BREAKING: ABC gets the news they FEARED amid Kimmel cancellation

The Disney boycott explodes as ABC sides with Trump over Jimmy Kimmel, and I've got two interviews this week. Daniel Goldman joins to discuss Kimmel's cancellation and Jamie Raskin joins to discuss the Epstein files. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and you're watching No Lie. If ABC thought that their decision to capitulate to Trump by canceling Jimmy Kimmel's program

would pass quietly by, they are sorely mistaken. There is a massive movement to boycott the company and its properties taking place, including at the hands of actors who themselves star in Disney properties. Tatiana Maslany, who is the star of Marvel's She-Hulk, Attorney at Law, which aired on Disney Plus, is urging people to cancel their subscriptions to Disney services. Rosie O'Donnell called for a boycott of ABC, Transparent star Amy Landecker, who's

married to Bradley Whitford, she posted an image of the cancellation page from her Disney Plus account. According to Business Insider, the chatter online has also translated to an increase in people Googling instructions on how to do so, even as many conservatives, including Trump, praised the decision to suspend Kimmel. Search volume for Cancel Disney Plus reached a 12-month high at 9 o'clock on Thursday,

according to Google Trends, and continues to be elevated. Terms like Boycott Disney Plus and Boycott Disney are also listed as breakout searches on Google. Searches for Cancel Hulu also soared. And all of this comes amid bipartisan condemnation of the move. Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz, Andrew Schultz, and the guys from the Flagrant Podcast, Tim

Dillon, Fox News' Kennedy, Glenn Greenwald, all criticized ABC capitulating to Trump and his FCC. And look, I think it is beyond clear that Trump and Brendan Carr are fascist scumbags. This is legitimately one of the most anti-American moves that I've ever seen in this country. And when they jump the shark so bad that they're causing Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson to find common ground with Rosie O'Donnell. I think that speaks for itself

But let's be clear here It takes two to tango and ABC made the conscious decision to validate Trump's move Why because next our media group is the largest provider of local news in the country and operates ABC affiliate stations in dozens of markets across the U.S. And Nextstar is right now seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger with a company called Tegna. So when the FCC chair came out and expressed his displeasure with Jimmy Kimmel, it became

very clear that extortion was happening and ABC was clearly perfectly content to give in without a fight. Why? Because it's all about cash for them. Zero consideration for free speech or the First Amendment or democracy itself. Their sole focus is money and shareholder value.

And because these multinational conglomerates like Disney are so over leveraged and so susceptible to extortion by the government if they need approval for anything, they capitulate to Trump hands down. But the cost of their capitulation isn't just that Jimmy Kimmel is canceled, it's that we all become less safe because we all now live in a country

where the president feels emboldened to commit more of these acts. That hurts all of us. ABC and these other outlets like CBS and Amazon and Meta who capitulate to Trump are hurting all of us. ABC and these other outlets like CBS and Amazon and Meta who capitulate to Trump are hurting all of us.

All because they need another buck. Because God forbid they didn't focus on more money, more growth, more shareholder value. And I hope that the rest of the media outlets understand that by capitulating to Trump, you are not placating him. You are just showing him that you're weak. You're showing him that you can be extorted. You're showing him that if and when he wants to do this again, and sure as shit he will

want to do this again, that he'll be able to do it without a problem because look how easy it was the first time, and the second time, and the third and fourth and fifth, and I can assure you right now he is not stopping with Kimmel. Just like he wasn't sopping with ABC News and CBS and the New York Times and 60 Minutes. Trump is not a good faith negotiating partner. He is looking out for himself and anybody dumb enough to think that he won't roll you the moment he feels like it is either a liar or a fool.

So look, I'm not gonna tell anybody what to do, but I can tell you what I did. I canceled my Hulu package, which by the way, I don't do lightly. Like I live in LA, I love the entertainment industry. I know that hurting ABC and Disney doesn't just hurt Bob Iger and these feckless executives, it hurts the artists, it hurts the actors who bust their asses for these roles,

it hurts the producers and the grips and the PAs and craft services, the local restaurants, everyone who works in an industry that exports our culture to the rest of the world. I think it's the best industry in America. But I want to be clear here that that industry relies on our right to free speech.

