Fox News drops BOMB on Trump -- ON AIR

FOX News delivers some hard truths to their audience about Trump, and I'm joined by the California Attorney General Rob Bonta. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. Sure sex might be nice, but have you ever heard something like this from FOX News? 51% would vote Democrat for a Democrat candidate, 43% for a Republican. Why is this happening? What are the gas? $6 diesel, 7% mortgages, the ongoing war, and the president is less popular personally than at any time in his second term. His attempt to reverse the trend of fallen flat, $5,000 checks for everyone just didn't fly, and the ban on diesel exports won't work. If this trend continues, the Republicans will lose the House and maybe the Senate, 39 days to the vote. If that happens, say goodbye to what's left of the Trump agenda. I mean, if this is what a FOX News broadcast sounds like now, do I even have a job anymore? And worst of all, for Trump and Republicans, this is just the tip of the iceberg, just from FOX News. Days ago FOX released new polling showing 15 races shifting toward Democrats, according to their own polling outfit, and seven of those races shifting toward Democrats are in Florida. Remember, Florida drew a gerrymander on top of an existing gerrymander. But the issue is that that gerrymander assumed that Trump and Republicans margins from 2024 would be permanent. So when young people, people of color, independence, Latinos all shifted to the right, they assumed that realignment wouldn't change. But now, it's clear that it's shifting back among every demographic group, which means that suddenly those gerrymanders risk turning into dummymanders. Here for example, a CNN's Harry Enten speaking about independence. There are some stunning numbers, and I want to talk about independence, but independence who don't lean towards either the Democratic or Republican party, so-called pure independence, and these numbers and the shift from where we were back in 2024, I mean, look at these numbers, and this is an average of two different polls, pure independent voters on Trump, versus Kamala Harris. When you average the CES and Pew validated voter survey, he beat, he beat, Donald Trump become a Harris by 15 points. Look at his net approval rating now with pure independence, those who don't lean towards either the Democratic or Republican party. These negative 71 points, I mean, these are the deep depths of the ocean. You never see numbers like these. This is Johnny B, what is this? This is an 86 point shift away from the president of the United States with the group that ultimately really does determine elections. As pure independence go, usually so goes the nation. And right now, Donald Trump is at depth that truly, you rarely ever see. And here he is speaking about Latinos. Specifically speaking about Latino voters here, they don't just feel betrayed. They absolutely do. You look at the polling. There's absolutely a revolt from Latino voters against President Trump on the specific issue of immigration. This is what we're talking about. Look at this. Latinos on Trump and immigration. You go back to the fall of 2024. Donald Trump was more trusted than Kamala Harris with Latinos on immigration by five points. You come over to this side of the screen. Look at this net approval rating now that Donald Trump has with Latino voters. Way down under the Gulf of Mexico, if you're speaking Trump and ease, we're talking about the Gulf of America. But for everybody else, the Gulf of Mexico, look at that, 39 points underwater. That is a shift, Cape Baldwin of 40. What is that? Forties. I don't do math. Yeah. Forty-four points. Thank you very much, Johnny B. Forty-four points. I'm not doing math this morning. Cape Baldwin's not doing math. But Johnny B is doing math. The shift to 44 points away from the president of the United States on the issue of immigration with Latinos, an absolute political disaster. And all of this comes on the heels of more bad news that Trump himself is contending with. A new poll from the American Research Group conducted September 16th through the 20th puts Trump's approval rating at 29%. That is below 30% for the first time in either of his terms. To put that in perspective, according to Gallup's own presidential tracker, the last time any president's approval sat in the 20s was George W. Bush at the tail end of 2008 in the middle of a global financial collapse. That's the company Trump is now keeping. So why does this matter? Because the midterm elections are a referendum on the president and the party in power. And because the GOP has exactly zero daylight between it and the president, they get to be saddled with his unpopularity. It's almost like contracting every ounce of your power over to the executive branch might not have been such a great idea in retrospect. Look, none of this is a surprise. Remember when Trump himself was asked why he won in the immediate aftermath of the 24 election, here's what he said. "I won on two things, the border, and more than immigration, they like to say immigration. I break it down more to the border, but I won on the border, and I won on groceries." It's a very simple word, "grosseries," like almost, you know, who uses the word? I started using the word "the groceries" when you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time. And I won an election based on