BREAKING: EXPLOSIVE revelation from Epstein files STUNS ALL

An explosive new revelation from the Epstein files makes national news, and I've got four interviews: Roana, Don Lemon, Dan Feifer, and Mark Warner. I'm Brian Teller Cohen, and you're watching No Lie.

So, we have got an explosive new revelation from the Epstein files. But first, I want to set the stage because just days ago, the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, offered up this insane announcement about Epstein's co-conspirators, or lack thereof.

"We said in July, um, and it remains as true today as it was in July, um, if we had information—we meaning the Department of Justice—about men who abused women, we would, um, we would, we would prosecute them. Right? We talked about the work that we're doing. That's why I said that there—I said this earlier—there's this built-in assumption that somehow there's this hidden tranche of information of men that we know about that we're covering up or that we're not, we're choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case. I don't know whether there are men out there that abuse these women. Um, if, if we learn about information and evidence that that allows us to prosecute them, you better believe we will. But, but I don't think that that, that the public or you all are going to uncover, um, men within the Epstein files that abuse women, unfortunately."

>> So, that's it. No other co-conspirators, just a sex trafficking ring where the more than thousand girls got trafficked nowhere to no one, which is convenient if you're looking to, oh, I don't know, cover for your friends who may also be implicated in the Epstein files.

Well, it turns out that at least one of the documents that was just released as part of this latest tranche poses quite a problem for Todd Blanch and his narrative. The document reads, quote: "From [redacted] to Jeffrey Epstein, thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty."

So, I'm sorry, but if you're Todd Blanch, how do you square your comment that no one else is involved and that we shouldn't expect any more prosecutions from the DOJ when emails like this exist? And why on God's green earth is that name redacted? I'm assuming that it wasn't a victim who wrote to Jeffrey Epstein that his littlest girl was a little naughty. So, if someone can explain why the DOJ is acting as the personal criminal defense attorney for Epstein's co-conspirators, I'm all ears.

In fact, while this one document debunks Todd Blanch's statement unto itself, it's not even necessary because back in December, an email was released that explicitly mentioned the existence of co-conspirators in, again, opposition to what Todd Blanch is saying today. The contents of that email read in part, quote: "Good morning, ASC [redacted] is requesting an update on the 10 co-conspirators by close of business today. Can you tell us how many have been located, interviewed, served with grand jury subpoenas? I believe the breakdown was five in New York, one in North Carolina, one in Boston, and three in Florida. Please let me know if you need anything from us. Thank you. [Redacted] violent crime section, crimes against children, human trafficking unit."

The response email reads, quote: "Of the 10 co-conspirators, three have been located in Florida and served grand jury subpoenas. One in Boston, one in New York City, and one in Connecticut were located and served. Four of the 10 are outstanding with attempts having been made. One is a wealthy businessman in Ohio. A lead is being sent to CV. The remaining three are currently out of pocket. The team (eight SAS, TFOs, two US attorneys) is flying out tonight, tomorrow, to various locations in Florida to interview approximately 25 victims. The 1-800 call FBI line is up and running. We have received approximately 45 calls, which were in the process of vetting out. Let me know if you need anything else, Sean."

So, I'm sorry, but what are we doing here? Why is the DOJ now making sweeping proclamations that nobody else is involved when there are emails like this by prosecutors who, by the way, are usually circumspect enough not to admit to the existence of co-conspirators in writing if they don't exist? If there are emails from some redacted name thanking Jeffrey Epstein for a good time from his littlest girl. At some point, the cover-up just becomes so apparent that it's hard not to believe that the Justice Department is working on Epstein's behalf and spitting in the face of the survivors who they claim to care about.

So look, if Trump's DOJ wants to continue engaging in this farce, that's their prerogative. But they're losing their base. They're losing the country. And frankly, they are losing the plot. The federal government is supposed to bring the pedophiles to justice, not protect them from it. But apparently that's not the priority of Donald Trump, or any of his other accessories after the fact.

Next up are my interviews with Roana, Don Lemon, Dan Feifer, and Mark Warner.

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 what I was doing. 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 this podcast despite all the fears and hesitations. But let's be clear, it certainly 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 website, brian tellercohen.com, to brands just getting started. 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 uploading 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 an entire 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 my brand? Shopify helps you find your 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.

I'm joined by the author of the Epstein Transparency Act, Roana. Congressman, thanks for joining me.

>> Ryan, great to be back.

So, we have a big release of the Epstein files, about 3 million documents. Obviously, everyone's going through them right now, and, and we're going to see more and more from what has been uncovered. But something notable is that the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, has come out and basically said, "Sure, there were 6 million documents. What you're getting are 3 million documents." And so, are, are you satisfied that it seems like the DOJ is basically wiping their hands of this thing after giving half of what was ultimately promised?

>> No. And Massie and I are going to meet Blanch. He said he's open to meeting us. But here's what I want folks to put into context: The 50% that have been released is so disturbing, so concerning about how wealthy and powerful people in this country acted. Imagine what is in the files that they haven't released. I mean, this is a scandal that basically goes to the heart of this country. Rich and powerful people were getting away with going to Epstein's Island, with watching the abuse of underage girls. Uh, and so we're going to fight to get everything out, uh, especially given that, uh, there's, they're concealing things.

In terms of what we have seen thus far, I think something that was especially striking for me was Elon Musk's involvement in all of this. Did, can I have any reaction from, from your vantage on what we saw from Elon Musk, given the fact that the first indication that Trump was even in the files was from Elon himself, only for us now to be able to see that he was negotiating helicopter rides to go back and forth? There was one point on Christmas Day, either on in 2013 or 2014, where he was trying to figure out what time he would come the following week on January 2nd or 3rd. And so just your general reaction to the fact that Elon is so prevalent here.

>> Well, it's, uh, totally shocking. I mean, because Musk said, "Release the files. Trump is in it." Well, it turns out Musk is in them. And, uh, Musk is saying that, uh, "when is the party," uh, he's talking about visiting the island? And look, there are so many big, uh, tech names. Peter Thiel, uh, uh, Bill Gates, others were in this. And it's like there was some fraternity. If you were a billionaire and successful in America, uh, and, uh, you were a famous politician, then somehow you were connected to Epstein and somehow you wanted to go to these parties on Epstein's Island, knowing he was a pedophile. I mean, let's be very clear, this is after he was convicted of pedophilia, knowing that there could be underage girls there. So, this is just such a staggering, uh, scandal. I mean, imagine the, the average American thinking that all these people who run the country, business leaders, politicians, are showing up at a pedophile's island. Uh, some of them engaging in gratification with underage girls, some of them raping underage girls, some of them trafficking in these women, and some of them just standing around in the parties knowing what's going on. It, it, it is disgusting.

Well, I think, I think something that's almost as disgusting as that is the fact that far from that being a disqualifying factor, you know, you're being invoked in these Epstein files, is the fact that even now it still seems to be completely acceptable for these people to fill the highest ranks of power. I mean, uh, uh, Worsh, who is Trump's pick to be the new Fed chair, his name was in the Epstein files. Howard Lutnik, his name is in the Epstein files. And so it's not some, not some bygone thing of a bygone era where we had all of the, where we had past tense all of these people at the highest echelons of government who were in some way involved with Jeffrey Epstein. It's still happening. It's right in front of us. I mean, how many people in Trump's administration or Trump's orbit, from Trump himself to Steve Bannon, again, Lutnik, Worsh, there are so many people even now who are in the highest echelons of power, uh, who are still hiding some, you know, some, some association with Jeffrey Epstein. So, recognizing that, that gives me very little confidence that these people are actually going to be willing to release what the files actually show or the full breadth of these files because it's not just that there's some nebulous blob of people that are, that, that Trump and his orbit are trying to protect. The Trump orbit is the nebulous blob of people, in part, that they're trying to protect.

