OMG: Trump accidentally leaks INSANE Iran strategy

I know that the inclination watching. Donald Trump engage in a new war with. Iran might be to mock the idea that he. has no plan, but I don't think that's. true. There is one long-standing. principle that's always at play with. Trump, and that is that he does nothing. unless it helps himself. He is a. self-interested player, and Iran helps. Trump in one major way, which Trump. himself dropped hints about all over. social media. For example, on Truth. Social on Saturday morning, while the. bombing was underway, Trump wrote, "Iran. tried to interfere in 2020 2024. elections to stop Trump and now faces.

renewed war with United States." First. of all, Trump doesn't care about foreign. countries meddling in our elections. If. he did, he would be in bombing Russia. right now. So, why then would Trump. invoke Iran meddling in our elections as. he bombs the country? Because, put. simply, he is trying to validate the. claim that our elections are not secure. so that he can use that as a pretext to. usurp control of the election. Here's an. excerpt from the Washington Post. reporting from just a couple of days. ago. "Pro-Trump activists who say they. are in coordination with the White House. are circulating a 17-page draft.

executive order that claims China. interfered in the 2020 election as a. basis to declare a national emergency. that would unlock extraordinary. presidential power over voting." Now, I. have a major gripe with this framing. Declaring a national emergency would not. unlock extraordinary presidential power. over voting. There is no presidential. power over voting. The states control. elections, not the federal government, period. But, that part notwithstanding, Trump is very clearly looking for claims. of foreign interference to serve as a.

basis to declare a national emergency. He's threatened to nationalize the. election for months. This is how he's. going to try and do it. Don't let him. fool you. Again, Trump is nothing if not. self-interested. He's doing all of this. to help himself and his consolidation on. his grip on power. I should also point out uh a post from. Donald Trump from 2 weeks ago. "The. Democrats refuse to vote for voter ID or. citizenship. The reason is very simple. They want to continue to cheat in. elections. This was not what our. founders desired. I have searched the.

depths of legal arguments not yet. articulated or vetted on this subject. and will be presenting an irrefutable. one in the very near future. There will. be voter ID for the midterm elections. whether approved by Congress or not. Now, this is a reference to the Save. Act, which is not only voter ID, it also. forces states to hand over their voter. rolls, which has never been done before. And if you're wondering why the federal. government, which does not administer. elections, would need the voter rolls, it's because if they're going to try and. take control of the elections, which. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to. do, nationalize the election, they might.

want to know whose votes to suppress and. whose votes to count. The voter rolls. allow them to do that. And when Trump. said in his post that he will be. presenting a quote irrefutable legal. argument on the subject, this is it. It's him using extraordinary war powers. to claim that our national security is. at risk and that he's quote unlocking. some super secret extraordinary power. that's necessary to keep us safe and. secure. This is the natural conclusion. of a long game that Trump's been playing. to help himself and his party. Because.

remember, these people do not care about. democracy, certainly not abroad. If they. did, they wouldn't be weakening it right. here at home. They don't care about. foreign interference in elections. If. they did, they'd have beef with the one. country who we know interferes in our. elections. Again, that's Russia. What. they care about is consolidating their. grip on power and interfering in our. elections themselves so that they don't. lose control, which they are at imminent. risk of doing in these upcoming midterm. elections. Remember too, Trump already. tried this once. This isn't some.

theoretical plan. This isn't some. fantastical idea. He wanted to seize the. voting machines in Georgia in 2020. He. tried to get Brad Raffensperger, the. Georgia Secretary of State, to find. 11,780 votes in 2020. This year he sent. his DNI, Director of National. Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, into Georgia. to collect all of the ballots. He's. sending troops into US cities who would. then be able to serve as boots on the. ground if and when he tries to seize. ballot machines again. He's got an. attorney general in place who herself. was an election denier. All of the.

pieces are in place. And he's not being. subtle about it. He's going to use Iran. as a pawn in his effort to keep his. party in control of the US government. Here's the silver lining though. Because. he is so ham-handed, his scheme is. already apparent. I've spoken with Mark. Elias and other attorneys who see the. writing on the wall. If and when Trump. asserts his non-existent authority to. take over elections, he will be sued and. he will lose in court. But our job, collectively, is to spread the word. because the more people recognize the. real reason for his actions right now,

the less effective this pretext will be. when he tries to execute it. You're watching the No Lie podcast. Next. up are my interviews with Ro Khanna, Jon. Favreau, and Lina Khan. No Lie is. brought to you by BetterHelp. It's. March, which means International Women's. Day is upon us. I want to take a moment. to celebrate women and all that they. carry out at work, in relationships, in. families, and in the many roles they. hold every day. Between caring for. others and managing unseen. responsibilities, their emotional. well-being can easily be overlooked. I. know that life really often moves too.

fast to reflect on anything, but try to. take a moment to reflect on the role. that women have in your life, that they. play, the expectations placed on them, and the pressures that they feel. Therapy can create balance, set healthy. boundaries, and support overall. well-being for everyone, which is why. I'm an advocate for BetterHelp. So, why. BetterHelp? Because of their quality. therapists. BetterHelp therapists work. according to a strict code of conduct. and are fully licensed in the US. Also, because of their therapist match. commitment, BetterHelp does the initial. matching work for you so that you can. focus on your therapy goals. A short.

questionnaire helps identify your needs. and preferences, and their more than 12. years of experience and industry-leading. match fulfillment rate means they. typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any. time from their tailored. recommendations. And finally, the client. reviews prove it. With over 30,000. therapists, Better Help is the world's. largest online therapy platform, having. served over 6 million people globally, and it works with an average rating of. 4.9 out of five for live sessions based. on over 1.7 million client reviews. Your. emotional well-being matters. Find.

support and feel lighter in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at. betterhelp.com/nolie. That's betterhelp.com/nolie. Nolie is brought to you by Zbiotics. So, I have to tell you about a game-changing. product that I use the night before. we're going out with drinks. It's called. pre-alcohol. Zbiotics 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's 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. Every time I. have pre-alcohol before drinks, I notice. a discernible difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can. confidently plan on being on camera. without worry. And I won't lie, I was on. the fence about pre-alcohol initially, but I gave it a shot, and believe me, it. is the real deal. So, look, March is a.

marathon of social events, from the. slopes to the bracket watch parties to. Guinnesses on St. Patrick's Day. Pre-alcohol is the tool that you need to. fully enjoy the end of winter. Go to. zbiotics.com/btc. to learn more and get 15% off your first. order when you use BTC at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 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 the code BTC at checkout for 15%. off. I'm joined now by Congressman Ro.

