Trump runs into BRICK WALL in court

26:37They'll come back to work, sit down, let's work on a bipartisan proposal. I don't expect them to see this the way I see it. They're not going to do everything I want them to do, but they're refusing even to talk. They're refusing to come to work. Meanwhile, workers are being laid off and people are watching their health care premiums go up. Senator, you have the blessing and the curse of coming to us from a purple state, a true purple state. And I'm just curious, in Georgia, what has the response from folks who you've spoken with about this impending health care crisis? What's the response been like?

27:14And I'm especially concerned not just from those, you know, true blue Democrats out there, but from independents or or Republicans who recognize the extent to which they were sold a bill of goods by a party that that swore up and down that they cared about the cost of something so granular that they were talking about the price of eggs. And yet now not only have they presided over increases in costs of everything because of this trade war, but they're in the process of closing down rural hospitals. They're stripping Medicaid away from millions of Americans. Right now they're looking to double, triple ACA subsidies.

27:45And so what have your conversations been like with those people? Well, I was down at Evans Memorial Hospital in Claxton, Georgia, a while ago. This is a red district. Those folks, most of the people in that district didn't vote for me, but I came by to see them because I care. And they have a small rural hospital there that, like all rural hospitals, is barely holding it together anyway. And now they're going to see, as a result of the one big, ugly bill, about a$3 million cut to their hospital. And they're trying to figure out how to hold it together. They may have to close their ICU. Imagine that.

28:26You're in a rural town. Yeah. And they have to close your local ICU. This is untenable. It's unsustainable. It's unjustifiable. And that's why I think my Republican friends are hearing from their constituents. By the way, there's a reason why three out of four of the folks who are relying on these ACA subsidies are in red states. It's because these are the states like Georgia that have not expanded Medicaid. And so because of that, they need these subsidies even more. Republicans need to focus on the people and not the politics. And if we do that, we can figure out a way to get this done for the American people.

29:11And finally, let's finish off with this. Senator, you and I have spoken before. We've spoken about the fact that I'm very secular, but you have become kind of my moral compass in Washington for all things faith related. And so I'm curious in this moment, as we see this issue of the potential for health care costs to surge bearing down on us, as we see these ICE raids terrorize communities across the country, as we see fascism continue to take hold in this country, where do you draw some hope from? I know there are a lot of people who pay attention to politics on a daily basis and for whom the helplessness and despair kind of weighs down so heavily because of what we're seeing around us.

29:59And so I'm curious, you know, from your vantage, where you draw some hope from. Well, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. And a faith that is real and mature doesn't, you know, fantasize about the world in a way that's unrealistic. These are tough times. And there are those who are attacking healthcare, who are attacking immigrant communities, raining down terror in communities all across our country. But here's something else that they're trying to do. They're trying to weaponize despair. They're trying to flood the zone and so overwhelm us that they will convince us that they've already won. And if you're convinced that they've already won, then you stop fighting.

30:47and when you stop fighting, they do win. And so our job is to recognize that this moment is not, it is not about the people in power. It is about the power in the people. And as a man of faith, here's something that I have noticed about evil. As I read the scriptures that guide my life as a Christian, as I think about the events of world history, here's the thing about evil. Evil always goes too far. Evil always gets a little bit too impressed with itself. It's filled up with hubris. Evil always goes too far. And because it goes too far, it contains within itself the seed of its own destruction.

31:26Our job is to help it to do what it does, to keep fighting the good fight, to remind each other that at the end of the day, we're all we've got. And again, these are tough times and it's going to be tough for a little while here. But let's keep the faith. Let's keep pushing. Well, I appreciate the optimism. You know, if you end up back preaching at any point, let me know. I think me and thousands and thousands of people watching this right now would be happy to sit there and listen to you. 10 a.m. any Sunday morning, brother. That's it. I'm by Ebenezer Baptist Church where Dr. King preached. That's a standing invitation, Brian.

32:04All right. Well, I'll take you up on it. I promise. All right, Senator, thank you so much for for the words of optimism here and for taking the time today. I'm joined now by New Mexico lawmaker and overall badass in the House, Melanie Stansbury. Thanks so much for joining me. It is awesome to be here today. So right now we're in the midst of this government shutdown. We're over a week into this thing. To what extent do you think that your Republican colleagues are starting to feel the pressure now that the narrative surrounding the shutdown is the reality of the situation? The fact that the only reason that we're in this mess is because they refuse to extend the ACA subsidies that will ensure that 24 million Americans can continue to receive health care unobstructed.