that, we're going to bring those prices way down. Because of high prices, and guess what? Those prices have only gone up, and yet all the while he can't be bothered to do anything about it. So it's not that he's unaware of the problems that Americans are contending with. After all, he exploited those exact problems to gain power, he just doesn't care. And that really is the basis of his presidency. Trump, of all people, and the rest of his party, know full well the pain that Americans are feeling because they all benefited from it in the 2024 election. But they've not only failed to address it, they have exacerbated it. Trump launched a trade war that's then caused surging, and the rest of his party allowed him to do it. He launched a war in Iran that sent gas prices, skyrocketing to record highs, and his latest Thursday. His party voted to allow that war to continue. And of course, Trump is in the Epstein files and instructed his attorney general to hide 3 million documents, and the rest of his party won't say a peep about it. These people exist to serve one man, not you, not me, not regular Americans, but Donald Trump, and Americans are responding appropriately. So look, while this is all good news, I'd be a fool not to end with this. Nothing is guaranteed in this upcoming election. First of all, we have Trump's inturmountable efforts to undermine voting rights ahead of the election, to send ICE agents to the polls, and of course the broader Republican party's refusal to accept any results where they don't win, and then of course there's the issue with polling, which we're no stranger to. And finally, you just don't know what can happen between now and election day. So our job is simple. No matter how bad the polling is for Trump and Republicans, act like we're 15 points down. Make yourself responsible for at least three people who otherwise wouldn't have voted. And let's put an effective end to Trump's presidency right now by flipping not just the House, but also the Senate into Democratic hands. That is my interview with California Attorney General Rob Bonta. No lies brought to you by Zach Dock. So I've always avoided making doctor's appointments because it is never easy. I just know that it's going to be a game of endless phone tag only to finally call and find out that the next opening is months away. It's a fact of life that certain doctors are not available for a really long time, which is not great because generally when you're looking for a doctor, you're looking for one right away. That's where Zach Dock comes in. Nobody wants to deal with that. And frankly, you shouldn't have to. Zach Dock lets you search and compare local in-network doctors. They have more than 150,000 providers within more than 200 specialties across all 50 states. Zach Dock's website has tons of reviews from real patients and detailed doctor profiles to help you choose the right one. See actual appointment openings and click to instantly book a visit. Appointments happen fast usually within 24 to 72 hours and you can even score same-day appointments. And Zach Dock is free to use. Your health matters and taking care of yourself should not be complicated. Read and book the right doctor with Zach Dock. Head to Zach Dock.com/BTC to get started and check that appointment off your to-do list. That's Z-O-C-D-O-C dot com slash BTC. I'm joined now by the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta. So we have some news here as it relates to the merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers. Can you give an update as to where things stand right now? Yeah. Thanks Brian for having me. I appreciate it. We launched yesterday a resolution of the case and a filing with the court of a consent decree resolving our antitrust enforcement case with respect to the proposed Paramount Warner Brothers merger. And we announced the terms of the consent decree or the settlement yesterday which resolve all of our antitrust concerns. We have solutions that are strong in each of the markets that we challenge. And we also were able to secure some very important domestic production commitments. And also there are some important commitments to the future of Hollywood and the entertainment industry in the United States broadly and in California specifically. So we announced the resolution of the case yesterday with all the different terms of that agreement. What does some of those terms actually look like in practice? Yeah, absolutely. So let's start with the antitrust terms because this was a, as I said many times, a bread and butter, black and white meat and potatoes antitrust case and we challenged the merger based on the impacts it would have and basically two markets, one on theatrical release film distribution and two on cable channel licensing. And so we were able to get an agreement in this consent decree from Paramount to release these 30 movies a year for two years and then followed by 32 movies per year for the next three years. So commitments over five years and 20 of those films In the first two years, need to be a wide release distribution. And in the last three years, 21 films need to be wide release. There's a 20% requirement for tent pole films, bigger films with bigger budgets. There's a requirement for the release of four independent films per year. So massive increases on release of films, which was one of our major markets. And then also, we