And if ABC is going to be complicit in Trump's effort to curb that right, then that puts the whole industry at risk. Frankly, it puts all of America at risk. So it's incumbent on all of us to send a message loud and clear to ABC that while it may be their prerogative to capitulate to Trump, it is ours to spend our money where we see fit. They're not entitled to our cash and certainly not if they're going to use it to help

Donald Trump on his authoritarian crusade. The sad reality is that these companies like CBS and ABC and Amazon are not in it for free speech or the First Amendment or democracy itself. They are in it for money. That's it. That's the entire fucking game. So if they only speak one language, then we need to talk to them in the language that

they understand. The only financial risk to these companies cannot just be the one at the hands of Trump. Consumers have power here too. Don't forget to actually use it. Next up are my interviews with Daniel Goldman and Jamie Raskin. No Lie is brought to you by Shopify. Now if you've shopped online, chances are you've bought from a business powered by Shopify.

In fact if you've gone to my website, then you've gone to a business powered by Shopify. You know that purple shop pay button you see at checkout? The one that makes buying so incredibly easy? That's Shopify. And there's a reason that so many businesses sell with it, because Shopify makes it incredibly easy to start and run your business. Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started. Shopify gives

you that leg up from day one with hundreds of beautiful, ready-to-go templates to express your brand style and forget about the code. Tackle all those important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics and so much more. Spread your brand's word with built-in marketing and email tools to find and keep new customers. And did I mention that iconic purple Shop Pay button that's used by millions of businesses

around the world? It's why Shopify has the best converting checkout on the planet. Your customers already love it. If you wanna see less carts being abandoned, it's time for you to head over to Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial

and start selling at Shopify.com slash BTC. Go to Shopify.com slash BTC. Shopify.com slash BTC. No lie is brought to you by Uplift Desk. Now, I didn't realize how much sitting all day was dragging me down, both physically and mentally,

notwithstanding the industry that I work in. But I would end my day feeling stiff and foggy and completely worn out. That's why I started using this episode's sponsor, Uplift Desk. It completely changed my routine and my well-being.

And it doesn't just improve my posture, I'm also moving more, thinking clear, and actually enjoying being at my desk. Great work starts with great workspaces. That's why Uplift Desk builds premium ergonomic furniture designed to keep you moving, feeling good, and doing your best work. Uplift Desk helps you move more and sit less, which does wonders for your posture, circulation, and overall mood.

I'm way more productive when I can easily switch between sitting and standing. That keeps me alert and energized and creative and what I love most is how customizable it is There's over 200,000 desk combinations to match your space style and workflow What I find most helpful about my uplift desk is actually their wire and cable management solutions There are so many cables around my desk and I'm kind of a lunatic about making sure that everything is neat Uplift desk makes that so much easier than any other desk

I've ever had your workday does not have to leave you feeling worn out go to uplift desk the That's U.P.L.I.F.T. D.E.S.K. Dot com slash BTC for this exclusive offer. It's only available through our link. I'm joined now by Congressman Daniel Goldman. Thanks for joining me.

Thanks for having me, Brian.

So we've just watched as Donald Trump successfully pressured Jimmy Kimmel off the air. And we're watching as his administration officials, including FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, are doing a victory lap and basically putting in place the steps for the next cancellations. Is there anything that can be done as far as Congress is concerned, given the fact that this seems like

it's a pretty overt attack on the First Amendment?

Yeah, look, I think to the degree that we get response from the administration, we can certainly try to conduct oversight, but as you know well, we are in the minority. We don't have subpoena power, and this administration has ignored

pretty much all Democratic requests for information. It is very clear that they do not believe that they answer to Democrats. So we have to take the next step here. And that is to really rally the people. And it's not just to oppose Donald Trump's actions.

It's not just to pressure vulnerable Republicans with opposition to these authoritarian tactics, we have to go back to true advocacy and hold the businesses and corporations that are bending the knee to Donald Trump accountable. It is outrageous to me not only that Donald Trump and Brendan Carr forced Jimmy Kimmel off based on absolutely nothing that is, I mean, frankly, it's not no hate speech. It's nothing. I mean, it is literally just part of

his comedic show. But the fact that Nextar, which is, of course, hoping to get approval for a merger. And Disney ultimately acquiesced. And we're seeing this over and over and over again. And you have Mark Zuckerberg at the White House asking after he announces a $600 billion investment in the United States, which he already had, asking President Trump, oh, I wasn't sure what number you wanted me to say, was that okay?

