Speaker 1: That Jay Webber 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 Jay Weber Podcast is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2: Good Day, Come on in, take us dat, Welcome to
Speaker 2: the JA Podcast. We have a lot to talk about today,
Speaker 2: including for the first time in either term, President Trump
Speaker 2: decigning to attend the annual White House Correspondence Dinner this weekend.
Speaker 2: And I can only think of one reason why that
Speaker 2: he'd be at all interested in doing this. Gregory John,
Speaker 2: my producer, is here. Greg Are you thinking this is
Speaker 2: going to be appointment television this weekend? Would you make
Speaker 2: it a point to tune in to watch any fireworks
Speaker 2: that might occur?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, to be honest with you, the Fox
Speaker 3: News is actually going to be doing like an Academy
Speaker 3: Awards kind of introduction to the Correspondence dinner. They're gonna
Speaker 3: have a red carpet and everything, and Jesse Waters is
Speaker 3: going to be the host. So I guess they're going
Speaker 3: to make it a musty TV event for all of us.
Speaker 2: I guess so about everyone's in DC and New York
Speaker 2: are wondering why Donald Trump would even just now choose
Speaker 2: to waste time with this. He is never going to
Speaker 2: get this group of people to like him or treat
Speaker 2: him fairly these correspondences, Why go, Greg, give me a
Speaker 2: prediction on what path Trump will take in his speech.
Speaker 2: Is he going to poke fun at himself and try
Speaker 2: to win the crowd over by being self deprecating or
Speaker 2: do you think is just going to go full blast
Speaker 2: at him and show up just to call them most
Speaker 2: scumbags and liars.
Speaker 1: Now the second one I would love.
Speaker 2: I would love to see that just either way, it
Speaker 2: should be an interesting night and I might tune in
Speaker 2: just to see if that room of so called journalists
Speaker 2: sitting in front of him can manage to act like adults.
Speaker 2: That's in addition to Trump going into the lions Den,
Speaker 2: we'll talk about Sean Duffy doing the work when it
Speaker 2: comes to finally improving an air traffic control system that
Speaker 2: every administration since Reagan promised to fix. Trump and Duffy
Speaker 2: are getting it done. We'll talk about the various ways
Speaker 2: that Virginia's new congressional map is an insult to the
Speaker 2: Republic and how if the Virginia Supreme Court allows this
Speaker 2: to stand, it's going to be remarkable and folks finally
Speaker 2: holding three or four congressmen accountable for their criminal actions.
Speaker 2: It's a positive thing, but it's not what a purge
Speaker 2: of a Congress that's full of rats and grifters. To
Speaker 2: call this a purge is interesting to me. All that
Speaker 2: and more coming up after I tell you about my
Speaker 2: superior sponsor, Creative Planning. They're one of the nation's largest
Speaker 2: independent wealth management firms, offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning,
Speaker 2: investment management, estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international
Speaker 2: wealth management, all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager.
Speaker 2: Their fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate
Speaker 2: every piece of your financial life. Visit Creative Planning dot
Speaker 2: com to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot com.
Speaker 2: Your team awaits paid for by Creative Planning and sec
Speaker 2: registered investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement
Speaker 2: of the firm. So the White House Correspondents Dinner is
Speaker 2: this weekend and for the first time as President Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is attending. Oh boy, this should be a proper
Speaker 2: shizz show, shouldn't it. For the life of me. I
Speaker 2: don't know why Donald Trump's going. I could take a
Speaker 2: few guesses. One is that even after everything that has
Speaker 2: transpired over the last ten years, Donald Trump the man,
Speaker 2: I think, still wants to be adored and loved by
Speaker 2: these countries, rich and famous, an elite class. He's always
Speaker 2: been one of those people. After all, This is something
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump the man has always been into. Being
Speaker 2: adored in elite circles on both coasts has always been
Speaker 2: something that Donald Trump has craved and something that has
Speaker 2: motivated him. You know, the number of famous people from entertainment,
Speaker 2: from pro sports, etc. Who filed through Trump Tower when
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was simply a billionaire businessman is legendary. Trump
Speaker 2: wanted to meet everyone famous and personally shake their hand
Speaker 2: and sit down and get to know more about them.
Speaker 2: He's inherently a people person. But it's why before he
Speaker 2: was politically controversial, you had everyone from you know, Mike
Speaker 2: Tyson to Jay Z and Beyonce to Magic Johnson to
Speaker 2: Justin bieber All saying, you know, Trump's a friend, Trump's cool.
Speaker 2: So my guess in terms of what motivates Donald Trump
Speaker 2: to even agree to go to this dinner tomorrow is
Speaker 2: that even after everything that's transpired and all the hatred
Speaker 2: that DC in New York and the LA crowds have
Speaker 2: tossed at him, he still wants to be seen as
Speaker 2: cool to them. Trump's still wants to be in that
Speaker 2: in crowd when it comes to US and global elites.