Khanna. Congressman, thanks for joining. me again. Always a pleasure. So, Congressman, we have some major news as. relates to the Epstein files. Can you. speak about some missing files that. implicate Trump that have taken over the. news cycle. This is the most disturbing. development since Thomas Massie and I. started the pursuit of the Epstein files. issue. And here's what's happened. There. is a woman who has accused Donald Trump. of sexually abusing her when she was a. minor child. There are four times that.

the FBI interviewed her. Only one of. those interviews has been publicly. released. Now, you know that if someone. is being interviewed four times by the. FBI, the FBI obviously took it. seriously. The sex trafficking unit. there took it seriously. Yes, three of. those interviews are missing. And Roger. Schallenberger and the NPR journalist. discovered this because there was a. document that Massie and I forced. release that said that all four of those.

interview memorandum were produced to. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell, during. discovery, but they are not public. And. so, the question is why the cover-up? Why What's in those three FBI. interviews? What did this. woman allegedly say about Donald Trump? And why do we not have those documents? Is there going to be some way to recover. those documents? Well, first of all, they're in clear. violation of the law. So, public. pressure is the first thing. Obviously,

people say, "Well, is it really going to. work?" It's worked in the past. I mean, we've forced a half of the release of. the files because of public pressure. But, it's not the courts. I mean, you. can't just blatantly violate the law. There are people who could sue to make. sure that this these files actually are. released. The question is have they been. tampered with? Have they been blacked. out? Have they been damaged? But, there. are legal ways of getting the documents. And these documents exist in multiple. places. If they produced them to. Maxwell, so they've got to be careful. with tampering.

And what are next steps in terms of of. what you can do on your end to get these. documents to the forefront. We are looking at possibly passing. Epstein Transparency Act 2.0. I would. join me Nancy Mace and others saying, can we get the forced release of the not. just these three documents, but the. survivor statements to the FBI in. general. CNN did a analysis and they. found that there are at least 90 or so. statements that the survivors made to.

the FBI that are that are missing. And. those are the most. powerful things. That's where the. survivors are naming who are the men who. engaged in abuse or rape. And so, you. know, but to have a case where you have. three documents missing and the. allegations against the President of the. United States, this is an enormous scandal. Well, if the DOJ was willing to flout. the law, because that's what they're. doing by withholding these documents, what's to stop them from doing the exact.

same thing if the Epstein Files. Transparency Act 2.0 is passed? Well, they're claiming privilege and. they're claiming that there's ongoing. investigations. I mean, they could do. the same exact thing, but it would be. much more directed the Epstein 2.0 bill. saying, we want specifically these. 302 documents. But, my sense is that the. most likely outcome is a legal outcome. It is. us going to the Southern District of New. York, the survivors or Marci Hamilton or.

someone filing a lawsuit to require. these documents to be produced. And. watch our group could could do it as. well. Just file a lawsuit in the. Southern District of New York to force. compliance with the law. And then, when. we take back the Congress, of course, we. can subpoena. And you say, well, they. won't comply with the subpoena. That's. true. But, you know, we could try. The final. point is, there may be people at the FBI. and at the DOJ. who recognize what happened is wrong and. and can become whistleblowers. In terms.

of bringing this in front of a judge, instead of going on these piecemeal, you. know, efforts to in front of a judge to. get individual pieces of paper released, what about what about resuscitating your. effort along with Thomas Massie to get a. special master to oversee all of this so. that it's not like, okay, let's let's. try to get, you know, a few 302s here, a. few witness testimonies here. Like this. person, having somebody like that in. place would would would negate the need. for all of these subsequent court cases. where you know you're going to butt up.

against Pam Bondi. I fully agree and that's why Massie had. I proposed this in the first place and I. think our idea is looking now to be more. thoughtful and wise. I mean, what we. were saying is. don't have this determination made by. Bondi. Don't have it made by the court. of public opinion on Twitter or the. internet. Have a special master look at. the documents and imagine if a special. master done these documents and said, these redactions are legitimate, these. aren't. Here's what we're releasing. You. would have had so much more public trust. for the whole process. You wouldn't have. had the sources compromised.

And so, that is the ideal solution. But, we're looking at something that is. a a a huge urgent issue and that is. did the Department of Justice. selectively refuse to release testimony. because the allegations were against the. President of the United States. I mean, that is a enormous cover-up if true and. if it's not true, then they should just. release it or explain why they haven't. released it. Right. I want to talk about.

Hillary Clinton's private deposition. Can I have your reaction to the fact. that the first thing that happened in. this deposition that Republicans You. know, you have a lot of Republicans who. claim to take this seriously and yet the. first thing they did was create a. spectacle by having Lauren Boebert leak. a photo to Benny Johnson so they could. tweet it out and get the optics that. they were so desperate for. How can they. both claim that they're taking this. whole whole thing seriously while at the. same time turning it into a circus. Well, Ryan, you know how much I've been. passionate about the Epstein Transgender.

