Loading summary
Transcript166 lines
- [00:00]
A
This message is sponsored by IQ Bar.
- [00:03]
B
Hey, I'm Will. I started IQ Bar because I couldn't find a protein bar that wasn't loaded with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. So I decided to make my own. IQ Bars are ultra low sugar, packed with protein, fiber and brain boosting nutrients like magnesium and lion's mane. And they got zero weird ingredients. And if you've been meaning to try them, now is a great time. Because right now you can get 20% off all Iqbar products plus free shipping when you visit iqbar.com and enter promo code BAR20. Whether you're at your desk, on the road or mid workout, iqbar has functional, clean and delicious options for every occasion.
- [00:43]
C
Now you can get 20% off all
- [00:45]
B
Iqbar products, plus free shipping when you visit iqbar.com and enter promo code BAR20.
- [00:50]
A
To get 20% off plus free shipping,
- [00:52]
B
go to iqbar.com and enter Promo Code BAR20. That's iqbar.com, promo code BAR20.
- [01:01]
A
Trump goes full mad king as UFC comes to the South Lawn of the White House. And I've got interviews with ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, the co host of Pod Save America, Tommy Vitor, and the head of Data science at Vote Hub, Zachary Danigny. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and you're listening to no Lie. So Donald Trump's big UFC event kicked off with the usual weigh in with some trash talking in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It was then followed by motorcycles flipping in the air after Nitro Circus served as like kind of the opening act. And look, I don't know, maybe I'm being too precious about the Capitol complex being hallowed ground for the trashiest event that you could possibly imagine. But I've been thinking about this and I actually think there's something else that bugs me. You know, I wrestled for almost 10 years, starting at age 11. I loved everything about the sport, the but especially that there was no way to skirt responsibility. Like you can't hang out in the corner and take credit. The bout, the match is just between you and the other guy. That's it. And you're out there, all eyes are on you and you either win or lose and that is on you. And you own the victory when you win. And that's a great feeling. I mean, it is absolutely a team sport in the sense that your teammates push you to be better in practice every day and if you don't have that, you simply won't be successful. But when you're out there in the actual match, and it's your bout. You have to perform. No shortcuts. And I worked my ass off to win, and I did pretty well. Won some championships, learned a lot about discipline, and I made some great memories with my guys over the course of about a decade. And other mixed martial arts are the same deal. It's just two of you out there on the mat or in the ring or in the octagon. Again, no shortcuts, no excuses. Just hard work and discipline and technique and heart. But you look at a guy like Trump, and this is somebody who has lied, cheated, and stolen his entire way through life. A guy who got rich off the backs of contractors, who he stiffed. A guy who slapped his name onto products and brands that ultimately failed because they were shit. A guy who has no lasting legacy other than his own willingness to plow over people while enriching himself. And I just see the dichotomy between this guy who has climbed over everybody else to take the credit for himself and, and these fighters who could only get there because they worked for it. And of course, yet again, Trump will watch these people do all the hard work and he'll bask in the spotlight of an event paid for in sweat and blood that does not belong to him and taxpayer funds that don't belong to him. Everything he has up to today is the result of the labor of others. But he'll never actually give an ounce of credit to anyone else because his ego demands that the attention shine solely on him. And I think that's a pretty apt microcosm for how he's governed. Because while he swore on the campaign trail that he would focus on an America first agenda, since the moment he took office, it's been about him. About his new jet, his ballroom, his golden crusted Oval Office, his reflecting pool, his rose garden, his arch, all for him. Meanwhile, back out here with the rest of Americans. Costs have surged. Gas is almost at its highest point ever. Healthcare has been cut for tens of millions of Americans. Food assistance was gutted. Electricity prices are, are surging. But he hasn't done anything to fix it, because he just doesn't care. Because those things don't affect him. And it's not like he can't fix it. Remember, this is Trump we're talking about. When he wants something, he does it. He doesn't let anything stand in his way. Not the law, the courts, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, the Constitution. He just makes it happen, but only when it benefits him. And making sure that Americans can afford groceries and health care and housing and food assistance, none of that stuff impacts him, so he doesn't get it done. And the rest of his party, which has the power of a Koiku branch of government, the power to rein him in, to at least step in and work on behalf of their own constituents who they are paid to serve, they've also collectively decided that it's more important to help Trump than Americans. The entire party exists to serve one person. And so I think whether we're talking about the UFC match happening on the White House lawn or everything else that Donald Trump does on a daily basis, it could not be more obvious that the entire gop, including the people who can stop him, who can serve as a check to him, have decided that protecting Trump is the only priority that they have. And so that's something to remember as they ask for your votes come this November. We're gonna throw in just a moment to my interviews with Robert Garcia, Tommy Vitor and Zachary Denini. But first, just a quick reminder for those who haven't yet pre ordered my new book the Day After. It comes out in just a few weeks. Available for pre order now. If you're looking to support my work, the single best way to do that right now is to preorder the Day after. Obviously I don't paywall any of my content. I never will. But this is one time where I'll actually ask for some financial support. So if you have the ability to pre order it, that's a great way to support me. If you live in New York, D.C. or Los Angeles and want to come see me in person. The link to purchase tickets for that book tour is also on the same website. I'm going to put all of it in the show notes of this episode. Okay, here are my interviews with Robert Garcia, Tommy Vitor and Zachary Denini. No Lie is brought to you by ZBiotics. Now you've heard me promote Zbiotics Pre alcohol before and for good reason. It is a game changing product that I use before a night out with drinks. Well, a few weeks back I was able to use it again. I went to pot Save America's Jon Lovitz wedding. I made pre alcohol my first drink of the night. I felt excellent. The next day I was literally on camera shooting content completely normal. I do not think that would have been the case without pre alcohol. So, so what is pre Alcohol Zebiotics Pre Alcohol Probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. So here's how it works when you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It is a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Go to ZBiotics.com BTC to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use BTC at checkout. Zebiotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to ZBiotics.com BTC and use code BTC at checkout for 15% off. I'm joined now by the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia. Congressman, we have some new news here as it relates to Epstein and J.D. vance, the Vice president that hasn't been in the spotlight before. Can you explain what that news is?