Speaker 2: That's my guess. My guess is he certainly wants to
Speaker 2: rejoin those circles post presidency too, and so that's why
Speaker 2: he's making what's likely a terrible decision to go to
Speaker 2: this nerd prom banquet tomorrow night. The chance that Trump
Speaker 2: is going to be simply savaged and lectured to by
Speaker 2: a bunch of activist America haters who simply pose as
Speaker 2: journalists is a high one, and any chance of Trump
Speaker 2: emerging from this more liked or more likable in this
Speaker 2: crowd is nearly zero. The President should continue to skip
Speaker 2: this and anyone still associated with the White House Press
Speaker 2: Corps should be pushing to end this annual dinner altogether
Speaker 2: because it has always been a biased, ridiculous affair. It
Speaker 2: has always been so called journalists making themselves the story
Speaker 2: and injecting themselves into politics and the current events of
Speaker 2: the day. When they're supposed to be impartial observers. They're
Speaker 2: not supposed to do that. But in this era, this
Speaker 2: dinner's really a joke, and it's simply a night for
Speaker 2: left wing activists to get together and celebrate the power
Speaker 2: that they derive from routinely life to the American people.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the average member of the DC
Speaker 2: or New York media elite really really doesn't like to
Speaker 2: be challenged. This is a group of people that has
Speaker 2: genuinely convinced themselves they are the truth seekers and the
Speaker 2: truth tellers. They are the social conscience of this nation.
Speaker 2: They're the intellectual elite of the nation. And so they
Speaker 2: hate nothing more. I mean, they react very negatively when
Speaker 2: someone challenges them or they're standing And so this crowd
Speaker 2: in particular has a burning hatred for Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: for anyone who would dare to work for him. Just
Speaker 2: consider how many of Trump's appointees and cabinet secretaries are
Speaker 2: under constant fire from the mainstream news media simply because
Speaker 2: they dared to take the job. This is both in
Speaker 2: their personal lives and in their professional lives. Pam Bondi, Cash, Betel,
Speaker 2: Sean Duffy, Janine piro Brett, Kavanaugh, Name a Trump appointee,
Speaker 2: and I'll show you someone who's under relentless assault from
Speaker 2: these so called fair news outlets, whose members are trying
Speaker 2: to destroy both their personal and their professional lives because
Speaker 2: they dared to work for Trump, knowing Trump, working for Trump,
Speaker 2: liking Trump. It's enough to sick these rabid DC in
Speaker 2: New York media dogs on you. And why would Trump
Speaker 2: himself even want to go to attend this dinner or
Speaker 2: in any way legitimize that. Why legitimize anything that these
Speaker 2: jackals do or say. I just don't understand it. Hopefully
Speaker 2: Trump can get off a few good singers and get
Speaker 2: a bunch of press attention on Sunday and Monday of
Speaker 2: the sort that they think is working to trash Trump.
Speaker 2: It's really the sort that backfires on the mainstream media
Speaker 2: and is boosting Trump with the average American. Trump knows
Speaker 2: that the real effect of these waves of negative coverage
Speaker 2: is often a boost to him and his standing amongst
Speaker 2: the average American people and away from the coasts. So
Speaker 2: maybe that's what Trump is angling for here. Also, now
Speaker 2: that he no longer has worries about being reelected, I
Speaker 2: think there's a very good chance that Trump's speech is
Speaker 2: one in which he simply calls them all liars to
Speaker 2: their faces and just levels them. You've got to think
Speaker 2: that he's going to include at least some of that
Speaker 2: in any speech he gives. Then there's this wild card.
Speaker 2: I mean, we aren't sure how the members of the
Speaker 2: White House Press Association are actually going to react to
Speaker 2: this call for them to quote forcefully demonstrate opposition to
Speaker 2: President Trump during this event. This call came from a
Speaker 2: group of journalists. You might have seen this. A group
Speaker 2: of over two hundred and fifty so called journalists put
Speaker 2: out a public letter urging the attendees to trash in
Speaker 2: smear Trump in every way they can put up a
Speaker 2: public stink and a public opposition to Trump accepting the
Speaker 2: inviter or something. Well, first of all, it would really
Speaker 2: reflect poorly on the so called unbiased White House Press
Speaker 2: Association if they invited a guest to their party and
Speaker 2: then just trashed and belittled and embarrassed that person for
Speaker 2: two hours. That's not what the organizers of a reputable
Speaker 2: association would do to their guests, any sort of group
Speaker 2: or association, much less quote professional journalists. This is what
Speaker 2: you really have to consider it this is allegedly a
Speaker 2: news organization. They're allegedly journalists. You can't call yourself a
Speaker 2: journalist and then engage in this sort of angry activism.
Speaker 2: This letter, in its suggestion, should be absurd to anyone
Speaker 2: who actually considered themselves a journalist. The sad thing is,
Speaker 2: in this era and in this moment, virtually no one
Speaker 2: who shows up to this dinner is going to be
Speaker 2: a genuine journalist. After all. This is the crowd of
Speaker 2: people who, on a daily basis, are refusing, simply refusing
Speaker 2: to report on any news orround any sort of story
Speaker 2: on the very real and consequential wins that Trump and
Speaker 2: his team are racking up for this country. I keep
Speaker 2: giving you new examples of these things because so many
Speaker 2: very positive developments are being ignored by the news media.
Speaker 2: These are all stories that news outlets would have routinely
Speaker 2: covered and reported on in any other era because they
Speaker 2: were simply good news. They were things that would get
Speaker 2: would bring readership, would inform the public, not in this era.