>> Well, Brian, you, uh, nailed it on what survivors tell me and why survivors' lawyers are so concerned. It's not that they need closure for something that happened in the past. It's that they are seeing the people, uh, on the island who were part of this network, who may have, uh, raped them or trafficked them, uh, on their TV sets being lionized, celebrated, still holding power in American society. And their view is that the entire Epstein class needs to go. But it is why I don't have confidence that there has been a full release. It's why I want to see what this 50% of documents that even Blanch says have, hasn't been released. What, what is in them? Uh, why are they more concerned about redactions that protect some of these rich and powerful men than they are actually protecting victim's identity? It's going to take a new president to actually prosecute some of this. Remember, the prosecution is statute of limitations is 5 years or, uh, to, uh, to release all the files, but we are going to continue to fight, uh, to get this done, and the, the scandal is beyond Trump. But it, it's just this sense that the highest, richest, wealthiest people in our society were getting away with the most heinous thing. And it, it feeds this narrative in this country that people intuitively sense, which is that the rich and powerful have a rigged game going on and that ordinary Americans don't have the same, uh, sense of justice, and they don't certainly have the same stake of success in this country.

You know, I spoke with, uh, with Congressman Raskin, and he said that, uh, that he would be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch to discuss, uh, to discuss the prospect of viewing the unredacted files because we have so many redactions in these files that the DOJ did, did actually deign to give over. So, notwithstanding the 3 million documents that haven't been handed over yet and probably aren't going to be handed over by this DOJ, even the documents that were put forward included a ton of redactions. And so, are you going to be involved in any way in that, that whole effort, uh, uh, at the hands of Jamie Raskin to get some answers on what has been redacted thus far?

>> Absolutely. Uh, we will coordinate with Jamie Raskin, but Thomas Massie and I also will be meeting Blanch. Uh, and we want to know why some of these redactions took place, what is in those files, uh, how can we get the maximum information to be released, and why some of the 302 forms still haven't been released, the survivors naming these powerful men, uh, and why, uh, survivors' names were not redacted while these men are still being protected. The my north star is what the survivors and survivors' lawyers say, and they are still very disappointed with the release. They acknowledge that this is the most significant release, uh, that has taken place, uh, over decades. Uh, they, in some sense, didn't even think that we'd get this far, but, you know, they think it's this is a tactic for, uh, justice to say, "Look, we did, gave you quite a lot. Now, just leave us alone," and then we don't get the most nuclear information, the, the things that may prove criminal wrongdoing and that really will, uh, disgust Americans.

I, I want to say two things. Uh, one is a question, but before I get to that question, you know, the, the fact that we have gotten these documents thus far, um, the three million documents, is in large part a testament to the work that you and Thomas Massie have done. So, I just want to, I just want to put that out there for folks who are even, even, you know, surprised at the fact that we've gotten these documents. It would not have happened without the work that you guys have done. So, I just want to say thanks, you know, on behalf of myself and everybody watching this right now. But the second point that I want to make is, you know, you and I have spoken in the past about, okay, you have people like Todd Blanch saying that no one's going to be prosecuted as the result of this. And, and in fact, that's been kind of the line we've heard all along from Dan Bonino and Cash Mattel that apparently there was this whole sex trafficking ring, but nobody that the girls were sex trafficked to. That part is just completely nebulous. There's just, just Jeffrey Epstein and, and then, and then a black hole. Thousands of girls. I, I've also asked you about the fact that like why not just have the survivors come out and start naming names? Like if, if the DOJ isn't going to do it, if they're going to be so hellbent on protecting these people, why not go to the primary sources and have them speak out? And you rightfully noted that, you know, for the same reason that the DOJ feels compelled to protect these powerful and wealthy people, the survivors are reticent to name these powerful and wealthy people. And so, is there going to come a point where that remains a possibility? Um, obviously with the, with, with whatever protection or backing needs to come with it, that that is a stop-gap solution in the event the DOJ truly, truly doesn't comply and we go three more years at the hands of Pam Bondi where we just don't get any more documents.

>> The reality is that, uh, these survivors would be sued. It's not theoretical. We know Alan Dershowitz went after Virginia Giuffre with a vengeance and, uh, made her life miserable, and, and Virginia Giuffre today isn't with us. So, they, they know that they would face the wrath, uh, of, uh, these powerful billionaires. Uh, and—

>> Would they just be sued because of like the, the, the people who they name would just sue them for defamation, for example?

>> That's what, that's what Alan Dershowitz did. They would just be sued for defamation. They'd be sued for causing pain and suffering, reputational damage, and so—

>> Oh, yes. Won't, won't, won't, won't, won't, won't, won't, won't, won't someone look out for the, uh, the, the poor innocent, uh, perpetrators of these crimes? That, that's, that's, that's who would be, uh, that's who's pain, who's dealing with pain and suffering.

>> I mean, it's, it's shocking, but the, the scales of justice so far have made it easier for Dershowitz to prevail, and Virginia Giuffre is no longer with us. Yeah.

And so the, the reality is we now know that people's have been reputationally challenged based on already the release, right? We've seen the files of people asking to go to the Epstein Island, of people, uh, talking about wild parties, about people corresponding, uh, in banter with Epstein, knowing he's a pedophile. But what we don't have yet is the survivors' basically statements or notes saying, "this person trafficked me," "this person raped me." That is in the files, and the question is how do we get that out? Why is it being protected? Yes, I guess we, we could find other ways of getting this out. The survivors have said they, they may publish an anonymous list or other things, but there's no reason that we have to go that route. We should just get these files. And the hope is, you know, for all those people saying, "Oh, this is a hoax." You know, some people are now saying, "Wow, there were a lot of people involved that I didn't even think." Some people are surprised on our side. They thought it maybe it just be Trump and Trump's associates. They didn't think it was that far-reaching. And so, I think it's just going to build more demand to get a total cleansing in this country, to have this Epstein class go, to get the rest of the files, and to really understand how we had a rotten elite in America.

I'm going to ask you a, a pretty easy one here, and that is the, the pushback or the narrative that's being woven on the right is this idea that, you know what, Trump is actually the hero of this story because zero files were released during the Biden era, and now we've got three million files released during the Trump era. So, what would your reaction to that be?

>> I don't know if Trump still realized he signed a Democrat's law. I mean, he, I don't think he understands that is the Epstein Transparency Act that I wrote and then Massie did the discharge petition for, and he opposed at every step of the way. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene gave up her career in Congress because of Donald Trump threatening her and endorsing someone who was going to run against her. And so you had him step after step after step try to avoid the release. Then we forced the thing to pass the House. Uh, he, because he would have lost Republicans. We forced it to go through the Senate 100 to zero. It wasn't just us. It was, of course, the survivors, and he had to sign it with being pushed into that, and then they tried to not release anything. And you remember December 19th, they had a total fluff release. I mean, it was nothing. It wasn't like this where at least they released significant. So, they've resisted at every step of the way. But, you know, at the end of the day, I don't really care about the credit. I, what I care about is that the files are released, that the survivors have justice, and that we start to have a truth and reconciliation almost process in this country where people are held accountable who committed these heinous acts of crimes or moral, uh, depravity. I mean, my view is if you said you want to go to Epstein's Island, knowing that Jeffrey Epstein's a pedophile, even if you didn't rape an underage girl, if you were there knowing that underage girls were being raped, then there's something seriously lacking in your moral judgment and moral core, and you should not have any part of being celebrated in by society, right?