- [07:46]
D
Yeah, I mean, look, this is pretty bombshell reporting. The New York Times has obviously put out a pretty significant report. We also hear there's more to come about J.D. vance actually now being centered in this Epstein scandal and cover up. We had no idea that Vance had really been involved in the past. He's made some comments. But now we learned that JD Vance is basically hosting and leading meetings in the Situation Room about the Epstein investigation. And the Situation Room is used for national security, for issues of war and peace, for major issues around the country. And J.D. vance, Susie Wiles, Cash Patel, Todd Blanche are having these meetings about Epstein in the actual Situation Room. And it's clear from this reporting that they're talking about ways of protecting Donald Trump. So it's very significant. It's the first time Vance is now at the center of this cover up, directing, giving ideas, making suggestions like it's including really bizarre ones. And so we've said we've got to talk to J.D. vance and the rest of the folks in that room. Why are they playing cover up for
- [08:49]
A
Donald Trump in terms of getting JD Vance in front of the House Oversight Committee? What is the likelihood of that happening and what action can and are you taking in service of that?
- [09:00]
D
Well, we just made the formal request to get JD Vance to get Patel, Susie Wiles, some of the communication staff folks that were in that room in front of the committee to comer. At the end of the day, it's Comer's decision. Now, look, he may not go along with this, but we can put the pressure on. When we've put pressure on, we've heard from folks, we forced people to come in, and certainly we win the majority. We're going to expect these people are in front of our committee actually answering these questions. Look, J.D. vance made some wild, wild accusations as well as provided some crazy ideas. He suggested that Tucker Carlson interview Ghislaine Maxwell. They're talking about how they can maybe pardon what a pardon would mean for Ghislaine Maxwell. How can we get Ghislaine Maxwell to say that she had nothing to do with Donald Trump or that Donald Trump had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein? This is a cover up that we are reading about in real time. And now we know that J.D. vance and Susie Wiles have been in on it. So they have a lot to answer for and quite frankly, they have a lot to answer for to the survivors.
- [10:02]
A
How can Republicans justify potentially having wielded contempt powers for Hillary Clinton to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee as it relates to the Epstein files, but not J.D. vance, who is on record perpetuating the coverup. I mean, he seems a lot more involved in this thing than Hillary Clinton ever did. And yet they were willing to use whatever tools they had at their disposal and whatever punishments and accountability methods they had at their disposal to make sure that she appeared. So how do you justify by bringing in one but not the other?
- [10:34]
D
You don't. I mean, the reality is, is that JD Vance has clearly now been played a big role in this cover up. And we just, we just found out about it. And the fact, part of this is the fact that they're having these meetings in the situation. Why are they there? They clearly viewed this as a massive security threat. To who? To Trump? To their administration. They know that in that room. It's very obviously there is technology in that room that really ensures that folks don't find out what they're talking about. And so it's concerning that through the reporting, through the New York Times, they're giving us a snapshot. But I want to know how many times did they meet in the Situation Room? How many times was J.D. vance involved? The reporting talks about certain instances, but there are clearly, if we're reading about some, the, there has to be a lot more.
- [11:25]
A
Right?
- [11:26]
D
And so we have. I think J.D. vance has a lot to answer for. And I hope he's asked by the press and the mainstream media what the hell is he doing and why is he trying to play cover up for Donald Trump. What does actually J.D. vance know? Does he know what's in the files? Why haven't the rest of the files been released? These are all important questions.
- [11:44]
A
If Democrats are able to take the majority in Congress and you become chairman of the Oversight Committee, what will that mean in terms of you being able to wield your power to compel the testimony of someone like J.D. vance? Given what, given the questions we now have.
- [12:00]
D
Look, I think that J.D. vance first of all, clearly, and we already know that he's a liar and he does whatever Donald Trump wants him to do. That's been clear throughout this whole administration. He refuses to ever stand up to Donald Trump. And I think what we're learning here is that he's a much more central player in the Epstein cover up than we had ever thought before. And so we're going to have to do everything we can to compel them to testify, to push the media, get public opinion. And I'll say, look, I was just looking at some reports in polling that the Epstein investigation and this broader kind of Epstein case is the single most bipartisan thing in the country. And it's where Donald Trump is actually the weakest. More people care, Republicans care about this and believe that Donald Trump is failing at this than any other topic. More than the economy, more than immigration, more than anything else. Democrats as well. And so it's united the country. And so if JD Vance thinks he's gonna go walk around and we're gonna allow him to tell lies and not answer questions, he's mistaken.
- [12:58]
A
Have you gotten any sense from your Republican colleagues whether there is an. I'm sure there's not an appetite to call JD Vance in and testify, but an openness, a willingness. Do you think that those people could be pressured to call J.D. vance to testify?
