Loading summary
Transcript83 lines
- [00:00]
A
You know how everything's a subscription now? Music, movies, even socks.
- [00:04]
B
I swear.
- [00:05]
C
If to continue this ad, please upgrade to premium plus platinum.
- [00:08]
A
Uh, what? No. Anyway, Blue Apron, this is a pay per Listen ad.
- [00:11]
C
Please confirm your billing.
- [00:12]
A
Oh, that's annoying. At least with the new Blue Apron, there's no subscription needed. Get delicious meals delivered without the weekly plan.
- [00:19]
C
Wait, no subscription?
- [00:20]
A
Keep the flavor. Ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit BlueApron.com terms for more.
- [00:31]
B
TRUMP and Republicans run headfirst into a brick wall in court trying to defend their troop deployments. And I've got four interviews. Brian Schatz, Raphael Warnock, and Melanie Stansberry talk about the shutdown and Trump's efforts to gut the aca. And California Attorney General Rob Bonta comes to discuss the ongoing lawsuit against Trump's troop deployments in the Ninth Circuit. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to no Lie. So we've got some rare good news here, and while there's obviously plenty to be upset about, I think it's worth talking about this glimmer of hope here. And that is. Yet for an issue I've been tracking more closely than anything else, Trump's troop deployments. Judges and the courts are serving as a pretty damn effective bulwark against his moves. So I'm going to first, explain what happened in the courts and second, why this matters, beyond the obvious, which is that we should not become normalized to troops being deployed in our own cities against our own people. So in California, Judge Breyer blocked Trump's troop deployment to la. That case is now sitting at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Oregon, Judge Immergat blocked Trump's troop deployment to Portland. And in Illinois, Judge Perry blocked Trump's troop deployment to Chicago. The better news is that Judge Perry cited Judge Immergut's ruling, which means that each baseless deployment and each previous court loss is actually impacting subsequent cases, which means that each troop deployment loss begets more troop deployment losses. And normally this wouldn't be the case because trial courts don't create precedent. But in these instances, it does seem like the judges are at least taking this atmospheric precedent into account in their own rulings. And so what this means is that each time Trump cooks up some, you know, some bogus excuse to deploy troops against Americans, the judges can see the pattern here. They can see that he had no legitimate justification to do it in la. No legitimate justification to do it in Portland, no legitimate justification to do it in Chicago, and the deference that they normally would pay the White House, which is called the presumption of regularity, that gets chipped away at every single time. It makes Trump's chances of winning harder and harder with each city that he tries to invade. And so why does this matter? Two reasons here. First, we cannot normalize US Troops being deployed into American cities. We cannot normalize the President of the United States saying that liberals are the enemy from within. We cannot normalize the President of the United States saying that American cities are training grounds for the U.S. military. Like we've watched as Trump has used the troops as his personal police force to terrorize communities and rip families apart. None of this is normal, acceptable, or legal. And in a just world, that alone would be a scandal second to none in the history of this country. And by the way, the fact that virtually all Republicans are okay with this is a testament to the rot that has pervaded a party that once cosplayed as constitutionalists. But beyond that, there are major implications for upcoming elections. And as I've explained many times before, the real goal for Trump here is to both normalize Americans to the idea of troops in our cities and to give himself a legal framework to be able to do so, so that when the election rolls around and he wants to use the military to do his bidding, he won't face any legal roadblocks to be able to do so. And let's be clear, like, what I'm giving you right now is not some hysterical hypothesis. Trump literally already tried to seize the voting machines in Georgia in 2020. That was the basis for this RICO suit against him. He ultimately wasn't successful because his doj, led by Bill Barr, wasn't going along with his plan. But Trump doesn't have that problem now. Do you think that Pam Bondi is going to put up a fight? Cash Patel, Dan Bongino. These people are literally there because they are election deniers. So with no opposition from the law enforcement agencies, imagine what Trump could do if he had boots on the ground answerable only to him. To be able to effectuate his plans to seize voting machines in the Democratic population centers like Milwaukee and Detroit and Philly and Atlanta. Do you think it would be possible for Democrats to win elections in Wisconsin or Michigan or PA or Georgia if Trump messes with the voting machines in those places? Not a chance. He knows that. That's why he tried to seize them last time. But whereas he didn't have boots on the ground, then he's trying to give himself a legal framework to be able to do so. Now. That is why these lawsuits are so important, because this is him trying to validate troop deployments, which of course he'll claim is for insurrections right now, but he will use for the elections when that time rolls around. And that is why watching him lose these cases gives me some hope. Because without that legal permission structure, his glide path to having his standing armies waiting in every Blue City in 2026 or 2028 gets that much more difficult. So are we out of the woods? No, of course not. After the trial courts comes the appeals courts, and after that, of course comes the U.S. supreme Court. And this is a U.S. supreme Court that has bent over backwards to give Trump deference that he doesn't deserve. So obviously there is a long way to go and there's no easy path to get there. But as of right now, the courts are largely holding up, and that's something worth recognizing. Next up are my interviews with Brian Schatz, Raphael Warnock, Melanie Stansberry, and Rob Bonta. No Lie is brought to you by Everyday Dose. Now look, everybody wants to be healthy. Everybody has vitamins and supplements that they take to help aid them along the way. But those supplement stacks are expensive and they're hard to keep up with. Everyday Dose is affordable and covers all of your bases in a cup of coffee. It takes 30 seconds to make and you get coffee plus a bunch of supplements with vitamins, minerals and amino acids. Everyday dose is coffee plus benefits. It combines 100% Arabica coffee with powerful ingredients like lion's mane and chaga, collagen, protein and nootropics to fuel your brain, boosts focus and gives you clean, sustained energy all day long. No crash, no jitters, just clean, sustained energy. So there are two products here to highlight. There's Coffee plus and there's Coffee plus Bold. Coffee plus is a mild roast. It's light and smooth. Low acidity which is easy on sensitive stomachs, gives you mellow energy. Coffee Plus Bold is a rich blend of medium roast 100% Arabica coffee. It's robust and full bodied, yet smooth. It gives you an extra boost of energy. Both are 100% Arabica coffee, both have functional benefits and both are mold free. Everyday dose does third party testing, so get 45% off your first subscription order of 30 servings for Coffee plus or Bold Plus. And you'll also receive a starter kit with over $100 in free gifts including a rechargeable frother and gunmetal serving spoon by going to everydaydose.com BTC or entering BTC at checkout. You'll also get free gifts throughout the year. That's everydaydose.com BTC for 45% off your first order. I'm joined now by Senator Brian Schatz. Thanks so much for joining me.