Act, which Manchin and I led. I'm a. senior member of the Oversight. Committee. I didn't show up today. because I thought it was outrageous that. Hillary Clinton was being deposed. She. has nothing to do with any of this, and. it was a total witch hunt. I am showing. up tomorrow with President Clinton. because I do believe that President. Clinton has to answer for. what he knew and and what his. relationship was with Epstein. But to. drag Hillary Clinton into this was. totally political. You had the leak. Uh. you had people asking questions totally. unrelated uh to Epstein, and I think she.

conducted herself with the dignity. Uh. and you know, she set a clear precedent. now that is going to be very hard for. Donald Trump and Lutnick and others to. uh avoid answering questions. And so, you know, they wasted uh. they they their time in a circus. The. American people see through it, but what. they're going to ask themselves is well, where why are Lutnick and Trump and. Bondi not answering questions? Yeah, and I think that's the the perfect. point here. Was there some recognition. by these people that now that they've.

established this precedent where former. presidents and former presidents' family. members can be hauled in front of. Congress to answer questions about. Jeffrey Epstein? Do they recognize that. that will also apply to the one guy. who's at the top of this cover-up? Who. who one day, by the way, will be a. former president? >> Well, Trump does. That's why he was. saying, "Oh, I'm not so sure it's a good. idea to go after the Clintons." Look, there were there was the Trump rule, which was that. he refused to comply with the subpoena. to the January 6th Committee. That was. the precedent. Now, Bill Clinton and.

Hillary Clinton have set a new. precedent, and that is that former. presidents and families testify. And you. can be rest assured that once we are in. the majority in Congress, one of the. first subpoenas is going to be to Donald. Trump. What about the the rest of his team, as. you were mentioning? There are a number. of people in his administration. Um Howard Lutnick, there was a photo. released, and I'm going to put that on. the screen, of him on Jeffrey Epstein's. Island. That was obviously uh hidden. until just now. There's also Kevin. Warsh, who's Trump's pick for for the. Fed chair. Elon Musk is in the file. I.

mean, there are so many people within. Trump's orbit who have been wrapped up. in this thing. Is there any reason, at. least among your Republican colleagues, why these people aren't also being. hauled up to answer questions? If. Hillary Clinton, who had nothing to do. with Jeffrey Epstein, is being hauled in. front of the the Oversight Committee to. testify, is there any reason why Howard. Lutnick, who was smiling in pictures. with the guy, wouldn't also be called. into testify? >> We're being governed by the Epstein. class. It's absurd. All over the world, you're seeing prosecutions and. resignations. Just today, the World.

Economic Forum CEO resigned. You've had. the prince, former Prince Andrew, prosecuted, investigated. The Lord. Mandelson arrested. You've had the. former Norwegian Prime Minister. arrested. And Lutnick, who's all over. the files, who lied about his. relationship with Epstein, who had. alleged business dealings with Epstein, is still sitting. America's ambassador to the world for. business. He needs to resign. He needs to be. hauled in front of Congress. And every. person in a senior position who's had.

ties and allegations to Epstein in the. Trump administration needs to come. before our committee and offer an. explanation. and and explain to the American public. what they were doing in their judgment. You know, that's what we need to be. worried about, with the people currently. ruling in this country, not someone who. was in in office uh or even a. a first lady 30 years ago. Is there any. Is there any interest by your Republican. colleagues who obviously hold the. subpoena power in the majority and not. in the minority? Is there any interest.

by your Republican colleagues to bring. some of these people forward? Or is it. just that, you know, as long as you have. proximity to Trump, you've got a a magic. force field around you? Some of them, Nancy Mace and others, have said that they would support. something. We're going to file for a. subpoena and try to force the issue. But. the the reality is they may say that. publicly, but when it comes to the vote. of subpoenaing, they're very, very. hesitant to do anything that's going to. offend Donald Trump, but they're losing. credibility not just Brian, and we've. discussed this, not just with. independents and Democrats, they're. losing Republican Republicans, they're.

losing mega voters. The most unpopular. people in Trump administration right now. are Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Lutnick. because they see them part of the swamp. that Donald Trump said he would drain. In terms of next steps now, what what is. what is next for you to get some more. accountability? And you have been, you. know, dogged in your pursuit of this. So, what what do you anticipate is going. to be the next step? Well, we are. going to call for select committee to to. have these Epstein hearings or at least. have oversight, have Epstein hearings.

We are going to continue to pursue legal. options with the Southern District of. New York to get these files. We're going. to going to continue to be very vocal. about accountability for Lutnick and. others in the administration and other. rich and powerful men who have emails. saying they visited the ranch or the. island. And by the way, this story is. not going away because every day we see. some new resignation, new revelation. People are going through these files and. finding more and more and more. So, Massie and I will continue to call for.

accountability. And then there are more. legislative options as well. But what. we've seen is that when we keep pushing, when we keep fighting, more things get. released. And finally, Congressman, why do you. think it is that, you know, amid all of. this jingoism about American. exceptionalism and amid the fact that a. huge issue in the 2024 campaign was. exposing this criminal cabal of. pedophiles and it's largely owed to the. right-wing in this country that when. this stuff is finally actually coming to. light, and a lot of it born out, that.

the only accountability is being had. overseas and yet right here in this. shining city on a hill where we beat our. chest about democracy, Uh, can can we. not find a single person who who. is going to lose their job over their. involvement in all of this? Yeah, it's. the only side in government. I mean, we. they've had people who have lost their. jobs in the private sector and more. pressure is being put, but we've had no. investigations, not even of Les Wexner, who said that even with all his ties, no. investigation, no prosecutions. And the.

irony is that there were two American. congresspeople, Thomas Massie and I, who got these files released. You know, they're. our names are known all over England, I'm told. And yet in the United States. of America, even though we were members. of Congress, American members of. Congress who started this, we have no. accountability. Sarah Fitzpatrick. tomorrow has a huge piece in The. Atlantic coming out talking about how we. got these files released and why there.

is such a jarring hypocrisy of how the. rest of the world is reacting and what. we're doing here in America. It's a. wake-up call obviously for the. protection cult around Donald Trump, but. it's also an indictment for our country. that we aren't taking the survivors more. seriously. And the final point I would. would make is that we still have the. opportunity to push for accountability. and justice for these survivors,

and we need to, and that this is going. to be a defining moment for the nation. Well, look, I I know that I can speak on. behalf of everybody watching right now. and and pleading with you to keep going. If it wasn't for the work that you and. Thomas Massie are doing and for the. survivors who continue to speak out on a. daily basis, this would not go anywhere because we. can't rely on these Republicans, especially the ones who are chairing. their committees to make sure that this. sees the light of day. So, very grateful. for the work that you're doing as I. mentioned on a weekly basis and I.