- [13:13]
D
I think there are going to be some Republicans, Tom Massey, Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert that might be supportive of some of that type of effort. But I think that J.D. vance, the bigger question in the Republican Party, broadly speaking, is he had never been a part of this investigation before and there was no evidence linking him to any sort of the COVID up. But now it's clear he is not only part of the COVID up, he's leading cover up meetings in the situation. We can't get more serious than that. And so he has a lot to answer for. And I going to encourage, I've encouraged my, my congressional colleagues over the last few days to stay on this. And we've got to hold JD Vance's beat to the fire here. He's the Vice President of the United States, second in line of the presidency and he's playing cover up for Donald Trump. It's got to end.
- [13:59]
A
You know, some of those colleagues that you had mentioned, Nancy Mace is in her last term in the House. She obviously lost her primary for South Carolina governor, I believe came in fifth in that primary. You have Thomas Massie also was ousted thanks to help from Donald Trump. And so given the fact that these people are kind of freed from the shackles of what is expected of you, if you wanna remain a member in good standing of Donald Trump's Republican Party, do you expect that they'll be a little bit more outspoken in terms of their support for transparency on this issue?
- [14:32]
D
I mean, I do hope, I do expect that they will be, obviously, wait and see. But look at Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, I think that she's a good example of someone that has kind of broken free from Donald Trump and you know, very much has a strong political opinion of which I strongly disagree with. But overall, she's not in it anymore to please President Trump, which is what she did the entire time almost as she was in Congress. And so I hope that Nancy Mace, I hope that Thomas Massie in these months ahead continue to show some courage and push on the Epstein files. We need to get more answers and we need now, why the hell is Susie Wiles so obsessed also with the Epstein files? And she's directing all sorts of things. We're hearing from Bongino, of course, with the FBI saying some pretty crazy stuff. And so again, there's just more to look at, more to investigate. Another really critical part that was in the reporting was, you know, Pam Bondi liked to throw Todd Blanche under the bus a lot in her deposition, saying that somehow he was completely in charge of everything. And obviously Todd Blanche was in these rooms, but so was Pam Bondi. Pam Bondi would attended these meetings sometimes by phone. And so this idea that Pam Bonnie had no idea what was going on, she certainly never mentioned to us she was having meeting meetings in the Situation Room. And so I think it's very concerning
- [15:47]
A
especially because like, you know, this is where the, the operations took place to take out bin Laden and, and Soleimani and Al Zawahiri and like, and like to equate those missions with the, well, I guess what is now a mission to protect Donald Trump from the Epstein files is pretty telling in terms of how important this administration views this entire cover up effort. But you know, something that was also Striking in terms of Donald Trump going after these people who dare speak out against him. As it relates to Epstein is Donald Trump also decided to create a new website as part of WhiteHouse.gov and that was what he's calling a media offenders list. There's a bunch of content creators. Thank you. Yes. It's something that I wear as a badge of honor. I'm one of the names of those content creators who are included on that list. And so I just wanted to get your reaction to the fact that you had a Republican Party that predicated so much of its identity on this idea that they are staunch opponents of censorship and they're gonna be these champions for free speech now, publishing an enemies list of content creators like YouTubers and podcast hosts on WhiteHouse.gov just your reaction to the fact that this is where their priorities are, at the hands of a party that would beat its chest as being anti censorship.
- [17:09]
D
These people are just a total joke. I mean, they're a joke. They weaponize the government. It's crazy to be both so incompetent and so crazed about attacking people at the same time. I mean, look, I think they have worked to destroy anyone that opposes them. It's part of their authoritarian playbook. They have gone after, whether it's large companies like obviously CBS and large institutions, to successful new media channels. Right. Like yourself, other podcasters that are out in this space. People, you and others have these enormous audiences in the Digital Space on YouTube so many other ways. And I think they're intimidated by that. The right. We've allowed the right for so long to dominate the digital space, to dominate YouTube, to dominate. So. So the podcasting space. And it's just been in the last few years, you look about what's happened in the last five years, three years for us on. On the progressive front. We're actually making some headway now. Yeah, there's investments that are happening. So of course Donald Trump is going to attack that. He's going to try to bring folks down and intimidate because, you know, you. For, as you know, you have a great operation. There's also very. Some smaller operations that intimidation can have an impact. People don't have the ability to defend themselves oftentimes or the resources to fight Trump's. Trump's Department of Justice.
- [18:38]
A
Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, the whole point of this is to have a chilling effect. What do you think your Republican counterpart in the Oversight Committee, James Comer or Jim Jordan, who chaired the subcommittee on the weaponization of government, what do you think? That those Republicans would say if Joe Biden had created an enemies list and published it on the taxpayer funded WhiteHouse.gov website.
- [19:00]
D
Insane. I mean, I can't believe that they went after Joe Biden for using an auto pen. And that was their. The thing they're mad at, or they were mad that he was old. I mean, Donald Trump is literally stealing everyone's money and giving it to himself and his family. They're going after journalists, they're attacking the courts, they're stealing money, they're cutting real estate deals, they're destroying the White House building cage matches in front of it. I mean, it's beyond, you know, they've destroyed our relationships around the world. He is just the worst person to ever lead our country by far, and his administration is. And I think we're all just waiting for the day where we can turn the page on Donald Trump.
- [19:45]
A
Well, look, I know that I speak for a lot of people watching in saying, first off, thank you for the work that you're doing and keeping these important issues to hold Trump to account at the forefront. And second of all, in terms of that work starting hopefully just a few months from now, you do become the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. And we can start digging into some of this stuff that I think the American people have done. Very valid and legitimate questions about, first and foremost on the Epstein matter. But a whole raft of things that you just mentioned, whether it's the financial corruption, you know, these deals that Trump is engaged with, these vanity projects that he is, that he's doing right now, the fact that his kids are involved in all of these military endeavors, and the list goes on and on. So, again, you know, the work to begin holding this administration, this overtly corrupt administration accountable, hopefully starts sooner rather than later. And I know that a lot of that is gonna be in your jurisdiction. So with that said, we'll leave it there. Congressman, I appreciate your time.