- [07:04]
D
Thanks for having me, Brian.
- [07:05]
B
So we have seen a lot of failed votes in the Senate to reopen the government right now. And that's because Senate Democrats are holding the line and not allowing Republicans to reop government and have this continuing resolution without sacrificing the little leverage that we do have in terms of getting these ACA subsidies, Affordable Care act subsidies, preserved so that people's health care doesn't double, triple, quadruple heading into 2026. Can you give a lay of the land in terms of whether your Republican colleagues are recognizing that this is not a smart moral or political stance for them to be taking and that the vast majority of Americans are actually their position here? I mean, they're representing the 22% of Americans who don't think that these ACA subsidies should be continued.
- [07:55]
D
Yeah, I don't think they quite understood how serious this problem was. And I, a bunch of people kind of, I mentioned that online, and people were like, come on, they knew exactly what they were doing. And I'm like, don't give them that much credit. They were just doing a Trump thing. Trump demanded they passed the big, beautiful bill. He called it a big beautiful bill. It was branded as repealing Obamacare, which is sort of an article of faith among Republicans. And. But now they're seeing these premiums increase. And, you know, part of it was like, we're screaming and, you know, you're going to double the premiums for 22 million Americans, many of whom, most of whom are Republicans. And they just thought we were kind of like using a talking point. But now the letters are going out to tell people, your rates are up. And so it is starting to sink in. Two things. First, that this is a real crisis. It's not something we just, like, went into a lab with some strategists and pollsters to try to figure out what to fight about. This is the thing that is the most urgent crisis in terms of the cost of living for people in the United States of America. I mean, the price of vegetables is up 39%. The price of coffee is up 20%. The price of electricity is now rising at double the rate of inflation. And now this. And so this is a place where we can take a stand and make a difference. That's number one. Number two is I think they just thought that we weren't all that serious about it and they thought that it was going to be a replay of March, but it's not March. The sort of parade of horribles that they were contemplating, they basically went through with everything prior to the shutdown anyway. So this idea, hey, if you don't watch out, we're going to like cut things from Democratic states and all of us are looking at each other going, yeah, you're doing that right now.
- [09:39]
B
Right, right.
- [09:41]
D
And I also think the threat to, you know, to lay off hundreds of thousands of federal workers who are disproportionately veterans, the threat to not give them back pay, all of that has backfired, sort of in Republican world, but also with the general public where, you know, there's a beltway argument about a clean CR versus a 7 week versus a 4 week and all that stuff. But the truth is people are smarter than all of that. Sure, they're not paying super granular attention to every detail, but they know one thing. Donald Trump is in charge of Washington and when things are fucked up, it's very likely his fault.
- [10:19]
B
Well, you know, there are gonna be people who see this and just say, from a raw political perspective. So let's put the moral, the human argument completely to the side and just say from a, From a. More. From a. From a raw political perspective, the Hill that Republicans are looking to die on is to continue 2026, an election year which is a referendum on the party in power trying to allow health care costs to double, triple, quadruple or just be. Or people lose their health care entirely. And so if they are so hell bent on exacting this kind of pain on people, their own constituents included, in fact, disproportionately their own constituents. The last five years, we've seen the states that have adopted ACA enrollment, ACA enrollment are much redder than blue states. But why not just let them?
- [11:08]
D
I mean, that's kind of. Listen, I'm not that cynical. I'm just not. But I've certainly made that argument. Like, if we were a little more cynical, we just let you stew in this and say, you just did a super unpopular thing. I wish you the very best. But, you know, like us or not think we're, you know, not strong enough or whatever, we actually really care about tens of a million, tens of millions of Americans and being thrown off their health care. We really care about Medicaid being destroyed and rural hospitals getting crushed. Like, we're very worried about what's about to happen to Americans and we're trying to fix it. The other thing I'd say is that, you know, in the run up to the midterms, when we actually did save the Affordable Care act, the same argument was made, why don't we just let them do it? Because that'll make us stronger in the midterms. And the truth was we saved the Affordable Care act and then we still ran on them trying to repeal the Affordable Care act and had a very good midterm. So I think we can do the right thing and the smart political thing. And in this case, they are very much aligned.
- [12:12]
B
And so talk to me about what your Republican colleagues, what you've heard from your Republican colleagues right now. Is there some sense of uncertainty at the path that they're on right now? Have you heard anything, any rumblings from the Republican side in terms of, you know, not just the political ramifications here, I mean, the polling ramifications here and the, the consequences on their own states, their own districts.
- [12:37]
D
The answer is, sure, rumblings. But this all is going to go through Donald, John Trump, Mike Johnson in particular, is not going to make a move without him. And you know, we saw him on tv, we saw him shut down the House for three weeks unexpectedly. And so my view is, you know, we can negotiate with rank and file Republicans, but that's not quite a waste of time. But that's not the way to get to a resolution of this challenge. So, you know, they, they are basically totally servile to him. Even the people who like to do negotiations that are experienced legislators, that are not MAGA in their core, they basically given up on being independent. And so it's not like we're going to get a cohort of people to work with Democrats to like, get this, unless Donald Trump views this as a sufficient liability. And I think that's where, you know, your podcast and the work of activists out there really comes to be critical, because until they realize that this is not a Democrats versus Republicans issue, until they realize that it is their constituents that they are harming, I think they're not going to back down. It is starting to sink in how serious we are about this and how real this problem is. But I don't think they're there yet.