I mean, a lot of the emails that we saw, including the ones from Elon Musk, were from the early 2010s. Jeffrey Epstein had already been charged in 2005 or 2006 with sex trafficking of a minor. And so it was no secret what he was doing or who he was. And so you're exactly right. These people have no excuse to have been even in communication with this guy, recognizing, uh, who he is or what he did. Last question here, Congressman. As we've gotten to this point, which again I think is, is a huge victory in and of itself, I fear that it will just get harder and harder. Um, because, you know, whatever, you, you said it right at the top, the what has been released thus far is already bad enough, which suggests that what hasn't been released is exponentially worse. Do you have confidence that in the, in the remainder of the Trump administration we will see the full files released?

>> It's going to be a fight. I think this is a very deliberate strategy. It shows how weak their hand was. They were getting, uh, disciplined or reprimanded by Judge Engelmayer. We were filing lawsuits. Uh, they were losing public opinion. So, I think they came up with a strategy. Let's give them something substantial, but not, let's, but not give them the worst. So, now it's harder, uh, for a survivor to go to a court and say, "Well, they're only releasing 1%." And a judge will say, "No, they released 50%." And they've released some pretty terrible things. And we have to say, "No, but they're hiding the worst of it." But I do believe that, uh, we will prevail on getting more. And the reason is that the courts, Judge Engelmayer and Judge Berman, have been pretty sympathetic to what Massie and I have said, what survivors have said. The public opinion, I think, is going to demand it, uh, even more after what's come out. Uh, and ultimately, the survivors who are the real heroes of this, they're saying it's not enough. So, we have got to continue to go forward. We've got to recognize this is about something very deep, which is that rich and powerful people in America have been getting away with things at the expense of, uh, ordinary Americans. And, uh, this is the time to restore faith in democracy by holding the elites, a rotten elite, accountable.

Well, look, again, uh, I'll repeat it as many times as I can. That, that, that effort, uh, in large part, would not have happened if it wasn't for the work that, that you've been doing. So, I appreciate, uh, the time as always. We've come to kind of make this a standing weekend thing. So, I'm sure I, I'll be speaking to you in a few days, and hopefully we have more updates moving forward. So, Congressman, with that said, thanks again for, uh, for the time.

>> Thank you. And thank you, Brian. I mean, the credit is, of course, first to the survivors, but you deserve credit as well because if it weren't for independent media, if it weren't for the pressure and holding the bogus releases accountable, uh, we wouldn't have gotten to this stage. And I, I, you and others like you give me confidence that this story isn't going away, and we're going to get truth and justice.

I'm joined now by the co-host of Pave America, Dan Feifer. Dan, thanks for joining me.

>> Happy to see you, Brian.

So, we've just watched as the Democratic candidate defeated a Republican in a district that Donald Trump won just last year by 17 points, and they did so by 14 points, meaning it's a 32-point swing. Already we've seen some Republicans coming out and offering some excuses like this is, you know, a low turnout election because, you know, it's special election, we're in an off year. How much of a problem are these election results in Texas, uh, for the GOP as we head toward midterms?

>> Look, I, I've said many, many times over the years that special elections are not particularly predictive. They are things where Democrats tend to do better because our election, our coalition is now disproportionately made up of people who vote all the time. Um, and as we saw in 2024, Republicans benefit from higher turnout. And sometimes when you get results that are shocking, it's because, you know, one party got caught napping or, as you mentioned, it's a really low turnout election. That's not what happened here, right? The Trump endorsed the Republican. The Republican Party spent money in this race. The Republican outspent the Democrat by several fold, and the Democrat still won. And so if you're on the ballot anywhere in Texas or frankly around the country, this is should scare the crap out of you because not, are not saying that we're going to get a plus 31, plus 32 Democratic environment, but this just means that a whole bunch of races that were not on the map before are on the map now.

Can you talk about the fact that, you know, this, this electorate was 51% Republican, 35% Democrat, and 14% independent, but the Democratic candidate, Teller Remmit, won with like 57% of the vote? And so mathematically, the only way to have done that is to, is to have gotten votes, uh, and support from Republican voters and independent voters. I mean, how are you thinking about that as we, as we move forward?

That's the part that should really scare Republicans because a lot of times when you see these Democratic results, sometimes you'll see it like it's a state house race in Montana in a district, Trump won by 36, the Democrat loses by 12, and then you look at the results and you see there's just this massively disproportionate Democratic turnout. Just our, our party turned out at insane levels. Not enough to, to win sometimes in districts, but to make them races much closer than they are. That is absolutely not what happened here. This district, this district is in Tarrant County. It is the epicenter of the Texas Republican Party. It's sort of a power center for the MAGA movement, the, the far-right Christian movement. And the only, the way that the Democrat won is yes, we had great turnout from the Democratic base, but because persuaded basically every independent who voted to vote for the Democrat and a decent chunk of Republicans, and that, and, and notably also as well, this is important. I think this is, you can see this in the independent numbers, is there are a number of heavily Latino precincts in this district, and from the early results we've seen, and we, you know, have to get some more granular detail, but it seems like in math would suggest that the Latino vote swung back hard to the Democrats.

>> And, and I think that poses a pretty serious problem for Republicans as we move forward because they built their new map that would give them five new seats on this idea, predicated on this idea that Latinos swinging super heavily to the Republicans and Trump in 2024 was a permanent move. And, and, and that's how they built their gerrymander. And so we could, we could be in a world where not only do we not see five seats get handed from Democrats to Republicans, but if, if those margins were drawn so thin and we see a big blue wave election, not just where we're seeing high turnout from Democrats, but where we're seeing, um, Republicans and independents defect and vote for the Democratic candidates in numbers that we saw just yesterday. We, we could see a world where this new map turns into a dummymander and actually Democrats net seats from Texas.

This map still remains pretty hard because they did a pretty good job of fortifying some of their members as they did this. But the Democrats are trying to vote out, uh, along the border, um, like Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, with, if the Republicans are really suffering this much with Latinos in Texas, those races are not going to be competitive. And there, some of the new districts they drew depend heavily on this. So, we could draw even here potentially, you know, uh, obviously if you have a plus 31, uh, Democratic advantage, we're going to crush everywhere across Texas, across the country, we'll pick up, you know, 70, 80 seats or whatever that would be. But the Republicans made a bet here, and that bet, you know, not only did it not last for a generation, it didn't even last for a year.

We, we also, I'm sure, both saw the numbers of, you know, in terms of the, uh, expenditures, um, in this campaign. I'm going to put right up here on the screen an image that Amanda Litman shared, uh, the founder of Run for Something. This image right here shows like the massive disparity that we have between what the Republicans had and what the Democrats had. And yet still, you had a Democratic candidate flip this seat by 32 points from what we saw in 2024. What does that suggest moving forward that even a boatload of money wasn't enough to win this race for the GOP?

>> Yeah, I mean it's, it speaks to their problem because in these special elections, this is what we saw happen in, uh, the district in Tennessee, Tennessee 7, late last year, is—

the party with the, with the partisan advantage can usually hold on and win because they have enough money to tell voters the election is happening. Um, and this time they had that money and it did not work because it wasn't that they, they told Republicans to vote and then some of those Republicans and all those independents voted against the Republican. The other thing I think is important here, and I think this provides larger context for how much the polit-, politics have shift-, is shifted over the last few months, is so this was a runoff election. The original election what happened in November, and in, in November when you added up all the Republicans and the Democrats, the dem-, the Republicans had a five-point advantage, right, which was very good for the Democrat, meant we, they were in striking distance, is why some people had this election like on their radar screen. And so it shifted dramatically from five point to a 14-point Democratic advantage over the since November to now, and that says a lot about, you know, we can't attribute this entirely to what's happening in Minnesota, ICE, Venezuela, all of the things that have been happening with Trump over the last few months, but it does speak to how fired up Democrats have gotten over the last few weeks and how disillusioned Republicans have gotten and so disillusioned that they'll vote against the Republican.

What do you think that principal driver is? And, and by the way, I, I say this knowing that it may very well not be one specific thing, but, but these are pretty huge numbers, and especially the defection numbers are, are, are what I'm looking at.