- [20:40]
D
Thank you.
- [20:43]
A
No lie is brought to you by Shopify. Starting something new isn't just hard, it's scary. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure is going to work out. And it can be hard to make that leap of faith. Trust me, I know. When I started this podcast, I wasn't even sure of what I was doing. Like, what if nobody listens? What if I can't offer something worth listening to? Now, I'm glad that I believed in myself and launched my podcast, despite all of the fears and hesitations. But let's be clear, it also helps when you have A partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all E commerce in the United States. From my own website briantyler cohen.com to brands just getting started. So get started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style, accelerate your efficiency. Whether you're looking to upload new products or trying to improve existing ones, Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. Get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. And what if people haven't heard about your brand? Shopify helps you find customers with easy to run email and social media campaigns. It's time to turn those what ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com BTC go to shopify.com BTC that's shopify.com BTC Tommy it looks like Donald Trump just got hit with a brand new Epstein blow from somewhere he didn't expect. Let's see the clip.
- [22:30]
E
I want to watch their traitors, the ones that refuse to release Epstein files want to cover up for pedophiles and rapists and all sorts of disgusting things in these files. Those are the traitors to the American people and they should be ashamed of themselves.
- [22:46]
C
I mean, this report basically says it was the President who didn't want anything released.
- [22:51]
E
Are you saying that that applies to the President himself saying exactly that. He told me on the phone that his friends would get hurt and that's why he's against releasing the Epstein files. It's been shocking to people, many people that voted for Donald Trump, many people that voted Republican, that they would actually follow through to try to cover up the Epstein files.
- [23:16]
A
So ouch. Not too ambiguous there with Green's.
- [23:20]
F
You're a traitor. Yeah.
- [23:22]
A
I mean, what kind of an impact do you think that that's gonna have here as Trump continues to try and basically quash any dissent as it relates to Epstein. But you have people like Marjorie Taylor Greene making sure that this issue doesn't die.
- [23:34]
F
Look, I think that there was a bunch of folks in the MAGA movement who sincerely believed that Donald Trump would expose the Epstein files and expose the kind of client list, take down this cabal of elites and actually put people in jail. That might have been a little bit naive. Right. I think we all can agree with that, but there's.
- [23:52]
A
Wait, you think the guy who had been photographed a billion times, literally best friends with Jeffrey Epstein, best friend for 10 years? That might have been misleading.
- [23:59]
F
But, like, we all know that there was a group of people in the MAGA world, like, especially the podcast universe, who were really, really focused on this, and they believe Marjorie Taylor Greene is sincere and they're probably still listening to her, and she'll keep the issue alive, like Donald Trump. This big article in New York Times about the desperate efforts last summer to spin and cover up the Epstein files is, like, kind of bringing back this issue. And it just shows that Trump cannot make this go away. It's just never, ever gonna go away.
- [24:27]
A
What about the fact that he tapped Todd Blanche to be his permanent Attorney General? I think that this was obviously with Epstein in mind, because if there's anybody who's gonna be willing to defend Trump, like, to the ends of the earth, it's going to be his own former personal criminal defense attorney, somebody who's already shown to be willing to do whatever it takes. And as far as Epstein is concerned, the guy went to Florida, talked to Ghislaine Maxwell, and immediately moved her over to a minimum security prison in Texas.
- [24:54]
G
Why?
- [24:55]
A
We don't know. He refuses to say it.
- [24:57]
F
Yeah. Now he claims there's threats to her life, so that's why she had to go to a country club. Yeah, I guess.
- [25:01]
A
So do you think that Todd Blanche is going to be able to effectively bury this thing?
- [25:06]
F
I mean, so this New York Times report, it's an excerpt of the new Maggie Haberman book that's about how Todd Blanche, who is currently nominated to be Trump's Attorney General, was sitting in the Situation Room at meetings, conspiring to cover up, suppress, otherwise, just, like, kill all of these horrible allegations within the Epstein files, including ones that Trump, like, had sex or sexual contact with one of Epstein's victims.
- [25:32]
A
Yeah.
- [25:32]
F
You know, it's like, really awful stuff. So my hope is that Democrats, if Todd Blanche really has confirmation hearings, Democrats should hammer him on this.
- [25:40]
A
Yeah.
- [25:40]
F
What were you doing in these meetings? Like, whatever happened to the Department of Justice having some distance from political decision making in the White House?
- [25:48]
G
Right.
- [25:48]
F
Like, this is totally inappropriate collusion.
- [25:50]
A
I wonder if there's going to be Republicans who are going to be willing to buck Trump and actually join in on this effort to get some transparency here. Because we've also seen what happens, and I think this was by design. We've seen what happens to Republicans who aren't willing to toe the line. And, you know, Thomas Massie is out of Congress, John Cornyn out of the Senate, Bill Cassidy out of the Senate. And so these. And these are not, like, squishy, squishy lives. Right? Like, these are. These are people who have voted with Trump more than 90% of the time, in some cases all the time. And yet, whatever they did, whatever one thing they did that caught his ire was enough for him to, like, cut them off. And so, you know, when. When. When Todd Blanche shows up for these confirmation hearings and. And is posed a tough question by a Republican, do they become Persona non grata in the gop? Does that mean that their career in Congress or the Senate is effectively over?
- [26:40]
F
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, hopefully some of them have a little bit of courage. I mean, interestingly, today alone, it sounds like Republican efforts to get rid of Bill Pulte or his nomination to be the Director of National Intelligence finally worked because Trump announced he was naming someone else. Like, ultimately, there is a line. We just have to help Republicans find the courage to touch it.