kept the payments, the fees, arrangements with movie theaters, the exhibitors, as we call them, fixed for three years. So they can't raise prices. And so we were worried about this merger leading to raise prices for the exhibitors. Those were fixed for three years. We were worried about potential lowering of the number of films released. That is kept at a high number at 30 and 32. So that's how we addressed that market. And then with the cable channel licensing market, we, in the settlement agreement, have an agreement for Paramount and Warner Brothers to negotiate separately. Meaning they act as if, after they're merged, just as if they were pre-mergered as separate companies with respect to their basic cable channels and how they are able to bundle those and negotiate with the cable companies. And then both of those remedies that I just mentioned are back stopped by a structural remedy, a divestiture. If they fail to fulfill the requirements of the five-year film release goals, they need to divest Miramax and also pay for each film that they fail to release $30 million to a fund that 90% of it goes to workers in the entertainment industry. And then if they, on the cable channel licensing side, if they fail to negotiate separately, if they have to divest a suite of cable channels, including BET and Comedy Central and others. So those are the basic provisions for how we addressed our antitrust concerns. And then we got additional domestic production concessions and commitments, including the merged companies going to spend $300 million a year for five years, over what they've already spent in the past, what they spent in 2025 on domestic production. So focused on production in the United States to put American workers to work that will increase to, in the following way, if there are film tax credits, if there's a federal film tax credit, then instead of having about 5% of their global film production occur domestically in the United States, they'll raise it to 20% in years one and two and to 30% of the federal film tax credit being in place for years, three, four, and five. And then if California gets a film tax credit, that's uncapped and competitive with the most competitive film tax credits in the nation in other states, it'll go to 40% domestic production. So there's possibility of a 700% increase in domestic production with these film tax credits. So it's exciting for what is possible with respect to putting workers to work, creating jobs, really spurring the economy in Hollywood and LA in California and in the United States. There's also a provision that addresses CBS News and CNN and creates a editorial independence board made up of experienced journalists to create a set of editorial standards. And this independent board will resolve any disputes between management and journalists over journalistic integrity, fact-based reporting, objective independent reporting. And so that's a provision of the settlement as well. There's others in addition to that, but those are some of the broad contours of the consent decree that we filed yesterday. So if we have this massive production commitment and the 30 films a year requirement, as you just mentioned, those come with financial penalties and some degree of unwinding certain assets if the commitments aren't met. But there's no provision, there's no mechanism within the deal to unwind the merger if they decide not to comply. And so if Paramount decides five years down the line that it's cheaper to eat the penalty than to honor these commitments, what actually stops them from doing it? Like could this just be basically a line item cost in their budget that they just have to eat this penalty rather than comply knowing that ultimately everything is safe because there isn't a way to unwind what's actually been created here. - Yeah, when the consent decree is filed and if they go forward to complete the merger, then it is difficult to unwind the whole merger. And so that's why the provisions that are in the consent decree are important that the penalties are a very strong deterrent. So is the divestiture of Miramax to help ensure that they fulfill their release of film a requirement. And there's also a requirement that of those 30 films half of them be produced by the merged company. But the deterrent is in the backstop of the divestiture, the Miramax divestiture and the payments. Same thing with the divestiture of the cable channels. So we expect them to be complying with the requirements in the agreement and the way to enforce it is with the divestiture and the penalties as well as we have an independent auditor, a monitor that will inspect the behavior of the merged company to ensure compliance. And if they flag anything that seems to be anything short of full compliance, then we can go to court to get court orders to require them to comply. And then they can be held in contempt if they don't. - No lies brought to you by simply safe. When your home is under threat, you need more than a recording of a break in. The video is all well and good, but I assume what's more important is preventing a break in from happening in the first place. Simply safe stops break ins before they start. When a burglar steps onto your property, AI-powered cameras alert live, US-based agents who take action to deter them and call for police dispatch. And look, I know the feeling of leaving for long weekends leaving