Speaker 2: Just a couple of examples this week, do you know
Speaker 2: that homicides are down seventy five to eighty percent in Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. Since Trump cracked down on crime in that district.
Speaker 2: There are a couple of different measures of this, so
Speaker 2: that's why it's somewhere between seventy five and eighty percent
Speaker 2: if you believe the stats. There have only been twenty
Speaker 2: murders total in Washington, d C. Since the first of
Speaker 2: the year. I'll say that again because some of you
Speaker 2: realize how remarkable this is. There've only been twenty murders
Speaker 2: total in washing Hington, d C. Since the first of
Speaker 2: the year, when that city was a famous killing field
Speaker 2: until Trump took over, Including during the Biden era, Washington
Speaker 2: d C is on pace to have about forty five
Speaker 2: murders this year, and that would be down from two
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy four in twenty twenty four, the final
Speaker 2: year of the Biden era. Carjackings in DC are also
Speaker 2: down by nearly fifty percent, Folks. Historians say this is
Speaker 2: the lowest murder rate in Washington, d C. Since nineteen hundred,
Speaker 2: Since the turn of the last century. That's roughly when
Speaker 2: Jack the Ripper was terrorizing the streets of London and
Speaker 2: street lamps were running on fossil fuels and whale oils.
Speaker 2: I think that might be newsworthy. Is Trump getting any
Speaker 2: credit for it. Now. Did any of you know about
Speaker 2: this until I told you about it?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Probably not many. One pundit pointed out on social media
Speaker 2: that the Washington Post, this is the newspaper of record
Speaker 2: in Washington, d C, hasn't written a single story about
Speaker 2: DC's murder rates since February first. The liberal activists at
Speaker 2: the Post didn't want their Washington d C readers to
Speaker 2: know that overall crime murder is down significantly since Trump
Speaker 2: took action. Why. I think you can answer that one
Speaker 2: for yourselves. Here's another great example of some positive changes
Speaker 2: being made by the Trump team that are quite significant
Speaker 2: and yet not being reported on because it might make
Speaker 2: Trump and Republicans look good. Most people don't realize that
Speaker 2: for probably three decades, we've been told by our FAA,
Speaker 2: our pilots, our air traffic controllers, etc. We desperately need
Speaker 2: to upgrade our air traffic control system. It's been at
Speaker 2: least thirty years now that the insiders in Washington, d
Speaker 2: C and the insiders of the Federal Aviation Administration have
Speaker 2: been calling this a dangerous situation. It went from dangerous
Speaker 2: situation in the eighties to crisis now. Something needs to
Speaker 2: be done, and every administration since Reagan has insisted they'll
Speaker 2: do something about it. Oh, yes, very important, will improve
Speaker 2: our ancient and embarrassing air traffic control equipment, et cetera.
Speaker 2: It's got to be done. It's got to be done.
Speaker 2: It's never been done. Why because it would take hard,
Speaker 2: thankless work. That's why it would take a lot of
Speaker 2: taxpayer money and someone who actually do the hard work.
Speaker 2: At the same time, that hard work isn't going to
Speaker 2: bring any particular political glory or attention to the administration
Speaker 2: that does it. Leading today is way too intertwined with
Speaker 2: just political considerations and whether or not you get credit
Speaker 2: for it. And as we've seen over and over and
Speaker 2: over again, if something isn't politically popular or doesn't come
Speaker 2: with some big political payoff at the end these days,
Speaker 2: why do it? No one does it. This is perceived
Speaker 2: as having no upside to your average elected official or politician.
Speaker 2: It's simply true that it has been almost exclusively Republican
Speaker 2: presidents and governors who have done the hard work of
Speaker 2: actually making the tough calls in this country, improving infrastructures,
Speaker 2: tackling difficult tasks, etc. In this modern era, it's simply true,
Speaker 2: that has mostly been to the Republicans to do because
Speaker 2: Democrats aren't serious people and largely want to play games.
Speaker 2: This has simply been the case for at least three
Speaker 2: or four decades.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: If it's not cheap and easy with a political payoff,
Speaker 2: the Democrats aren't going to do it. Dealing with that
Speaker 2: toxic train derailment sounded hard and fraught with political risks,
Speaker 2: so you know, Joe Biden and Pete booda judge, simply
Speaker 2: decided they weren't going to do anything. Dealing with the
Speaker 2: Gulf oil spill in the Obama era sounded hard and thankless,
Speaker 2: it was difficult, so Barack Obama and his White House
Speaker 2: simply didn't do anything about it. We'll just leave that
Speaker 2: up to the Republican governors and then take some credit
Speaker 2: after it's done. Today's Democrats simply refuse to do the
Speaker 2: hard work, the actual work of running and maintaining this
Speaker 2: country and its infrastructures. But they'll be sure that if
Speaker 2: Republicans decide to do it, there will be a bike
Speaker 2: lane or expensive public art somewhere in that project. It's
Speaker 2: just pathetic, and there's no better example of this than
Speaker 2: Pete Booha Judge's categorical malfeasans and disinterest in running the
Speaker 2: Transportation Department. You know, this little dip wat is out
Speaker 2: there again making speeches because as Cleary wants to run it.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty eight, he accepted a cabinet level position
Speaker 2: from Joe Biden in order to drop out of that
Speaker 2: race and clear the way for Byid's domination. And then
Speaker 2: he decided this was just going to be a four
Speaker 2: year vacation, put a Judge plotted in another run for
Speaker 2: president in twenty twenty eight, and didn't do anything between
Speaker 2: twenty twenty and twenty twenty four. This guy was as
Speaker 2: absent as aoc on acid when it came to doing
Speaker 2: anything related to that job. And it's one reason that
Speaker 2: Sean Duffy's tenure as Transportation Secretary has been so impressive,
Speaker 2: but only one reason. It is not inaccurate to say
Speaker 2: that Sean Duffy is better than the last fifteen transportation
Speaker 2: secretaries because he actually took the job to do the job.