- [27:02]
A
I also. I also presume that Bill Pulte is not. Is not a Hill that Trump is really willing to die on. But the Epstein stuff is different because that directly implicates him.
- [27:11]
F
Yeah. Although what he was hoping to do with Bill Pulte is install him as Director of National Intelligence and then use that job to find all the information and authorities and.
- [27:19]
A
Sure, but he could find some other enemies. He can find some hack who's easier to get confirmed for sure.
- [27:25]
F
But, like.
- [27:25]
A
And do you think. Is it Jay Clayton who is.
- [27:28]
F
Yeah, it's like the Southern District of New York.
- [27:29]
A
And do you think that that person is going to be as. As malleable as Bill Pulte would have been?
- [27:34]
F
I know nothing about Jay Clayton, but I know that Bill Pulte has literally zero qualification for the job. I mean, this guy is, like, overseeing Fannie and Freddy's working in the. In the mortgage world. Before that, he was going to conferences and encouraging people to pump and dump Best Buy stock. I'm sure you've seen the video of, like, him at this conference where someone's just whacking another guy in the face with a dildo. Drew, cut that in here.
- [27:57]
G
Here's the first ever, man. Live fucking dildo. Slap on the pp. Live. Pulte, look at this thing. All right,
- [28:10]
F
come on, harder, daddy.
- [28:13]
G
All right, fine. There you have it. The first dildo slap in history. Live. So Bill. This says Bill Pulte, all right?
- [28:26]
D
Yeah.
- [28:28]
G
And then if you notice, on, it's got a tramp stamp with a butterfly.
- [28:31]
D
I like only the young one.
- [28:33]
G
Ass cheeks. Yes, it does say. It does say only the young on the back here. Only young. December 4th.
- [28:40]
A
That looks pretty badass.
- [28:42]
G
We have a mushroom stamp on the head of it and bed bath on one cheek and gme. Oh, GME on the other.
- [28:49]
A
I got too excited there.
- [28:52]
F
So, you know, that's, like. When it's someone who's like that, what is like, a Cash Patel. Right. Or a Bill Pulte who has, like, literally no business in the job only because you're doing Trump's bidding. Like, that's when I get the most nervous.
- [29:03]
A
But that's the whole cabinet.
- [29:05]
F
Yeah, but look, listen.
- [29:06]
A
Pete Hegseth is not there because he is competent at running the military or
- [29:09]
F
any department, but Pete Hegseth served in the military. You know what I mean?
- [29:12]
A
I guess if the bar is that low and Bill Pulte doesn't even meet that low bar, then, like, then that is them missing the point.
- [29:18]
F
Tulsi Gabbard, right? Like, she was served in the army for, like, 20 years. She was a member of Congress. She was on the Intelligence Committee. I don't think she was qualified for that job. I don't think she was the right person. Right, but she wasn't, like, just, like, coming out of the. You know, owning a chain of, like, Quiznos or something. Like, you know, like, Bill Pulte is, like. We were doing oppo on him, like, digging for research for Pod Save the World. And we found a podcast, an interview he did on a podcast that specializes in H Vac.
- [29:47]
A
You know that H Vac to Intel. Intel community pipeline is strong.
- [29:52]
G
Yeah.
- [29:53]
F
They build pipelines to connect your heating
- [29:56]
A
and your air conditioning to the nation's intelligence infrastructure.
- [29:59]
F
Yeah.
- [30:00]
C
Anyway.
- [30:00]
A
Yeah, well, you know, on. On that point, it was funny to see when the Knicks played game three to see, like, Howard Lutnick on the sidelines. And it is a bummer because, you know, that should be the ultimate apolitical event and something that New York desperately needs and has been really fun to watch the Knicks, like, really run. Run this entire series. And it was great watching the entire. I mean, you know, that. That moment. The whole world was waiting for that moment just as much as they were waiting for the actual game itself to see how badly Donald Trump was gonna get booed.
- [30:35]
D
Yeah, dude.
- [30:35]
F
And it was so awesome because they, they clearly tried to set up the one shot of Donald Trump where you,
- [30:41]
A
where you can't boo.
- [30:42]
F
Presumably New Yorkers. Like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. This is New York. Hold my fucking beer. I'm gonna boo the shit out of this guy. Did you see the cuts from Bryant park and like all, all these other places where they were just viewing it in the city?
- [30:53]
A
Yeah.
- [30:53]
F
People were going nuts.
- [30:55]
A
Yeah. Oh, it was great.
- [30:56]
F
Also, there were so many politicians at the game that night. Like Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff was there.
- [31:01]
A
Yeah.
- [31:03]
F
Bloomberg was there like two nights ago.
- [31:04]
A
Yeah. I think somebody, one of the, one of the guys like fell into him. Like, you, you don't realize how frail these people are until you have like a seven foot tall basketball player fall into their lap.
- [31:15]
F
That's what's crazy about watching an NBA game. It's like on tv, you know, they're like taking charges and taking jump shots. But like up close in person, these guys weigh like 280.
- [31:24]
A
Yeah.
- [31:25]
F
They're just killing each other if they fell on a regular human being, let alone like a frail old guy.
- [31:30]
A
There, there is. I, I think I brought this up to like a group of my friends the other day. Would you rather have to survive 10 seconds in an NFL game and you can make $10 million or just get a million dollars?
- [31:46]
F
Get a million.
- [31:47]
A
That. I think that's the right answer. Ten seconds in an NFL game I think would just.