32:46Yeah, well, I think it's very clear that the public is not buying their lives. And part of the problem is, is because they're not believable. The Republicans have shut down the House. They've locked us out. The Speaker of the House has canceled votes now for two weeks in a row and has refused to bring his own members back to Washington, D.C. And by their own caucuses, admittance, they're doing that so that their Republican colleagues don't say anything stupid. That's literally what they said. And so Mike Johnson can go on TV all he wants and try to claim that somehow Democrats caused the shutdown.

33:22But his own members aren't here and he shut and locked the doors. So I think the American people are smart. They see what's happening. They can see that the doors are locked. They can see that Democrats are showing up. And it's just it's not a believable lie. And then when you add that on top of the reality that millions of Americans are about to get their health insurance doubled, tripled, people are freaked out. You know, they passed this big, ugly bill just a couple of months ago. People knew it was going to impact their health insurance. And now the, you know, roost has come home to roost.

33:59So these guys now need to fix the problem that they broke to begin with. And they're unwilling to do that. And the American people are really mad. Well, you know, they're saying just reopen the government and then trust us. We'll totally definitely sit down with you guys and hash something out as it relates to extending these Affordable Care Act subsidies. And so do you believe them when they say, you know, trust us, guys, we're going to we're good for our word. Just reopen the government and then let's talk ACA subsidies. Well, I mean, they've shown that they are not a reliable negotiating partner.

34:35And Mike Johnson's willing to go on national TV and lie all day long. Why would we take his word for it? But let me just point out that Marjorie Taylor Greene has publicly made statements, not just once, but she is now on her social and on podcasts and on TV saying Republicans don't have a plan. They don't have a plan to fix health care. They don't have a plan to reopen the government. and she's even sharing her own family stories of her kids not being able to afford their health insurance. So how can we have confidence in the Republicans when their own members are pointing out that they don't have a plan?

35:11Well, and I think it's worth noting, too. I mean, this is the this is the party that got us into this mess in the first place. The only reason that we are even talking about trying to get funding to continue the ACA subsidies is because this Republican party led by Mike Johnson, led by Donald Trump, led by John Thune, were the ones who took those subsidies away. And so excuse us if we don't believe when you say that you're totally good for it, when you promise to restore these ACA subsidies, when the only reason that we're in a situation without ACA subsidies is because of this Republican Party, the same Republican Party that's stripped a trillion dollars away from health care in the budget bill, the same Republican Party that's taken Medicaid away from 17 million Americans.

35:49And so could anybody, you know, blame us for not just accepting the Republicans promises up and down that they're going to be good faith negotiating partners when they are the cause of this problem in the first place. Well, and I'll also add that if you remember three weeks ago when we Democrats requested a meeting with Trump to work out a bipartisan agreement before the shutdown, Donald Trump said yes. And then he was convinced by Mike Johnson and Thune to cancel the meeting. And then he literally said that he read the proposal and told Democrats to go fuck themselves. He said that the president of the United States.

36:27Because he knows what we were asking and he does not agree with it because, as he argued at that time, this was one of his signature moves in his domestic policy that he put through the big, ugly bill. So they knew they were taking away health care from millions of Americans and they were proud of it. But now that they're feeling the heat from the American people, they're like, well, maybe we'll negotiate. But when Mike Johnson was asked about it two days ago, they asked, well, are you now willing to negotiate putting it back on the table? He's he literally said no and then stumbled to try to, like, cover it up.

37:02Can you just help me understand here? Because, look, everybody in elected politics, these are these are political animals that are that are presumably focused on self-preservation to some degree. And so it's not just Democrats who are going to be impacted by rescinding these ACA subsidies and watching health care costs double or triple or even quadruple or more or lose health care altogether. It's it's plenty of Republicans, too. In fact, the states that have seen the biggest increases in ACA enrollment are Republican states. It's Georgia. It's Texas. It's West Virginia. It's Tennessee. So so what are the what are your Republican colleagues doing here trying to like die on this hill of allowing everybody's health care costs to surge?