>> Yeah, it is. There's nothing that would suggest that there would be this huge increase in an, in and people upset with Trump over affordability from November to now. Um, and the thing that's really changed is just that this feeling of chaos that is sort of permeating the country because of what's been happening in Minnesota and Maine and elsewhere. And so, you know, we, I really am hesitant to speculate because you really, there's no exit polls here. We don't know what was on top of people's minds. But I don't think you can separate the shift from November till now from what's happening in the larger political environment, and that's been defined by ICE in Minnesota for, you know, almost a month now.

So I guess the question becomes, does Trump see this and, and kind of like shift gears, or because it's Trump, because any, any, you know, uh, uh, concession to the other side is viewed as capitulation, which is viewed as weakness. He's not, he's never going to do that. And so what do you expect to see as far as Trump is concerned? Do you think that, that he, he uses this and says like, "Okay, we have to change course a little bit," or just triple down?

>> I, you know, you just, you know, I think it's like one step forward, two steps backwards all the time with Trump. Like maybe he'll feel like maybe he'll call Tom Homan today and be like, "Slow it down." And then the next day Steven Miller will be in his ear and we'll do the opposite. So, you don't really know. I think where it has some impact is on Republicans as we debate in Congress what sort of ICE, uh, guardrails can be put into the spending bill. There's a world where in a different political environment the Republicans be relishing a shutdown of the, of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. And the fact that they're not and that Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, is going to bend over backwards to try to get this bill passed on Monday or Tuesday speaks to, I think, just the increasing political pressure on this issue.

What about from Democrats' vantage? I'm, I'm seeing a lot of posts and statements, um, from, you know, Hakeem Jeffries and Ken Martin and Chuck Schumer that they are, you know, look, I, I think if I was in their position too, I would, I would also be taking credit for what's happening right now. And, and frankly, at the end of the day, they are in charge. So, they can take credit, but, but also I'm just curious because, you know, on one hand, there is obviously a lot of anti-Trump sentiment, if not all anti-Trump sentiment that's driving this. And so to what extent do you think that Democrats should or could take credit here versus are just kind of coasting off of what we're seeing Trump do and reaping the benefits of that?

>> I think most of what has been happening, almost all the positive things that have happened in terms of resisting Trump, of sort of sending a message Trump, have happened from outside of Washington, not inside of Washington, from the bottom up, not the top down.

I think the, the DNC spent money here, they should, uh, get credit for doing that. If the Democratic Legislative Committee spent money here, they should get credit for doing that. But the reality of what's happening is happening on the ground, and it's happening in spite of, not because of, leadership from Washington.

And so, is there some concern that we'll kind of like ping-pong back and forth that because, because some of the leadership in the Democratic Party is going to look at this and say, "We fixed it. You know, the, the brand is fixed. We're, we're winning again. We can take all this credit. We don't have to release any, any autopsies. Like we'll just keep doing what we're doing and keep on keeping on," and, you know, kind of end up in a situation where, okay, we haven't really done anything substantively to fix the Democratic brand, but they've seen all these wins, and so they get the wrong message out of it. Uh, and then, you know, we're in a position where Democrats have control and all of the things that led them to lose in 2024 rear their heads again because they were never actually rectified?

>> Yeah. So I think there's a couple of things that are going to happen in the interim. I think in the short term this election victory is going to put, stiffen some Democrats' spines for to use the limited leverage they have in these negotiations over ICE guardrails. I think it will encourage more Democrats to speak out more boldly about what's happened with ICE. Although I think for the most part they've been pretty good since, uh, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prey. Um, not everyone, but for the most part you're getting less hemming and hawing from Democrats about what is h-, what Trump is doing and what ICE is doing. So that's good. So I think it stiffens the spines. I think the big concern is if we have a very good 2026, does the party make the same mistake they made after 2022 and view that as a validation of themselves as opposed to a response to something else? Right? 2022 was about Dobbs, not a show of support for Joe Biden. Joe, the Biden White House and a lot of Democrats read that as the, the wrong way. And so I think I've, I could go on and on and on about the, the medium-term and long-term challenges the Democratic Party has regardless of what happens in 2026, but we have a ton of work to do. And so the hope is you, um, we have a great year. We recognize that that, that we benefited greatly from anger against Trump, prices being high, but once we get into an actual election where a Democrat presidential candidate is on the ballot against Republican presidential candidate in that much larger electorate that that doomed us in 2024, we got some real work to do.

And to, to that end, in terms of, uh, what, what we can hope to accomplish as we head toward midterms, where's your head at? Obviously, I think we're all kind of aligned on the House, but where is your head at on the Senate?

>> You know, I feel, I am cautiously optimistic about the Senate. I think, look, you see these results in Texas that should give you even additional belief that there is a path to a Senate seat in Texas with the right candidate running the right campaign. But, you know, the political environment if it is in our favor, we have shots. Like I think we can defend all of our incumbents. Not easy, right? Like we have to, we have to keep, we have to win our open seat in New Hampshire, win our open seat in Minnesota. We have to win an open seat in Michigan, which is the toughest of them all. And John Ossoff's got to get re-elected. Those are all about as good as you would expect them to be at this exact point. We have good candidates in all those races, and the Republicans aren't awesome in those races. Although, in Michigan, I think Mike Rogers is going to be, is hard to beat. Not impossible, but he's, he's, you know, he almost won in 2024. Um, and then we got to do well in, we got to win in North Carolina. We have a great candidate. And we got to win in Maine where we, you know, we have a primary coming and, you know, because those are the purplish states. And then we got to win two of what I think is now five red states. Um, so you, you were talking about Ohio with Sherrod Brown. We are talking about Texas. We were talking about Alaska with Mary Peltola. We were talking about Iowa. We have a bunch of candidates. All interesting on paper. We'll see how they look as we go through this primary. Um, and then you, you know, I think there is an interesting question about Florida. Like Florida is a very, very hard state. Um, you know, we now have Alexander Vindman running. He's a candidate who raised a ton of money on the first day. I'm always skeptical of a candidate who is like very famous to the resistance crowd, is 100% Iowa, you know, MSNBC America name ID. But I, here's the thing I'd say, Florida is, Trump won Florida by the same amount he won, uh, Texas by.

>> Yeah.

Um, and so like we should keep an eye on it and possibly, you know, the Republican is, could not be more generic. It's the, it's the, it's the woman who took Marco Rubio's seat. No one has any idea who she is. She's a generic Republican, is not what you want to be these days. Um, so like let's keep an eye on like basically we want as many paths to 52 as we can, to 51 as we can get, and that's another potential one, and that's not even talking, we haven't even really brought up Nebraska where you have independent Dan Osborne running, um, against Pete Ricketts.

>> Yeah. Well, a lot to, a lot to look forward. Look, I, I want to say for, for everybody who's watching, listening right now, um, the best analysis online is from Dan on Message Box, which is his newsletter. I could not recommend highly enough that if you've not yet subscribed to, to Message Box, please go ahead and do so. I'm going to put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. It is the smartest analysis, the best analysis, and it is always correct. So, just go ahead and do that. Thank you, Brian.

Go ahead and subscribe if you're not yet subscribed, and, uh, and I'll put that link again right here on the screen and also in the post description. Dan, as always, thanks for the time.

>> Always good to talk to you, buddy.

A few days ago, Trump's DOJ continued its assault on the First Amendment by arresting journalist Don Lemon. Now, fortunately, he's been released, and we are lucky enough to be able to speak with him in one of his first discussions post-arrest. So, obviously, there's a lot to talk about, but the real question is, how are you doing? How, how, how has everything been in the aftermath of what I presume has been kind of a, a whirlwind last 48 or 72 hours here?

>> You know what, that's a really great question, Brian. Um, and I think a fair answer. Would you be surprised if I say it, if I said, "I don't know"?