- [31:52]
F
Do you understand what getting hit by an NFL cornerback would do to you? Okay, now imagine it's an inside linebacker.
- [31:57]
A
Yeah.
- [31:58]
F
Now imagine it's, you know, Miles Garrett. Dead.
- [32:04]
C
Yeah, dead.
- [32:05]
A
Look, man, that's why I asked the question.
- [32:06]
F
You know those like medieval, you know those medieval tortures where like they pull you from every angle and like all your come up. That would be me on the field just like splayed out.
- [32:14]
A
Yeah.
- [32:15]
F
This good content.
- [32:15]
A
You'd like that, wouldn't?
- [32:16]
F
This is why people come to your channel.
- [32:17]
A
You're disgusting, Tommy. Disgusting. It's not that kind of a show. The night. The nice part about this was watching knowing the fact that the only game the Knicks have lost now is the one that Donald Trump showed up.
- [32:28]
F
Yeah, he definitely jinxed them. I mean, they were on like a 13 game heater and the guy decided he had to go to the game.
- [32:33]
A
Second longest shake experience, second longest shriek in NBA history.
- [32:37]
F
And then the next night they came back like the greatest comeback in NBA finals history.
- [32:42]
A
Yeah.
- [32:43]
F
Donald Trump not there. Yeah, it is pretty awesome. Like this is where Trump is annoying.
- [32:47]
D
Like.
- [32:48]
F
Like, because of the conservative bent of, like, the sports media in particular. If this had been Joe Biden, he would be getting absolutely killed for this. Like, it would be like, a national meme of, like, Biden, you know, the jinx or the loser. I feel like Trump's not getting the commensurate about a shit.
- [33:02]
A
No, no, I agree with you, but I think that it's becoming less and less, like, in style and fashion to, like, in vogue, to. To step to stand behind Trump, especially in the sports world, especially with the Epstein stuff bearing down. It's like, there's a very easy retort to anybody, you know, in the barstool world that continues to, like, advocate for Trump. And it's like, all right, but, like, guy's, like, pretty deeply mixed up with pedophiles, so.
- [33:27]
F
Remember, like, earlier on in the first term, they were, like, NFL players doing the Trump dance in the end zone and stuff, right? Like, it was like, a Monroe St. Brown, I think, was the first one. I did. Like, a bunch of players are doing it. Like, cool, good players, and it made me very mad. And also, like, he was in the cultural zeitgeist. Like, people were showing up to the inauguration, and now, like, Milli Vanilli's canceling on them. You know, Shit is.
- [33:49]
A
Although.
- [33:50]
G
Although.
- [33:50]
A
What really hurts as a lifelong Giants fan is, like, the one player that didn't get that memo is Jackson Dart, and that sucks.
- [33:58]
F
Can't believe you're a quarterback from Ole Miss as a Republican.
- [34:02]
A
Well, look, you know, even the other old missed quarterbacks at least have. Eli Manning has, like, enough. Enough sense not to align himself with the Republican Party in New York, of all places.
- [34:11]
F
Yeah, it was weird. It, like, turned into that weird fight on Twitter about it and whatnot. Like, my. My view on this is I feel like, like, everyone just gets to like who they want to like, and we can live and let live and move on. And, like, scolding players into liking people or not has proven to be ineffective from our side of the aisle. You know what I mean?
- [34:29]
A
Well, you know, not. Not in. Not down with the. The intolerant left.
- [34:33]
F
No, I don't think that worked well for us.
- [34:35]
A
Yeah, no, you're right. But I still hate it. I still. I still hate that.
- [34:39]
F
My owner is Bob Kraft. Yeah, he's, like, best friends with the courtside, too.
- [34:44]
A
The Knicks. The Knicks owner is. I saw him. The Knicks owner is. Same deal. Like, Dolan sucks. He is, like, been sparring publicly with Mayor Mamdani, who tried to have this watch party outside Madison Square Garden. And, and like, like Dolan canceled it.
- [34:57]
F
So James Dolan famously has like, security officials in the arena spy on people and will, like, kick them out if they say stuff.
- [35:05]
C
Making fun of him.
- [35:05]
A
Yeah, I saw that. I saw that reporting the other day.
- [35:08]
G
Yeah.
- [35:08]
F
Pablo Torre's stuff, I think.
- [35:09]
A
Yeah. Pretty wild stuff. Okay, well, with that said, for those who are watching right now, first of all, go Knicks. Boston sports team suck. And second of all, if you're not yet subscribed to pod Save America's YouTube channel, I'm going to put a link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Completely free to subscribe, but a great way to elevate voices like Tommy's and the other guys at Pod Save America so that we can help build up this progressive media ecosystem. Tommy, anything to add?
- [35:34]
F
I love you.
- [35:35]
A
Thanks. All right, we'll leave it there. I'm joined now by the head of data science at Vote Hub, Zack Denini. Zach, thanks so much for joining me. I wanted to talk to you because a, I'm a huge fan of the work that you and Vote Hub do, and it's especially important right now because we're seeing a new round of election denialism happening. But it's happening starting in California, which is seems to me to show that Trump doesn't have a lot of. Isn't. Isn't very discerning about how he deploys his election denial claims. But from the perspective of somebody who works in data science, can you speak about these claims of election denialism that are happening in LA and California more broadly?
