Speaker 1: That j Weber Podcast is presented by Creative Planning, helping
Speaker 1: clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan
Speaker 1: at a time. That Jweber Podcast is a production of
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio podcasts Good Day.
Speaker 2: This is the Jyweber Podcast. Lots to talk about today,
Speaker 2: including clear election rigging in California, the ways in which
Speaker 2: the Trump FBI and the federal government have helped lower crime,
Speaker 2: and the sorts of Supreme Court decisions that are going
Speaker 2: to be handed down over the next few weeks. But
Speaker 2: let's start by being clear. The Democrats just stole an
Speaker 2: election out in California. I hear a flood of pundits
Speaker 2: insisting that what happened out there is logical or reasonable
Speaker 2: because it's a deep blue state. I hear them insisting
Speaker 2: that anyone who would questioned the results is just a
Speaker 2: sore loser, etc. But my friends, what just happened out there,
Speaker 2: with a candidate who was in distant third place strongly
Speaker 2: surging days after the polls closed, is not only questionable,
Speaker 2: it's statistically impossible. The more accurate take would be if
Speaker 2: you think this was a natural occurrence, if you think
Speaker 2: this wasn't vote fraud. You're a fool. The Washington Times
Speaker 2: asked chat Gpt whether, in the history of this country's
Speaker 2: voting patterns, whether we'd ever seen something like this with
Speaker 2: a third place candidate who was never even in the
Speaker 2: race over the course of the campaign suddenly surging from
Speaker 2: out of nowhere to finish second. AI's answer was no,
Speaker 2: We've never seen it. Quote chat Gpt could not find
Speaker 2: one example in American history of a third place candidate
Speaker 2: surging days after an election to overtake second place. Yet
Speaker 2: that's what we were seeing in the Los Angeles mayoral race,
Speaker 2: with Democratic socialist Nathia Rahman besting reality TV star Spencer Pratt.
Speaker 2: But that's just one result of this insane and impossible
Speaker 2: post election movement by Raman. The Times notes that for
Speaker 2: mail in ballots arriving before election day, Karen Bass, the
Speaker 2: Democrat who's currently the mayor, she received thirty eight percent
Speaker 2: of that vote. The ballots that came in by mail
Speaker 2: before the election, Spencer Pratt received twenty eight percent of
Speaker 2: that vote, and Raman only received twenty So that was
Speaker 2: the voting pattern for weeks and weeks before the actual
Speaker 2: election day when it came to mail in ballots, which
Speaker 2: the Democrats are supposed to use more heavily. Correct, So
Speaker 2: now we're supposed to believe that when it comes to
Speaker 2: the remaining uncounted mail in ballots, and very importantly, the
Speaker 2: ballots collected from the drop boxes, Suddenly all of Raman's
Speaker 2: supporters showed their strength. Suddenly, nearly every ballot opened after
Speaker 2: election day was for the third place finisher, whose campaign
Speaker 2: had shown no life before that point, Bullplop. According to
Speaker 2: the California Counters, Ramen magically collected thirty seven percent of
Speaker 2: the ballots that arrived after the election day. So she's
Speaker 2: suddenly collecting four out of every ten ballots that are
Speaker 2: coming in, as Karen Bass is collecting three. So Raman
Speaker 2: collected even more ballots after election day than Karen Bass did.
Speaker 2: And meanwhile, the most popular Republican candidate, Spencer Pratt, was
Speaker 2: suddenly only getting about one out of every six new votes,
Speaker 2: as the Washington Times correctly characterizes that. Just to be clear,
Speaker 2: mail in ballots arrived after June second drop for everyone
Speaker 2: except the person the Democrats needed to defeat, Spencer Pratt.
Speaker 2: Come on, they say, this is simply not mathematically or
Speaker 2: statistically realistic. Well, they're correct, and the Democrats and Lefties
Speaker 2: vote in mail by larger numbers than Republicans. Yes, but
Speaker 2: that doesn't explain how or why a woman who was
Speaker 2: a complete afterthought throughout the entire election suddenly surged to
Speaker 2: second place and into the general election runoff. What does
Speaker 2: explain it cheating, a rigged game in which a system
Speaker 2: that can be easily manipulated with ballot stuffing was manipulated
Speaker 2: to ensure Pratt wouldn't be in the position to be
Speaker 2: Karen Bass in the general election. Folks, the results of
Speaker 2: this race are so improbable that organized cheating is the
Speaker 2: best explanation for the results. It really is. In fact,
Speaker 2: one of the ballot drops late on election night, after
Speaker 2: the polls closed, Spencer Pratt received zero of the twenty
Speaker 2: four thousand votes that were added to the total. Again,
Speaker 2: AI estimates that the odds of that occurring are less
Speaker 2: than one in trillions. It is statistically impossible that vote
Speaker 2: counters could says, twenty four thousand ballots in an election
Speaker 2: twenty four thousand and not come across a single vote
Speaker 2: for Spencer Pratt. And it's interesting that that was the
Speaker 2: first chunk of mail in ballots to be added to
Speaker 2: the total. It's almost as if someone at Central Planning
Speaker 2: knew the Democrats would need a boost. They'd need to
Speaker 2: boost Raman immediately while harming Pratt if they wanted to
Speaker 2: ensure that he wouldn't appear on the final ballot. It's
Speaker 2: almost as if they had a bunch of votes for
Speaker 2: Raman and Bass ready to go, isn't it then get this?
Speaker 2: The Washington Times reports the most concentrated batches of mail
Speaker 2: in votes for Raman came from skid Row, where tens
Speaker 2: of thousands of homeless people live with no address or
Speaker 2: phone number to verify them, but they're still allowed to vote,
Speaker 2: and where ballot harvesting is legal. This is where third
Speaker 2: parties can collect and turn in the ballots on the
Speaker 2: voter's behalf. Mostly they drop them into a drop box
Speaker 2: and they're supposed to drop them into the drop box
Speaker 2: before election day obviously, but if they're dropped into those
Speaker 2: drop boxes, they're not postmarked. Right. These ballots could have
Speaker 2: been created at any time, really and ended up at
Speaker 2: Central Counting. It's a very sloppy process. Moreover, the Washington
Speaker 2: Time says, in California, one of the nation's most powerful unions.
Speaker 2: The Service Employees International Union engages in ballot harvesting and
Speaker 2: get out the vote efforts, and I didn't realize this.
Speaker 2: They even help count and tabulate the ballots afterward, which
Speaker 2: creates a clear conflict of interest. Other large Democrat institutions
Speaker 2: also do that. So a simple explanation for Rahman's rise
Speaker 2: is that whoever was harvesting the votes wasn't just collecting
Speaker 2: ballots but also controlling the votes. They either filled out
Speaker 2: the ballots for her, or they threw out the ballots
Speaker 2: that they didn't like. And of course, none of this
Speaker 2: is likely to be proved because, as The Times notes,
Speaker 2: in May, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, signed a
Speaker 2: law that actually bans law enforcement and federal agencies from
Speaker 2: accessing their voter roles in California, or investigating polling places
Speaker 2: and election workers, or even verifying mail in ballots. This
Speaker 2: system is designed for cheating. There is no other reason
Speaker 2: to pass a law that says you cannot look into
Speaker 2: our elections unless you're cheating, and you look at it
Speaker 2: and you see the But this is why Gavin Newsom
Speaker 2: could cryptically reassure reporters a few weeks ago that they
Speaker 2: have ways of ensuring two Republicans won't end up in
Speaker 2: the runoff elections. Remember that I'm convinced that this is
Speaker 2: what he was referring to. In California, Democrats have created
Speaker 2: a system in which those in control can ignore the
Speaker 2: will of the voting public and create the result they
Speaker 2: want in any given election. Now, so the only question
Speaker 2: now is will there be any genuine and lasting outrage
Speaker 2: over it? My guess is, sadly no. Have you heard
Speaker 2: about Creative Planning. This is the company that sponsors this
Speaker 2: great podcast, and I have to give them a shout
Speaker 2: out here. They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth
Speaker 2: management firms, offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management,
Speaker 2: estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management,
Speaker 2: all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their
Speaker 2: fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every
Speaker 2: piece of your financial life. Visit Creative Planning dot com
Speaker 2: to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot com.