37:50Notwithstanding the fact that we're heading into an election year, like I'm I'm honestly trying to just understand the the political mentality in all of this. Yeah, well, I think going into the dark mind of the GOP right now is a somewhat futile task. But let me just say this, that, you know, the Republicans have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act since it was passed. And even during the debates last year, you know, Trump's famous line when they asked him what he was going to do about health care is he said he he had concepts of a plan. Well, his concept of a plan was to basically totally screw over the Affordable Care Act and millions of Americans health care through the big, ugly bill.

38:32And now they know that they have a problem. In fact, before the shutdown, it was reported that multiple Republican senators had been talking to their leadership about trying to put together some sort of fix. But because we have disorganized extremists running the Republican Party right now, you've got Mike Johnson over here, who's closed down the House, that is trying to give the president cover on the Epstein list and investigation. You've got Thune over here, who is pretty old school, kind of normal conservative, trying to do something over in the Senate, but responding to the chaos. And then you've got the president just randomly tweeting things daily, saying, OK, we should fix health care and then saying, oh, wait, no, we're not.

39:18And then saying, go fuck yourself. Like these people cannot govern. They don't have a plan. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene hit the nail on the head yesterday when she said it. They don't have a plan. And she's pointing it out. So I want to switch gears a little bit to something that you just mentioned, which is the Epstein list. To what extent are you confident that Mike Johnson refuses to swear on Representative Grijalva because she would be the 218th vote allowing this discharge petition to take effect? Well, I think if I was to dive into the strategy of Mike Johnson right now, I think it's twofold.

39:54I think that he is taking the hard line position that if he keeps the House out, then there is no way to negotiate that they're going to continue to force the Senate to take votes. And the Senate Democrats have said, no, we are not folding until you fix health care. They are holding the line because the American people are telling them to. So I think in one, like strategically, I think that they are holding the House out to try to force a vote in the Senate. But it has this other effect, which is that it is shielding the Republicans from the months long criticism that they have not complied with our subpoena to release the Epstein files.

40:36And even the president reportedly was bragging that no one was talking about Epstein right now. So part of why I do think he's keeping people out of D.C. is because, frankly, as long as the House is not in session, you're not going to have Epstein at the forefront. But it is very clear that Aralita Grijalva, who was just elected in Arizona, the speaker indefensibly is saying that he can't seat her, even though they've had pro forma sessions now on multiple days and he's done it with three other members of Congress, is not swearing her in because she would be the 218th signature. and whether or not ultimately, for example, he tried to table that motion on that discharge petition, it still forces every member of the House to take a vote on Epstein.

41:26And he does not want his members being in the news voting basically to silence the Epstein victims because that's exactly what's going to happen as soon as she's sworn in. You know, this is a very short-sighted strategy because at some point, Mike Johnson is going to have to swear her in. And at some point, we're going to get the 218th vote to force this discharge petition. And at some point, all of this process is going to move forward. If the four Republicans who've signed on continue to be signatories onto this discharge petition, and it eventually works its way through, you know, the House and the Senate, you know, there is no world in which Donald Trump signs this into law.

42:07And so I'm just thinking, thinking, you know, 10 steps ahead here. If there is a veto proof majority that's needed, do you think that beyond just those four Republicans who've signed on that more Republicans will sign on to this thing? Like once that dam has broken? Well, I think it's important to not think that the discharge petition is the end all be all of this investigation. It's just one tool. It is one way to get every member of Congress on the record on the release of the files. And it is very likely that Mike Johnson is going to try to table the resolution. And even if you have Republicans who've signed on to it, they will try to use a procedural motion, I am positive, to try to sideline the motion.

42:53And their argument is, well, we're already doing an oversight investigation, which is really just a smokescreen to show that they're doing something without actually trying very hard. But the 10 steps ahead is actually what happens when the real files are released, not just by Department of Justice, but the continuing disclosure by the estate, which is happening weekly. We just had new files released last week that showed that Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and other allies of the president are in the files that the estate has. We have subpoenas out to multiple witnesses. We are subpoenaing the financial documents, which we are certain contain financial crimes.