- [36:16]
C
Yeah. So I think something that, you know, I want to start by saying is counting is truly very, very slow in California. Right. Even compared to, you know, other west coast states that count their mail in ballots late. We're talking about only about half the vote being counted on election night. And those votes are counted in roughly chronological order and different people hold their ballots and return them earlier and later. It's different populations. And I think from my position, I try to understand that that is not exactly intuitive to people who don't obsessively follow elections like me. But it also is, we try to communicate that because we know what those shifts are roughly going to look like
- [36:56]
A
to people on that point. You know, there have been a lot of Republicans who've come forward and said, well, that kind of a system breeds distrust. My pushback to that is that the system doesn't breed distrust. The system is what it is. We allow a lot of different avenues for people to vote and for those votes to be counted. What breeds distrust is the people who breed distrust is the people who come forward and say that, you know, when there is election day votes that are counted first and then mail in ballots which skew overwhelmingly Democratic, when those come in after and the vote total shifts from a redder electorate to a bluer electorate, we're inevitably gonna see, you know, we're gonna see Democrats do better and better as more votes are counted. I think that's what undermines trust in the elections. But from, from your vantage, having looked at both the California system and the rest of the country, can you give a sense of what you think when people say that a system like the one we have in California breeds distrust?
- [37:55]
C
Yeah, so. So I do think, in general, it is, you know, it is just tough for people. You know, in a lot of states, they wake up and they see someone's losing by 1% or something on Wednesday morning, and maybe they think, oh, this is close, they could come back. You know, in California, that can be 10 or 12% and someone come back. So the system in California is, you know, it is a bigger number than what we're seeing everywhere else. But a falsehood that is just really frustrating, I think, that we've had to deal with in the last week is this idea that these late mail ballots always favor Democrats. I, you know, recently this week, you know, posted about, you know, an election that I was in charge of covering in 2022, when it was a Republican candidate, David Schweikart, in Arizona, who was losing by double digits with 70% of the vote counted in Arizona, House District 1 in 2022. And he came back and won. Right. You know, it goes both ways. And I think it's important, you know, for people to try to bring those facts to light so people aren't getting a warped picture of what happens in
- [38:54]
A
terms of the broader election coming up. Now, as we look toward midterms, can you give me your sense of where we stand as far as the Senate is concerned?
- [39:05]
C
Yeah. So the Senate is an interesting situation because there are kind of two different sets of states. We have Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Georgia. These are states that were close. Maybe Trump won them by a little. In the case of Maine, Harris won them. Democrats kind of need to sweep these four. And then there are other states, Iowa, Texas, Ohio, and Alaska. All of these four states, Trump won by double digits. But Democrats need to win about two of those as well to win control of the Senate. So, you know, what this means is, you know, you have to hold serve in these races that Democrats should be winning in a blue environment and you have to win a couple races in states that will be difficult to win even in a blue environment with good candidates.
- [39:52]
A
What does Vote Hubs analysis suggest would happen, you know, if the race were today?
- [39:58]
C
If the race were today, honestly, we think Republicans would probably hold control of the Senate right now. In our, in our polling average, we have Democrats ahead of Republicans and generic ballot polls by 5.4 points. We actually expect this to shift towards Democrats considerably the next six months. Our projected November average is D 7.2. And why? There's just a historic pattern where in midterm elections, you know, the public sentiment usually shifts towards the out party in the months leading up to the election after even, you know, considering that shift. Right now we give Republicans a 55% chance to win the Senate. So I mean roughly a toss up, but a very, very narrow, you know, you know, Republicans very narrowly favored.
- [40:44]
A
Are there any unforced errors that are causing a chance for Republicans to be more successful than they should be as far as the Senate map is concerned?
- [40:55]
C
So I think one issue for Democrats is Maine and Michigan. The, you know, candidate quality in these states is unclear. I don't want to say that, oh, the Democrats are going to throw away these races because of poor candidate quality. There's no evidence to make you think that will definitely happen. But it is important to, you know, consider, you know, Georgia and North Carolina. You have these battle tested candidates, John Ossoff and Roy Cooper, who we know are very, very good at winning elections and strongly believe they can do so in such a blue year in their purple states, Michigan and Maine, you know, I'm sure Democrats wish they had a Roy Cooper, wish they had a John Ossoff to run in these states, but they don't.
- [41:36]
G
Right.
- [41:36]
C
So there's, it's just more of a question mark. I think six years ago people would have said Jon Ossoff was, you know, an inexperienced candidate without a track record of winning elections. Now we view him as really strong. You know, we could be saying the same thing about Graham Platner in six years or we could be saying in six years, wow, you know, Graham Platner lost Maine in a blue midturd.
- [41:58]
A
What about the House? Now if we go over to the House, as it stands in the aftermath of redistricting, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, Republicans were able to net another 12 seats this cycle as the result of redrawing maps. Does that put the Democrats ability or likelihood to retake the House at risk.
- [42:16]
C
I think it's very important to know that Democrats are clearly favored to win the House. If the election was held today, they'd be clearly favored to win the House.
- [42:23]
G
House.
- [42:23]
C
And again, we expect things just to shift more towards Democrats in the next six months. I think I always tell people American elections are surprising. Things happen a lot. An 80% chance of winning the House means that if you flip a coin a couple times and get heads right now we think Republicans could feasibly win the House, but that something would really have to change and it would be surprising in very historical progress precedent.
- [42:51]
A
What about in subsequent cycles? What do you foresee as the prospect of Democrats redrawing maps and some of these weapons that haven't yet been deployed? I'm talking about the ongoing redraw in New York, which of course will take a constitutional amendment. I presume that we'll see another effort in Virginia. That one will likely be successful because the, the technicalities that precluded it from working in 2026 likely won't present themselves in 2028. There is of course, the ability for California to redraw again. You know, there are, I believe, seven seats that, that Republicans will still hold in, in this state. So the map may very well look different, especially in the aftermath of Democrats seeing the extent to which Republicans were willing to, to engage in this process in Texas, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, I mean like North Carolina, possibly South Carolina the next election cycle. So what can that look like? And is, and I guess the broader question is like, is there a world where Democrats can actually come out on top if they're willing to fight fire with fire and be aggressive here? As aggressive as Republicans have been?