Speaker 2: Your team, oh waits painful by Creative Planning and sec
Speaker 2: registered investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement
Speaker 2: of the firm serious question, what percentage of Americans knows
Speaker 2: that the Trump administration is building about five miles of
Speaker 2: border wall per day? Now do you even think two
Speaker 2: percent of Americans know this? Because aside from Byron York
Speaker 2: including that fact in a piece last week, I haven't
Speaker 2: seen it reported anywhere. And I've noticed that this is
Speaker 2: a new technique or a new path that the members
Speaker 2: of the left wing media are taking in Trump's second term.
Speaker 2: They did this somewhat in term one, but they've made
Speaker 2: it a standard practice in term two. And it's the
Speaker 2: technique of simply ignoring the fact that the Democrat side
Speaker 2: of the aisle and those on the left are losing
Speaker 2: on an issue. This is a great example of how
Speaker 2: Trump and Republicans have simply outlasted and out distanced the
Speaker 2: left's phony outrage on an issue, and outlasted and out
Speaker 2: distanced all of the left wing activists attempts to stop
Speaker 2: or block an action. This is to the point that
Speaker 2: the left is simply lost the argument and in this
Speaker 2: case has lost the battle folks on questions of both
Speaker 2: immigration enforcement and building the southern border fence. The Democrats
Speaker 2: and their America Aiding activists have simply lost the argument,
Speaker 2: and so rather than continue to pitch fits on it
Speaker 2: and draw attention to the fact that they have lost
Speaker 2: that Trump and Republicans simply bested them on something, the
Speaker 2: Democrats and their accomplices who controlled the media have decided
Speaker 2: to go dark on the matter and not draw attention
Speaker 2: to it. Shouldn't aoc or rasheta to lee be weeping
Speaker 2: at the border as Trump commits the terrible atrocity of
Speaker 2: erecting five more miles of border fence each day. After all,
Speaker 2: when Joe Biden allegedly won election in twenty twenty, both
Speaker 2: he and Chuck Schumer promised that America wasn't going to
Speaker 2: build quote one more effing foot of border fence. Well,
Speaker 2: here we are in twenty twenty six with Trump back
Speaker 2: in office, and the fence is being built to the
Speaker 2: tune of five miles per day. And as they strongly
Speaker 2: suggested to listeners when Trump won reelection in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: we will have all of the border fence that our
Speaker 2: own border patrol agents say we need by the time
Speaker 2: Trump leaves office. This time, those who used to listen
Speaker 2: to my radio show will know that Trump's wall build
Speaker 2: bilding in term one was a herculean effort. First, Trump
Speaker 2: had to fight basically both parties in Congress to find
Speaker 2: the funding. Then he had to fight years of bogus
Speaker 2: lawsuits and court actions the Democrats used to try to
Speaker 2: stop the fence building. And as that was going on,
Speaker 2: he had to fight the permitting process and clear away
Speaker 2: the obstacles there, then actually start the bidding process and
Speaker 2: hire the contractors and organize the materials and the job sites, etc.
Speaker 2: And still Trump and his team managed to put up
Speaker 2: or replace about four hundred and fifty miles of border
Speaker 2: wall in term one, And so when he was running
Speaker 2: for a second term, one thing I was assuring my
Speaker 2: audience was, if Trump gets a second term, the border
Speaker 2: wall will get done. No guessing, no conjecture. If Border
Speaker 2: Control says we still need about five hundred more miles
Speaker 2: of strategically placed border wall in order to make that
Speaker 2: border secure, Trump will get it built in term two,
Speaker 2: because at that point he had won all the lawsuits
Speaker 2: and could quickly ramp up the project again if he
Speaker 2: got back into office. Well, huzza, huzzah. He has according
Speaker 2: to Byron York stats, as no one's been w watching
Speaker 2: two hundred and twenty one miles of what was called
Speaker 2: what's called primary smart wall are currently under construction. Contracts
Speaker 2: have been awarded and design is underway for an additional
Speaker 2: three hundred and seventy miles and another forty four miles
Speaker 2: of replacement walls under construction, plus one hundred and eighty
Speaker 2: three miles of secondary wall that provides backup security and
Speaker 2: high traffic areas where there's already a primary wall. Yeah,
Speaker 2: on the first term, Trump's team put up about four
Speaker 2: hundred or four hundred and fifty miles of that high
Speaker 2: Ballard style wall, but it was an areas that already
Speaker 2: had some sort of fencing, crummy, substandard. They were taking
Speaker 2: down like six foot high centery fence in some areas,
Speaker 2: or simply a string of barbed wire sort of cow
Speaker 2: fence in other areas, and they were putting up this
Speaker 2: real Ballard style wall, but it was quote replacement fencing.
Speaker 2: And so that's what allowed the Democrats to claim Trump
Speaker 2: wasn't really doing anything or fixing anything along the border.
Speaker 2: You know, two hundred miles of low center fence that
Speaker 2: anyone could have climbed over, came down and was replaced
Speaker 2: by a high wall, but unless you were paying attention,
Speaker 2: Democrats could still claim, well, nothing is really being done.
Speaker 2: Trump hasn't built a single new mile of border fence,
Speaker 2: they were always trying to claim, but in fact he was. Well.
Speaker 2: Now virtually all of the old, low substandard fencing in
Speaker 2: the high traffic areas has been replaced with real wall
Speaker 2: and even double wall, and hundreds of miles of completely
Speaker 2: new wall is stretching off into the distances. Trump will
Speaker 2: get this done and it will be another lasting and
Speaker 2: real win for the American people. But will the left
Speaker 2: wing activists who masquerade as journalists report this to the
Speaker 2: American people or give Trump his due course? Not, so
Speaker 2: they're intentionally ignoring the story. They don't want to report
Speaker 2: the win because they're propagandists for the Democrat Party and
Speaker 2: the Democrats themselves, I mean the Democrat office holders. They
Speaker 2: don't want to draw attention to their myriad failures and
Speaker 2: to admit the loss for their side on this. So
Speaker 2: this incredibly positive story is going largely unreported.
Speaker 3: But is there a.
Speaker 2: Better illustration of how elections have consequences? Trump promised a
Speaker 2: border wall in the twenty sixteen campaign than he won.
Speaker 2: He moved to keep that promise, only to have Joe
Speaker 2: Biden allegedly win office and twenty twenty in stop construction
Speaker 2: and even go so far as to sell off surplus
Speaker 2: wall and supplies for pennies on the dollar to ensure
Speaker 2: that it wouldn't be sitting around or be available, couldn't
Speaker 2: even be available for future installation. The Biden regime tried
Speaker 2: to do whatever they could to buy god end any
Speaker 2: talk of a wall, only to have then Trump win
Speaker 2: reelection in twenty twenty four largely on the immigration issue. Actually,
Speaker 2: after four years of Biden's regime flooding the country with foreigners,
Speaker 2: and it's now safe to say that by the time
Speaker 2: Donald Trump leaves office, any needed border wall would be
Speaker 2: completed and we the people will have won on that issue.