- [13:57]
B
Can you say with any degree of confidence that Democrats are going to be? I mean, I know that there have been a few defections in terms of Democratic senators offering up their vote to Republicans for this clean cr, maybe with maybe I mean, what I would suggest is a naive belief that the same people who took these subsidies away are then somehow going to voluntarily end up at the negotiating table. But that notwithstanding, is there any sense of, of how united the Democratic caucus is in terms of not capitulating to the Republicans here?
- [14:28]
D
Well, as deputy whip, I take the counting part super seriously. So every day is a new whip, every day is a new assessment of, you know, where everyone's head is at. But I will say we feel pretty unified right now. Now, I do think that, you know, part of what we have to do and you know, Brian, you and I talked about this after we lost the election, that we have to kind of have grown up conversations with activists about, okay, what are we trying to achieve here? Right. And what is a realistic path to try to achieve something. And I think if there, if the standard is that we don't reopen the government until all the fascism stops, right, then we're just literally never going to reopen the government because Donald Trump is going to try to indict Letitia James and try to jail James Comey and JB Pritzker and all the rest of it. So we have to be ratcheting up some wins here, but we also have to be in a position where people don't expect. People should not expect nothing from us. And I think the frustration for March was that we gave away something for nothing. But on the other hand, we have to understand that this is an incremental process, that inserting ourselves into the legislative process to get a W is a really important first step. But we're not going to solve all the world's problems, problems through however this shutdown ends. We're going to try to solve some very significant problems. I think the most significant among them that we are no longer irrelevant to Republicans in the legislative process. And as a check against this, you know, want to be authoritarian, that's a super important step. But I also want to just tell everybody, like, however this ends, even if it ends in the most optimistic scenario, it will not fix everything and it will not even fix a third of what needs to get fixed, but it will be a step in the right direction. Right?
- [16:15]
B
I mean, look, a step in the right direction is even a way is even underselling the fact that 24 million Americans will have continued access to affordable care, affordable health care. And if we didn't have that, that small win, and I mean, yes, it is a small win in the grand scheme of things, but like, if we didn't have that, that that is life and death for millions upon millions of Americans right now. So with that said, want to ask one more question if we have a quick beat? And that is just your initial reaction to the news that just broke that Donald Trump has indicted Letitia James for something that even his previously appointed U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia did not think there was any justification to indict her for.
- [16:57]
D
Yeah, it's malicious prosecution. It's very similar to what just happened with James Comey. They couldn't find a career prosecutor to bring the case. I think this one might even be even more thin in the sense that it's mortgage fraud and just a very goofy charge. So I have no doubt that she'll be exonerated. I wouldn't be surprised if he got kicked way before a trial. So I think there's two ways to look at this, right? One is that Donald Trump is doing authoritarian things. The other is that Donald Trump has not yet succeeded to become an authoritarian ruler. And I think that in the interest for people, there are a bunch of people who want every the rest of the United States to be sufficiently alarmed. And so we talk about the United States of America like we've already crossed some Rubicon and we're already at the bottom of the hill and authoritarianism is here. And I don't think that's the right way to look at this. I think we have to view Trump as a very serious threat to the American experiment, a very serious threat to our freedoms. But when we push back and use the judicial system, we have been winning. I think Gavin Newsom in California has demonstrated that both in the judicial process and in this redistricting process that we are not without tools. I think what the people in Portland are doing in terms of peaceful prison demonstrations is very clever and smart. I think JB Pritzker is a good example. I think, frankly, when Brendan Carr tried to, you know, basically gut the First Amendment, that Ted Cruz stepping up was an enormously important thing. So we're not without tools here. And so two things are true at the same time. One is Donald Trump would absolutely become an authoritarian permanent ruler if he could. The other is that we're pretty long way from that. As long as we all are disciplined and smart and together and fight like hell.
- [18:52]
B
Good place to leave off. Senator, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it.
- [18:55]
D
Thank you.
- [18:58]
B
No lie is brought to you by Prize Picks. You and I make decisions every day. But on Prize Picks, being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this season on Prize Picks where it's good to be Right now I watch football every weekend. Also every Thursday, every Monday. So as much football as I can possibly get, it's the one respite that I have from politics. Now with Prize Picks, I'm able to actually gamify get paid in the event that I'm right with football. In the event that I'm right with football. Prize Picks is simple to play. Just pick more or less on two to six players stat projections. If you get your picks right, you could cash in. Prize Picks is also the best way to get action on sports. In more than 40 states, including my home state of California, along with Texas and Georgia, prizepix puts their users first so all withdrawals are fast, safe and secure. They offer venmo, Apple Pay, MasterCard and more for quick and easy deposits into your account this football season. Prizepix also offers injury reboots. If one of your players leaves the game in the first half and doesn't return, prizepix won't count it as a loss. And if you're watching football right now, that feels like most of the league. Prizepix invented the Flex Play, which means that you can still cash out if your lineup isn't perfect. You can double your money even if one of your picks doesn't hit. Prize Picks is the best way to win cash this football season. Which players are going off? Which ones aren't? Make your picks in less than 60 seconds and turn your takes into cash all season long on Prize Picks. It's the best place to win cash while watching sports. Join millions of users and sign up today. Download the app today and use code BTC to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code BTC to get $50 in Lineups after you play your first first $5 lineup. Prize picks it's good to be right. I'm joined now by the US Senator for Georgia, Raphael Warnock. Thanks so much for joining me again.
- [20:40]
E
Great to be with you.
- [20:41]
B
So, Senator Warnock, you have been arguably the most effective messenger here during the shutdown because you've begun posting what health care costs are going to look like from 2025 to 2026 based on what your constituents have been sending you. I'm going to put an example right here on the screen, for example, that shows the extent to which those healthcare costs for anybody who does receive Affordable Care act health care have tripled or quadrupled. So first and foremost, can you give us some insight into what You've heard from your constituents as this process continues to play itself out.