- [44:08]
C
Yeah. So first of all, I think we have seen that Democrats are willing to fight fire with fire in the 2022 redistricting cycle. I like to remind people in 2022 and 2024, the House had a pro Democratic bias. Right. You know, Democrats, the House had a pro Republican bias throughout the 2010s. The Democrats, you know, in Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico basically said, you know, we're done with this. And they actually kind of out redistricted Republicans in 2022 and 2024, 2026 cycle. As you know, I'm sure everyone listening to this knows was a big win for Republicans. Probably about seven to eight seats in a neutral environment.
- [44:49]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [44:51]
C
But now Republicans are now kind of tapped out in a lot of their states. Another one, I'll throw out there you didn't mention is Colorado. That's a 4, 4 map right now. It's very easy to draw an 8o map for Democrats in Colorado. So Republicans are now kind of maximally gerrymandered in a lot of their states. They of course always have a few more districts they can knock off and South Carolina, even go back to Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska. But Democrats now have a lot more outstanding in Illinois, New York, Washington, Colorado. So we'll see how that develops. It's, it's made it so that Democrats do need quite a blue environment to win the US House in 2026. But the data right now points to that blue environment happening.
- [45:40]
A
I mean, I know this isn't really within your jurisdiction as a data scientist, but do you presume based on what you know about these Democrats that they. There's a difference between being able to do it, having the opportunity to do it, and them actually doing it? And the latter part of that is, is I think what Democrats as, as institutionalists have had more trouble bringing themselves to do. I mean, we even heard from JB Pritzker who says, you know, he's told me in our interviews about this very topic, he goes, I'm on Team Fight, but then decided to hinge any action in Illinois on, on whatever Indiana did. So not really as aggressive as I think, as I think he had suggested previously. So just judging from what you know about the Democrats who are in charge here, do you think that they'd actually be willing to deploy these tools even though they have the opportunity to use them?
- [46:32]
C
Yeah. I will note that Illinois already has, you know, what I would consider a pretty heinous gerrymander. Right. Both eye tests when you look at the map. Yeah. My home district is a noodle that stretches from Champagne to St. Louis. And it would be, you know, basically turning it into a like completely maximal super ugly bacon mander. It would probably actually be the lowest compactness gerrymander if Illinois went there. Worse even than anything Republicans have drawn yet. That being said, you of course have states like New York and Colorado that are blue states that if anything, maybe even have slightly Republican leaning maps right now. I think odds are definitely in the favor of democrats redrawing in 2028. I think the Democratic outrage surrounding Voting Rights act being gutted by SCOTUS this spring was pretty big. And you know, when we're talking about ugly maps. Right. I think like what happened in Tennessee really went past a line, honestly that had been held for the most part by, by both sides with the with the Memphis draw out is really, really, really, you know, extreme.
- [47:41]
A
So last question here. This is a little bit farther out into the future, but the prospect of a reallocation of electoral votes and the impact that that that's going to have post 2030, as it stands right now, even Democrats winning like the blue wall states in the Midwest wouldn't be enough to get them over the finish line. So how do you foresee that shaking out given the fact that California will likely lose electoral votes? A lot of these blue states in the Northeast, for example, and on the west coast, and those are going to be reallocated towards, towards states in the Southeast and the Sun Belt.
- [48:23]
C
So yeah, something I really try to communicate with people is there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding reallocation. So what this means is midway through the decade we have these estimates about how we think people are moving across the country from something called the American community survey, the ACS. But the U.S. census, the full U.S. census is only once every 10 years. Based on these mid decade estimates, it looks like reallocation is going to be quite bad for Democrats. But there's uncertainty around that. Right. If this is quite bad, it could be anywhere from like neutral for Democrats to like a total disaster. We're winning all three blue wall states maybe, and Arizona isn't even enough, so we don't quite know where it will end up. But directionally, you know, a best case scenario for Democrats at this point is basically no change. A worst case scenario is having to win, you know, two or two or maybe even three more states. If you think about, you know, Nevada being pretty small in 2032.
- [49:25]
A
Yeah. I mean, although there is a world where, I mean like, this is, this is like me doing the thing that I think Democrats have been doing for the last 20 years where it's like maybe Texas is, is poised to flip. But we've been saying maybe Texas is poised to flip forever. But, but we'll see. I mean, you know, we have a strong candidate in James Talarico and perhaps if he's able to win and there's such disgust over what the MAGA agenda has turned into in Texas and voters there get a sense of like, okay, we stuck our necks out and voted for this Democrat for the first time and he's performing well in the Senate, maybe that'll allow them to be more open to other Democrats in the future. So look, time will, time will tell on that stuff. Zachary, for those who are watching and listening right now, where can they see and hear more from you you can
- [50:14]
C
follow Vote Hub or my name Zachary Denini on X, you can go to our website@vohub.com we do a lot of coverage on election nights. We have a midterms forecast we worked very hard on. We do a lot of scraping of precinct data so you can see the most detailed maps as they update in real time on election night.
- [50:32]
A
Awesome. Well I appreciate the work that you do and you taking the time today.
- [50:35]
C
Thank you very much for having me on.
- [50:38]
A
Thanks again to Robert Garcia, Tommy Vitor and Zachary Zanini. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Wednesday. 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 at brianteller Cohen on all of my other channels. Or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.