Speaker 2: Seventy to eighty percent of Americans have said forever that
Speaker 2: they want closed and controlled borders, and something like sixty
Speaker 2: five percent of Americans in twenty twenty two, in the
Speaker 2: midst of Biden's flood of illegals, supported the physical southern
Speaker 2: border wall. Yes, build a wall. Trump will absolutely make
Speaker 2: that happen in his second term. Fantastic, And no, that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that the next Democrat president can't just throw
Speaker 2: open the gates at the border cross and let any
Speaker 2: flood of illegals in any way. But it does mean
Speaker 2: that under any new pro illegal president, at least we
Speaker 2: won't have thousands and thousands of illegals crossing into the
Speaker 2: country along remote parts of the border and then just
Speaker 2: melting into the interior. It does mean that our national
Speaker 2: security agencies will have a far better handle on controlling
Speaker 2: cartel operations moving forward. And it also does mean that
Speaker 2: any future president who wants to flood this country with
Speaker 2: foreigners and wants open borders will have to be honest
Speaker 2: about it and admit it. They will because the notion
Speaker 2: that this is just happening on its own will no
Speaker 2: longer be a valid one. Right, Any future president who
Speaker 2: wants to swamp the country with illegals will have to
Speaker 2: take intentional and overt steps to make it happen. You
Speaker 2: know what I mean. That president will have to order
Speaker 2: that the gates along the southern border should be opened
Speaker 2: and agents should be made to stand back and let
Speaker 2: the illegals flow in, or that new president will have
Speaker 2: to take very intentional steps to try to recreate Joe
Speaker 2: Biden's open borders app and set up a system in
Speaker 2: which foreigners can fly into this nation's airports directly and
Speaker 2: then be allowed to flood into the interior illegally. Folks.
Speaker 2: The border wall doesn't solve all the country's immigration problems,
Speaker 2: not by a long shot, but it does solve some
Speaker 2: of them, and it takes away the biggest way that
Speaker 2: illegals have been flowing into this country for the last
Speaker 2: two hundred years or more, simply walking across the US
Speaker 2: Mexican border. Moreover, the Biden era showed the nation the
Speaker 2: danger of a reckless and a moral border policy, meaning
Speaker 2: that the next president who wants to champion open borders
Speaker 2: lawlessness isn't as likely to find supporters for it. Another
Speaker 2: significant win that the President and the Republicans are wrapping
Speaker 2: up on this week also isn't getting the attention it deserves.
Speaker 1: Folks.
Speaker 2: The Republicans just ensured federal funding for ICE and border enforcement,
Speaker 2: and funding continues for this deportation process through twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 2: This is another major loss for Congressional Democrats, whose leaders
Speaker 2: have been insisting for probably a year now that by God,
Speaker 2: they will not allow these evil Republicans to continue funding ICE.
Speaker 2: In its mass deportation efforts. Well, Republicans hold both Houses
Speaker 2: of Congress, and so when they can get their members
Speaker 2: to cooperate, there's nothing Chuck Schumer or Hakim Jeffreys can
Speaker 2: do to stop them. And so the Democrats, who've been
Speaker 2: siding with the illegal aliens and have been working against
Speaker 2: the American people for years now on this question of
Speaker 2: immigration enforcement, have just suffered another major loss. The continued
Speaker 2: financing of these government operations has just been finalized through
Speaker 2: twenty twenty nine, meaning the robust deportation effort's going to
Speaker 2: continue at least so long as Donald Trump is in office.
Speaker 2: That's why the passage of this reconciliation bill to fund
Speaker 2: ICE and Border Patrol is so important. The Republicans in
Speaker 2: Congress just ensured that President Trump and his team have
Speaker 2: the money that they need to keep our borders secure
Speaker 2: and to continue the mass deportations right through the end
Speaker 2: of Trump's term. Big win. Moreover, as a former director
Speaker 2: of ICE noted, just the argument over this reconciliation bill
Speaker 2: exposed where today's Democrats stand on borders and immigration. He says, quote,
Speaker 2: Democrats gave up the game on this thing with their
Speaker 2: list of demands, because when there were situations where the
Speaker 2: Republicans were willing to concede or give them some of
Speaker 2: the things they wanted, they rejected that in favor of
Speaker 2: just shutting down the agency. He says, Democrats don't care
Speaker 2: about ICE and ICE operations. They just want to stop
Speaker 2: ICE from doing what they're required to do, which is
Speaker 2: to port illegal aliens. Yeah, that's a good point, Chuck
Speaker 2: Schumer and the Democrats could have engaged in responsible or
Speaker 2: reasonable arguments to put limits on ICE operations, etc. They
Speaker 2: could have argued for more reasonable things. Instead, they went
Speaker 2: all in on the open borders rhetoric and spent months
Speaker 2: insisting ICE agents where racist thugs and that agency should
Speaker 2: be shut down. In fact, there was a great moment
Speaker 2: on Capitol Hill last week that the vast majority of
Speaker 2: Americans will never hear about Trump's new Homeland Security Director,
Speaker 2: Mark Wayne Mullen was appearing before a Senate panel, and
Speaker 2: just as they settled in to get the hearing started,
Speaker 2: Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut called ICE quote unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: He claimed that every day ICE agents are breaking the
Speaker 2: law and wasting billions of tax dollars. He said they're
Speaker 2: making up the laws as they go. Well, none of
Speaker 2: that's true, of course, and having those sorts of intentional
Speaker 2: lines and misrepresentations coming out of an elected senator's mouth
Speaker 2: is really unconstable. So Secretary Mullen put his notes aside
Speaker 2: and just blasted the senator for four minutes straight. I
Speaker 2: have a few highlights here that every voting American should hear,
Speaker 2: and you should know that I edited some of this
Speaker 2: together from a larger chunk of audio from that Senate hearing.
Speaker 4: Senator Murphy, the outlineish claims you made there is just
Speaker 4: flat wrong. You start saying we're breaking the law, and
Speaker 4: you really start looking at it, and we're enforcing the
Speaker 4: laws that Congress did pass. That's reckless when you start
Speaker 4: saying it's unconstitutional. What's unconstitutional that we're doing. We swore
Speaker 4: up all the Constitution, just like you swore to hold
Speaker 4: the constitution. For you to throw my two hundred and
Speaker 4: seventy five thousand employees underneath DHS and with a broad
Speaker 4: stroke like that is reckless and irresponsible in your part.
Speaker 4: We're doing the job that Congress gave us the authority
Speaker 4: to do, and our men and women out there every
Speaker 4: single day is enforcing laws. If you don't like the laws,
Speaker 4: you can change them. We're not picking and choosing what's
Speaker 4: the laws we enforce. We're simply enforcing the law, period,
Speaker 4: full stop. When you start looking at assaults on our officers,
Speaker 4: they're up by thirteen hundred percent. Sinna Murphy, is that
Speaker 4: what you want? I don't think it is. I really don't.
Speaker 4: But I understand the political theater. I understand wanting to
Speaker 4: get sound bites. And that was obvious because the whole
Speaker 4: time he was given your testimony, he wasn't looking at me.
Speaker 4: He's looking at a camera.
Speaker 2: I get that.
Speaker 4: I get it.
Speaker 2: If you have.
Speaker 4: Bigger political ambitions, fine, just say it. And it's our
Speaker 4: job to protect the homeland. And we do that every
Speaker 4: single day. Every day I walk into that office. I
Speaker 4: feel so blessed a President Trump gave me this opportunity
Speaker 4: because I protect my backyard as hard as I protect
Speaker 4: your backyard, and I do it with pride in every
Speaker 4: one of the employees, all two hundred and seventy five
Speaker 4: thousand employees at DHS, they do it with pride too,
Speaker 4: And they don't separate a blue state from a red state.
Speaker 4: We look at it as a whole. But your reckless
Speaker 4: tone is getting people hurt and it's got to stop.
Speaker 2: Mark Wayne Mullen's statements there on the legitimacy of ICE
Speaker 2: and what they're doing is just wonderful. It's sad that
Speaker 2: we have to remind the American people and the Democrats
Speaker 2: who've been elected to office that we are, in fact
Speaker 2: a nation of laws, and in order for the Republic
Speaker 2: to survive and thrive, we need to follow those laws.