You know, it is across the board, whether it's law firms, whether it's corporate America, whether it's media companies, we have to stand up for our democracy. Because if we don't stand up for it, and we don't force not only our elected officials, but also the corporations that we use to do so, then we are really, really falling down a rabbit hole right now.

The way that this was able to be effectuated was because Brendan Carr at the FCC was able to dangle the prospect of either approving or rejecting this requested merger that would give, I believe, Nextar, by merging with Tenga,

something like 80% control of local TV in this country. And the reason they're able to do that is they're seeking an exemption to the rule that prevents them from having that much consolidation. It's basically otherwise a massive violation of antitrust in this country. Why does a partisan actor like a president's appointed FCC chair have the ability to subvert these rules that are put in place to prevent monopolistic behavior unilaterally?

Look, this is why Donald Trump has busted every norm and obviously many laws and constitutional requirements. There was never previously a political component to the approval of any mergers or acquisitions to so many things, crypto, for example, or regulation of financial regulation. There are policy differences and there are policy disagreements, but Donald Trump has turned all of this into a partisan battle and political warfare.

Not just that, he's also using his power for his own purposes, his own political purposes. So he is not just threatening, he is using the Department of Justice to investigate his enemies. He is using the FCC to threaten media companies with losing their license if they don't stop any criticism of him. And it's all part of a larger scheme here, which is to undermine every form of accountability

so that he can continue to take more authoritarian control

over our government.

That's the really, there's no other way of looking at it right now.

You know, prior to coming into Congress, you were an attorney, obviously during the impeachment proceedings, you were very present there as well. Using your past experience, is there any likelihood

or is there any grounds for some type of lawsuit on First Amendment grounds against this administration, either on behalf of of Jimmy Kimmel himself or or some other some other party, some other litigant to be able to

push back on what we're seeing happen at the hands of the administration. Yeah, I think so. I think Jimmy Kimmel should sue. And what's what's shameful is that Disney did not stand up to Trump, force him to actually take away their license if that's what he was threatening. And then if they did, file suit. Now, Disney in theory is a private company and it has reputational considerations. So, you know, the First Amendment doesn't apply in the same way. But the direct coercion by the government that is connected to Jimmy

Kimmel's suspension makes this a government issue in my view. And, you know, I'm not a First Amendment expert, but I think it's important that everyone take every measure they can to fight against this authoritarian regime. And I am especially concerned about corporate America, who seems, and the tech world, where they seem like, you know what, I'm happy to just give up our democracy as long as, you know, I get the regulation or the lack of regulation that I want that will make

me billions of dollars. And it's kind of disgusting. And it's part of the reason why our system has become so divided and so unequal is that you have these folks on top who are mingling with Donald Trump and bending the knee to him. And then he's giving them back the policies that they want. And that's how policy is now being made. It's really, really anti-democratic and unacceptable.

I mean, there really are, like to put this as indelicately as possible, like they are showing themselves, exposing themselves as complete whores for this administration, whether it's CBS, whether it's ABC, whether it's Meta, whether it's Amazon and the Washington Post, whether it's the LA Times, I mean, on outlet after outlet

after outlet, including these outlets that have hid behind these glossy slogans like democracy's eyes and darkness back when it wasn't challenged, back when it didn't mean anything to say it, it was just a bumper sticker because who cares, no one's actually coming for those things, so why not just say it? Why not just bolster our credentials and our reputation by saying this kind of stuff? It really is telling that the moment it's challenged,

the moment that they actually have the opportunity to stand up and defend the things that they have said about themselves, that they're the esteemed fourth estate that's gonna stand up and protect democracy when all else fails,

the fact that when they have this opportunity, they just bend the knee, capitulate instantly to Donald Trump shows that they're not just full of shit now they're not just these awful stewards of democracy now, but it was all a scam the whole time, because now is when they can actually bear out that thesis that what they were saying was accurate.

There is a big difference though, between what happened in Trump's first term and what is happening now. There were a lot of corporations, there were a lot of business leaders who spoke out against Donald Trump, who opposed what he was doing, and took him on. I mean, even Jeff Bezos was ridiculed and attacked constantly by Donald Trump, and he still managed to try to hold the line.