43:36So this is just the beginning of a massive investigation that I believe will be as significant as, you know, some of the historical investigations that we're familiar with, like the Watergate scandal, because the president is not only implicated in these files. We know that for a fact because Pam Bondi told him that. But also because at the end of the day, he is engaged in a systemic cover up and threatening members of Congress. And that is as big a scandal as the actual crimes that he may have committed as well. So, yeah, this is not going to stop with the discharge petition. I don't know how much interaction you have with Republican members of Congress, but in insofar as you do have any communication with them, is there uneasiness about the position that they've landed themselves in?

44:34Basically, just to protect like to to facilitate Trump's cover up of of a sex trafficking ring and and be be part of this whole thing that they all predicated their brands on on purportedly opposing. Yeah, I mean, I think it's important, like, when you hear the actual stories of the victims, you know, many of them are my age, they're in their late 40s, and they were teenagers when they were raped or otherwise groomed and abused by Epstein and his associates. It's impossible to not be disgusted, understand the gravity of what Jeffrey Epstein did. And I think that anybody who has heard their testimony and their stories understands what we're dealing with here.

45:27This is possibly the largest sex trafficking and predatory scheme in American history. and Donald Trump and Mike Johnson are engaging in a cover-up to shield people that were involved in raping children. Like that is actually what we're talking about. So I don't know how you can be a person of conscience, a person of faith, or a person just with eyes and ears and not be hearing these stories and think that this is wrong. And I know, you know, there's several members, including Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey, who have been very public about it. And when you listen to them and you see them talk about this, you can tell that it's sincere.

46:07Like, this is very real. And I know there are other members who care about it, but they are actually being threatened by the president. The president and his chief staff are literally calling members and saying, if you sign on to this discharge petition, it's considered a hostile act. You'll never get anything again. We're going to cut you off. So this is gangster activity. The president is trying to shield pedophiles by calling and threatening members of Congress. And we need more members of Congress, whether it's the Epstein files, whether it's a shutdown, whether it's health care, whether it's democracy, whether it's the rule of law, to just fucking do their jobs.

46:51I could not have said that better. And that seems like the perfect place to leave off. So Congresswoman, I appreciate your time. Thanks for bringing the fight that you have been bringing. Thank you. I'm joined now by the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta. Thanks so much for joining me. My pleasure. Thanks for having me, Brian. So we've got some breaking news now within the last 24 hours here. A new temporary restraining order. Can you explain what just happened in court? Absolutely. California, along with Oregon and Portland, went into court over the weekend on a shortened time, seeking an emergency order preventing the deployment of California National Guard to Oregon.

47:35And just 24 hours earlier, on Saturday, the same judge in the District of Oregon, federal judge, which Emmergut had granted a restraining order saying that the Oregon National Guard cannot be federalized and deployed to Portland because there was no factual basis for it. It violated the sovereign rights of the state of Oregon, threatened public safety, and for other reasons. And having received that order, the federal government being told that the Oregon National Guard cannot be deployed to Oregon, in their wisdom, decided that they should deploy the California National Guard to Oregon, although the judge had just said that the facts on the ground did not justify National Guard being deployed.

48:20So I listened to the entire hearing last night. The judge was miffed and perplexed, to say the least, regarding the administration's position here, told the lawyers for the federal government that they are officers of the court and explain why the deployment of California National Guard does not violate her order from 24 hours earlier. And she ruled from the bench. She ruled in our favor, granted the restraining order. And because the federal government had brought in the California National Guard after being told they can't federalize the Oregon National Guard, and because we pointed out that in just minutes before the hearing, the existence of a memo from Secretary Hegseth federalizing the Texas National Guard, 2 ,000 of them, and deploying, ordering 400 of them to go to Portland and Chicago.

49:18We asked for a broad order. And we said, it appears that the federal government is pursuing this whack-a-mole approach. If they're told they can't bring in the Oregon National Guard, they'll try to bring in the California National Guard. If you tell them tonight that they can't bring in the California National Guard, it appears they'll try to bring in the Texas National Guard. And if you tell them they can't bring in the Texas National Guard, who knows what is lined up next to bring in. So we asked for an order preventing any National Guard from any state in the District of Columbia from being deployed to Oregon.

49:50The judge granted that appropriately broad order and was very strong in her treatment of the federal government. Just 24 hours earlier, she had said this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law, and that the president's determination that the National Guard was appropriate was untethered from the facts. And so I think that really says it all. Trump is not a king. He's not above the law. He cannot treat the National Guard as his royal guard to deploy and to do his bidding when he wants, where he wants, for whatever reason he wants. And we took a strong position and we blocked him twice in 24 hours.