Speaker 2: It's sad Mullen even needed to remind Senator Murphy of this,
Speaker 2: But it was also important for Mullen to remind Murphy
Speaker 2: and the country about what the process is. If you
Speaker 2: don't like the laws of this nation, you need to
Speaker 2: go through the legislative process and change them. It gets
Speaker 2: back to how Schumer and Murphy and these Democrats in
Speaker 2: the US House and Senate have been comporting themselves over
Speaker 2: the last year or so on this issue. Ever since
Speaker 2: Trump ordered our ICE agents to start enforcing the nation's
Speaker 2: immigration laws again, the Democrats have been insisting to crack
Speaker 2: down is wrong or illegal. They're insisting that it's the
Speaker 2: agents who are engaging in lawless business, insisting this is unconstitutional, thuggery, etc.
Speaker 2: They've been great at bomb throwing and rhetorical thuggery, but
Speaker 2: haven't made a single honest move to try to change
Speaker 2: the law or negotiate a less aggressive process with the president. Nothing.
Speaker 2: It's just been a bunch of hollow whining and constant
Speaker 2: attempts to put targets on the backs of our ice agents.
Speaker 2: Mullin was right to say, basically, all lawmakers like Chris
Speaker 2: Murphy have done is in danger the lives of those
Speaker 2: who the federal government has hired to enforce our laws.
Speaker 2: You just heard Mullen say it. He said, when you
Speaker 2: throw out reckless terms and you start referring to our
Speaker 2: agents as being dangerous, unconstitutional, and lawless, that's why our
Speaker 2: agent's death threats are up by eight thousand percent, he said,
Speaker 2: your political theater, that's what it causes. When you start
Speaker 2: looking at assaults on our officers, they're up by thirteen
Speaker 2: hundred percent. I've been a rather cynical and skeptical person
Speaker 2: for my entire life, which is what made me such
Speaker 2: a good reporter and show host. You question everything, be
Speaker 2: a critical thinker. But even so, I never would have
Speaker 2: predicted that the members of one of our two major
Speaker 2: political parties in America would be calling for open borders
Speaker 2: and lawlessness, no prisons. They'd be supporting the spread of
Speaker 2: decay and chaos in this country. But that's what today's
Speaker 2: Democrat lawmakers and their activists are doing seemingly every day
Speaker 2: now in this country. Chris Murphy is going to accuse
Speaker 2: Ice agents of lawlessness. Come on, I mean, what a stooge.
Speaker 2: But back to my original point of how the Democrats
Speaker 2: and their activists left have simply lost on this issue
Speaker 2: of border enforcement and mass deportations. I'd note that even
Speaker 2: the protests going on outside of that New Jersey ICE
Speaker 2: facility that the Left has been trying to get so
Speaker 2: much media attention to, even that has been mostly a
Speaker 2: regional story. Maybe they're getting big coverage in New Jersey
Speaker 2: and New York and their media outlets, but nationally, yeah,
Speaker 2: there's been some coverage, but not anything that's really grabbing
Speaker 2: the attention of the American people or getting voters excited.
Speaker 2: It's almost as if the American people finally realize that
Speaker 2: all this hysteria about Ice and mistreatment of illegals is
Speaker 2: ginned up, because it is, and it has been from
Speaker 2: the very beginning the vast majority of the American people
Speaker 2: know that our government and its agents aren't going to
Speaker 2: mistreat fellow human beings. These illegals aren't being deprived of
Speaker 2: food and water or mistreated physically. We all know that,
Speaker 2: if anything, our government agencies are going to be overly
Speaker 2: kind and overly generous and deferential to the people who
Speaker 2: we have in government custody. This isn't county lock up
Speaker 2: in a Southern sheriff's jail cell back in nineteen thirty.
Speaker 2: This is people caught in this country illegally in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six, who will be treated extremely well, far better
Speaker 2: than necessary, until they're deposited back in their country of
Speaker 2: origin or until a bleeding heart US judge says they
Speaker 2: can stay. And so by now, after more than a
Speaker 2: decade of the leftist hysteria and false accusations, when it
Speaker 2: comes to isis treatment of illegals, I don't think it
Speaker 2: even registers with the American people. The leftists can organize protests,
Speaker 2: and they can fight and bite ICE agents if they
Speaker 2: want to, but their activities aren't moving the American people
Speaker 2: in any way anymore. I was going to say they
Speaker 2: aren't moving people in any significant way. But I think
Speaker 2: we're even beyond that. These leftists make themselves look like
Speaker 2: lunatics with these riots and protests, and not only are
Speaker 2: they not winning the American people over to their cause,
Speaker 2: I don't think they're moving the American people at all anymore.
Speaker 2: This has been going on so long. I think that
Speaker 2: the vast majority of the American people are just rolling
Speaker 2: their eyes at it. Nearly all of us are rooting
Speaker 2: for the Ice, agents of anything. We know who's really
Speaker 2: keeping the peace and protecting our communities. And we're happy
Speaker 2: to finally see many of our country's laws being enforced again,
Speaker 2: especially our immigration laws, and especially after decades and decades
Speaker 2: of non enforcement of those immigration laws. Last podcast, we
Speaker 2: talked briefly about the nation's crime rates being down. Researcher
Speaker 2: John Lott wanted to link it to the number of
Speaker 2: people who now carry concealed in America, and I dismissed
Speaker 2: that completely, given that nearly the same number of people
Speaker 2: carried for protection during the Biden era. Right, it's not
Speaker 2: like Trump got back into office and suddenly one third
Speaker 2: of the country was arming themselves for a protection. Now,
Speaker 2: the reason overall crime is down is because some voters
Speaker 2: in our larger cities finally got fed up enough to
Speaker 2: demand better and vote out the Week on Crime Soros
Speaker 2: funded das that had been running their state DA's offices
Speaker 2: and refusing to punish criminals. Also, it's because after years
Speaker 2: of Joe Biden era apathy in general lawlessness, President Trump
Speaker 2: and his administration did get back into office and made
Speaker 2: the lowering crime a priority. In general, the level of
Speaker 2: lawlessness or enforcement of the laws depends on local leadership.
Speaker 2: The question is are your mayor police chief and or
Speaker 2: sheriff interested in finding and prosecuting criminals or not? Are
Speaker 2: your local leaders making a safe community a priority or not?
Speaker 2: Because in general it's the cops and the judges at
Speaker 2: the local and the county levels that keep the peace
Speaker 2: or create a safe community. The federal government does have
Speaker 2: law enforcement agencies and duties, obviously, but they're geared toward
Speaker 2: national security or prosecuting federal crimes. That's why any given
Speaker 2: change of presidential administration doesn't normally have much of an
Speaker 2: impact on local crime rates. But as is the case
Speaker 2: with just about everything else, Donald Trump is different. He
Speaker 2: ran for a second term on lowering the nations out
Speaker 2: of control murder and crime and so far, just fourteen
Speaker 2: months into that second term, we're genuinely seeing that's the case.
Speaker 2: Community to community, red state or blue state, crime is lower.
Speaker 2: That's because Donald Trump and his team came in with
Speaker 2: a plan to do whatever they could at the federal
Speaker 2: level to reduce crime more locally. Since Washington d C
Speaker 2: is run by the Feds, it meant that Trump could
Speaker 2: literally take over the street enforcement of Washington d C.
Speaker 2: And he did with the National Guard. He was the
Speaker 2: National Guard in a few other select cities where mayors
Speaker 2: asked for help. But beyond that, there was a far
Speaker 2: more serious and organized effort by Trump and his Department
Speaker 2: of Justice to get federal agents into the high crime
Speaker 2: areas and offer to help out the locals where they could.