Speaker 2: It wasn't just some title handed to him for political patronage.
Speaker 2: But I'm wandering, what's the story that the leftist media
Speaker 2: won't tell you today that less than a year into
Speaker 2: Duffy's overhaul of our air traffic control system, were already
Speaker 2: nearly half done. The way it sounds, and again, you'd
Speaker 2: think this would be newsworthy only the Washington Times, I've
Speaker 2: only seen this in DC's conservative newspaper. I say. Thousands
Speaker 2: of outdated telecommunications equipment like radio and phones are being
Speaker 2: swapped out for brand new models. Hundreds of radars are
Speaker 2: being upgraded. The vapor flight strips that were used by
Speaker 2: air traffic controllers to guide flights are getting ditched for
Speaker 2: new electronic ones, all accessible to on one computer screen now.
Speaker 2: They say, as of this month, nearly fifty percent of
Speaker 2: the old copper wires that powered the communications between air
Speaker 2: traffic controllers and pilots has also been replaced with new
Speaker 2: high speed fiber optic cables. This is great proof that
Speaker 2: all it takes is some actual effort and focus to
Speaker 2: get many of these long standing issues fixed. It takes
Speaker 2: a priority from the important people and those controlling the
Speaker 2: purse strings. Donald Trump is proving that all it takes
Speaker 2: to combat high crime as an honest attempt to stop it.
Speaker 2: Sean Duffy is proving that Pete Booha Judge in the
Speaker 2: last ten transportation secretaries were clowns who just didn't want
Speaker 2: to deal with this air traffic control issue. Duffy might
Speaker 2: have it fixed by Christmas. The way this is going
Speaker 2: I exaggerate, but quote the Transportation Secretary has pledged that
Speaker 2: the changes will be completed by twenty twenty eight, thanks
Speaker 2: to the twelve point five billion dollars approved for the
Speaker 2: modernization in President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill. They say
Speaker 2: the system has basically been held together with shoestring and
Speaker 2: duct tape. This is according to Chris Sununu, who is
Speaker 2: now serving as the CEO of the Trade Association for
Speaker 2: Airlines for America. But Sean Duffy says it was the
Speaker 2: DC aircrash that had President Trump saying, look enough of this,
Speaker 2: fixed this problem. And for all the faults you want
Speaker 2: to ascribe to Donald Trump, he is a fixer, he
Speaker 2: is a doer, he is a builder. Duffy says, what
Speaker 2: we realized was that we used an incredibly old, antiquated
Speaker 2: system of technology from the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties.
Speaker 2: This is a huge task now because it's been ignored
Speaker 2: for thirty years. The scale of the work that's facing
Speaker 2: Duffy and his people. The scale of the work that
Speaker 2: needs to be done just to switch out equipment and
Speaker 2: make the modern day upgrades is massive, and it's largely
Speaker 2: thankless work. Of course, this is going to be a
Speaker 2: wonderful gift that has been given to the American people
Speaker 2: finally after twenty five or thirty years of delays. But
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty eight Republican nominee isn't going to get
Speaker 2: national credit for finally making the system safe after three decades.
Speaker 2: And I mean not even if it's Jdvans or Marco
Speaker 2: Rubio that's on the ticket. They'll lay claim to it
Speaker 2: as a victory, but voters will largely shrug their shoulders.
Speaker 2: Ey eh, we expect, say air travel. We didn't see
Speaker 2: any of the hard work being done, so it's not
Speaker 2: going to move voters. We should be heaping special praise
Speaker 2: onto people, departments, presidents, lawmakers who are going out of
Speaker 2: their way to actually do something, do the work fix
Speaker 2: our problems instead of just bloviating about them. But first,
Speaker 2: the average voter in the American people need to know
Speaker 2: about those fixes, know who is working hard and doing
Speaker 2: the work. The American people need to hear about the
Speaker 2: hard work that's being done and the genuine win that
Speaker 2: results from it. And there's no blasted way that today's
Speaker 2: leftist news media is going to tell the American people
Speaker 2: about any of Trump team's wins, right, not if they
Speaker 2: can help it. That's the sort of so called fair
Speaker 2: and balanced news media that we're dealing with today, my friends.