No, I mean that, you know, look, it's, it's, I, I, I, I think anything other than that would have been, you know, uh, would have been difficult, difficult to believe. I mean, I mean, talk about highs and lows from, from what happened just a few days ago to obviously, you know, there was a very viral clip of, of you at the Grammys. And so I'm curious, like, what, what was, what was the reception like for, for you in a room with all of those people? You know, look, notwithstanding the fact that, that there are folks in the entertainment industry, but, you know, these are people who, who, who fight to, to push back against, against the excesses and abuses of this administration on, on a daily basis. And, and you are literally on the front lines.

>> Yeah. And you heard that. I mean, look, they were not shy about their criticism of this administration at the Grammys, right? Right. And, and some major artists, and usually as of late we've seen people trying to, you know, you know, move away from politics in this, but they were very open, uh, to speaking about it. And usually when I cover these things, like the Grammys or something like that, you know, I'm not looking to talk to them about politics or foreign policy or anything like that, you know, it's, it's, you know, things that have to relate to the industry. Like last year at the Grammys, we talked about the fires, and they were raising money for people with the fires, and of course there were other things that sometimes they bring up, uh, but this year people were very focused on ICE and were wearing, you know, the ICE out buttons, um, and just not really shying away from it.

>> "No one is illegal on stolen land. I guess I want to say I'm up here as a granddaughter of an immigrant. I wouldn't be here. Um, yeah, I'm a product of bravery, and I think those people deserve to be celebrated."

>> "It's inhumane. I don't recognize my country at this moment right now. I'm going to say ICE out."

But for me, Brian, what this is, is freedom. It's the First Amendment. And, you know, and art, artists are, I think, some of the, you know, artists and obviously journalists are the, the true, um, sort of examples of the First Amendment at its finest and what it's supposed to be, right? And I believe artists and journalists, if, you know, if journalists—

especially corporate journalists—sort of do some self-correction, they could actually save our democracy in, in this moment. And so that's why I wanted to talk to, I'm glad you brought that up, but it was, it was a little odd first of all being the story, right? I don't like being the story, but if I'm going to have to be the story, then I, I, you know, I want to conduct myself properly, and I want to make sure that I stand up for what is right. But that's why I wanted to talk to you because you're an example of journalism, of the, the freedom of the press, um, especially now that we're—

In this independent space and um, you know, we we are close to the ground. We don't have the corporate filters, and I think it's important that we bring people the information um without fear of favor and without it being filtered through gatekeepers.

You know, I I I was thinking about, I've been thinking about this a lot, and and of course, I have friends and family, as I'm sure you do, who constantly bring up this idea of like, are are you worried? What about the administration going after you? And I think like, we've all been asked that question, especially by our loved ones. But I think the alternative to not speaking up and not, you know, leaning 10 toes in is, okay, you kind of take a take a back seat, allow this administration to censor you and silence you. And of course, they're doing it without without much pushback as far as legacy media is concerned. And they're doing it without without pushback with tech CEOs and universities and law firms and other world leaders. And so if he has kind of a glide path to just full censorship, think about what's on the other side of that. I mean, that is what true like autocracy looks like. And so we're a bull work here, that and so, you know, not saying anything is is even worse because then we end up in an administration or or a regime, really, where Trump has achieved what he wants because he's he's successfully quashed any dissent. And that doesn't leave us any more safe. And so while this might be a dangerous and and difficult position, and you can speak to that more than anybody at this point, the alternative is so much worse. And so there is an obligation and a duty to continue doing this this work, no matter what like the the dangers are. And again, you you can, you know, you can attest to that better than anybody.

>> Yeah. But listen, not I don't want to be selfish about this because I know that you have a much broader answer which you've kind of touched on and what you were just saying, but when you heard about what happened to me and to the other journalists, what did you think, Brian?

>> Look, I I the the sad part is I I wasn't surprised. Um, it it kind of feels like a matter of time. The fact that Trump is going down this list. I mean, he started with Leticia James and James Comey and uh and, you know, Adam Schiff is on there, and then he moves over to like Tim Walls and Jacob Fry, and he's arrested judges, and we've seen Padilla get arrested, and so it's, you know,

>> not to mention suing, don't forget suing journalists and suing news,

>> suing journalists, suing the New York Times, suing I mean, anybody, you know, who CBS and Paramount and uh ABC for $16 million. And

>> and I I think he has been successful in normalizing us to this idea that that this is just what happens in the United States. And and that's the part I want to push back against because like, we cannot become accustomed to this idea where the president of the United States just sues people or silences people or wields his FCC against comedians for the crime of telling jokes. And and I think that what what kind of heartened me to see was like all of the pushback left, right, and center against what had happened to you. And uh and and that needs to happen every single time. Like, that cannot diminish just because, oh, we've seen this before.

Was was that something that that surprised you? Um, you know, to see all of the pushback even in a world where everybody kind of expects Trump to go after his enemies?

>> Well, I got to Yes. the the very simple answer or straightforward answer to your question is yes. And can you imagine though, we're so connected to our devices, right? Especially in what we do. We're there and we're like, "Oh, well, we got to report it. This is what we do. We have some breaking news or this just happened." And imagine not having any communications for, you know, 12 hours, right? And so I had no idea what was going on in the world. None. Until I walked out and when I saw the scrum of cameras and news people there, I was floored. I was like, "Really? Are you kidding me?" I had no idea. And I was very pleasantly surprised. I mean, there were helicopters following me like I was O.J. Simpson on the interstate. It was crazy. But I had no idea until I got to um, you know, to my friend's house where I'm staying and I looked at the news coverage and I said, "Holy shit."

>> It was the biggest It was the biggest story probably in the world.

>> Yeah. at that. Yeah.

>> But I mean, like, how how bizarre that that even while you're in there, you have no idea. And you could have very well walked out to, you know, one or two people and and, you know, God knows how many other things could have happened that day that just might have, you know, taken all the attention, sucked up all the oxygen.

>> Yeah. But I wondered, Brian, and you can answer this better than I can. I think I'm too close to it. Is this the thing that gets people to say, especially journalism and the media, and I'm not talking about the corporate bosses because they still want to make their money and they still want their mergers and acquisitions, but for the journalist to say, "Okay, enough already. I I I can't do this. I can't have the false equivalence. I can't do it." And just before you answer, I say maybe it is because people who I didn't have such great relationships with and for for what whatever reasons, I don't know why, um, you know, professional jealousy or competition or whatever, reached out and said, you know, I know we haven't been friendly lately, but I just want to tell you this is up and I'm sorry this happened to you and I'd love to like sit down and have a drink with you soon. So, is this a thing? Maybe. I I would love if that would happen. That just gets journalists to say, "Fuck no, we're not doing this anymore."

>> Look, I I I hope so. And I think for two reasons. One, this isn't about like this isn't about whether somebody agrees with you or your coverage. This is about this is about the precedent that it establishes moving forward. And I think Republicans are starting to realize that if Trump establishes precedences that could turn around and bite them in the ass forward. I mean, like there I think that that's a very pronounced worry for them. Like this idea of of okay, so everybody here in the right-wing media ecosystem is going to just sit idly by and be silent as this happens. What can happen when we have a Democratic president in office? And I think that's been a worry for them as they see things get like the abuses grow more and more. On the flip side, look, there are always going to be people for whom Trump can do no wrong, and and we've seen some of them too. And, you know, the the reality is that that those people would would sacrifice their firstborn if Trump asked them to. And so I think that we're seeing a growing dichotomy between, you know, the the slavish devotees to Trump, these people on right-wing media who are just going to be his mouthpieces no matter what. No matter what ICE agents, uh, you know, what what crimes they commit or who they shoot or what journalists they arrest, those people are always going to be on board. But there's a growing there's a growing um disparity between those people and and even the people they speak with, like even just any even right-wing regular Americans. And I think that they're recognizing, oh, that's that shit's cultish behavior, you know, like that's that's not necessarily reflective of me. Maybe in 2024 things felt a little bit different. I I could I could align myself with a more right-wing government, right-wing campaign, but like this is what right-wing governance looks like in action. And if that's if that's what it looks like, where you've got, you know, Caroline Levit basically doing her best uh uh North Korea lady impression on a daily basis, is like I I don't know. I I'm I'm seeing people get more and more uncomfortable with that on on a daily basis.