50:32Does it look like within the last 12, 24 hours, the Trump administration is complying with this order? From what we can tell, yes. So far, who knows what is going to happen next. we think that there are National Guard from Texas and maybe other places on the way to Chicago. The judge's order from the District of Oregon only applies to Oregon. So Chicago, Illinois, has brought a case already trying to prevent the National Guard from being brought into Illinois. But so far, we don't have any reports that any California National Guard are in Portland exercising any official duties in contravention of the court order.

51:17If we do, you know, we would take immediate steps to enforce the order, perhaps move towards contempt. This judge is not happy with the way the federal administration has treated her first order, and I don't think that she would take too kindly to any violations of her order. But so far, all we're aware of is compliance. We'll keep our ear to the ground. But we are moving towards a preliminary injunction hearing on October 29th. The temporary restraining order, which we secured, is for 14 days. And then we'll have a full trial on the merits combined with the preliminary injunction hearing on October 29th and hopefully get a permanent order preventing the National Guard from being federalized and deployed to Oregon.

52:01When we see Trump engage in these bad faith efforts to try and figure out some justification to get these troops deployed, and we'll talk about that in just a moment, but does each subsequent case case get more difficult? Like when when a judge sees that Trump has no justification to do it in California and then has no justification to do it in Portland and gets blocked as he has in California, as he has in Portland and then tries to do it in Chicago. Does each subsequent case make it more difficult because a judge sees, to your point, that he's just doing whack-a-mole here and he says, OK, I might not be able to do it in Portland, but then I'll just find some other city to be the target of my ire.

52:38Are judges wising up to what he's doing here? I think so. I don't see how they can't be. And the District of Oregon federal judge, Judge Emmer, got cited to Judge Breyer's order in California, clearly showing awareness of what he contemplated and how he analyzed the case and what he ruled on. And I think, you know, judges are watching, of course, what's happening. This is unprecedented stuff. And in this case in particular, to have a National Guard from a state where the governor does not want them deployed and to federalize them. So that's California. And to deploy them to another state where that governor doesn't want them deployed either.

53:28That's never happened. We've seen federalization of a National Guard within a state be deployed. We've seen red states have their National Guard deployed into blue states, but we haven't we've never seen this combination of both a blue state that doesn't want the National Guard deployed and another blue state having that National Guard deployed into their state happened before. So, you know, it seems like there's always an additional escalation that's dangerous, something unprecedented that's happening. And Judge Imrega very appropriately suggested and stated in the very opening of her order on Saturday on the first temporary restraining order, which was granted, that this is an issue about the relationship between the federal government and states and state sovereignty.

54:12It's about the relationship between the military and civilian law enforcement and about the relationship between the judicial branch and the executive branch. And all of those very important bedrock constitutional principles are at play here. So this is high-stakes stuff. And I'm sure judges are very aware of what's happening around the country and will have that context and that knowledge if a case comes to them specifically. You know, something striking that happened over the weekend was that Trump came forward and tried to convey this bogus idea that there is an insurrection happening in Portland.

54:54And I thought that that word was interesting because I feel like he's trying to make his legal argument in the court of public opinion and try to manifest this idea into reality that there is some insurrection or rebellion happening. And the reason that that word caught my attention is because there are three thresholds, one of three thresholds that need to be met in order to justify military deployment domestically. And that is that there is a foreign invasion, that there is some rebellion or insurrection, or finally, that there is a failure of a local government to be able to effectuate federal law.

55:25And obviously, none of those things are happening. The judge that you cited in Portland, Emmergat, said that him using any of these justifications, I believe he said rebellion or insurrection, that him using this justification was untethered to reality. But can you talk about him trying to manifest into reality any of these three planks, given that that needs to be the basis, the pretext that he needs to be able to send these troops into any of these cities? Sure. You know, he's always trying to state that there is an emergency because when there's an emergency, the executive branch can secure additional authority and additional power.