Speaker 2: One major factor is, yeah, our ICE agents have literally
Speaker 2: taken tens of thousands of criminal illegals and gang members
Speaker 2: off of the streets of America and deported them. The
Speaker 2: Left would never admit it, but this has been a
Speaker 2: significant help to local law enforcement. Next week, the Department
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security said that they are still ICE is
Speaker 2: still running into and going after criminal illegals. They're still
Speaker 2: collecting murderers, rapists, child molesters, burglars and deporting them. Sadly,
Speaker 2: the number of foreign thugs and scumbags that Obama and
Speaker 2: Biden's open borders allowed into this country was massive and immeasurable,
Speaker 2: and so far, even a year into President Trump's efforts
Speaker 2: to round up the worst of the worst, ICE is
Speaker 2: still routinely running into them and going out of their
Speaker 2: way to find them. But there's no doubt that ICE's
Speaker 2: activities have helped lower crime across the country and especially
Speaker 2: in the larger cities. Also, though, listen to Cash Patel,
Speaker 2: Trump's FBI director. He's telling Fox News that just since
Speaker 2: he and Trump took over and reprioritized at the FBI,
Speaker 2: they've arrested nearly thirty five hundred child predators and traffickers.
Speaker 5: And as we noticed, and as we reference in our introduction,
Speaker 5: the lowest homicide rate since the nineteen thirties, A lot
Speaker 5: of people didn't think that was possible. I also want
Speaker 5: to ask you about this children that you have rescued
Speaker 5: at the FBI.
Speaker 6: Let's pull this up.
Speaker 5: Twenty nine hundred alleged abusers arrested. This is up by
Speaker 5: seventy percent and identified or located seven thousand children up
Speaker 5: by one hundred and forty four percent. How did you
Speaker 5: do this?
Speaker 3: Well, Kelly, As you know so well and as you
Speaker 3: advocate so much for our youth, there are most precious treasure.
Speaker 3: And we made it a priority to go off the
Speaker 3: villains and the terrorists and gangbangers that are targeting our kids.
Speaker 3: And what we did was we utilize intelligence driven operations.
Speaker 3: We took fifteen hundred employees from the FBI in DC
Speaker 3: and put them in the field permanently, working with our
Speaker 3: state and local law enforcement partners, and we went after
Speaker 3: the worst of the worst. And those stats, while those
Speaker 3: stats are meaningful, and those stats are truly historic, just
Speaker 3: think about the seventy two hundred kids that we found
Speaker 3: that got to go home. Just think about the thirty
Speaker 3: four hundred. Actually, when you take the numbers for this year,
Speaker 3: we're at thirty four hundred child predators and traffickers arrested.
Speaker 3: That's up ninety nine percent from the best year Biden
Speaker 3: ever had. That means kids are being protected at levels
Speaker 3: that are simply on heard of, and that means this FBI.
Speaker 1: Here's another thing.
Speaker 3: We didn't just do the physical work on the streets.
Speaker 3: We went to the cyber community, and we dismantled three
Speaker 3: million pedophile accounts off the tour network where these predators
Speaker 3: prey on our children and think they can hide from
Speaker 3: this FBI. They can't. We are going to the ends
Speaker 3: of the earth and the cyber realm to make sure
Speaker 3: our most precious commodity, kids are safeguarded. And the numbers
Speaker 3: speak for themselves because the FBI are putting kids first.
Speaker 2: So Trump's new FBI is also a reason that overall
Speaker 2: crime is down, which makes you wonder what was the
Speaker 2: Joe Biden FBI doing. I guess they really were trying
Speaker 2: to criminalize parents who didn't cave to the trans bullies
Speaker 2: in their schools and trying to prosecute the Catholic church.
Speaker 2: Next topic, the state of California is insane way of
Speaker 2: counting votes. I told you this is what Gavin Newsome
Speaker 2: meant when he said a few weeks ago that they
Speaker 2: had ways of ensuring the two Republicans wouldn't end up
Speaker 2: at the top of the primary results. Remember this, for
Speaker 2: a period of time, two Republican candidates were outpolling the
Speaker 2: Democrat ones in the governor's race out there, and the
Speaker 2: way their jungle primary works is everyone runs on the
Speaker 2: same ballot without party affiliation, and whichever candidates end up
Speaker 2: being numbers one in two, they then have a runoff
Speaker 2: in the general election. Well, when a reporter asked scummy
Speaker 2: Governor Gavin Newsom what it would mean if two Republicans
Speaker 2: ended up in the general election runoff, his response was basically,
Speaker 2: we have ways of ensuring that won't happen. He basically
Speaker 2: admitted that the Democrats, who've had an iron grip on
Speaker 2: California state government for decades, can manipulate the system and
Speaker 2: ignore the will of the voting public if they need to,
Speaker 2: but a Democrat will end up in control of the
Speaker 2: governor's chair. That was basically what Newsom was saying, wink wink,
Speaker 2: not non, Well, I give you the California vote counting system.
Speaker 2: What of farce?
Speaker 1: This is?
Speaker 2: The primary election was held a week ago, and yet
Speaker 2: the people in charge still can't tell the voters who
Speaker 2: actually won the important races, especially for governor and mayor
Speaker 2: of LA Why not, Well, because the Republican candidates in
Speaker 2: both of those races did really well, and it's going
Speaker 2: to take weeks to manipulate the results behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: That's what I would say. The answer is to that question,
Speaker 2: the Democrats want to insist, no, no, no, it's because California
Speaker 2: receives so many mail in ballots, and because those mail
Speaker 2: in ballots are considered valid for a week after the
Speaker 2: election date. So what sort of crummy system is this?
Speaker 2: In short, it's one that is designed by cheaters so
Speaker 2: they can cheat, isn't it. I don't see any way
Speaker 2: that you can claim this is an honest system or
Speaker 2: the fairest way to run an election if you're an
Speaker 2: honest person, And that leaves the truth Democrats who run
Speaker 2: the system want a system that they can manipulate and cheat.
Speaker 2: Meghan Kelly had Sean Davis of The Federalist on her
Speaker 2: podcast and he explained it perfectly. No one would create
Speaker 2: a system like this if they wanted people to have
Speaker 2: faith in the results.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's kind of a fascinating little system they've set
Speaker 6: up here where you've got three ways to vote. You
Speaker 6: can go, you know, vote in a voting location, you know,
Speaker 6: pull the lever, push the button, whatever you want to do.
Speaker 6: You can vote by mail. So when you vote by mail,
Speaker 6: the post office gets your ballot and they postmark it,
Speaker 6: or you can do this amazing new invention called the
Speaker 6: vote drop box where it doesn't get postmarked. You just
Speaker 6: put your vote in there and they'll come and collect
Speaker 6: your votes and then they add them all together and
Speaker 6: then ah, you have all the votes you need. And
Speaker 6: what I find fascinating about this system is that in
Speaker 6: the first one, where you vote in person, we know
Speaker 6: when that vote was made when you put it in
Speaker 6: the mail. We know when it got put in the
Speaker 6: mail because it gets postmarked. But there's this magical new
Speaker 6: third category of votes that don't really have a date.
Speaker 6: And California law, by the way, says if a ballot
Speaker 6: doesn't have a legible postmark, as long as you know
Speaker 6: they have a good faith reason to believe that it
Speaker 6: was cast in time, they have to count it. And
Speaker 6: so in this magical new California system, which is like
Speaker 6: totally safe and secure and not at all like designed
Speaker 6: to be rigged, you get counts on election night, so
Speaker 6: that tells you, hey, this is how much votes this
Speaker 6: guy has. And then we have the system where there's
Speaker 6: no way to date a ballot and they're going to
Speaker 6: collect ballots for weeks and we're supposed to believe that
Speaker 6: that's somehow a credible, secure, like normal way to do elections.