>> You're you're very astute. Right on. Because the people I spoke to even at the Grammys said to me, uh, "Hey, look, I'm a Republican. I don't like what happened to you. That's not right. Uh, I'm a conservative. I voted for Donald Trump and um I don't necessarily agree with everything that you say, but this is wrong and I'm in your corner on this one." I'm seeing that from I I don't hear that a lot coming from uh conservatives now. The the Maga Fable and you know the crazy people of the world uh like God is that like the Benny Johnson's and the Megan Kelly's or whatever who just are grifting out there on the right. They're going to keep you know fueling the fire and and and and and putting gasoline on the fire because that's how they get clicks and ratings, right? Or well, I don't know money. But I think for most sensible people, whether you're a conservative or not, you realize like we need a we need a an independent free press.

>> Yeah. You know what was so interesting, I think, about uh the Grammys was just a year ago, I mean, these people wouldn't be caught dead talking about about politics, but certainly not like some aligning themselves with liberal politics. It became so out of vogue to to align yourself with the left. I mean, look, I'm I'm I'm a I'm a Democrat. Like, it's it's I would be the the it's it sucks that I have to admit it, but but, you know, it was it was toxic. It was cultural suicide to uh to align yourself with the Democrats or some Democratic or progressive position just a year ago. And and that that's what that's what gave birth to all of these manosphere podcasts. And I mean, it the Democrats had lost culture. And which was bizarre to say because I grew up like in the Barack Obama era, and he was cool, and we had George W. Bush was decidedly uncool. And and I think in one fell swoop, we saw so much of that snap back. And and politics is downstream of culture. And you have all of these, you know, all of these big names and and voices and and popular ones. I mean, musicians even even have like a more prominent role in society than than even actors do, right?

>> Yeah. and and for all of those people to be so unapologetically outspoken in terms of um in terms of pushing back against what this administration is doing was was a was a really like heartening thing to see because again, like I I didn't know when when culture would would swing back to the left. And I think we saw it happen thanks to Trump way faster than anybody anticipated. We were talking about some of those uh the manosphere and now I'm seeing people like um is it Andrew Schultz? Is that his name?

>> Andrew Schultz. Oh yeah. He's just you just you just know he's like in pain right now. And as well he look go on.

>> No, I want you to finish that. But like he didn't realize that this was going to happen. I mean, he supported him. He had him on the on on his show, and they were talking him and Charlemagne. So all of these people and and the other folks on and now they're surprised that Donald Trump is doing what he's doing. Like, really, like, come on.

>> surprised that the guy who who who wielded like mass deportation now signs at his rallies is doing mass deportations. I mean, like, there there is no world in which you had almost 80 million people who saw this coming, but you have like six or seven who had no clue that any of this could could come about. Like the whole like half the country, a whole half of the country was yelling about this exact thing happening. But now you've got, you know, Andrew Schultz and Joe Rogan who had no idea this was coming. And you can you can hear in their voices how they kind of just have their tails between their legs now as this stuff happens and they have to talk about it because they host shows. And the subtext to everything is like, well, you know, I was I this guy was sitting across uh across the table from me as I was, you know, basically filleting him for my audience.

>> M that's vivid.

>> Was that for some imagery? Is that for some uh for some imagery for you?

>> Thank you for that, Brian. No, look, I I am I'm surprised. Here's the thing. That shows you that not everybody with a microphone should be talking about politics, especially if you don't these these people have no idea about politics and policy. Why are they doing it there? Look, they're comedians. You can talk. Look, it's a obviously freedom of speech, but sometimes things are so important that you have to leave the expert opinion to the experts. You know what I'm saying?

>> Um, and not everybody's meant to interview a presidential candidate or a president. And if you are if you don't believe that you are I I don't know, maybe you should realize maybe you should have some um some enough self-awareness to realize like, maybe this is beyond I should leave this to the journalist. You know what I'm saying?

>> Yeah. I mean, look, there there I think these people are learning that there are consequences to their actions. And sometimes the consequences are small, you know, when you're dealing with podcasts, but then sometimes the consequences have global implications. And uh and I think these people are realizing that.

>> that right now um so Don, I what what's next now? What does this process uh bring you?

>> I will answer I will answer that however I wanted to. I just saw that we have a video when you asked me about knowing or not knowing. I think you can see like the look on my face. This is when I walked Andy, you can play and just let play the sound low and I'll talk over it. But this is when I walked out um of jail and my husband is kind of leading the way and I'm looking going, "What the is going on here?" And I, you know, I kept then the cameraman right here, this cameraman, there so many people there. One of them falls down. I try to help him up. Um and and then I, you know, I had to make my way. You see Matt Gutman. Um, there's one of the photographers who works for my team. But once I got to that thing and I saw the helicopters, it started really to sort of hit home about how big it was. But I'm just sort of looking around like, look at my face.

>> I'm like, "Holy what is going on here?"

>> So, uh, what is next for me? I don't really know, Brian. But I will tell you, I don't know. Look, I know what's next for me is that this is serious. These are criminal and federal, um, charges, so I have to take them seriously. But they're not going to steal my joy. I still have to live, and they're not going to silence me. I still have to report and do what I what I do here on my channel and and everywhere, you know, public speaking or whatever. I'm still going to do what I do. I have to. It's not it's not just my livelihood. This is my profession. Um, this is, you know, this is a mission for me to be able to tell the truth and to be closer to the people, closer to the ground without the corporate influence. And I have to say people like you have who've been so great uh, you know, in advising me, you know, just cuz I was like some big deal cable guy. You know, I told you coming into this that doesn't mean that I'm going to be a big streamer.

>> People don't know who I am. What's your advice, Brian? You know, and you gave me some advice and David gave me advice and others, and I really took that to heart. And I think the reason that I've been successful in that is that I did not come in thinking like I was some big shot or I didn't I don't judge it. I just do it. And I think that's part of the reason for the success, but also because of the support we have as independent in this independent media space. Do you disagree with that?

>> No, I think I think that's I think that's spot on. And and I think that, you know, you what we've seen over the last few days is there is a there's a big difference between how independent media operates and legacy media operates. And I I think the scarcity mindset that exists in legacy media or corporate media doesn't exist in independent media. And and there is a sense that, you know, we need to support each other. There is enough enough to go around um and and there is a broader mission, I think that that all of us are focused on, and that's that's uh that's why we do this.

>> Um, but look, I I just want to say that that I'm I'm grateful for uh for your voice. I'm grateful for the fact that you're that you're fighting as hard as you are. I I know that I speak on behalf of, you know, myself and all of all of these other folks in independent media and saying we see we see, you know, what could be a Tuesday for us in what you're dealing with right now. And so, uh, and so any any support, any help, um, any amplification you need, we're all we're all, you know, behind you 100%. So, uh, just want to just want to thank you for for fighting as hard as you are.

>> Thank you very much, Brian. It goes the same to to you as well, from me to you. So, thank you so much. And I'll see I'll see you around these independent streets very soon.

>> I'm joined now by the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner. Senator, thanks for joining me.

>> Brian, thanks again for having me.

>> So, we've had a lot of news pop up about this whistleblower complaint as it relates to Tulsi Gabbard, who was apparently present while the FBI was executing a search warrant in Fulton County to take the 2020 ballots. So, first and foremost, what's being done to figure out what this whistleblower complaint that's apparently being suppressed actually says?