And certainly, as you point out, who's going to stand up for our First Amendment, if not the media, right? Freedom of the press. Yeah. But this time around, we're seeing a totally different view. And I think the reason is that they know Donald Trump is completely for sale, that everything is transactional. They know if they give a million bucks to his inaugural that he will make sure that his policies line their pockets.

And they'd rather do that than have to fight with him.

And that's how we lose the fundamental values that this country is founded on. Congressman, what are you hearing from your colleagues? I mean, the Republican Party is this self-proclaimed stalwart bulwark against the censorship of the left. So like, are any of them trying to justify this? Are you hearing rumblings from people who are uncomfortable with this, but may or may not be willing to speak out? Like, what is the general sense on the other side of the aisle?

I hear very little opposition. Yeah. The idea that they've been talking about Charlie Kirk as a beacon of free speech and to remember him as such a leader in that area and wanting to have debate.

And then they turn around five minutes later, yeah, literally support the president in in his blatant violation of the First Amendment and Brendan Carr and start accusing the left and trying to silence the left or silence anyone who even criticizes, not Charlie Kirk's, supports Charlie Kirk's murder, which we all abhor and condemn,

but start saying, well, looking at what his legacy is and saying, you know, maybe he said some things that were not so great. Oh, that's off limits. You cannot say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. And it's like, give me a break. You guys are the ones who are the free speech absolutists. You were so upset about censorship by the Biden administration on social media. You had an entire subcommittee that I was on last Congress on the weaponization of the federal government and using it to censor social media companies and Republican viewpoints. And here then you just turn around, you're

saying, well, no, it's really, I only object if it's speech that I like. I got no problem canceling speech I don't like.

Right. What is the natural conclusion of what we're seeing right now? Like clearly, this is, I mean, slippery slope is the most generous way to put this, but we've watched, again, I listed out the whole slew

of companies that have capitulated to the Trump administration or that have, or in instances where the Trump administration has successfully lobbied to get these people kicked off the air, whether it's Colbert, whether it's Kimmel, whether it's suing ABC or CBS or Meta and getting them all to capitulate. What is, what does this look like a month, six months, a year down the line?

Well we're at a real fork in the road right now because this latest action was so far and away the most egregious and it was so out in the public and it was so clear that it is an absolute bullshit move that even if you look at the merits of it, and what Jimmy Kimmel said, there's nothing wrong with it.

Right.

I mean, certainly the Republicans, I mean, Donald Trump himself started accusing the left of being responsible for Charlie Kirk's murder before the perpetrator was identified or arrested. And that's all Jimmy Kimmel was saying. But even putting that aside, right, is the idea that you can threaten the license of a media organization because you don't like what they say and that

they acquiesce is next level here. We continue to go further and further and he continues to push the envelope. And so look, there are different ways we can do it. Donald Trump is not going to care what I say or what your listeners likely say or likely what your listeners likely say, or likely what your listeners say. But there are many Republicans in the House especially who are vulnerable in their elections next year. And the closer and

closer that we get to those elections, the more and more the pressure that the American public puts on them will have an impact because Donald Trump does not want to lose the majority. That's why he's rigging the entire system by redistricting all over the country. But if he starts to see that the polling and the prospects for his house majority and their vulnerable members are getting worse and worse, that will have an impact on him. And so, I think

it's got to be a combination of that and then putting pressure on corporate America to stand up for our values, which I wish we didn't have to do, but we certainly do now. I want to ask one more question here, and it's a little bit of a selfish question, but as we continue to recognize the extent to which legacy media and these legacy outlets are not in it to defend First Amendment rights or free speech or democracy itself, I think the onus does fall more and more on folks in the independent media space to pick up, uh, to pick up where, where legacy media isn't meeting the moment.

And so there is some concern, um, that as Donald Trump has leaned on these legacy outlets that hope that he'll then turn his attention to, uh, the platforms where all of, uh, our content content creators, where all of our content is posted, and to try and, you know, lean on TikTok, lean on Google, lean on YouTube and Instagram and Snapchat to suppress speech that is, you know, like he's doing everywhere else, critical of him. And so is there, do you have concern about that? Is there any bulwark to prevent him from overstepping in very much the same way that he's overstepping

as it relates to legacy media?