Speaker 2: I'm not convinced that this big redistricting cheat by the
Speaker 2: Democrats in Virgini is a done deal. A lower court
Speaker 2: already halted it temporarily, of course, and the state Supreme
Speaker 2: Court in Virginia is going to have to ultimately determine
Speaker 2: if this very unfair and extremely gerrymannered map ever gets
Speaker 2: put into play. We'll get into the unique setup of
Speaker 2: Virginia Supreme Court and why it's hard to predict how
Speaker 2: it's going to rule on this. But even realizing that
Speaker 2: in this era, even court politics is a rumble, my
Speaker 2: take is if the Virginia Supreme Court doesn't reject this map,
Speaker 2: it's going to be a major embarrassment for the justices
Speaker 2: on that court and a blatant a front to the
Speaker 2: republic and any sort of rule of order when it
Speaker 2: comes to parliamentary procedures. And I know everything is hardball
Speaker 2: politics right now, and nowhere have the leftists been playing
Speaker 2: harder ball than in states like Virginia. I get it.
Speaker 2: But if most of the justices on the Virginia Supreme
Speaker 2: Court have even a modicum of dignity or integrity, if
Speaker 2: they even have a sense of fairness and justice, well
Speaker 2: they can't approve this map. Everyone in the country, and
Speaker 2: on both sides the Isle knows that this is a
Speaker 2: blatant attempt to and no liberals listening. No, this is
Speaker 2: not like what was going on in Texas or Florida.
Speaker 2: Those adjustments to the political maps in those states that
Speaker 2: were pushed by Republicans still left congressional representation that was
Speaker 2: largely proportional for that state. The Democrat voters in Texas
Speaker 2: and Florida are still represented in Congress in some way.
Speaker 2: This map in Virginia wipes out virtually all voter representation
Speaker 2: for anyone who didn't vote Democrat in that state. Now,
Speaker 2: this is the situation, by the way, when it comes
Speaker 2: to all of the New England states, those all seem
Speaker 2: to have no Republican representation at all, even though those
Speaker 2: New England states vote about forty percent Republican. This map
Speaker 2: in Virginia that wipes out virtually all voter representation for
Speaker 2: anyone who didn't vote Democrat in that state. And it's crazy.
Speaker 2: This change takes a district map that had six Democrat
Speaker 2: districts and five Republican districts and pretty accurately represented the
Speaker 2: voting percentages in the state of Virginia and turns it
Speaker 2: into a map in which there will be nine districts
Speaker 2: controlled by Democrats and only one by Republicans. And I
Speaker 2: don't care which side of the al you're on or
Speaker 2: which parties kool aid you're drinking, no one can claim
Speaker 2: this is a map that is anything close to fair
Speaker 2: or representational. That's one reason that I believe the majority
Speaker 2: of Virginia's Supreme Court justices might reject it, because if
Speaker 2: they don't, they just look like scumbags and idiots. It's
Speaker 2: a pretty good incentive for the average judge to do
Speaker 2: the right thing and reject the extremes. Moreover, how can
Speaker 2: the left wing lawyers who are trying to defend this
Speaker 2: possibly argue this is fair or constitutional? And when I
Speaker 2: say constitutional, I mean representative of the voters of Virginia.
Speaker 2: I know the next step is the state Supreme Court
Speaker 2: there in Virginia, but I'd also be surprised if conservative
Speaker 2: and good government groups don't find arguments to challenge this
Speaker 2: map in federal court and put it on the fast
Speaker 2: track to the US Supreme Court. Some showdown over this
Speaker 2: as long overdue. We have states like Oregon that have
Speaker 2: conservatives in their states so frustrated they want to break
Speaker 2: away and secede and join Utah. I think every effort
Speaker 2: should be made by conservative activist groups to get some
Speaker 2: sort of challenge based on this Virginia map to the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. In the federal court system, I know the U. S.
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has been very, very reluctant to get involved
Speaker 2: in these state maps, but we now have something like
Speaker 2: seven to nine states that are Democrat controlled. They'd either
Speaker 2: have zero Republican congressmen or only one being sent to Washington,
Speaker 2: despite the fact that the voting patterns of their states
Speaker 2: are far far more balanced, such as Massachusetts. Massachusetts votes
Speaker 2: about forty percent Republican, they don't have one Republican representative
Speaker 2: in Congress. The Federal Supreme Court has already heard at
Speaker 2: least one argument related to fair maps recently, and we're
Speaker 2: awaiting that decision. That case in front of them would
Speaker 2: weaken some of the rigged rules in the so called
Speaker 2: Voting Rights Act if they rule as expected, and it
Speaker 2: could lead to another round of national redistricting. So we
Speaker 2: certainly haven't seen the final round of this fight over
Speaker 2: maps in the states and nationally. But I say, bring
Speaker 2: on more litigation and get it in front of this
Speaker 2: conservative US Supreme Court. I think conservative legal activists should
Speaker 2: use this Virginia outrage as a springboard to challenge the
Speaker 2: very notion that one party, either party, can just freeze
Speaker 2: out the other one and pretend their state is sending
Speaker 2: a quote representative government to Washington, d C. From that state.