Well, remember Tulsi Gabbard swore under oath uh that she would absor observe the rules about whistleblower complaints when she was up for confirmation. This whistleblower complaint, which I've not seen yet, I will see shortly um was actually brought to the department, I believe in June. Now, if you follow the rules and this whistleblower wanted the complaint reported to Congress, you know, there's like a 21-day processing period. So, they should have reported the complaint, giving them the benefit of the doubt, by the end of July.

>> Yeah.

>> We didn't even know there was a whistleblower complaint until November. And then it's taken literally the the bipartisan gang of eight to say, "What the hell? Send it to us." And we're just getting it now. Um, I've heard rumors about the subject matter. Once I see it, I won't be able to talk about it. The content, but it's even if the whistleblower complaint is not, you hair on fire. It it does mean that this obligation she has, this is not just some like, you know, well, I uh maybe I should, maybe I would. No, this is the freaking law. She should have reported it to Congress within 21 days. And then once we did discover it, the fact that it still took almost two and a half, three months of negotiation, and remember, she's not just dissing me or Hakee Jeff, she's dissing Mike Johnson and John Thun and all the appropriate authorities. So it's, yeah, again, the litany on Tulsi Gabbard and her ineptness for this job goes on and on.

>> So I have a bunch of questions here. First is, are we certain that the whistleblower complaint is regarding Tulsi Gabbard?

I do not know.

>> Uh, the next question is, is there a chain of of custody that shows who's at fault for suppressing this whistleblower complaint that was supposed to be transmitted to you this summer?

>> Well, we got some, you know, letter when when the whole gang of eight was um putting pressure, well, that somehow she didn't know she had to do this. Well, that's why you have a lawyer. That's why you also when you testify and say, "Senate, please confirm me. I'm going to follow the law." And then she chooses not to. There ought to be consequences. So, um, we'll see whether my Republican colleagues are going to do anything or whether they'll just say, "Well, you know, it took longer than it should, but we're not going to hold her accountable." Um, the fact that it had took all eight of us almost three months uh within the gang of eight to kind of get it. I I would hope they would be just on plain process grounds pretty pissed off too.

>> The the next question I have is, we have seen Tulsi Gabbard kind of come into the news because again, as I mentioned at the top, she's now involved in this whole effort to uh to get those ballots that were used in the 2020 election. Anybody who's watched politics over the last, you know, five years, six years knows that the only reason Trump is interested in getting these ballots is he wants somebody, some some, you know, stooge to be able to come out and say, "You're right, President Trump. There was fraud in the election. There was some subversive nefarious activity in the election." That will give him a pretext to be able to say, "Oh, there was fraud just like I thought in 2020. That means in 2026 or 2028, we have to really hunker down in a way that we didn't do before. and I should be able to oversee the elections. We should have Republicans in charge. We should be able to seize the voting machines. We should have access to the ballots. We should gain uh visibility into the voter roles." All this stuff like this is Trump's fever dream. Tulsi Gabbard's involvement in this seems to me, and I'm curious what your thoughts are on this, because as DNI, she should only be able to have kind of her her, you know, area of focus should just be foreign interference in elections. If she can come forward and say, "You know what? I've uh I've I've done my research and we have Italy and Switzerland and China and Venezuela who conspired with Joe Biden's FBI and CIA and I as DNI can can confirm there was foreign interference in the election," and then of course that would give Trump the pretext that I was talking about to be able to, you know, go ahead and and and meddle in the next election. Is there some concern that that's what Tulsi Gabbard's job is in all of this?

Well, you you've laid it out pretty well. I mean, let's look at this. The National Security Act, which set up the, you know, this whole notion of how we have oversight of national security, happened because Nixon and Watergate. And so, that was what the creation of the intelligence committees were to do the oversight. And we made very clear in that one, our spying agencies are only supposed to look outside the country. They're not supposed to spy on Americans. The FBI in terms of criminal stuff is supposed to deal with that. So Tulsi Gabbard has no jurisdiction on a domestic criminal investigation. She didn't even tell the FBI she was coming. What in the hell she was doing there? Um, other than potentially trying to curry favor with Trump, I don't think there's any legitimate answer. And she has yet to give any false. If she says, "Okay, now all of a sudden, six years after the fact, lo and behold, I found all this foreign interference." Well, I read my intelligence briefs pretty damn well, and if there was any evidence of even hints of this, we would have heard about it within the normal intelligence channels. Or if she's been cooking up this theory and then doesn't report it to the intelligence committees, which are her oversight committees, she's breaking the law again there, too. She said she would timely report to her committees on oversight. So this is I it is wacky. I mean, a year ago may and I was maybe slow because I didn't think that Trump a year ago would be this outrageous when people said 26, 28, are you concerned about the security of elections? You know, I said a possibility, but I wasn't a as concerned. The last six months, in the last couple weeks, my concern level is really, really shot up coming on top of the the outrageous activity in Minneapolis or the potential of using ICE patrols to to show up around polling stations and then Gabbard's, you know, beyond kind of the belief um performance. And then put all on on top of that, and you don't have to speculate now, Donald Trump's own words that somehow say, oh yeah, Republicans should run the election, should nationalize elections. That is against the Constitution. And every Republican state when we tried to put in the first level of security for our elections after the 2016 election, and remember, this is Trump won. Anytime there was efforts to even like, for example, share cybersecurity standards with state local elections, they said, oh, wait, not we're We're not sure we want that because that could be federal intervention. So I know we live in the Alice, you know, down the rabbit hole, Alice Wonderland, but up is down and down is up where Trump is now calling for federalization and Republicans and taking control of the elections.

>> And Gabbard as his kind of protege in this, again, if you're not worried, you should be. In terms of of the fact that this whistleblower complaint exists, I I think you and I could both agree that if the shoe is on the other foot and there was some Biden administration official uh for whom a whistleblower complaint was lodged against them and it was just sitting there and it wasn't being transmitted to Congress, this would be like the national outrage. Fox News would be talking about it 24/7. There would already be hearings about the fact that there should be a hearing about what the whistleblower complaint itself says. And so my concern here is that enough isn't being done given the fact that that not just process, because I don't think that people really care about process. And in fact, I think that our collective adherence to focusing on process above all else has been a little bit of our our our downfall. But but just the fact that this exists and and the administration is allowed to police itself to the point where even legitimate whistleblower complaints about themselves are being suppressed, kind of in the same vein as how shootings done by DHS are being investigated by DHS. I mean, this should be a much bigger story. What what is the plan among you and your Senate colleagues to get this thing out front and center given the fact that, you know, there is a this is this is a really significant issue and if again, the shoe was on the other foot, it's all we'd be hearing about.

>> Amen. They would be completely their heads would be exploding. I think this is my eighth or ninth um press hit today on this. I did a big press conference trying to get this out into the bloodstream. But remember, we still have the DHS ICE hearings. The government just got funded. I will give, you know, Thun at least a margin of credit that he said today, well, we don't think we can nationalize elections. But this is where if we can't get Americans upset, if we can't force our Republicans to find a spine, we can hold what we call a shadow hearing. Uh, but it will get it won't even get picked up by by influencers. So,

>> well, I mean, look, if you if you host a shadow hearing, I I'm I'm telling you right now, I'll cover it and I'll reach out to other to other folks in the ecosystem.

>> We will we will see if we I am still we we know we're going to get Gabbard in front of our committee.

>> Will that be public? Will that be public or private?

>> That will be public. And and, you know, unfortunately, it's not until next month. It's not until the be beginning of March, but we will have her. Um, we are going to do election security hearings in the Intelligence Committee. I'm still working with Cotton on how we get it done. Um, and I'm concerned, frankly, not only because of what they could do in the fall or what they could do in the primaries, but, you know, we could will probably have a statewide voter ref voter referendum on redistricting in Virginia in April. So, Virginia could be the let's try our new techniques here.