- [21:15]
E
Well, let me be very clear, and this is what I tried to do in that post that you referenced. Nobody wants to shut down. At least I don't want to shut down. The members of my caucus don't want a shutdown. I know firsthand the pain that federal workers, for example, are already experiencing by the ways in which the Trump administration has already been shutting the government down. But here's what else I don't want. I don't want the people that I represent in the state of Georgia to have their premiums hiked so much that health care becomes literally unaffordable. And that's what's slated to happen in a matter of weeks as people watch their premiums. If they're on the ACA marketplace, they will see their premiums perhaps double. Some triple, quadruple working class families can't afford that. That's what this is about. We can both fund health care by rolling back the awful provisions in the one big ugly bill I call it, and we can reopen the government. My Republican colleagues ought to join me, Senator.
- [22:21]
B
This is not an issue that's only gonna impact Democratic voters. In fact, the recent ACA enrollments in the last five years have been disproportionately in states that voted for Trump, including West Virginia, Tennessee and Texas. And so how are your Republican colleagues thinking about the actions that they're taking? Which, you know, if they don't meet Democrats halfway here and extend these ACA subsidies, it's gonna be their own constituents in their own states that heading into an election year, by the way, that are gonna see all of their healthcare premiums surge. And so how are your Republican colleagues thinking about this moment?
- [22:57]
E
Listen to this. 3 out of 4 of the Americans who are relying on the ACA subsidies come from red states that Trump won? 3 out of 4. This is not a Democrat and Republican issue. This is an American issue. This is about folks sitting around their kitchen table right now trying to figure out how in the world are they going to be able to afford health care come January 2026, given this price hike that's coming compliments of the Republican Party.
- [23:38]
B
Do you think that given the fact that the narrative that's really taken hold here is the fact that Republicans are looking to refuse to continue these ACA subsidies? And given the fact that it is so unpopular, the latest Kaiser Family foundation poll found that 78% of Americans want these ACA subsidies to be continued so that their healthcare costs don't double, triple or quadruple. Do you think that there is any indication, at least from Republicans or Trump, that they are gonna come back to the negotiating table and meet the Democrats where they're demanding that these are increased?
- [24:14]
E
Let me be clear. Our current healthcare system is far from perfect. In many ways, it's broken. Now, they are trying to take a system that's broken and they're going to make it worse by burdening ordinary Americans. We're already seeing the price rise on everything that they have to purchase. Groceries have been going up since Trump has become president. The price of gas has been going up. The price of coffee has been going up. So you stop at your local quick trip. The coffee costs more, the gas costs more, your prescription drugs cost more, and now your health care is going to cost more. This is unsustainable. And it is the reason why I am both trying to fund the government, because we need to reopen the government. This Republican shutdown needs to end. And let's be clear, it's a Republican shutdown. They have the White House. They're in the majority in the House and the Senate. And by the way, the House hasn't come back to work while the government is shut down, while federal workers are being furloughed, while critical government services are hanging in the balance, while military members are on schedule not to be paid in a matter of days. Speaker Johnson has sent the House home because he doesn't want to have to vote on the Epstein files. Imagine that. He ought to come back to work. He ought to call his caucus back to work.
- [25:48]
B
What was your reaction to seeing the fact that even Marjorie Taylor Greene came out against the Republicans unwillingness to do anything about the fact that Americans are about to see their health care costs double? I mean, she came out and she posted that she's not exactly a fan of the aca. But the fact that Republicans and their leadership have no plan to address the fact that in just a few months from now, health care costs are going to double, triple or quadruple that. She's not on board with that.
- [26:14]
E
You know that. It's a critical moment for the average person anytime. Raphael Warnock and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
- [26:23]
B
Yeah.
- [26:23]
E
Are essentially saying the same thing, my brother. That doesn't happen often, according to her. She looked and saw that the premiums of her own adult children will go up so much in 2026 that their health care is unaffordable. Listen, there's a lesson in this for politicians, for people who serve in elected office. She's telling the story of ordinary people. In this case, it just happens to be her own children. And that we are in this fight in the first place. Raising the health care premiums for ordinary people in order to give billionaires, multi billionaires, a tax cut shows you how disconnected and clueless too many people in this town are. They'll come back to work. Sit down. Let's work on a bipartisan proposal. I don't expect them to see this. The way I see it, they're not going to do everything I want them to do. But they're refusing even to talk. They're refusing to come to work. Meanwhile, workers are being laid off and people are watching the healthcare premiums go up.
- [27:28]
B
Senator, you have the blessing and the curse of coming to us from a purple state, a true purple state. And I'm just curious, in Georgia, what has the response from folks who you've spoken with about this impending health care crisis? What's the response been like? And I'm especially concerned, not just from those true blue Democrats out there, but from independents or, or Republicans who recognize the extent to which they were sold a bill of goods by a party that swore up and down that they cared about the cost of something so granular that they were talking about the price of eggs. And yet now, not only have they presided over increases in cost of everything because of this trade war, but they're in the process of closing down rural hospitals. They're stripping Medicaid away from millions of Americans right now. They're looking to double triple ACA subsidies. And so. And so what have your conversations been like with those people?
- [28:20]
E
Well, I was down at Evans Memorial Hospital in Claxton, Georgia a while ago. This is a red district. Those folks, most of the people in that district didn't vote for me, but I came by to see them because I care. And they have a small rural hospital there that like all rural hospitals, is barely holding it together anyway. And now they're going to see, as a result of the one big ugly bill, about a three million dollar cut to their hospital. And they're trying to figure out how to hold it together. They may have to close their icu. Imagine that you're in a rural town and they have to close your local icu. This is untenable. It's unsustainable. It's unjustifiable. And that's why I think my Republican friends are hearing from their constituents. By the way, there's a reason why three out of four of the folks who are relying on these ACA subsidies are in red states is because these are the states like Georgia that have not expanded Medicaid. And so because of that, they need these subsidies even more. Republicans need to focus on the people and not the politics. And if we do that, we can figure out a way to get this done for the American people.