appreciate you taking the time today. Always appreciate it and thank you for. shining the light. One final point, Brian, is is I do think these three. files that are hidden and this cover-up. for the allegations against the. President of the United States are a. game-changer. And when people really see. what happened, they're going to see how. uh wrong it is the people who are. protecting this president. >> now by the co-host of Pod Save America, Jon Favreau. Jon, thanks for joining me. Of course. Is this the show where we. talk about aliens? >> This is. I hope it's any anything other than.

that. All right, so obviously State of. the Union came and went. Uh I'm not super interested in talking. about the State of the Union speech in. and of itself, but there was one theme. that I wanted to touch on and that is. this idea that Trump didn't seem capable. of admitting any fault whatsoever as far. as the economy economy is concerned and. that's the number one issue. And the. reason I think this is an issue is. because if he can't admit that there's a. problem, then there's no hope as far as. Americans are concerned of actually. solving it. And so how big of an issue. was the fact that he did basically a Joe.

Biden redux from 2024 and just pretended. that everything was great that that you. know, we're doing so much winning. Everyone's going to get tired of all the. winning. Yeah, well it didn't work that. well for Joe Biden, right? Um and I don't think it's going to work. for Donald Trump. And to be fair, I. don't think it works for any politician. to be telling people that they're not. feeling what they're feeling. And the. numbers are very clear that um huge. majorities in this country are worried. about inflation, worried about costs, pissed off about the economy, don't. think Trump's doing a good job. I mean.

just go down the list. And. look, it Trump is not the type like I. would have been surprised if Trump went. up there and was like, you know, I give. an I feel your pain. >> Yeah. uh speech. >> could have been some degree of a. measured approach to this instead of. we're the best. I'm the white knight. that swooped in and saved us and now. we're number one and everything's. perfect. >> Yeah, he only has one speed. Right. And. so um and he thinks that it's served him. well in the past. And um I think he's and his team Well, I.

think his team realizes that he needed. to do that. And they they probably feel. like, well, we got him to talk about, you know, the housing thing and the. prescription drug thing and the health. care thing and all the language they. tested on those policy issues that. pulled well, but um no one's going to. remember that. And it was only a couple. minutes out of a. >> You you say no one's going to remember. that, but Stephen Miller said that this. the words of his speech will ring for a. thousand years. >> years? No, he thought that the he said. what's going to ring for a thousand.

years is the Democrats not standing up. for his obvious immigration. trap thing that he tried to set very. clumsily. >> Yeah. Um but yeah, so no one's going to. remember it. And uh Republicans who are. running on the midterms, it didn't. really help them. They're not going to. be using clips of Trump talking about. something that he's not going to deliver. on in their ads. Um and he's not going to do anything uh. that he said in that speech because. there's very little legislation. proposed. And uh the rest of it was just.

sort of executive action that's. not going to actually do anything for. people. I want to I want to touch on the. part that you brought up about his. Republican colleagues because there's. two things that they can do. They can. either run away from him uh when he says. that everything is perfect and risk. drawing his ire um you know, and mean. tweets, mean post. I probably a little. bit too late for a primary opponent for. most of them, but you know what happens. when you get on Trump's bad side. Or. they can run toward him and hug him and. risk looking as out of touch to their. constituents as he did when he was.

giving that State of the Union speech. And so does this just kind of put his. own party even further between a rock. and a hard place with midterms coming. up? >> Yes. I think that once all of the. primary deadlines have passed, um you might suddenly see an outbreak of. courage. Yeah. >> among some of these Republicans. Um and. even then probably not until the like. final month or two of the campaign. And. then they'll try to do it quietly and. hope he doesn't notice. Um and maybe at that point his team will. convince him like, "Hey, it's the end of.

the race. They're just they have to. separate themselves a little bit, whatever.". Um and then also if they lose, he can. say, "Well, they didn't they didn't. embrace me, so that's why they lost.". Um but yeah, I I I think you could see a. little bit of that towards the end of. the race. But for right now, uh you. know, there was one Republican who. um he just endorsed a primary challenger. because they weren't with him on tariffs. or they criticized him on tariffs or. something. So, he's still doing that. kind of And um which is why none. of them are going to break from him. We. we saw a lot of, you know, greatest hits.

uh pivoting back to that about this idea. of immigrants. I mean, the whole thing. was just as divisive as he could make. it, uh pitting, you know, Americans. against non-Americans. This is what. worked in 2024. uh for their campaign in addition to the. economic stuff. It seems like this is. going to be the tack that they take. moving forward because what else what. else could they have? They can't say. that they lowered the cost of I mean, they can say it, but it's just going to. further infuriate people who look at. their own grocery bills, look at their. own utility bills, look at their own.

medical bills, and recognize that costs. are not falling, they're actually. increasing. And so, do you presume that. this is a preview of what's to come for. the next 6 months, that it's just going. to be the tried-and-true tactic of. migrant caravans ala, you know, 2008, 2012, 2016, uh immigrants eating the dogs and cats. ala 2024. I mean, every year it's just. some new iteration of brown people. scary, white people vote for the other. white white people team. Yeah, it'll be. um.

im- scary immigrants. uh committing fraud and killing people, and Democrats who hate America and love. the immigrants, and uh and or vote. Republicans and me because everything is. wonderful. So, the country is both awful. and scary, but it's wonderful. Um the. reason that it worked in '24 and that it. won't work here is because in '24 Joe. Biden was the president, and so they, Republicans and Donald Trump, were. levying a critique at Joe Biden about. the border, which was an actual problem.

that people. that bothered enough people that it. worked to some extent, along with. inflation and everything else, probably. not as much as inflation. But, Trump. also tried this in 2018, and it didn't. work. Because and I think that's the. better comparison, because Trump was. president in 2018. They tried to do the. whole caravan thing. Trump was not very popular in. immigration then, but I would say he was more popular than. he is now on immigration. I mean, that. was the child separation policy that. sort of did him in there.