Speaker 2: I mean, the Democrats in Virginia went into this knowing
Speaker 2: how much they're cheating and how blatant it looks. We
Speaker 2: know this because as part of the language that they
Speaker 2: used in the legislation and on the referendum, they added
Speaker 2: a clause that says this map would only be in
Speaker 2: effect until the next census, which is in twenty thirty. Well,
Speaker 2: of course that would be the case. That's when every
Speaker 2: state needs to redo and rejigger their federal congressional maps.
Speaker 2: It's by law, but the Democrats in Virginia couldn't have
Speaker 2: made it more clear. We're cheating now, but we'll turn
Speaker 2: this process back over to our quote nonpartisan maps commission
Speaker 2: in twenty thirty. YEP, Virginia's estate in which the Democrats
Speaker 2: have convinced their voters to agree to a sham of
Speaker 2: a maps commission, only to then violate and ignore that
Speaker 2: system when it doesn't suit them. We're seeing Democrats do
Speaker 2: this all over the country in various blue states, including
Speaker 2: New York and California. And there's one reason why anyone
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin is stupid if they support Governor Evers's push
Speaker 2: for quote fair maps and a maps commission. Evers and
Speaker 2: Wisconsin Democrats have already ignored a different version of a
Speaker 2: nonpartisan map committee, and they cheated to redraw their own
Speaker 2: maps when they felt they could. They exposed again what
Speaker 2: a sham these maps commissions are. First of all, they
Speaker 2: aren't really nonpartisan. But second, if the Democrats are just
Speaker 2: going to ignore them anytime they see an opening to cheat,
Speaker 2: why have them why pretend? Seriously, why do New York, California,
Speaker 2: or Virginia even have quote nonpartisan maps commissions? If the
Speaker 2: Democrats are just going to ignore them and cheat every
Speaker 2: time they feel the need or see an opening. This
Speaker 2: has been the case now in both California and Virginia
Speaker 2: just over the last few months. Virginia is a split
Speaker 2: state that leans blue. It has been for quite some time,
Speaker 2: so the current map shows split representation in Congress. Quite fair. Actually,
Speaker 2: six Democrats and five Republicans are sent to the House
Speaker 2: of Representatives from that state currently, but through force Virginia
Speaker 2: Democrats get to rig this falls elections to give them
Speaker 2: a nine to one congressional delegation. Come on, there's in
Speaker 2: a single Supreme court in the country that if they
Speaker 2: had honest justices sitting on it, would find that fair, reasonable,
Speaker 2: or representative. In fact, John Fund at the National Review
Speaker 2: has at least four legitimate legal avenues on which Republicans
Speaker 2: can challenge this move in Virginia. The first is he
Speaker 2: says the legislature violated the state's constitution by keeping a
Speaker 2: special session open for nearly two years, and that's a
Speaker 2: move that a local judge who heard the case already
Speaker 2: has labeled a blatant abuse of power. Second avenue of
Speaker 2: challenge Virginia law requires that constitutional amendments be passed at
Speaker 2: least ninety days before any election in which the people
Speaker 2: ratify it. Lower courts had initially blocked this redistricting process
Speaker 2: on those grounds, so that's a procedural argument. The third
Speaker 2: argument would be the jerrymander improperly tossed out the work
Speaker 2: of the twenty twenty voter approved Bipartisan Redistricting Commission. They
Speaker 2: tossed it out right in the middle of the decade
Speaker 2: song based on that, and then the fourth potential challenge,
Speaker 2: the language on the ballot was blatantly biased in claiming
Speaker 2: that the referendum's goal was to quote restore fairness in
Speaker 2: upcoming elections that presupposed that the bipartisan commission map was unfair.
Speaker 2: All of those are legitimate avenues of challenge, and I
Speaker 2: think you notice that they don't really have anything to
Speaker 2: do with gerrymandering or challenging what a jery mander is, etc.