- [29:42]
B
And finally, let's finish off with this. Senator, you and I have spoken before. We've spoken about the fact that I'm very secular, but you have become kind of my moral compass in Washington for all things faith related. And so I'm curious, in this moment, as you know, we see this issue of the potential for healthcare costs to surge bearing down on us. As we see these ICE raids terrorize communities across the country, as we see fascism continue to take hold in this country, where do you draw some hope from? I know there are a lot of people who pay attention to politics on a daily basis and for whom the helplessness and despair kind of weighs down so heavily because of what we're seeing around us. And so I'm curious, you know, from your vantage, where you draw some hope from.
- [30:35]
E
Well, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. And a faith that is real and mature doesn't, you know, fantasize about the world in a way that's unrealistic. These are tough times. And there are those who are attacking healthcare, who are attacking immigrant communities, raining down terror in communities all across our country. But here's something else that they're trying to do. They're trying to weaponize despair. They're trying to flood the zone and so overwhelm us that they will convince us that they've already won. And if you're convinced that they've already won, then you stop fighting. And when you stop fighting, they do win. And so our job is to recognize that this moment is not. It is not about the people in power. It is about the power in the people. And as a man of faith, here's something that I have noticed about evil. As I read the scriptures that guide my life as a Christian, as I think about the events of world history, here's the thing about evil. Evil always goes too far. Evil always gets a little bit too impressed with itself. It's filled up with hubris. Evil always goes too far. And because it goes too far, it contains within itself the seed of its own destruction. Our job is to help it to do what it does, to keep fighting a good fight, to remind each other that at the end of the day, we're all we've got. And again, these are tough times. And it's going to be tough for a little while here. But let's keep the faith. Let's keep pushing.
- [32:14]
B
Well, I appreciate the optimism. You know, if you end up back back preaching at any point, let me know. I think me and thousands and thousands of people watching this right now would be happy to sit there and listen to you.
- [32:26]
E
So 10:00am Any Sunday morning, brother, that's it. I'm Ebenezer Baptist church where Dr. King preached. That's a standing invitation, Brian.
- [32:35]
B
All right. Well, I'll take you up on it, I promise. All right, Senator, thank you so much for the words of optimism here and for taking the time today. I'm joined now by New Mexico lawmaker and overall badass in the House, Melanie Stansberry. Thanks so much for joining me.
- [32:52]
A
It is awesome to be here today.
- [32:54]
B
So right now we're in the midst of this government shutdown. We're over a week into this thing. To what extent do you think that your Republican colleagues are starting to feel the pressure now that the narrative surrounding this shutdown is the reality of the situation, the fact that the only reason that we're in this mess is because they refuse to extend the ACA subsidies that will ensure that 24 million Americans can continue to receive health care unobstructed?
- [33:17]
A
Yeah. Well, I think it's very clear that the public is not buying their lives. And part of the problem is, is because they're not believable. The Republicans have shut down the House. They've locked us out. The speaker of the House has canceled votes now for two weeks in a row and has refused to bring his own members back to Washington, D.C. and by their own caucus's admittance, they're doing that so that their Republican colleagues don't say anything stupid. That's literally what they said. And so Mike Johnson can go on TV all he wants and try to claim that somehow Democrats caused the shutdown, but his own members aren't here and he shut and locked the doors. So I think the American people are smart. They see what's happening. They can see that the doors are locked. They can see that Democrats are showing up. And it's just, just, it's not a believable lie. And then when you add that on top of the reality that millions of Americans are about to get their health insurance doubled, tripled, people are freaked out. You know, they passed this big ugly bill just a couple of months ago. People knew it was going to impact their health insurance. And now the, you know, roost has come home to Roost. So these guys now need to fix the problem that they broke to begin with, and they're unwilling to do that. And the American people are really mad.
- [34:37]
B
Well, you know, they're saying, just reopen the government and then trust us, we'll totally, definitely sit down with you guys and hash something out as it relates to extending these Affordable Care act subsidies. And so do you believe them when they say, you know, trust us, guys, we're gonna, we're good for our word. Just reopen the government and then let's talk ACA subsidies?
- [35:01]
A
Well, I mean, they've shown that they are not a reliable negotiating partner. And Mike Johnson's willing to go on national T lie all day long. Why would we take his word for it? But let me just point out that Marjorie Taylor Greene has publicly made statements, not just once, but she is now on her social and on podcasts and on TV saying Republicans don't have a plan. They don't have a plan to fix health care. They don't have a plan to reopen the government. And she's even sharing her own family stories of her kids not being able to afford their health insurance. So how can we have confidence in the Republicans when their own members are pointing out that they don't have a plan?
- [35:42]
B
Well, and I think it's worth noting, too. I mean, this is the party that got us into this mess in the first place. The only reason that we are even talking about trying to get funding to continue the ACA subsidies is because this Republican Party, led by Mike Johnson, led by Donald Trump, led by John Thune, were the ones who took those subsidies away. And so excuse us if we don't believe when you say that you're totally good for it, when you promise to restore these ACA subsidies, when the only reason that we're in a situation without ACA subsidies is because of this Republican Party. The same Republican Party that stripped a trillion dollars away from healthcare in the budget bill, the same Republican Party that's taken Medicaid away from 17 million Americans. And so could anybody blame us for not just accepting the Republicans promises up and down that they're gonna be good faith negotiating partners when they are the cause of this problem in the first place.
- [36:31]
D
Place.
- [36:32]
A
Well, and I'll also add that if you remember three weeks ago, when we Democrats requested a meeting with Trump to work out a bipartisan agreement before the shutdown, Donald Trump said yes. And then he was convinced by Mike Johnson and Thune to cancel the meeting. And then he literally said that he read the proposal and told Democrats to go themselves. He said that the President of the United States, because he knows what we were asking and he does not agree with it, because as he argued at that time, this was one of his signature moves in his domestic policy that he put through the big ugly bill. So they knew they were taking away health care from millions of Americans and they were proud of it. But now that they're feeling the heat from the American people, they're like, well, maybe we'll negotiate. But when Mike Johnson was asked about it two days ago, they asked, well, are you now willing to negotiate putting it back on the table? He said. He literally said no, and then stumbled to try to, like, cover it up.