But, you know, he tried the caravan. thing, and it just didn't work in the. 2018 midterms, and I don't really think. it's going to work here. On this issue. of fraud being the you know, focus of. his attention, I mean, is there no reconciling the fact that. he's he's issued like almost 100. pardons, half of those were for people. who committed some degree of fraud, and. then they won't be forced to pay. restitution to the tune of like a. billion dollars, and so is he really. going to is he the best messenger to. deliver a message on why fraud should be. the principal issue in this campaign. when the guy is responsible for all of.

these fraudsters walking the streets? Yeah, I don't think he is, but I think. that they're um There's just a cognitive. dissonance that allows them to do it. >> Yeah, and their hope is that people are. mad that they can't afford They. don't think they have enough money, and. so one argument is well, you don't have. enough money because the taxes you're. paying are getting wasted on. uh immigrants who are committing fraud. And that's the argument they're using, you know, right as we're recording this, J.D. Vance did an event in Minnesota, where he announced that they are. suspending.

like hundreds of billions of dollars of. aid and Medicaid to Minnesota because of. fraud. And so, it's going to be. collective punishment to the people of. Minnesota unless, I don't know, I guess. like Tim Walz, I don't know what they. want him to do, to like put in place more stringent. fraud protocols, even though they've. been trying to do that and even though. all the fraud cases in Minnesota have. been prosecuted most of them by Joe. Biden. Um, so but anyway, um, so yeah, they're going to do that kind of. and say like, all right, we're going to. try to to spend money here and they're.

just going to like cut more people's. health care and pretend that it's like. cutting fraud, but it's not really going. to I don't think that's going to work. either because the people who count on. the health care who aren't going to have. it anymore are going to be like, well, that sucks. Do you I mean, look, I think. I think there's a valid question here as. to which is going to be more potent. because on one hand you can say that you. can say what what the Republicans said. when Democrats were in office, which is. that it is solely the fault of the. government when things become. unaffordable.

And Joe Biden and the Democrats were. punished as the result of that, but then. when they come in, they want to have it. both they want to have it both ways. where they say the government has no, you know, position here that we we we. have no impact. It's solely the fact. that, you know, immigrants are coming in. and using this that otherwise should be. going to you and they're the reason that. nothing is affordable. So I get that. they're trying to have it both ways, but. is there something to say whether or not. that argument won't also work? Like I. get the cognitive dissonance exists, but. could it still be effective? Democrats.

just have the easier argument because. they have the truer argument, which is. Republicans control everything with the. White House, Congress, life is unaffordable, health care is. getting cut. because of them. They're taxing everything. They're. they're they're issuing illegal taxes. according to the Supreme Court. on all of us. They know that. People know that. And so. and Donald Trump is even if they hear. him talking about making life more. affordable, he hasn't done it. And even if he starts. complaining about fraud and immigrants, they'll be like, okay, why don't you do.

anything about it? And why is everything. so expensive still? And why are you. still. imposing illegal taxes on me? And why. haven't I gotten a refund for the. illegal taxes? And why is my health care. cut? And why are my premiums going up? Can't you do anything about that or you. just going to complain about Somali. immigrants? Yeah. And so what is the. message that Democrats should bring. forward recognizing that like this is. going to be the last major speech that. Trump gives before midterms. I don't. know if there's ever going to be an. audience as big as this before votes are. cast in November. And so if this is like.

the kickoff to the midterm elections, what is the message that Democrats take. as we head toward November? Donald Trump is imposing illegal taxes. to help pay for illegal wars and an. illegal paramilitary force that is. rampaging through our communities and. the only way to stop him is to take. power back from Congress because the. Republicans who have been there for the. last 2 years have done nothing for you. and nothing to stop Donald Trump. All right, pretty pretty pretty pretty. succinct. >> There you go. I just just. thought of it now. Um more broadly like taking a step back,

you've written I don't know how how many. speeches have you written for Barack. Obama? I can't I I lost count. I've. written five State of the Unions though. Five State of the Unions. >> States of the Union, whatever. States of. the Union, yeah. Um listening to what. what we listened to. I know that you. went on Kimmel before the State of the. Union was over and so you lucked out in. that respect. You trust me you did not. miss much. But but having written so many States of. the States of the Union, State of the. Unions is. what was what stuck out at you from from. this speech if anything? The length.

Other than the sheer amount of words. And for me and I was always like the the. crazy one in the White House about. making sure that the speech like we were. cutting the speech down. >> Yeah. And that it could. I was always like it's got to be under. an hour and I still thought that was too. long. And Barack Obama. in his mind always wanted it under an. hour and then would like keep adding. >> so interesting because he's he he is. like famously long-winded. >> Yes. That's why he would keep adding but he. like you know, ideally he knows that he. wants to be because he's also a very.

good performer and a very good speaker, right? And so he knows he wants to be. tight. But he also is a writer and so he. will write, you know, and add stuff in, and then the policy people will add. stuff in, and then the lawyers will add. stuff in, and then I'll just start. cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting, and then I start sending I. would start sending really nasty emails. to everyone in the White House towards. the end of the process and saying, "If. you add anything, you have to find the. words to take out that you add.". It's a It's a It's pay go. Yeah. That's right. What was the And I know.

that we've spoken about this. I feel. like we speak about this every year, and. I'm sorry because I feel like everybody. who talks to you about writing these. speeches asks you the same exact. question every year. But, in terms of. what people have tried to ask you to get. into these speeches, what was the most. egregious? Uh, I can't remember Oh, I. know. I know. I remember one year that. and and Ben Rhodes, who we all know, always used to help me write the speech. because he'd write a lot of the foreign. policy part. And someone in the National Security. Council or the State Department or. somewhere were like, "Uh, this is a real. problem because we've mentioned uh five.