Speaker 6: There is only one reason to design an election in
Speaker 6: this way, and is to control the outcome. Like I'm
Speaker 6: sorry if that makes people mad to hear, but nobody
Speaker 6: would create a system like this if they wanted people
Speaker 6: to have faith in results. They created a system like
Speaker 6: this because they wanted to be able to engineer results.
Speaker 2: Folks, The government of California mails out ballots to every
Speaker 2: citizen of voting age in that state. That means they
Speaker 2: mail out twenty three million ballots even though not a
Speaker 2: single person requested them, and they know a huge number
Speaker 2: of people won't use them. So any California election starts,
Speaker 2: it starts with twenty three million blank ballots floating around
Speaker 2: in a sloppy, unsecured process. Good grief. Now, consider how
Speaker 2: Sean Davis just explained how the ballot drop boxes work.
Speaker 2: You could have all sorts of people collecting unused ballots,
Speaker 2: filling them out the way they want the election to go,
Speaker 2: and then shoving dozens of them, hundreds of them at
Speaker 2: a time, into those ballot drop boxes. Then the process
Speaker 2: to count those ballots goes on for weeks in secretive
Speaker 2: locations with only occasional announcements of who's leading now or
Speaker 2: how many votes they have. Every poll before this primary
Speaker 2: day showed a Republican candidate named Steve Hilton leading the
Speaker 2: race for governor. But after a week of behind the
Speaker 2: scenes counting, Wow, somehow, now Steve Hilton is running third
Speaker 2: in the election results.
Speaker 1: What a shock.
Speaker 2: The California Secretary of State keeps urging people to have
Speaker 2: patients exercise patients, folks, Voters should not have to exercise
Speaker 2: patients after an election is held. They should be able
Speaker 2: to expect the results by the next day at the latest. Honestly,
Speaker 2: there's no reason, none, that we in America can't hold
Speaker 2: elections and have the results of those elections by the
Speaker 2: end of that day or the day after, depending on
Speaker 2: how many ballots were cast, etc. Even a presidential race
Speaker 2: in this country with about one hundred and fifty million
Speaker 2: people voting at a time, should be able to be
Speaker 2: concluded within twenty four hours, barring any extreme circumstance or
Speaker 2: close vote. But certainly any state wide race should be
Speaker 2: tallied with we the people knowing the results of it
Speaker 2: within hours. And so any state that's doing it like
Speaker 2: California is doing it, is doing it wrong and or
Speaker 2: is intentionally cheating.
Speaker 1: Period.
Speaker 2: Forget this crap about how ballots need to be counted
Speaker 2: for up to a week or two after they come in.
Speaker 2: That should be illegal. I mean, imagine, with twenty three
Speaker 2: million blank ballots floating around California, how hard would it
Speaker 2: be to simply wait to see the initial results and
Speaker 2: then manufacture the number of votes you needed to have
Speaker 2: your side win later. The answer is that would be
Speaker 2: extremely easy. California's voters deserve better, and given how much
Speaker 2: California's policies influence the rest of the nation and influence
Speaker 2: the rest of US America's voters deserve better than to
Speaker 2: have states running intentionally effed up elections like this. I'd
Speaker 2: strongly suggest that California's sloppy system affects US all based
Speaker 2: on how influential the thirty million people in that state
Speaker 2: and their radical nutty leaders affect national policy. The editors
Speaker 2: at Issues and Insights call this a laughably inept system
Speaker 2: of voting that California has, and they're right. Quote two
Speaker 2: full days after the polls closed, they say, just sixty
Speaker 2: percent of voters for governor in less than two thirds
Speaker 2: of the votes for La mayor were counted As a result.
Speaker 2: None of the Republicans running for governor or mayor even
Speaker 2: knows if he's going to qualify for the general election November.
Speaker 2: Ballots are mailed to every eligible voter, twenty three million
Speaker 2: of them, and the state has permissive rules for returning them.
Speaker 2: Ballots will be counted if they're postmarked by election day
Speaker 2: and they arrive at an election office within seven days.
Speaker 2: These editors say, mailing out twenty three million ballots throws
Speaker 2: the door wide open to fraud. How many of those
Speaker 2: ballots get sent to the wrong address, to people who've died,
Speaker 2: to people who've left the state? Yeah, and I would
Speaker 2: add how many of those ballots are then re used
Speaker 2: by someone else cheating the system, putting them in a
Speaker 2: dropbox as I suggested? These editors say, Judicial Watch claims
Speaker 2: that there are more than eight hundred thousand people on
Speaker 2: the CALIFORNI your voter registration roles who shouldn't be there yet,
Speaker 2: mail and ballots go out to each and every one
Speaker 2: of them. Where do those ballots end up? They say? Worse,
Speaker 2: California also allows ballot harvesting, which lets third parties deliver
Speaker 2: a limitless number of mail in ballots another open invitation
Speaker 2: to fraud, and California voters are supposed to believe that.
Speaker 2: Ballot counters then meticulously study every mail in ballot that
Speaker 2: arrives days after the election to make sure signatures match
Speaker 2: those on file, the postmarks are correct, etc. They ask
Speaker 2: why would Republicans an a state dominated by far left
Speaker 2: Democrats trust this system, especially when they watch their leads
Speaker 2: slowly evaporate as these late arriving ballots are counted by
Speaker 2: people who have a vested interest in keeping Republicans out
Speaker 2: of office. These editors conclude, even if the system isn't
Speaker 2: rife with fraud, California voters deserve better than this, because
Speaker 2: the appearance of fraud is just as bad as actual
Speaker 2: existence of fraud. I agree with that completely, as ninety
Speaker 2: five percent of Americans probably would. There is nothing related
Speaker 2: to this California system that it seems reasonable, or rational
Speaker 2: or fair. Oh, and I wanted to be sure to
Speaker 2: get to this next item too, at least briefly. We're
Speaker 2: now moving into the middle of June, and that means
Speaker 2: important Supreme Court decisions are going to start dropping like crazy.
Speaker 2: And let's hope that these drive the left crazy. The
Speaker 2: Court always closes out at spring term by releasing decisions
Speaker 2: through the end of June, and there are about a
Speaker 2: dozen important decisions to be handed down here over the
Speaker 2: next two or three weeks. Several of them will be
Speaker 2: related to President Trump's illegal immigration crackdown. One will decide
Speaker 2: if he can roll back the so called humanitarian protection
Speaker 2: programs that past presidents have put into place. This is
Speaker 2: like Obama and Biden protecting say the Cubans or the
Speaker 2: Nicker roguins from deportation and insisting that they shouldn't be
Speaker 2: forced to return to their home countries due to some
Speaker 2: strife there. Can Trump end that protection and send them
Speaker 2: back is the question in front of the Court that'll
Speaker 2: be decided. It's known as temporary protected status, and pro
Speaker 2: illegal advocates and presidents have been abusing that status for generations.
Speaker 2: Then there's the decision on birthright citizenship. We assume Trump's
Speaker 2: going to lose on this question, but I'm glad that
Speaker 2: he and his team are pushing the issue and setting
Speaker 2: up the parameters for possible future actions or alterations. Trump
Speaker 2: and his team argued to the justices that actually, the
Speaker 2: Fourteenth Amendment does not allow anyone born on US soil citizenship.
Speaker 2: Trump himself told reporters the expects to lose this, But
Speaker 2: as I say, the first step in any modification or
Speaker 2: restriction to the fourteenth Amendment would start with a clear
Speaker 2: ruling on what it actually says and what it doesn't say.