56:05He wants that power. He wants that additional authority. And so he, as a figment of his imagination and not backed by the actual facts on the ground, he consistently states that there are invasions, emergencies, rebellions, the inability of the government to execute the federal law with the regular forces, all the things that would trigger more authority for the executive branch, if true, but they're just not true. And the judge, Judge Imragut, very compellingly pointed this out as the federal government attorneys in her court pointed to social media posts, to truth social posts from the president as their basis for the facts on the ground in Portland.

56:47And she said that that is not what is the determination of the facts. The facts are what the actual facts are on the ground. And there is no rebellion. There is no invasion. There is no inability to execute the law with the regular forces. And so thus, there's no emergency powers. But Trump and Miller and Hegseth, they consistently try to talk past the judges to the court of public opinion, making their case, but not backed by facts. And it's irresponsible and inappropriate. And it is very appropriate that courts continue to be a place where if you're going to take a position, you need to bring the receipts, show the facts, show the proof, demonstrate that the facts on the ground are what you say in your two social posts.

57:35If you can't and he couldn't, then you don't get the power that you seek. And so we went in with facts. We went in with the law. We prevailed. And according to the judge's order, it wasn't even close. But you are right that But there's an ongoing attempt, and we will see more of it, of the Trump administration to try to convince and honestly not be honest with the American people that there's some sort of emergency when there's really not. Can you speak for a moment about a letter that your office sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the end of September? So just a few days ago about this idea that the Trump administration, that by virtue of paying Trump some deference in this Los Angeles case, knowing that there was there was the thinnest of all pretexts to be able to do so, that would actually invite him to abuse to abuse that deference even further in a place like Portland, which, of course, has indeed materialized.

58:31Absolutely. You know, we were seeing Trump given an inch and taking a mile and when offered some deference by the court, completely abusing it. And we had flagged this original June 7th order out of that deployed troops to California as one that didn't they had no temporal or geographic limits. And that it it didn't say just L.A., didn't say just California. It didn't just say just in June. It was broad. And we noticed that then and we worried about it then. And then we wanted to reflag it for the court in a couple of days ago because what we had feared came to pass. Trump used this deployment of troops in L.A., literally a thousand miles away from Portland to deploy troops to Portland.

59:23And that is exactly the abuse of power that we feared that Trump believed he had carte blanche to deploy National Guard anywhere around the country at any time. And it makes absolutely no sense that a early June set of circumstances in L.A. could lead to the deployment of troops in Portland a thousand miles away 90 days later. It just makes no sense. But that's the broad, abusive and unlawful reading that Trump is giving this order. And I'm glad that Judge Imrugat saw through that and blocked them twice over the weekend. And so do you think that mentioning that to the Ninth Circuit court as you've done and saying, hey, look what happens when you give him an inch, he'll take a mile.

1:00:15He will abuse whatever deference you pay him. Do you think that whereas the Ninth Circuit may have been willing previously, as far as the L.A. case is concerned, may have been willing to offer him that deference? and and look, they stayed Judge Breyer's order. So maybe there was a likelihood as far as they were concerned that Judge Breyer's order wasn't going to stand. Do you think that this changes the calculus now for the Ninth Circuit to see? Oh, look what us giving Trump a little bit of of leeway is is manifesting in real life here. It's a it's giving him carte blanche in his mind to go and send troops into other cities completely untethered to reality.

1:00:52And maybe now, as we continue to consider this case, we should reconsider the facts as they're actually playing out. I think that the Ninth Circuit will be very carefully policing the bounds of the deference and making sure that only appropriate deference is given, that it's not unlimited deference, that it's not absolute deference, that there are times. And I think Portland is that time. And I think, frankly, L.A. is that time as well. and we'll see how we do on appeal. I think we will prevail when that deference is, you know, a bridge too far or many bridges too far, you know, when it's way beyond the deference owed.

1:01:32There is a legal modicum or sum of deference that is owed, but it is not absolute. And Trump has tried to turn, you know, the legal deference that he is owed, which has limits, into unlimited absolute deference to do anything he wants whenever he wants. Right. And if even judges who he himself appointed are able to call that out, then I think it's as clear as day what he's trying to do. With that said, we'll leave it there. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it. Thanks, Brian. Great to see you again. Thanks again to Brian Schatz, Raphael Warnock, Melanie Stansberry, and Rob Bonta.

1:02:10That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week.

1:02:20for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels, or you can go to briantylercohen.com to learn more.