.

D (53:15)

Yeah, it's, it's, it was untraditional to, to put it mild. But, you know, perhaps that will send a signal to Pete Hegseth and the team around him that even he has gone too far for his former employer and his frequent host, the cable news show that he's frequently on. But look, I think there was also another notable element in all of this. Yes, these print reporters came together. Yes, the correspondence association from the White House and the State Departments issued a joint statement. But I think what may be most notable is the fact that the TV correspondence came out with a joint statement and essentially rejecting this as that long litany of others did. And I say that's notable because this is an administration that craves the spotlight. They need attention, they need the press coverage that they know their boss Donald Trump is going to watch day in, day out on Fox News on some of these other networks that have signed on to this. And so look, if these TV networks continue to band together and they are jointly kicked out and there's no glowing coverage from Fox or there's no coverage at all from anyone of this Pentagon, that ultimately is going to be a bad thing. Yes, for our democracy, which I care about, yes, for the right of the public to know, which I care about, but also for Pete Hegseth, because when Donald Trump turns on Fox, he's not going to see Pete Hegseth there standing at the podium really in a self aggrandizing way praising his boss. And that's gonna be a problem.

A (54:50)

In your honest opinion, why do you think that some of these right wing networks, and in fact I'm just remembering now that even the Daily Caller certainly far to the right of Fox and Washington examiner and Washington Times even they refused to sign on. Why do you presume that these news outlets decided to take this stand knowing that, you know, in reality they are probably going to give the exact type of glowing coverage that Pete Hexeth wants anyway. And so whereas it would have been easy for them to just kind of sign on to some to say that they would do something that they likely were going to do anyway, why take this stand?

D (55:26)

Yeah. So I think two primary reasons. Number one, and perhaps most importantly, this is so far fetched and this is just so outlandish that the Pentagon would ask independent news outlets, even though that have partisan affiliations on the right or that lean right politically, even they realize just how in contravention this is to their, their work that is protected by the First Amendment, the idea that they would have to prevent clear or that they couldn't ask certain questions or any questions they might like of officials in the Pentagon, even for Fox, even for the Daily Caller or the Free Beacon or the Washington Times or others, that was just a bridge too far. But second look, you know these news organizations, and in some cases that is a charitable term, they need to have some degree of credibility. Look, OAN has clearly decided that it is just a MAGA outlet. All maga, all the time, all glowing, nothing else. But, you know, for the Washington Times, for the Free Beacon, for the Daily Caller, I think they do need to ensure their audiences and try to reassure them that they're not stenographers and that while their coverage may often be positive if not fawning towards this administration, that they're going to call balls and strikes as they see them. And if they were to sign on to this, I think any sort of perception that there was any bit of independence, there would be a totally eviscerated. So it's also in their interest to work with these other outlets and trying to shut this down.

A (57:02)

And so we've seen the effectiveness of these organizations coming together to get what they want. And it's very likely that there's going to be some change that has to take place because otherwise, to your exact point, there won't be any coverage. And I think the last thing that a president who is so focused on central casting and media attention wants is just a media blackout when it comes to the Pentagon. But then in that case, if the news outlets recognize the effectiveness of this strategy, why not employ it at other moments? Like, for example, when the AP was banned from the press briefing room for daring, say that the Gulf of Mexico is still called the Gulf of, of, of Mexico and not kind of adhering to the White House's edict that it just be called the Gulf of America.

D (57:47)

Yeah, look, you put your finger on something that's really interesting, I think, and my own view is that this stems from where these reporters are. This is the Pentagon Press Association. You know, these are serious reporters who day in, day out aren't there chasing the political stories, who's up, who's down. They are there really covering the matters of national security. What this institution that again is the recipient of a trillion or so dollars annually in US Taxpayer funding is doing is not doing how it's running, how it's. How it's not working in some cases. And so these are serious people and they've, they've come together in a serious way despite some of the ideological divides. In the case of some of these more partisan or politically leaning outlets. I think the White House press corps is quite different in that sense. It's a much more fractious bunch. It is a crew that is much more interested in the horse race and the politics of it all. I don't want to say they're more focused on trivial matters, but in some cases, they're focused more on personality over substance. And it's much harder for them to come together because everything they do is under a much larger political magnitude. But look, my hope is that the White House Correspondents association and reporters who cover this administration across D.C. and around the world will really get a spine after seeing what these Pentagon reporters are doing. They've already eked out some at least small changes. And I think you're right. Given the stakes and given the possibility that Pete Hegseth is facing his own media blackout, I think they will extract more concessions. And in turn, I hope that provides a good lesson for their colleagues across the river at the White House.

A (59:35)

I don't know, Ned. I take issue with the suggestion that Marjorie Taylor Greene's boyfriend, Brian Glenn, is not a serious reporter.

D (59:42)

Sorry to offend. You're in his sensitive sensibilities there.

B (59:47)

Yeah.

C (59:47)

Yeah.

A (59:48)

Okay, let's finish off with this. You had alluded to the fact that there was would be changes here.

D (59:53)

What.

A (59:54)

What kind of changes do you anticipate? We'll see here. And frankly, recognizing the power that all of these media outlets have by virtue of banding together, can't they really create big changes if they want to see them? I mean, recognizing that the power they have by organizing here, really, they don't have to necessarily just settle for changes around the edges. Can't they just get exactly what they want and stand their ground and not feel. Feel like they have to settle for some half measure or, okay, we're not completely surrendering all of our autonomy. And so that's good enough for us. They see that they have effect. Like they did the hard part already. They banded together. They said no. They got the Fox News and Daily Callers to agree with the Atlantic and ABC News and Washington Post and New York Times. That's the hard part. So at this point, why not go all the way and try to get as many much protection and as firm guarantees as they possibly could?

D (60:53)

Yeah. So I say a couple of things. Number one, this is a group of reporters that really can't surrender. And I say they can't surrender because surrendering here would be tantamount to confessing they're not going to do their job or not being in a position to do their job. But at the same time, I think this is an administration that in many ways is unwilling to surrender. Entirely. And so I think there has to be some sort of middle ground here that allows both sides to at least claim the victory. And look, the nub that continues to prevent these reporters from going along with this is the idea that they have to sign to at least acknowledge that they understand the Pentagon guidance that they are not to publish this and that it could be, if they do publish classified or even unclassified but otherwise sensitive information, grounds for expulsion from the Pentagon. Look, I think one potential off ramp here is that the Pentagon sticks with these rules and says, look, if you publish classified information or information that's unclassified that we don't like, for whatever reason, we reserve the right to kick you off. But we're not going to make you sign this. We're not going to make you acknowledge that you understand that that could be one off ramp. Look, I don't want to say that's the ideal scenario. We don't want an administration, administration that even purports to dictate what independent journalists can or can't report. But at least that will get us off the impasse. And if reporters aren't forced to acknowledge or to sign and they print something that the administration doesn't want, then we can save this for the next battle when the administration actually tries to make good on the guidance that it put out. And even if they didn't force reporters to sign this in the first place.

A (62:39)

We'Ll leave it there. Ned, as always, I appreciate your time and thank you for the expertise.

D (62:44)

Thanks so much, Brian. Good to see you.

A (62:46)

Thanks again to Adam Schiff, Daniel Goldman, Robert Garcia and Ned Price. 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 Graeber, music by Wellesley, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at brianteller Cohen on all of my other channels or you can go to briantellercohen.com to learn more.