Speaker 2: Another case to be decided deals with the president's authority
Speaker 2: to fire federal officials and appointees. Trump fired and replaced
Speaker 2: a number of people at so called independent agencies, and
Speaker 2: the lefties took him to court over it. That question
Speaker 2: should be answered too, And in this instance, I'm thinking
Speaker 2: the justices will probably side with Trump because someone atop
Speaker 2: one of our three branches of government needs to have
Speaker 2: the ultimate authority on people like this, don't they. Our
Speaker 2: constitution would suggest it's either the executive or a vote
Speaker 2: of Congress that would be able to replace this head
Speaker 2: of Independent Commission. Because the way our system is set up,
Speaker 2: any appointee would need to be answerable to someone, wouldn't they.
Speaker 2: It'll be interesting to see what the justices say on that.
Speaker 2: Oh and we were just talking about California's sloppy voting system,
Speaker 2: which allows for late ballots to be counted. A ruling
Speaker 2: on a Mississippi case is expected. The RNC actually sued
Speaker 2: the state of Mississippi for counting ballots that came in
Speaker 2: up to a week late. If the Supreme Court says, hey,
Speaker 2: election day is the election deadline, as many as thirty
Speaker 2: states would have to change their election laws and count
Speaker 2: only the mail in ballots that were in their possession
Speaker 2: at the end of election day. I'm all in favor
Speaker 2: of that change. Again, it simply reduces the chances of cheating,
Speaker 2: but it also reinforces the important notion that we have
Speaker 2: an election day and not some sort of election week
Speaker 2: or election season. It's important the American people know the
Speaker 2: results of any given election and know it quickly. Also,
Speaker 2: the Court is due to rule on a case related
Speaker 2: to whether transgenders can participate in women's and girls' sports.
Speaker 2: Any ruling there is bound to lay the groundwork for
Speaker 2: I'm sure another round of court cases related to transgender
Speaker 2: bathroom and locker room usage. So we have a very
Speaker 2: consequential few weeks coming here as it relates to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, and given that we have a genuine constitutionally
Speaker 2: minded court, the assumption is that a number of these
Speaker 2: decisions are going to infuriate today's Democrats and their activist left,
Speaker 2: resulting in another round of calls for court packing and
Speaker 2: left wing cheating in order to try to regain ideological
Speaker 2: control of the Court for the left. As it is.
Speaker 2: For weeks now, scummy Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Hakim Jeffreys,
Speaker 2: and Jamie Raskin have been making noise about stealing back
Speaker 2: liberal control while pretending that they would be doing it
Speaker 2: out of fairness or for the good of the country.
Speaker 2: Both Jeffries and Schumer have been saying everything is on
Speaker 2: the table if Democrats retake control of the House and
Speaker 2: the Senate in fall. That's code for past legislation that
Speaker 2: changes the number of justices on the Court so that
Speaker 2: liberals dominate the majority again is just cheating. The thing is,
Speaker 2: they would need to do that with a Democrat president
Speaker 2: in the White House, so he or she could appoint
Speaker 2: all the new liberal justices. Right, if they change the
Speaker 2: number of justices on the Court and they pass something
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty seven or twenty eight, it would be
Speaker 2: Trump that would be stacking the Court with new members. Right,
Speaker 2: So this threat isn't as immediate as Schumer, Jeffreys and
Speaker 2: these Democrats are making it sound, but it is a
Speaker 2: threat they're making, and have no doubt. Please have zero
Speaker 2: doubt that the next time the Democrats find themselves fully
Speaker 2: in charge of Washington, DC, they will do whatever it
Speaker 2: takes to add members to the Supreme Court so they
Speaker 2: can retake control of it. And they will, because forcing
Speaker 2: socialism onto America doesn't work unless they can a ignore
Speaker 2: the Constitution and b have a Supreme Court that lets
Speaker 2: them do it. You are listening to the Jweber podcast.
Speaker 2: There's something in political circles a term that they use
Speaker 2: when dealing with a scandal. It's called a catch and kill.
Speaker 2: It is, in short, finding a reporter or a news
Speaker 2: outlet that your campaign is chumming with and intentionally intentionally
Speaker 2: leaking a scandal on your own candidate so that you
Speaker 2: can manage and limit the fallout. You get it as in,
Speaker 2: we know Graham Platner has a big problem with being
Speaker 2: an abusive pig with women and cheating on his wife,
Speaker 2: So let's leak a small, narrow version of a sex
Speaker 2: scandal to the New York Times so that after a
Speaker 2: few days of controversy, we can claim that everything else
Speaker 2: that comes after it related to Platner being a pig
Speaker 2: is old news. This allows the accomplice left wing media
Speaker 2: to claim that, oh, we've already covered that, we already
Speaker 2: told reporters Platner is a sexist pig, so there's no
Speaker 2: real reason to keep doting on it or keep reporting
Speaker 2: on it. Get it. This is the technique of catch
Speaker 2: and kill. Have an accomplice of years in the media,
Speaker 2: release the story, and that way you can manage it
Speaker 2: and manipulate it. The reporter or news outlet will just
Speaker 2: love to have the exclusive right. They'll willingly go along
Speaker 2: with your spin and your parameters, etc. They'll allow you
Speaker 2: to massage and control the message and the story because
Speaker 2: they're getting the exclusive, and their help allows you to
Speaker 2: get out the scandal as framed by your team and
Speaker 2: very helpfully allows you another accomplished news outlets to ignore
Speaker 2: the follow up stories that come as a result. Get it.
Speaker 2: If the story is Graham Platner abuses women, well, then
Speaker 2: the second, the fifth, and the tenth woman who steps
Speaker 2: forward to tell her story of abuse can be dismissed
Speaker 2: as yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone already knows Platner has
Speaker 2: that reputation. Let's move on. This is what The New
Speaker 2: York Times is being accused of doing when it comes
Speaker 2: to Graham Platner's history with women, and the evidence is
Speaker 2: stacking up that this is in fact the case. Platner is,
Speaker 2: of course, the racist, sexist monster who's running for the
Speaker 2: US Senate in Maine against Susan Collins. And by the way,
Speaker 2: today is primary election Damy. Later today we should learn
Speaker 2: whether this nightmare of a human being, much less nightmare
Speaker 2: of a candidate, is going to officially be the Democrat
Speaker 2: Party's nominee for this Senate seat in Maine. And given
Speaker 2: that nearly every big name Democrat has continued to defend
Speaker 2: the indefensible nature of Plattner's campaign, the assumption is that, yeah,
Speaker 2: he's going to win today. The current governor of Maine,
Speaker 2: At Mills, was also going to run for the seat,
Speaker 2: but she suspended her campaign weeks ago. Well, her name
Speaker 2: is still on the ballot, and so there's at least
Speaker 2: a chance that Maine's Democrat voters will do the right
Speaker 2: thing and at the very least shift their support over
Speaker 2: to Mills check the box for her instead today, But
Speaker 2: it's not likely to turn out that way. After watching
Speaker 2: politics and election days for forty years, I can tell
Speaker 2: you that last minute schemes like that never work, so
Speaker 2: I'll be shocked if it does today. But several days
Speaker 2: into this latest scandal related to Platner's abuse of women,
Speaker 2: there is no doubt, no doubt that The New York
Speaker 2: Times didn't come across this story. Honestly, they didn't drop
Speaker 2: a bombshell here that they themselves discovered and decided to
Speaker 2: report on. It's clear that the Times reporter and editors
Speaker 2: were instead participating in one of these catch and kill schemes.