Speaker 2: There are ways to stop this without getting into big
Speaker 2: constitutional arguments, but I think a path that challenges this
Speaker 2: on federal and state constitutional grounds based on the definition
Speaker 2: of a representative government is also a pretty interesting way
Speaker 2: to approach this. And I'm not a legal mind, but
Speaker 2: we have great legal minds that might be able to
Speaker 2: find some way to argue this larger question. And in
Speaker 2: a federal court, I think any federal lawsuit like that
Speaker 2: could be a game changer. Given that we finally have
Speaker 2: a conservative leaning Supreme Court with justices on it. This
Speaker 2: seemed determined to correct the terrible constitutional drift that this
Speaker 2: country has been on for decades. I think a court
Speaker 2: that has shot down Roe v. Wade and killed off
Speaker 2: the Chevron doctrine is a court that might just step
Speaker 2: in and say, look, a state map has to at
Speaker 2: least be somewhat fair when it comes to representing the
Speaker 2: voting patterns of that state. If we on the right
Speaker 2: got a ruling like that, nationally, Democrats might lose two
Speaker 2: or three dozen House seats in the more honest redo
Speaker 2: of these maps. So how does this play out at
Speaker 2: Virginia's Supreme Court? Well, experts in DC and Virginia seem
Speaker 2: to agree it's hard to predict. And it is because
Speaker 2: Virginia's a state in which the legislature actually appoints the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court justices, not the voters. And currently this Virginia
Speaker 2: Supreme Court is said to be small sea conservative as
Speaker 2: in the judicial Conservatives might have a slight advantage on
Speaker 2: this court quote. Virginia is one of only two states
Speaker 2: where the legislature elects the Supreme Court justices. Because the
Speaker 2: state has had divided control from much of the past
Speaker 2: quarter century, the balance of the Court's justices were appointed
Speaker 2: by bipartisan compromise. The court's current seven members include one
Speaker 2: justice who was elected when Democrats had sole control of
Speaker 2: the General Assembly, three when Republicans controlled both chambers, and
Speaker 2: three when control of the legislature was split. And so
Speaker 2: if that's the case, this isn't a court full of
Speaker 2: members who are going to want to rush to get
Speaker 2: this new map into effect before the fall election, which
Speaker 2: is what Democrats wanted to do. It also doesn't sound
Speaker 2: like a court full of justices who are just going
Speaker 2: to ignore the fact that Virginia's legislature and governor broke
Speaker 2: all sorts of procedural rules in order to ram this
Speaker 2: map into place. I don't see how any split court
Speaker 2: or any group of justices that's even trying to be
Speaker 2: fair or trying to get a ruling right agrees to
Speaker 2: let this map be put into play. And despite the
Speaker 2: result of the referendum, this week. There's no way to
Speaker 2: honestly say that this is what the people of Virginia
Speaker 2: want either. The National Democrats and activists spent a massive
Speaker 2: amount of money tricking the voters of Virginia. They spent
Speaker 2: eighty one million dollars in one amounted to a sprint
Speaker 2: to trick Virginia's voters into thinking that this was about
Speaker 2: fair maps those on the ground in Virginia. The misinformation
Speaker 2: campaign that the leftist pulled off here was shameful, impressive,
Speaker 2: but shameful. This was a very slanted, shameless, ugly affair.
Speaker 2: And still the left only managed to win this referendum
Speaker 2: question by three points. They spent two years trying to
Speaker 2: trick and steamroll Virginia voters and they still only narrowly
Speaker 2: pulled it off with a sprint of eighty one million
Speaker 2: dollars worth of spending. And yeah, I understand that this
Speaker 2: is a constitutional amendment that the voters of Virginia have
Speaker 2: now passed and only the win matters, and the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court can't and won't overturn the will of the people,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But this process and the Left's dishonesty and
Speaker 2: duplicity and engineering this result can be challenged in court
Speaker 2: and will be. It's the reason to believe that whatever happens,
Speaker 2: this outrageous map of the Virginia voters just approved will
Speaker 2: not be in play this fall and may not ever
Speaker 2: come into play. It's something I would caution listeners about
Speaker 2: that most of the media outlets aren't going to tell you.
Speaker 2: The chances of this map approved this week actually being
Speaker 2: put into place for fall or even in twenty twenty
Speaker 2: eight seems slim to me, So don't lose too much
Speaker 2: sleep over it yet. And hey, you know, there's going
Speaker 2: to be all sorts of court related drama over the
Speaker 2: next few years that's going to be fun to watch,
Speaker 2: and this is just one of them. Florida is going
Speaker 2: to try to redo its maps apparently, and there too.
Speaker 2: I don't think they even have the time. I don't
Speaker 2: think Ron de Santis in Republicans in Florida even have
Speaker 2: the time to redraw a map, get it approved, get
Speaker 2: it through a court process. I don't know that late
Speaker 2: entry maps like this one in Virginia or one that's
Speaker 2: still coming in Florida are even going to be coming
Speaker 2: into play and fall, just to the legal challenges, But
Speaker 2: we do have all sorts of matters related to the
Speaker 2: federal courts that are popping up that are pretty interesting.
Speaker 2: You've probably seen that the insider jockeying is now underway
Speaker 2: to get at least one of these two older Supreme
Speaker 2: Court justices to retire and before January, so that the
Speaker 2: President can replace them with someone younger and help cement
Speaker 2: this conservative majority for a decade or two. Right now
Speaker 2: we have a six to three conservative advantage. But Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 2: Semilie and John Roberts are all in their seventies. Clarence
Speaker 2: Thomas has been on the Court the longest, thirty four years. Now.
Speaker 2: My god, a lot of us in this audience can
Speaker 2: remember Clarence Thomas's Senate confirmation hearings in which Joe Biden
Speaker 2: and Teddy Kennedy and that era's Democrats showed a blatant
Speaker 2: racism and just a venom toward Clarence Thomas because he
Speaker 2: dared to be a black Conservative. Doesn't seem like that
Speaker 2: was almost thirty five years ago, but it was so.
Speaker 2: Clarence Thomas is seventy seven, He's been on the court
Speaker 2: thirty four years, and he has apparently told friends off
Speaker 2: and on for a few years that you know, maybe
Speaker 2: he should retire and travel the country in his RV.