continents in the speech, but we have. missed a continent.". >> It's the most democratic. >> "Antarctica." But, like I think I think. we had like not said something about. South America in that one State of the. Union, and it was like a big. five-alarm fire. I'm like, "Okay, so now. we're just adding a sentence about South. America just to say that we included. it." Yeah. It's It's like the most. democratic thing you could ask for, though. >> Yeah. Um, you went on uh Jimmy Kimmel. show after that. How was I'm I'm curious. how this stuff is breaking through in. among normie audiences because State of. the Union is is famously very inside.

baseball, and I've even had to check. myself and be like, "Yes, this matters, and there's so much build-up to this big. moment because it's a big speech, but. like normal people don't care. Like, this is just This is just some night for. super engaged people, highly engaged. people for whom this speech is probably. not going to change any hearts and. minds. Uh, anybody who listens to this. speech, if you are listening to to a. State of the Union speech, especially a. 2-hour-long State of the Union speech, like y- y- if you're going to subject. yourself to that, like, it's not because. it's not because, you know, it because. that won out over the newest episode of.

like traders, right? This is this is. something that people are are actively. seeking out because because they are. masochists who who enjoy paying. attention to politics. But in that. audience, was there any sense or or just. even in in how you've spoken to people, is there any sense that this kind of. stuff is breaking through a little bit. more? Yeah, I mean, I watched the entire State. of the Union and I have basically been. speaking about it for 24 hours nonstop. and I have run out of things I remember. about the State of the Union to talk to. you about and that's me. The commentary.

there there is definitely more to talk. about in the commentary surrounding. State of the Union than than the State. of the Union itself because that speech. was basically just any stump speech that. Trump has given a thousand times before. They're looking at this at in this day. and age for like social media viral. clips, images. They thought that they. that the whole like oh, the Democrats. aren't standing to to put Americans. before illegal immigrants. Um they thought that's the big moment. and you know, maybe in right-wing media. they get what a day or two out of that. They're you think they're going to say.

on that? They'll probably like throw an. ad up in a month or so and maybe again. towards the towards the towards the. midterms and be like this is our big ad, but they just have to do that to say. that they did and to you know, keep the. lie going. Um No, I don't think anything I don't. think it lays out a blueprint. I don't. think it lays out a campaign strategy. I. don't think it does anything. I think. it's just a fart in the wind that is. going. that is just going to go down in history. as the longest speech ever and that's. about it. Uh last thing. uh conspicuously absent from Trump's.

speech was any mention of the Epstein. files, any mention of. of of actually I don't even think he. said the word ICE. >> No. Uh he mentioned DHS funding, but he. he didn't mention ICE. >> that was interesting. >> And so does that give some does that. give some uh hint to Democrats in terms. of the issues that are clearly too toxic. for Republicans to glom on to while. while also at the same time objectively. being some of the biggest issues in the. the right now. I mean like even just. looking search terms, Epstein and ICE. are are the topics that have hit this.

year more than anything else. Yeah, I. would have been quite surprised if he. had mentioned the Epstein files on his. own. I will say that. But um ICE was. notable because I think that I could. have easily have seen him try to defend. the men and women of ICE as Christine. O'Donnell has done and talk about the. and Tom Homan and the 1,000% increase in. attacks and all that that they. say that isn't really true. Um but the. fact that he didn't shows that he has. can read a poll and his people can or. his people can read polls and they know. that ICE is at a 30% approval and has.

caused them nothing but political. problems. And so they didn't say it. So. I think that should that that is a And. look, Epstein like is it on the minds of. like every voter that's going to come to. the midterms? Probably not. But is it if. they know about it, is it a proof point. in a larger story about corruption uh in. this administration? Yeah, for sure. Yeah. And it's also an issue by the way. that reaches kind of a weird subset of. people who aren't necessarily Democrats. or Republicans but for whom, you know,

whether it's because they've been. groomed to recognize the importance of. this issue by those Republicans. themselves, ironically enough by the Dan. Bonginos of the world and Kash Patel's. of the world. But but it it's a. different, you know, subset that doesn't. necessarily fit neatly into the buckets. of the regular American electorate. Yeah, well it's like all you have to. know is that the government is covering. up a pedophile ring. And then you're like, oh well, well. that's and there was a conspiracy about. that and I thought maybe that was crazy. and I wanted to know more but now I know. all this and yeah, it looks like like it.

looks like the Trump administration is. either in the Epstein files or covering. up the Epstein files. Yeah. And last. question here because I'm curious on. that point. How do you think Dan Bongino. goes back to uh to an audience and you. know, maybe you have some authority to. speak on this as a podcast host but goes. back to an audience that he built his. brand off off talking about this issue. of of this criminal cabal of pedophiles. who've infiltrated the government when. he was part of the government who had. the ability to do something about it, opted to do nothing, and now he's not.

saying a word about it, is just. returning like a white knight after. battle, and yet and yet manages never to. utter a word about the principal issue. that he focused on. >> Yeah, I will admit I have not tuned into. Dan's podcast since he's returned from. the FBI, but. you know, >> all all those episodes in the backlog. >> of Yeah, I have a backlog. Um, you know, shame isn't really an issue for these. folks, and they also bet that people. have short memories and that there are. other outrages to be had, and one will. come along and he'll be able to jump on.

it, and that will be the big outrage of. the day, and he'll be on the right side, and he won't have to think about his. time in government. >> Yeah, well, that's what we're here to. remind everybody about. To that end, in. terms of reminding people, if you are. not yet subscribed to Pod Save America's. YouTube channel, we're going to put that. link right here on the screen or also in. the post description of this video. Please help elevate voices like Jon's. and the rest of the team over at Pod. Save America and Crooked Media. So, again, that link is right here on the. screen or also in the post description. Favs, appreciate the time. I'm joined. now by the FTC chair under Joe Biden, Lina Khan. Thanks so much for joining. me. Great to be here.