Yeah, I am.

I am concerned. I mean, look, the legacy media world as you describe it is now there. Almost all of it is just part of larger corporations that are public companies that have earnings and have shareholders and are far more worried about their bottom line than they are about the First Amendment. What if he goes after the platforms? We're in a different world because remember, that's exactly what they have been railing against for years.

And the platforms are immune. They do have immunity from liability.

That's that section 230 immunity, correct? Right.

Yeah. But the idea that Elon Musk could just decide that, all right, I'm just gonna, you know, suppress as they say, whatever the word is, you know, whatever speech or whatever comments I don't like is really dangerous. And that's where I do think Congress has a role because yes, there's free speech.

And yes, these social media platforms may have immunity from liability for being held responsible for something you say, but they use their algorithms in a very specific and particular way. And Congress can regulate those algorithms. And there's a lot of talk about doing it.

And I think that we're going to have to ramp up those efforts.

All right. Well, we will leave it there. Appreciate your leadership on this issue. And thank you for the time today. Thanks, Brian. Take care. I'm joined now by Congressman Jamie Raskin. Congressman, thanks for joining me. Delighted to be with you. So you had the opportunity to question Kash Patel, the FBI director during a hearing today in Congress, there was a lot of focus on the fact that he had staked so much of his reputation, so much of his credibility on this idea that he was going to be the guy to come in and expose all of this, all of this wrongdoing as it relates to Epstein that

had been covered up by these deep state operatives only to then basically become the very problem that he criticized for so long. Did anything in his testimony give the impression that he is that that that he is going to be true to his word that he gave when he was a podcaster as opposed to what it seems like he's doing right now, which is just perpetuating a cover up?

No, he's in full blown cover up mode and is really mind blowing because I confronted him with just video snippets of him saying this is totally within the control of the FBI director. He's got the black bag. He can release it. Put on your big boy pants and show us who the pederasts are. And I just turned around and I said, so what do you say? You know, are you going gonna put on your big boy pants

and show us who the pederasts are? And then there was a lot of hemming and hawing and kind of pointing fingers at the federal courts and their whole deflection ploy has been to say, well, we asked the courts to release the grand jury material,

which is a totally irrelevant distraction. The government has just mountains of evidentiary data, investigative data, data that they've gotten. And then they're going and saying, we want the grand jury data from the old Maxwell and Epstein files, which were about Maxwell and Epstein, not about everybody else. So those judges, not only did they say, no, we're not going to release this under 6E, you've not shown reason why, they also kind of called them

out saying, this is a deflection because you have a much greater mass of material that you could just release on your own and you don't need this stuff and it's pretty extraneous to what the public wants to see.

So back a few months ago or years ago, whenever he said it, when cash Patel came out and said that really this, this, the buck stops with the FBI director, who of course was not him at the time, but was he telling the truth that the buck does stop with the FBI director, which would in turn suggest that he right now as the FBI director has the power to release exactly the files that he's claiming that he has no power to release.

Yes, overwhelmingly the buck stops with the FBI director. In other words, the greater mass of material out there is within the control of the FBI director. Everything they found when they went to Epstein's house and they were in his safe, all of the FBI director, everything they found when they went to Epstein's house and they were in his safe, all of the computers and the memos and the telephones and the photographs and the videos and so on.

And they're focused on a very tiny percentage of the overall materials, which was grand jury material leading up to the indictment of Epstein or the indictment of Maxwell. Again, a small fraction of everything the government has and everything that the people want to see. So there were a number of false distractions like that that he engaged in, which says to me he's really just flipped over.

He was demanding it. They thought it was to their political advantage to say, we want to come clean on everything. We're going to do it on day one and so on. And then when they get in and he's deployed a thousand FBI agents to pour over the material to look for Trump's name and to make a mark there and to redact it, then that's when they come back and completely flip over to 180 degree U-turn and say, nothing to see here. We're not interested in this anymore.

Is there anything to suggest that the FBI under Kash Vatel's leadership is working toward transparency or accountability? Or does the sole project, the sole goal, the sole focus of this whole thing, is this just a protection racket for Trump?