- [37:33]
B
Can you just help me understand here? Because look, everybody in elected politics, these are political animals that are presumably focused on self preservation to some degree. And so it's not just Democrats who are gonna be impacted by rescinding these ACA subsidies and watching healthcare costs double or triple or even quadruple or more or lose healthcare altogether. Altogether. It's plenty of Republicans, too. In fact, the states that have seen the biggest increases in ACA enrollment are Republican states. It's Georgia, it's Texas, it's West Virginia, it's Tennessee. So what are your Republican colleagues doing here trying to die on this hill of allowing everybody's healthcare costs to surge, notwithstanding the fact that we're heading into an election year. I'm honestly trying to just understand the, the political mentality in all of this.
- [38:29]
A
Yeah, well, I think going into the dark mind of the GOP right now is a somewhat futile task. But let me just say this, that, you know, the Republicans have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care act since it was passed. And even during the debates last year, you know, Trump's famous line when they asked him what he was going to do about health care is he said he, he had concepts of a plan. Well, his concept of a plan was to basically totally screw over the Affordable Care act and millions of Americans health care through the big ugly bill. And now they know that they have a problem. In fact, before the shutdown, it was reported that multiple Republican senators had been talking to their leadership about trying to put together some sort of fix. But because we have disorganized extremists running the Republican Party right now, you've got Mike Johnson over here, who's closed down the House that is trying to give the President cover on the Epstein list and investigation. You've got Thune over here, who is a pretty old school, kind of normal conservative. Trying to do something over in the Senate but responding to the chaos. And then you've got the President just randomly tweeting things daily saying, okay, we should fix healthcare, and then saying, oh wait, no we're not, and then saying, go fuck yourself like these people cannot govern. They don't have a plan. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene hit the nail on the head yesterday when she said it. They don't have a plan and she's pointing it out.
- [40:01]
B
So want to switch gears a little bit to something that you just mentioned, which is the Epstein list. To what extent are you confident that Mike Johnson refuses to swear in Representative Grahava because she would be the 218th vote allowing this discharge petition to take effect?
- [40:17]
A
Well, I think if, if I was to dive into the strategy of Mike Johnson right now, I think it's twofold. I think that he is taking the hardline position that if he keeps the House out then there is no way to negotiate, that they're going to continue to force the Senate to take votes. And the Senate Democrats have said, no, we are not folding till you fix healthcare. They are saying, holding the line because the American people are telling them to. So I think in one like strategically, I think that they are holding the House out to try to force a vote in the Senate. But it has this other effect which is that it is shielding the Republicans from the months long criticism that they have not complied with our subpoena to release the Epstein files. And even the President reportedly was bragging that no one was talking about Epstein right now. So part of why I do think he's keeping people out of D.C. is because frankly, as long as the House is not in session, you're not going to have, you know, Epstein at the forefront. But it is very clear that Arlis agree Halva, who was just selected in Arizona, the Speaker indefensibly is saying that he can't seat her even though they've had pro forma sessions now on multiple days and he's done it with three other members of Congress is not swearing her in because she would be the 218 signature. And whether or not ultimately, for example, he tried to table that motion on that discharge petition, it still forces every member of the House to take a vote on Epstein and he does not want his members being in the news voting basically to silence the Epstein victims because that's exactly what's going to happen is to soon as she's sworn in.
- [42:07]
B
You know, this is a very short, straight, short sighted strategy because at some point Mike Johnson's gonna have to swear her in. And at some point we're gonna get the 218th vote to force this discharge petition. And at some point all of this process is gonna move forward if the four Republicans who've signed on continue to be signatories onto this discharge petition and it eventually works its way through, you know, the, the House and the Senate. You know, there is no world in which Donald Trump signs this into law. And so I'm just thinking, thinking, you know, 10 steps ahead here. If there is a veto proof majority that's needed. Do you think that beyond just those four Republicans who've signed on, that more Republicans will sign on to this thing, like once that dam has broken?
- [42:53]
A
Well, I think it's important to not think that the discharge petition is the end all, be all of this investigation. It's just one tool.
- [43:04]
C
Right.
- [43:04]
A
It is one way to get every member of Congress on the record on the release of the files. And it is very likely that Mike Johnson is going to try to table the resolution. And even if you have Republicans who've signed on to it, they will try to use a procedural motion, I am positive, to try to sideline the motion. And their argument is, well, we're already doing an oversight investigation, which is really just a smokescreen to show that they're doing something without actually trying very hard. But the 10 steps ahead is actually what happens when the real files are released, not just by Department of Justice, but the continuing disclosure by the Estate, which is happening weekly. We just had new files released last week that showed that Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and other allies of the President are in the files that, that the Estate has. We have subpoenas out to multiple witnesses. We are subpoenaing the financial documents which we are certain contain financial crimes. So this is just the beginning of a massive investigation that I believe will be as significant as, you know, some of the historical investigations that we're familiar with, like the Watergate scandal. Because the President is not only implicated in these files, we know that for a fact. Because Pam Bondi told him that.
- [44:29]
D
Yeah.
- [44:30]
A
But also because at the end of the day, he is engaged in a systemic cover up and threatening members of Congress. And that is as big a scandal as the actual crimes that he may have committed as well. So, yeah, this is not going to stop with the discharge petition.
- [44:50]
B
I don't know how much interaction you have with Republican members of Congress, but insofar as you do have any communication with them, is there uneasiness about the position that they've landed themselves in, which is basically just to protect, like to facilitate Trump's cover up of a sex trafficking ring and be part of this whole thing that they all predicated their brands on purportedly opposing.