all of your possessions at the mercy of one door or one window or even one alarm system. But having peace of mind that you've not only got protection but prevention, for me, that peace of mind is worth everything. Unlike traditional security systems that only alert you after a break in is already underway, simply safe is designed to help prevent the crime before it even starts. AI-powered cameras detect suspicious activity at the perimeter and alert live, US-based agents. Simply safe agents assess the threat, intervene, speak through the camera to scare off the intruder and call for 911 dispatch. Right now, you can get 50% off a new simply safe system. Go to simplysafe.com/btc. That simplysafe.com/btc for 50% off. And when you order, please write in no lie in the how did you hear about our survey to let them know that we sent you. Don't forget, there's no safe, life's simply safe. - So there have been some critics of the deal, including Mark Ruffalo, who have advocated for this deal or any deal to be rejected in favor of just going to court on antitrust grounds. And so what was behind the decision to settle with the elephants as opposed to trying your luck out in court and trying to prevent this from happening in the first place? - I appreciate and respect and understand the opinion of Mr. Ruffalo and others who have similar opinions. I am grateful that there's so many people that are concerned and focused on this issue that are watching and thinking about it and some of the broader issues that it highlights. But I also say that there are broader questions around democracy, around oligarchy, around the free press, around foreign influence, and other issues that we need to address as a nation and as states and that cannot be resolved and would not be resolved by this case. That this is an antitrust case against a paramount one of brothers and it has specific antitrust concerns in three markets, two of which are theatrical release, distribution and one of which is cable channel licensing. So the reason that we decided to resolve the case is because we were presented with solutions that were strong and that addressed the antitrust concerns we had in the markets that we challenged and when you get a solution to the antitrust concerns and an antitrust case that is a bread and butter, black and white, mean potatoes antitrust case, you take it. And I know there are some people who say just take your chance at trial and trial of course is there's a cops you'd aspect to it. Nothing is guaranteed at trial. You can end up with absolutely nothing. And so I understand some people would rather do that than resolve the antitrust concerns and the way we did and again I appreciate and understand that perspective. But because this is a straight up antitrust case when we had a solution. to our antitrust concerns, we took it. And that's why we resolved the case as we did. - So you had mentioned, we'll finish off with this, independent oversight boards being created between CBS and CNN. But this is an oversight board that's created by the company that's being merged. Boards like that generally have a shoddy track record in terms of their effectiveness and in terms of being able to constrain their own company. And so what teeth does the board have and who has the power to remove members or override members? - So the editorial independence board, there are requirements about who can serve on it. And it's all journalists. It can't be anyone who's an officer or a director or a nonjournalist or a government employee. It's journalists who've been credentialed for three years, who've served as journalists for 10 years minimum. So it's an experienced journalists who are coming together to prepare a set of standard protocols, independence, news, independence, standards. And then they resolve the disputes between management and the employees should there be any. And we expect there to be a set of talented experienced journalists with experience and journalistic integrity. And, you know, fact-based, objective, fair reporting. And I think that an editorial independence board like this is not particularly common. So it's, I think there's value and progress that it adds and makes to what's been happening at CBS News and for what will happen at CNN. And I think it's an important set of oversight mechanisms that exist in a case, which again is an antitrust case and is not about news. But we did have some attorneys general who were interested and concerned about objective, independent news reporting and journalistic integrity. And so we were able to, in the settlement process, which is you can be more creative than in the litigation process, we were able to add this. So, and again, I respect people's opinions about whether it will work or how effective it will be or how far it will go. I think it will provide important progress and an important value to help ensure that news organizations are telling the news objectively and fairly and based on facts. - We'll leave it there. Attorney General Robbonta, thanks so much for making the time. - Thanks so much for having me, good to see you again. - Thanks again to Robbonta, that's it for this episode, talk to you on Sunday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five star rating in a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels or you can go to Brian Tyler Cohen dot com to learn more. (upbeat music)