I think it is. I mean, a great example is he repeatedly testified to the Senate during his confirmation hearing that there would be no political retaliation or retribution against people in the FBI. And yet there's all kinds of statements now by the people, by people at the FBI, that that's precisely what he's doing. And he's forcing huge numbers of FBI agents out, experienced, talented, awarded.

FBI agents are being pushed out of the department, fired, sacked, demoted, told they've got to leave. Why? Simply because they worked on the January 6th investigation and Trump wants them out or they worked on the Russia investigation, the investigation of Russian infiltration and attacks on the 2016 election, the 2020

election, the 2024 election. So when all these people have been targeted for removal, so he's doing precisely what he said he wouldn't do, which is turning the FBI into an instrument of political revenge and retaliation against people.

Well, almost worse than that is even in the event of the Charlie Kirk shooting. I mean, he was live. He was basically live tweeting it and putting on his podcaster hat and live tweeting the thing, offering up fake information, information that was ultimately proven completely false because he can't get out of this frame of just being this political commentator. So to what extent is this harming the credibility

of the agency that he's supposed to be leading right now?

Well, yeah, and that might just be general incompetence and inexperience on his part. I mean, he's, you know, one of the only people who ever became FBI director with no experience ever at the FBI. I mean, he was writing children's books about Donald Trump, about King Donald and about the, you know, the wacky wizard Cash

who protects King Donald. I mean, this is the level of comic book fantasy world he lived in. And so suddenly he's head of the nation's premier law enforcement organization. And as you say, he thinks he's still some kind of, you know, just online troll or blogger or something and starts, you know, live tweeting things he's hearing from afar about the investigation. And he had to retract a number of his statements.

Can you talk about his unwillingness to respond in any of the correspondence that

you had sent to him over the last eight months? Well, we've been trying to raise all kinds of things, especially about the personnel matters and the ongoing Stalinist style purge of FBI agents. You know, they're using polygraphs basically to cross examine FBI agents as to their political

loyalty to Donald Trump. And so we've been trying to raise these things and get an answer from him. And we've simply not gotten an answer. He doesn't even send me form letters saying it's been received.

It just goes out into the ether. So I said, we got a lot of stuff to talk about. Of course, we were all limited to our five minute question spot and they didn't want to do another round or a third round. I mean, we could have gone for a long time on this. So we're going to have to get some answers from Attorney General Bondi when she comes in that we never got from Kash Patel. Of course, I think we did have more substantive exchanges

than took place over in the Senate when he just started screaming and yelling over the senators. He did some of that today, but I think that his team must have told him that that's not a very effective communications tactic for the director of FBI.

I know that this is a little bit of an unfair question to ask you to get into Kash Patel's head, but what do you presume Kash Patel, the podcaster, would say if he saw an FBI director being asked these questions point blank, very simple questions about the Epstein scandal about, you know, this effort to basically bury any accountability or transparency, what do you think that he would say if he was still in his capacity as a political commentator?

He'd say that's an FBI director in full-blown coverup mode who's covering up for the deep state. He would definitely say that. I mean, we just learned from the four CEOs of major banks like J.P. Morgan that there were one and a half billion dollars worth of financial transactions that they

identified as suspicious activity going through Epstein's various accounts. That doesn't sound like, you know, just sort of a prostitution ring on the corner. One and a half billion dollars? I mean, my colleagues across the aisle went crazy for the SARS reports about Hunter Biden, which were around 20 or 25 million dollars. And here we've got a billion and a half dollars going through this international child sex ring.

And we tried to get a subpoena of these bank CEOs and every Republican except to his great credit representative Massey from Kentucky voted against it. But Massey voted with all the Democrats to subpoena these documents. Jamie Diamond released a statement right after I first raised it, saying, you know, essentially he'd be happy to comply and they're sorry they ever had anything to do with Epstein. So, you know, I think the banks would welcome the opportunity to come clean with all the

information they've got.

On the Massey front, to your point, he is the only Republican who seems to be engaged in any effort toward transparency. What is the sense among your Republican colleagues who are actively voting to suppress transparency as it relates to a notorious pedophile and the people that he surrounded himself with? I mean, these were people who during the campaign were perfectly content to exploit this issue

if it meant they can derive some political benefit, but now that they actually have the power to substantiate their own promises from September and October and every month before that, now they're the ones actually perpetuating the cover-up themselves.