>> Yeah.

>> So, we are going to bang the drum. We are going to get folks as, you know, upset as possible. I mean, the challenge though, for example, when all of the awful stuff um was happening in Minneapolis, it was, you know, it's awful, but it's true. Until Ms. Good and then Mr. Prey were brutally killed, we didn't get the Republicans to the the floor or to the table on um ICE reforms. Yeah. Even though there was a lot of bad stuff happening beforehand. Um, and I am wide open for you or any of your viewers on what else uh uh we should do because you're right. If it sounds like all process and when you're supposed to report a whistleblower or when not, I mean, that I think you can get lost in. I think the thing when President Trump says he wants to nationalize and have Republicans take over elections, and when you've got a director of national intelligence not even telling initially the FBI that she was coming and showing up way outside her lane, people ought to get pissed.

>> right? I'm pissed.

>> Well, I I I look forward to hearing more about that. On the issue of ICE funding itself, because now this is, you know, gone this uh this bill to keep the government, you know, to to reopen the government um will obviously get signed, but that includes a two-week continuing resolution just for DHS funding. There are there seems to be a little bit of an impasse in terms of what the Democrats are asking for and the Republicans um willingness to accept that stuff, which includes in part masks for ICE agents or cameras for ICE agents. Can you give us, I think first and foremost, I I have to ask, you know, there are a lot of people who don't have faith that even when Democrats put down their red line issues, that the Democrats are going to abide by it. And we've seen other instances in the past where Democrats have caved even though they had imposed their red lines, like with ACA funding for example. So, is there a commitment that you can give that that, you know, on certain issues, the that DHS funding won't be given unless those those uh those demands are met?

>> I'm not going to vote for any additional ICE funding or unless we get some reforms. It's as simple as that. But I also would just ask, you know, uh, for some folks um, to realize, and again, I come from Virginia. We got a lot of federal workers. We had a lot of when you shut down the federal government, who you really hurting? You're hurting federal workers.

>> Yeah.

>> Who may or may not get paid at the end of the day. And the thing that completely makes me a little crazy when I hear from some of my calls, well, let's shut it down. Shut it down. Shut it down. The very same folks who are being discriminated against in Minneapolis and elsewhere on these ICE raids are often the people who are the contractors because the people who clean our federal buildings, the toilets, the people who do a lot of the jobs that used to be federal employees, they're all contractor jobs now. So you put that person out of work for a month and a month and a half, they get no reimbursement. And I just hope as we think about, you know, all of our threats and it, you know, and and and, you know, I listen, I stuck all the way through on the healthcare fight. I thought healthcare was important enough, but there is sometimes a cavalier attitude about, well, shutting down the government. That's not going to that's not going to harm folks or it's not going to bring a burden when frankly federal workers are disproportionately, especially after Doge on our side. So, let's we're going to stick to it. Um, and do I do I think that Republicans are going to give on everything? I'm not counting on it. Um, and I think we have to keep the pressure on, but I but again, I go back to we shut down DHS. Let's have it. But, God forbid, we have a um um a challenge at the airport when TSA agents aren't being paid and

>> and folks that are air traffic controllers and others. I mean, just we got to we got to push with all we can. But and again, this is why I get the big bucks because you got to weigh these you got to weigh these, you know, these challenges. But it it's not there are people at the other end of a federal government shutdown that I just would ask everybody to think about. And they are generally speaking disproportionately who support our point of view and want these reforms. But yeah, and that's why one of the reasons why you we all realize it was going to take a couple weeks. That's why, thank God, you know, the other 95% of the government is going to be open. So, we're not holding, you know, the Republicans were holding the rest of the government hostage. And the fact that we got that open, uh, I I think I call that a win since we can now fight this battle entirely inside the DHS entirely on the ICE issue, which I think is again a smarter thing for us both politically and for the the the numbers of people that will be affected if we go back into even a partial shutdown.

>> Yeah, I I I agree with that. I think I think it is smart just to to focus this narrowly on what's happening at DHS. And I hear you on the fact that, you know, there are going to be people who are hurt, but the reality is there are people there are people gonna that are going to be hurt regardless. Like, if if DHS has no guard rails, who's to say that there won't be another shooting, another Renee Good, another Alex Prey tomorrow? And so, you know, again, to your to your point, you alluded to this. This is, this is, you know, this is the give and take. This there there is no there is no, you know, silver bullet. There's no formula that's going to be that's going to work perfectly for everybody. Somebody's going to get hurt. And unfortunately, that's the situation that Republicans have put everybody in by by trying to fund an agency that is completely lawless and then putting all of their weight behind getting no conditions uh behind

>> DHS fun. And and and that's again where and I think people get this in their gut. And I don't want to like get you down in the weeds again, but there are so many freaking things that have blown past any kind of norm, any kind of law. I mean, if we just talked about the president of the United States saying we ought to nationalize elections, that in itself would be a week-long story of of of old traditional front page. If we simply talked about the director of national intelligence somehow interfering in domestic criminal investigations, that would blow people's minds. If we thought about, you know, obviously we we were focused on the awful things that have happened in Minneapolis and elsewhere. When you focus on the fact that in my state, 75 to 80% of the people who have been picked up on the ICE rates have committed no criminal infraction. So there is this theory of they keep throwing crap at the wall.

>> Yeah.

>> And um, you know, again, I'm not complaining. I'm asking folks to hire me again. So I'm, you know, I'm it's part of the job, but it it is a little overwhelming. And I fear that that people become almost numb to it. Yeah.

>> And when when all of this behavior becomes quasi rationalized, that ain't good for the country. That ain't good for, you know, legitimate political discourse or legitimate political rule, regardless of what happens going forward.

>> Yeah. Look, I and I do think the onus is on on those of us in the pro-democracy ecosystem to make sure not to normalize any of this behavior and to push back when there are whistleblower complaints against the DNI, when there are efforts by the president to nationalize elections or put Republicans unilaterally in control of elections. And, you know, that's that's the work that I do. It's the work that you do. And uh and uh, you know, it's it's it's difficult when you are contending with an opponent who whose whose goal is to flood the zone with. But I think, you know, like you said, that's that's the hard work that needs to be done. So

>> well, one of the things I would ask Brian of of you and everybody in the promocal end, but, you know, we need to have an organized timeline, even if this goes fades from the news for a week, of what are the key times that we got to make sure they're not pulling any more funny business through this whole process, period. You in Virginia, that'll be, you know, if if there is an April referendum, it won't be on April 21st, the referendum date, I think they've said, but it'll be weeks before the primaries. We've got to make sure we don't because I'm fearful now that they may go to subterfuge. They may try to, you know, and this is again goes back to why the whistleblowers have to be respected. They got to have a due process, even if they're not their claim is is is not valid, but they got to still have a process.

>> Yeah. And I really part of my job is to to make sure that that the, you know, the rhythm of the election, they don't screw things up even more. And the truth is, a lot of the sec the situations that were set up actually were set up in the first Trump administration after the Russian intervention. So the FBI center on on election interference that's been shut down. The the director of national intelligence formal line influence center that's by law, she shut that down. Cybersecurity, the CIS agency, a third plus of the P folks who are doing trying to give local election officials the tools they need to make their election systems more secure, that's been cut. So, it's and that's again the part where if this was the shoe was on the other foot, and I know we can, you know, this is uh we got to we got to just keep fighting like hell.

>> We'll leave it there. Senator Warner, thanks so much for taking the time.

>> Thanks so much, Brian.

>> To listen to the audio version of this episode, click the link right here on the screen and make sure to subscribe. And of course, to see more video content, that subscribe button's on the screen as well.