- [45:18]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think it's important, like, when you hear the actual stories of the victims, you know, many of them are my age, they're in their late 40s, and they were teenagers when they were raped or otherwise groomed and abused by Epstein and his associates. It's impossible to not be disgusted, understand the gravity of what Jeffrey Epstein did. And I think that anybody who has heard their testimony and their stories understands what we're dealing with here. This is possibly the largest sex trafficking and predatory scheme in American history. And Donald Trump and Mike Johnson are engaging in a cover up to shield people that were involved in raping children. Like, that is actually what we're talking about. So I don't know how you can be a person of conscience, a person of faith, or a person just with eyes and ears and not be hearing these stories and think that this is wrong. And I know, you know, there's several members, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey, who have been very public about it. And when you listen to them and you see them talk about this, you can tell that it's sincere. Like, this is, this is very real. And I know there are other members who care about it, but they are actually being threatened by the President. The President and his chief staff are literally calling members and saying, if you sign on to this discharge petition, it's considered a hostile act. You'll never get anything again. We're going to cut you off. So this is, this is, this is gangster activity. The President is trying to shield pedophiles by calling and threatening members of Congress. And we need more members of Congress. Whether it's the Epstein files, whether it's the shutdown, whether it's health care, whether it's democracy, whether it's the rule of law to just fucking do their jobs.
- [47:21]
B
Yep. I could not have said that better. And that seems like the perfect place to leave off. So, Congresswoman, I appreciate your time. Thanks for bringing the fight that you have been bringing.
- [47:30]
A
Thank you.
- [47:33]
B
I'm joined now by the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta. Thanks so much for joining me.
- [47:38]
C
My pleasure. Thanks for having me, Brian.
- [47:39]
B
So we've got some breaking news now within the last 24 hours here. A new temporary restraining order. Can you explain what just happened in court?
- [47:46]
C
Absolutely. California, along with Oregon and Portland, went into court over the weekend on A shortened time seeking an emergency order preventing the deployment of California National Guard to Oregon. And just 24 hours earlier on Saturday, the same judge in the District of Oregon, Federal Judge Immergat, had granted a restraining order saying that the Oregon National Guard could not be federalized and deployed to Portland because there was no factual basis for it, it violated the sovereign rights of the state of Oregon, threatened public safety and for other reasons. And having received that order, the federal government being told that the Oregon National Guard cannot be deployed to Oregon, in their wisdom, decided that they should deploy the California National Guard to Oregon. Although the judge had just said that the facts on the ground did not justify National Guard being deployed. So I listened to the entire hearing last night. The judge was miffed and perplexed, to say the least, regarding the administration's position here, told the lawyers for the federal government that they are officers of the court and explain why the deployment of California National Guard does not violate her order from 24 hours earlier. And she ruled from the bench. She ruled in our favor, granted the restraining order. And because the federal government had brought in the California National Guard after being told they can't federalize the Oregon National Guard. And because we pointed out that just minutes before the hearing the existence of a memo from Secretary Hegseth federalizing the Texas National Guard, 2,000 of them and deploying, ordering 400 of them to go to Portland and Chicago. We asked for a broad order and we said it appears that the federal government is pursuing this whack a mole approach. If they're told they can't bring in the Oregon National Guard, they'll try to bring in the California National Guard. If you tell them tonight that they can't bring in the California National Guard, it appears they'll try to bring in the Texas National Guard. And if you tell them they can't bring in the Texas National Guard, who knows what is lined up next to bring in? So we asked for an order preventing any National Guard from any state in the District of Columbia from being deployed to Oregon. The judge granted that appropriately broad order and was very strong in her treatment of the federal government. Just 24 hours earlier, she had said this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law, and that the President's determination that the National Guard was appropriate was untethered from the facts. And so I think that really says it all. Trump is not a king. He's not above the law. He cannot treat the National Guard as his royal guard to deploy and to do his bidding when he wants, where he wants for whatever reason he wants. And we took a strong position and we blocked him twice in 24 hours.
- [51:03]
B
Does it look like within the last 12, 24 hours the Trump administration is complying with this order?
- [51:09]
C
From what we can tell, yes. So far. Who knows what, what is going to happen next? We think that there are National Guard from Texas and maybe other places on the way to Chicago. The judge's order from the District of Oregon only applies to Oregon, so Chicago, Illinois has brought a case already trying to prevent the National Guard from being brought into Illinois. But so far we don't have any reports that any California National Guard are in Portland exercising any official duties in contravention of the court order. If we do, you know, we would take immediate steps to enforce the order, perhaps move towards contempt. This judge is not happy with the way the federal administration has treated her first order, and I don't think that she would take too kindly to any violations of her order. But speaking so far, all we're aware of is compliance. We'll keep our ear to the ground, but we are moving towards a preliminary injunction hearing on October 29th. The temporary restraining order, which we secured, is for 14 days, and then we'll have a full trial on the merits combined with the preliminary injunction hearing on October 29, and hopefully get a permanent order preventing the National Guard from being federalized and deployed to Oregon.
- [52:32]
B
When we see Trump engage in these bad faith efforts to try and, you know, figure out some justification to get these troops deployed, and we'll talk about that in just a moment. But does each subsequent case get more difficult? Like when. When a judge sees that Trump has no justification to do it in California and then has no justification to do it in Portland and gets blocked, as he has in California, as he has in Portland, and then tries to do it in Chicago, does not. Does each subsequent case make it more difficult because a judge sees to your point that he's just doing whack a mole here, and he says, okay, I might not be able to do it in Portland, but then I'll just find some other city to be the target of my ire. Are judges wising up to what he's doing here?
- [53:11]
C
I think so. I don't see how they can't be. And the District of Oregon federal judge, Judge Immergut, cited to Judge Breyer's order in California clearly showing awareness of what he contemplated and how he analyzed the case and what he ruled on. And I think judges are watching, of course, what's happening. This is unprecedented stuff in this case, in particular to have a National Guard from a state where the governor does not want them deployed and to federalize them, so that's California. And to deploy them to another state where that governor doesn't want them deployed either. That's never happened. We've seen federalization of a National Guard within a state be deployed. We've seen red states have their National Guard deployed into blue states, but we've never seen this combination of both a blue state that doesn't want the National Guard deployed and a another blue state having that National Guard deployed into their state happened before. So it seems like there's always an additional escalation that's dangerous, something unprecedented that's happening. And Judge Immergat very appropriately suggested and stated in the very opening of her order on Saturday on the first temporary restraining order which was granted, that this is an issue about the relationship between the federal government and states and state sovereignty. It's about the relationship between the military and civilian law enforcement and about the relationship between the judicial branch and the executive branch. And all of those very important bedrock constitutional principles are at play here. So this is high stakes stuff. And I'm sure judges are very aware of what's happening around the country and will have that context and that knowledge if a case comes to them specifically.