So, I want to talk about this new merger. that seems all but imminent at this. point, given the fact that Paramount has. bid successfully for Warner Brothers. Discovery, Netflix has dropped out, which means we're going to see a major. consolidation in the area of media yet. again. So, can you give a quick overview. on what's happening here? So, for months we've seen a basically a. form of bidding war between Paramount. and Netflix for these assets, and it's been pretty clear that the.

Trump administration has wanted. Paramount to win out, and yesterday we. just learned that Paramount, after. making a new bids, was basically, you. know, resulting in in Netflix backing. out. So, there are some real legal. questions here that remain. Both the. Netflix and Paramount deal would have. raised major red flags in their own. ways, but given how cozy this. administration is with Paramount and how. much they seem to want to put the thumb. on the scale, it's not clear that we're.

going to see any action from the federal. government at when it comes to. challenging a potentially illegal deal. Okay, so first off, I want to talk about. why the White House is so hell-bent on. making sure that Netflix was not a part. of this, that this was just Paramount. and Warner Brothers Discovery. What. benefit does Donald Trump derive from. seeing that merger go through? Well, it's no secret that he's very cozy. with the new owners of Paramount, the. Allison family, which even after taking. over CBS have seemed extraordinarily.

eager and happy to shape news in a way. that's going to benefit the. administration and, you know, effectively chill or suppress news that. is not. And they've been very clear that the. administration in the White House has. been very clear that that's how they. want it. And if this merger were to go through, it would put CNN alongside CBS in the. hands of Paramount. And so there would. be an extraordinary risk that we would. see even more consolidation over news.

during an administration that has been. very happy to, you know, basically. assert that they expect. news channels to. play ball and basically follow us, deal. What kind of consolidation would we be. looking at in the media space, in the. news space if this goes through? I mean, if this goes through, we're basically. going to be seeing the merger of two. massive companies, media conglomerates, that each have a major presence in movie.

studios and distribution, major TV studios, sports distributors. And so it would basically, you know, create. a merger between two out of the five. biggest media companies. And that's an. extraordinary amount of consolidation. Unchecked corporate power is always a. problem, but the risks are especially. acute when we're talking about news and. media because it's about concentrating. power over who gets heard, who gets.

seen, what news gets amplified, what. news gets suppressed. And I think, you know, the last year and. has been a real testament to the hazards. of allowing so much concentrated power. over the news and the media, especially when you have an. administration that is very eager to. basically mold the media ecosystem to. their liking. In your estimation, is a merger like. this legal? Are there not antitrust laws. that exist to prevent this kind of.

consolidation? There absolutely are. And, you know, this goes all the way back to 1890, 1914. against the backdrop of the industrial. trusts where lawmakers were. extraordinarily concerned about. unchecked consolidation and what it. would mean for consumers, workers, but. also the citizenry. And the recognition. that if we what we really want is a. democracy where people have real. freedom, you need checks not just. against arbitrary state power, but also.

checks against unfettered corporate. power. And that's really what the. antitrust laws were about. What we've. seen during this administration, be it. an antitrust or all sorts of other legal. areas though, is a real eagerness to. basically have two systems of law. enforcement. If you're a friend of the. administration, you know, you're going to get basically. white glove treatment and a suspension. of the laws often times. And for everybody else, you know, they're they're willing to to play.

hardball. And so, I think what we have. seen is just a system of continued elite. impunity. and the weaponization of the antitrust. laws effectively to to reward friends. and and punish enemies. I guess the the question everyone's. asking here is is there any way for any. of this to be undone? Once this merger takes effect and they. actually go through with it, if. a less cozy administration. um takes power, is there some way to.

revisit this or is it like once the. toothpaste is out of the tube, that's. it? I mean, there are a few avenues. here. First, I should say it's not only. the Trump administration that is in the. position of basically uh. potentially stopping or green-lighting. this deal. Uh state attorneys general. also have the authority to enforce the. antitrust laws and at various points in. in the past, they have sued to block. mergers. Uh Attorney General Rob Bonta. of California yesterday put out a note. saying uh this is nowhere near a done.

deal uh and that his office is. investigating it and will be taking. extraordinarily seriously uh any legal. concerns that they see. So, there is a. possibility that uh AG Bonta, potentially teaming up with other state. attorneys general, could actually sue to. try to stop this deal now. Um if it does in fact end up going. through, there is an opportunity for a. future administration to revisit it and. sue to undo the merger effectively.

What could this mean for consumers? I. know you spoke a little bit about, you. know, the media landscape. Obviously, we. consume all of that, so that has an. impact. So, can you talk about all of. the impacts that regular Americans might. feel as the result of this kind of a. merger? Yeah, I mean, look, the most immediate. impact could be, you know, higher prices. for for pay TV, effectively you know, concentrating more pricing power. There's also. >> And and by the way, we've seen that. Like, everybody watching here has. watched the price of every single cable. service that we all subscribe to go up.

every single year by three, four, five, six dollars, and it's just it's it it. feels relentless at this point. So, I'm. I'm certain, to your exact point, that. that consolidating, you know, two of. these to the biggest studios in. Hollywood would not make things more. equitable. It would only, you know, allow them to to to increase costs even. more without any recourse. Totally. I'm It would also give the new. company an enormous amount of leverage. over Hollywood writers. Um.

and make it much more difficult, uh if. you're a writer or somebody who who. works in Hollywood, uh to really get. fair compensation for your work, uh or. even have more outlets to kind of be, you know, pitching uh your idea. And so, there's going to be an effect on. consumers, but there's also going to be. effect on creators and producers and the. people who rely on these enormous. middlemen um to actually reach Americans. and get their creations and their ideas. out to the market. Um there also could. be uh you know, real risk when it comes.

to democracy, right? I mean, we've been. talking about how concentrated control. uh over the media landscape just creates. a much more fragile democracy when it. comes to, you know, who is controlling. what information gets heard. Um at its. best, a free press is supposed to hold. power to account, and instead, if these. assets are owned by people uh who are. eager to, you know, bend the knee to an. administration, uh it could further warp.