Well, in fairness, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy May still have their names on the discharge petition. And we added one more vote on the Democratic side when Jerry Connolly's seat was filled by Congressman Wakenshaw. So now we just need one more Republican, if my math is correct, but one or two more Republicans

to add their name to the discharge petition. And we will be able to put a bill on the floor, which we'll have to pass overwhelmingly, saying release all the files, because even the people who aren't signing the discharge petition say that they would vote for that.

But you're right. I mean, the truth of the matter is that there's a lot of fear operating on the Republican side, and some of it is fear of political retaliation. Some of it is fear of all of the death threats and violent threats that are out there today. And then some of it is, frankly, just tribalistic thinking.

We live in very tribalistic times. And so you saw the center of gravity on the GOP side just switch on a dime from release the file. We want to know what's in there. This is sick. This is a deep state conspiracy to no, we're

not interested anymore. We're willing to go with the president. Simply because Trump changed his mind. That is tribalistic and I think humiliating, obsequious and sycophantic psychology, but it has really saturated our politics now.

What about the prospect of the Epstein files being released to the House Oversight Committee? Is that any different than the effort that would be put forward if the discharge petition passes? Are you trying to do them in tandem for some reason? Is there some greater degree of transparency that we would get if the

discharge petition passes? Well, right. The whole point is we're passing legislation with the discharge petition that would command the surrender of the entire file. In other words, it would no longer be dribs and drabs, parceled out in little political micro doses.

Right. I think the first batch had 97% already public files included in that.

Yeah, they were releasing old press releases and old newspaper articles. I mean, it was ludicrous just so they could say it was a big batch. It's not the stuff that they want us to see that we want. It's the stuff they don't want us to see that we want. And we're afraid, of course, that it could be destroyed. It could be redacted in the meantime. And so we don't want any more dilly dallying around this.

We want to just get the file exactly what Kash Patel, exactly what Donald Trump was talking about before they came into office and they were able to review the file themselves.

And finally, let's finish off with this. I know that the Republican effort right now is to try and basically convince, actually, I don't really know what the convincing is, but to try and persuade the base that for some reason, uh, the same Epstein files that they staked all of their credibility on releasing now have to be suppressed. And again,

I don't know if it's because they're trying to claim that it was some deep state plot that's been concocted by, by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and James Comey and, and, and Clapper or, or whatever, whatever it may be. I don't I don't I don't know what conspiracy theory we're up to right now. But what would you say to the folks who, you know, in part stake their votes on this Republican Party based on the idea that they would seek some accountability for for this heinous pedophile and only to watch these people now again engage

in the same cover up that that just a few months back

they were decrying. And what we're getting is deep state double talk. I mean, what Cash Patel was saying was, oh, we brought these motions to the Epstein and Maxwell judges to release the grand jury material. And they said, no, here's what Judge Berman had to say about this, because these judges, not only did they reject the request and explain precisely why, but they also called the bluff of the Trump administration. So here's Judge Berman.

This is on page seven of his ruling in the United States of America versus Epstein, which came out in August. And he goes, the government's 100,000 pages of Epstein files and materials dwarf the 70 odd pages of Epstein grand jury materials. The government's Epstein files are sui generis.

That is, they're one of a kind. They are investigatory and not subject to federal rule of criminal procedure 6E. In other words, Cash Patel comes to us and says, well, the court says that we can't release all these materials because of rule 6E about grand jury materials. Those aren't grand jury materials. Those are independent materials that have been collected by the government. And then Berman goes on to say, the government is the logical party

to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein files. By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a diversion from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the government's possession.

So you even have a

federal judge saying, you know, basically don't make us a party to this fraud on the public.

Right. And I think, you know, Cash Patel himself said it best that the buck stops with the FBI director. So if we're looking for the person responsible for secreting all of this information, Cash Patel just has to consult a mirror. Congressman, as always, thank you for the time. Thanks for continuing to fight on this front. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Brian, so much.

To listen to the audio version of this episode, click the link right here on the screen and make sure to subscribe to my audio podcast. make sure to subscribe to my audio podcast. And of course, to see more of my content, the subscribe buttons on the screen as well.