- [55:13]
B
You know, something striking that happened over the weekend was that Trump came forward and tried to convey this bogus idea that there is an insurrection happening in, in, in Portland. And I thought that that word was interesting because I feel like he's trying to make his legal argument in the court of public opinion and try to manifest this idea into reality that there is some insurrection or rebellion happening. And the reason that that word caught my attention is because there are three thresholds, one of three thresholds that need to be met in order to justify military deployment domestically. And that is that there is a foreign invasion, that there is some rebellion or insurrection, or finally, that there is a failure of a local government to be able to effectuate federal law. And obviously none of those things are happening. The judge that you cited in Portland, Immergat, said that, that him using any of these justifications, I believe he said rebellion or insurrection, that him using this justification was untethered to reality. But can you talk about him trying to manifest into reality any of these three planks, given that that needs to be the basis, the pretext, that he needs to be able to send these troops into any of these cities?
- [56:22]
E
Sure.
- [56:23]
C
You know, he's always trying to state that there is an emergency, because when there's an emergency, the executive branch can secure additional authority and additional power. He wants that power. He wants that additional authority. And so he, as a figment of his imagination and not backed by the actual facts on the ground, he consistently states that there are invasions, emergencies, rebellions, the inability of the government to execute the federal law with the regular forces, all the things that would trigger more authority for the executive branch if true, but they're just not true. And the judge, Judge Immergut, very compellingly pointed this out as the federal government attorneys in her court pointed to social media posts, to truth social posts from the president as their basis for the facts on the ground in Portland. And she said that that is not what is the determination of the facts. The facts are what the actual facts are on the ground. And there is no rebellion, there is no invasion, there is no inability to execute the law with irregular forces. And so thus, there's no emergency powers. But Trump and Miller and Hegseth, they consistently try to talk past the judges to the court of public opinion making their case, but not backed by facts. And it's irresponsible and inappropriate. And it is very appropriate that courts continue to be a place where if you're going to take a position, you need to bring the receipts, show the facts, show the proof, demonstrate that the facts on the ground are what you say in your true social post. If you can't and he couldn't, then you don't get the power that you seek. And so we went in with facts, we went in with the law. We prevailed. And according to the judge's order, it wasn't even close. But you are right that there's an ongoing attempt, and we will see more of it, of the Trump administration to try to convince the, and honestly not be honest with the American people that there's some sort of emergency when there's really not.
- [58:32]
B
Can you speak for a moment about a letter that your office sent to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of September, So just a few days ago, about this idea that the Trump administration, that by virtue of paying Trump some deference in this Los Angeles case, knowing that there was the thinnest of all pretexts to be able to do so, that would actually invite him to abuse, to abuse that deference even further in a place like Portland, which of course has indeed materialized.
- [59:01]
C
Absolutely. You know, we're seeing Trump given an inch and taking a mile, and when offered some deference by the court, completely abusing it. And we had flagged this original June 7th order out of that deployed troops to California as one that didn't, they had no temporal or geographic limits. And that didn't say just la. It didn't say just California. It didn't just say just in June. It was broad. And we noticed that then and we worried about it then. And then we wanted to re flag it for the court in a couple days ago, because what we had feared came to pass. Trump used this deployment of troops in la, literally a thousand miles away from Portland to deploy troops to Portland. And that is exactly the abuse of power that we feared, that Trump believed he had carte blanche to deploy National Guard anywhere around the country at any time. And it makes absolutely no sense that a early June set of circumstances in LA could lead to the deployment of troops in Portland a thousand miles away, 90 days later. It just makes no sense. But, but that's the, the broad abusive and unlawful reading that Trump is giving this order. And I'm, I'm glad that Judge Immergut saw through that and, and blocked them twice over the weekend.
- [60:37]
B
And so do you think that mentioning that to the Ninth Circuit Court, as you've done, and saying, hey, look what happens when you give him an inch, he'll take a mile. He will abuse whatever deference you pay him. Do you think that whereas the Ninth Circuit may have been willing previously, as far as the LA case is concerned, may have been willing to offer him, you know, that deference, and look, they stayed Judge Breyer's order, so maybe there was a likelihood, as far as they were concerned, that Judge Breyer's order wasn't gonna stand. Do you think that this changes the calculus now for the Ninth Circuit to see? Oh, like, look, what us giving Trump a little bit of leeway is manifesting in real life here, It's a lot. It's giving him carte blanche in his mind to go and send troops into other cities completely untethered to reality. And maybe now, as we continue to consider the this case, we should reconsider the facts as they're actually playing out.
- [61:30]
C
I think that the Ninth Circuit will be very carefully policing the bounds of the deference and making sure that only appropriate deference is given, that it's not unlimited deference, that it's not absolute deference, that there are times, and I think Portland is that time, and I think, frankly, LA is that time as well. And we'll see how we do on appeal. I think we will prevail when that deference is, you know, a bridge too far or many bridges too far, you know, when it's way beyond the deference owed. There is a legal modicum or sum of deference that is owed, but it is not absolute. And Trump has tried to turn, you know, the legal deference that he is owed, which has limits, into unlimited, absolute deference to do anything he wants, whenever he wants.
- [62:24]
B
Right. And if even judges who he himself appointed are able to call that out, then I think it's as clear as day what he's trying to do. With that said, we'll leave it there. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it.
- [62:34]
C
Thanks, Brian. Great to see you again.
- [62:37]
B
Thanks again to Brian Schatz, Raphael Warnock, Melanie Stansberry and Rob Bonta. 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 Nicoterra. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me, Ryan Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.