and distort just how information is. reaching Americans. Um beyond that, I. think it really highlights just the. continued risk of uh weaponization of. law enforcement. Um it's been really. great to see more and more members of. Congress speak out about that. Uh we've. seen, you know, statements from people. like Senator Gallego, from Senator. Murphy, from Senator Warren, noting that. this real descent into pay-for-play law. enforcement is not something that can go.

forward without any accountability. Um. and that for the CEOs and companies that. are making decisions to basically play. ball in this corrupt environment and. basically use the cronyism to their. advantage, we're now hearing more. members of Congress say, "We're not. going to forget." And you know, if this. is a country that is serious about the. rule of law, this is something that. we're going to have to investigate uh. whenever we're back in power. What do you think is a is an appropriate. longer-term solution? Because I feel.

like whenever Democrats are in power, in. including, you know, yourself at the. FTC, and and you were the the gold. standard in terms of making sure that. that these antitrust laws were uh were. followed, like that's good while we're. in power, but the moment we're not, we. see all of these mergers and. acquisitions and consolidation, which uh. not only makes uh the news products, for. example, if we're talking about that, um. less effective and less equitable, and.

less fair, um but it also makes it worse. for consumers because now you have less. variety to choose from. But as soon as. these Republicans take control, those go. through. And so, we're always just you. know, we're the asymmetry here between. the two sides is just so apparent where, you know, only while we're in power are. these antitrust laws followed, but then. as soon as Republicans take control, we're seeing all of these M&As, we're. seeing all of these mergers and. consolidation. And so, often times. there's no way to unwind them once they.

once they go through. And so, this it. doesn't feel like a sustainable process. here because. because it's, you know, it's going to. bounce back and forth, but only one side. is actually following the rules. And so, there's going to come a point where. the Larry Ellisons and David Ellisons. are controlling everything, which they. are right now, and our only hope is like. maybe we can investigate this and and. roll it back to some degree if Democrats. take power, but like the likelihood is. obviously low. Um and so what is a. longer-term solution? Have you thought.

about that at all? I mean, the first thing we need is a. recognition that this type of. consolidation and decisions about. mergers are not just some technocratic. thing that happens. It is actually. intimately connected to real questions. of affordability and economic power. Yeah. And in as much as Democrats are. governing in a way that is about holding. corporate power to account and making. sure that companies are not ripping off. Americans, um that is something that.

they need to talk about, right? And and. I think we've seen uh various elections. over the last year uh that people are. really hungry for elected officials and. a government that is showing it's. willing to fight for them even when it. means standing up to to corporate. interests and to powerful corporations. Um you know, we have these government. agencies that are charged with doing. their job. When they're MIA, uh we need. to be relying more on state attorneys. general, um but also the public. I mean,

there is what's known as a private right. of action. Um you know, uh writers in Hollywood. could band together and sue to try to. block this merger. And so it's not kind. of an all or nothing. We're exclusively. dependent on the federal government. Um. there are actually many more actors that. can get activated and and actually do. something here. Is this a situation where we'd even be. able to look at unions like WGA, the. Writers Guild, or SAG, Screen Actors. Guild, um who can use their collective.

bargaining power to push back against. the consolidation of these studios? Because those are the people that. they're going to be uh. uh bargaining with or against. And so it. you know, if we're looking for some. group that has standing, clearly those. those uh those unions would be it. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, those are groups that have in the past. shown courage and and speaking up. against consolidation and and various. types of mergers. Um when I was heading. up the FTC, you know, we would often. times hear from the Writers Guild, for. example, that would be able to pinpoint.

merger after merger that had resulted in. higher prices for consumers, >> but also markets that were were making. it more difficult for writers and actors. and producers to actually get a fair. shake and were resulting in an industry. that was just much more impoverished, much less rich, had much fewer options. Um you know, this is uh long been just a. huge point of pride for America. Uh and. the idea that we would allow.

consolidation to really lower the. quality and the diversity and just the. richness of our media sector um is. something that we can't forget, either. Is there some legislation um that would. allow some changes that you'd like to. see uh get codified? Like what what. would that look like um in your ideal. scenario? I mean, I So so that it. doesn't feel like we're just playing. catch-up or relying on disparate actors. to sue and stop bad things from. happening. Like is there some proactive.

approach we can take where we actually. codify some law so that, you know, so. that we're not just playing catch-up? Yeah, I mean, I think in the media. industry, you know, there were eras. where we had strict rules against what's. known as as vertical integration. And so. there was basically a rule that said. uh if you're in the business of creating. content, you cannot then also control. the pipes that let you determine what is. reaching people. And those types of, you. know, break-up rules or or rules that.

are limiting integration is something. that just used to be part and parcel of. how we structured markets, uh especially. in areas like media. And so I think. that's something that we need to be. revisiting. Um, there have been. discussions about doing that in the. healthcare context and and you know, whether we need to be breaking up these. conglomerates and some more proposals. that are being introduced. I think we. need a similar conversation in the media. ecosystem about whether this type of. vertical integration just creates way. too much concentrated power and also.

creates conflicts of interest. uh, where where the companies that are. you know, controlling the production. of content are then also getting to call. the shots about what is reaching people. And so that would be one type of rule. that I think could be helpful. Um, beyond that, you know, there are. rules that would make it less expensive. to enforce the antitrust laws. Um, you. know, this is a little bit in the weeds, but it is so so so expensive these days. to bring a single merger challenge. Uh,

sometimes it can cost millions and. millions of dollars just in fees to. outside experts and that's something. that can also make it more difficult for. everyday citizens or even state AGs uh, to be enforcing the law when they see. illegal mergers and so that's something. that Congress could take action on as. well. Well, as always, Lina, I appreciate the. time. Uh, as I mentioned before, you are. the gold standard when it comes to all. of this stuff. So I I appreciate you. taking a little bit of time to talk to. me today. Thanks so much for having me. To listen to the audio version of this. episode, click the link right here on.

the screen and please make sure to. subscribe. And of course, to see more. video content, that subscribe button's. on the screen as well.