Speaker 2: That's evident because now we know the woman that the
Speaker 2: Times chose to make the focus of their story is
Speaker 2: saying that they left out the most outrageous and damaging
Speaker 2: parts of her story. The Times generically recounted the stories
Speaker 2: of three women who have stepped up to say that
Speaker 2: Platner is a disgusting pig who victimizes women, in cheats
Speaker 2: on his wife, etc. But they mostly focused on one
Speaker 2: woman because she now claims she didn't want her name
Speaker 2: to be known, didn't want to go public in any
Speaker 2: major way. In fact, she says she was reluctant to
Speaker 2: even talk to The New York Times, but she did
Speaker 2: because the reporter suite talked her into telling her story
Speaker 2: to help other women, and then the newspaper refused to
Speaker 2: tell the real story she discovered. The most significant and
Speaker 2: damaging parts of her story were simply left out of
Speaker 2: the article when it came out. Gee, it's almost as
Speaker 2: if the New York Times editors were trying to minimize
Speaker 2: the damage to Graham Platner. Huh see. For days and
Speaker 2: weeks before The New York Times ran this story, rumors
Speaker 2: had been circulating around the other major newsrooms that another
Speaker 2: Platiner scandal was coming of this sort. Democrat operatives were
Speaker 2: talking about this amongst themselves and even on social media.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a good indication that this was all
Speaker 2: pre planned, or at the very least, some news outlet
Speaker 2: was going to run some sort of negative story. So
Speaker 2: this was a nudge to the New York Times to
Speaker 2: break the story for the Platiner campaign. They could break
Speaker 2: it and then manage it on their own terms. Both
Speaker 2: sides of that equation would have known the accusations were legitimate.
Speaker 2: Two right. I mean, Platner himself hasn't denied any of
Speaker 2: the allegations related to him engaging in extramarital sexting or
Speaker 2: being a pig to women. He hasn't denied that he
Speaker 2: posted racist and pro Nazi posts on social media in
Speaker 2: the past, etc. It's all evident and provable, So both
Speaker 2: sides of this equation would have known the accusations were true,
Speaker 2: and it looks more and more like the two sides
Speaker 2: then colluded to try to get the scandal out there
Speaker 2: in the least damaging way possible for the left. They
Speaker 2: could then pretend from here on out, this has already
Speaker 2: been reported, this has been examined. This is old news.
Speaker 2: So yet another woman saying he's a pig. Big whoop,
Speaker 2: it's not newsworthy. This is what the New York Times
Speaker 2: clearly engaged in along with the Platiner campaign, because the
Speaker 2: credible investigations since seemed to prove. The New York Times
Speaker 2: had at least three women who were ready to level
Speaker 2: sexual assault allegations against Platner, not just that he talked
Speaker 2: like a pig or he treated them poorly, that he
Speaker 2: actually assaulted or raped them. But those accusations somehow didn't
Speaker 2: make it to print, and the story that did pulled
Speaker 2: the worst of its punches. Come on, this isn't the
Speaker 2: New York Times and the left wing media breaking a story.
Speaker 2: It's them concocting a cover up. The New York Times
Speaker 2: reporter and the editors clearly engaged in a propagandist's cover up. Here.
Speaker 2: Lindsey Feifeld is the woman who the story was based on,
Speaker 2: and she now says, it's evident to me that I
Speaker 2: was being set up all along the entire time. She says,
Speaker 2: they never really wanted to tell my story or hear
Speaker 2: the truth. That's obvious now in retrospect. Fifield says that
Speaker 2: the New York Times violated the trust of Platner's victims
Speaker 2: and shattered the trust that she placed in them with
Speaker 2: the most vulnerable story of her life. That is what
Speaker 2: they did, yes, all to help the Democrats somehow get
Speaker 2: a man who has clearly been revealed to be a
Speaker 2: piece of human garbage elected to the US Senate. It's shameful.
Speaker 2: And if anyone in the audience still has ended question
Speaker 2: as to whether the folks at the New York Times
Speaker 2: are honest journalists. If you have any question as to
Speaker 2: whether the people in that newsroom are doing honest and
Speaker 2: fair journalism, I think you have your answer now. No.
Speaker 2: And they aren't even trying to. These are far left
Speaker 2: propagandists masquerading as journalists, and any way they can help
Speaker 2: the left wing cause, they will. Heck, the people atop
Speaker 2: the New York Times are now basically revictimizing the survivors
Speaker 2: of domestic abuse in order to help the left retake
Speaker 2: control of Congress. That's pathetic. They are deliberately withholding more
Speaker 2: explosive stories and accusations of sexual assault against Graham Platner
Speaker 2: as a way to help out the Democrat party. That's shameful.
Speaker 2: And folks, eight years after every Democrat in Congress and
Speaker 2: in all of Washington, d c. And on both coasts,
Speaker 2: eight years after they railed against Brett Kavanaugh as a
Speaker 2: Supreme Court justice based on false stories about his youth,
Speaker 2: they were certain those stories just as qualified him, and
Speaker 2: they were made up. And only a few years after
Speaker 2: all of these same Democrats ran around looking for me
Speaker 2: two scalps to take to have nearly every single one
Speaker 2: of them. Now those same Democrats endorsing and defending Graham
Speaker 2: Platner and excusing away the very real scandals being leveled
Speaker 2: against him. It's just too much. If this was a cartoon,
Speaker 2: this would be when my head explodes. For decades, some
Speaker 2: of us on the right have been insisting that this
Speaker 2: era's Democrats are nothing but nasty, immoral, gameplaying hypocrites. And
Speaker 2: here they are again proving us right, and in spectacular fashion.
Speaker 2: After all, if they're still defending and protecting Graham Platner,
Speaker 2: after all that has come out about him, and after
Speaker 2: all that we know to be true, now, how are
Speaker 2: they anything other than the scummiest hypocrites and the most
Speaker 2: terrible people in leadership roles in America? How can Liz
Speaker 2: Warren or Bernie Sanders, or Chuck Schumer or ro Kanna
Speaker 2: or any of them who continue to endorse and defend
Speaker 2: Graham Platner be taken seriously? Ever? Again, if I was
Speaker 2: a liberal or a woman, or I voted Democrat, I
Speaker 2: would be asking myself and my friends that question constantly.
Speaker 2: This week, Liz Warren and AOC were among the Democrats
Speaker 2: who insisted that you either believe the female accusers, or
Speaker 2: you're protecting abusers and rapists. Now they're doing exactly that,
Speaker 2: And I would stress now they are doing exactly that,
Speaker 2: even though there have been clear opportunities for them to
Speaker 2: bail on Graham Platner. In fact, Warren AOC all of
Speaker 2: them would have more credibility if they simply admitted that, Okay,
Speaker 2: look the new information that has come out on Graham
Speaker 2: Platner as a deal breaker, I can no longer support
Speaker 2: this man. I withdraw my endorsement. If they did that,
Speaker 2: they'd actually have more credibility with the voters and with
Speaker 2: the country at large. Nope, Today's Democrats are all about
Speaker 2: doing anything to win, anything to win, anything to win,
Speaker 2: that includes supporting a Nazi supporting woman abusing socialist, racist extremist.
Speaker 2: As one pundit put it on x that Senator Schumer
Speaker 2: prefers a Nazi sympathizer, racist, com munist, and misogynist like
Speaker 2: Graham Platner over all well respected senator who votes like
Speaker 2: a centrist Democrat, tells you how far left the Democrat
Speaker 2: Party has moved. Yep. This is, after all, the race
Speaker 2: for Susan Collins's seat, and she's the most moderate and
Speaker 2: politically reasonable member of today's Senate. So it's not even
Speaker 2: like these Democrats are supporting Platner because his opponent is
Speaker 2: an even bigger monster. No, no, no, monsters don't get
Speaker 2: much bigger than Graham Platner. They're supporting him against the
Speaker 2: Republican and the Senate who sides with Donald Trump the
Speaker 2: least and who causes the most amount of heartburn and
Speaker 2: disappointment for her own leadership team.
Speaker 1: It's really indefensive that Jay Webber Podcast is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio Podcasts, produced and engineered by Gregory John. The
Speaker 1: Jay Webber Podcast is presented by Creative Planning, helping clients
Speaker 1: simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan at
Speaker 1: a time. Listen to all of Jay Weber's podcasts available
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite five cast