Speaker 2: And all that has added up to rumors and attempts
Speaker 2: in Washington, d C. To push Clarence Thomas out while
Speaker 2: a Republican president is in control, and while the Republicans
Speaker 2: control the confirmation process in the Senate, too. Political strategist
Speaker 2: would love to see Thomas agree to retire now to
Speaker 2: ensure that that seat remains in conservative hands for another
Speaker 2: two or three decades. But as of last year, Clarence
Speaker 2: Thomas was talking as if he wants to remain in
Speaker 2: the court. That has the same strategist pivoting over to
Speaker 2: sam Alito. Over the last several months, you've probably seen
Speaker 2: some of this. Will sam Alito retire, he's seventy six,
Speaker 2: maybe we can push him out. Well, Alito just sent
Speaker 2: clear signals that he intends to stick around. He's hired
Speaker 2: new staffers for the next term, et cetera. And so
Speaker 2: conservative legal groups are wondering if they should start a
Speaker 2: public pressure campaign against Aledo to try to shove him out.
Speaker 2: That seems unlikely to me. I just don't think sam
Speaker 2: Alito would respond well to some attempt to shove him out.
Speaker 2: And I hope you see the urgency here from the
Speaker 2: insider's perspective, maybe I should have started with that. Most
Speaker 2: of you get it. The Senate confirms a presidential nominee
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court, and so you want your party
Speaker 2: in control of the White House when a Supreme Court
Speaker 2: vacancy opens up, because then your president's going to pick
Speaker 2: the successor. But then you also want your party to
Speaker 2: control the Senate so they can control the nomination process
Speaker 2: and shuttle the presidential pick through and so that they
Speaker 2: and the president can put the most conservator or most
Speaker 2: liberal non in place. Correct. If the Senate is in
Speaker 2: the other party's control, well, then any president needs to
Speaker 2: nominate a more moderate judge because they need someone who
Speaker 2: was going to survive the confirmation process when the members
Speaker 2: of the other party control the Senate need to approve
Speaker 2: of the person. Most of you get this. But with
Speaker 2: the potential for the Democrats to retake control of the
Speaker 2: Senate this fall, you see that the window on a
Speaker 2: super Supreme Court pick from Trump could be closing. This
Speaker 2: is what the activists are worried about. He still has
Speaker 2: three more years of his presidency. Sure, and Sam Alido
Speaker 2: and Clarence Thomas still have a three year window in
Speaker 2: which a Republican president would appoint their successor if they
Speaker 2: do want to retire soon. But the Senate that needs
Speaker 2: to approve the Trump pick might only be under Republican
Speaker 2: control for another nine months. Hence this flory of attention
Speaker 2: to sam Alito. Now you might have also seen that
Speaker 2: Molly Hemingway of The Federalist told Megan Kelly this week
Speaker 2: she's hearing rumors John Roberts might retire. He might be
Speaker 2: the unexpected wild card here. She's saying. Roberts was a
Speaker 2: pointed by George Bush. He's had a good long run
Speaker 2: as Chief Justice, but he's only seventy one, and as
Speaker 2: of last year, John Roberts was claiming he was never
Speaker 2: retiring from the court. Just about ten months ago, John
Speaker 2: Roberts joked that they'd have to carry him out feet first,
Speaker 2: as in, they'll carry my corpse out of here. So
Speaker 2: I doubt that John Roberts retires. There's always a chance
Speaker 2: that some secret illness or changes in their personal lives
Speaker 2: might have a federal judge with a lifetime appointment deciding
Speaker 2: to retire early. But short of something like that I'd
Speaker 2: be shocked if John Roberts retires. That's said, it'd be
Speaker 2: great if he did. Listeners to my longtime radio show
Speaker 2: know that I never liked Roberts or his approach to
Speaker 2: his job as Chief Justice. Roberts has spent two decades
Speaker 2: trying not to have this court decide the biggest constitutional
Speaker 2: issues of our day and not make precedent setting rulings
Speaker 2: that would actually clear up the question in front of them.
Speaker 2: Drives me crazy. I found that irksome beyond belief. Roberts
Speaker 2: is a judicial dud, and if Trump had a chance
Speaker 2: to replace him, that'd be huge. That would be huge. Now,
Speaker 2: the caveat over all of this is that the Republicans
Speaker 2: should should keep control of the Senate after this fall elections.
Speaker 2: They should. They have a fifty three seat majority, and
Speaker 2: the Democrats would have to win at least a few
Speaker 2: Senate races that they aren't expected to win in order
Speaker 2: to see control of the Senate flip. But you never
Speaker 2: know if it's a Democrat wave election because Trump started
Speaker 2: a war in Iran and it as Americans upset that
Speaker 2: gas and grocery prices are higher again, etc. Well, there's
Speaker 2: at least a chance Republicans could lose control of this
Speaker 2: nomination process. That's where this nervousness over any Supreme Court
Speaker 2: opening comes in. I hope you understand it more fully now.
Speaker 2: My prediction would be Thomas, Alito and Roberts all stick
Speaker 2: with it for now, but either Thomas Alito or both
Speaker 2: bail before Trump leaves office. There will be heavy outside
Speaker 2: pressure from right wing political forces for them to do so.
Speaker 2: Whether that moves them, we'll see. I'm certain that both
Speaker 2: men want to see their legacy in their seat on
Speaker 2: the Court continue to be in conservative hands, though, and
Speaker 2: so I think one, maybe even both will leave before
Speaker 2: Trump leaves office. So when President Trump and Pete Hegsith
Speaker 2: were droning all of those drug boats off of the
Speaker 2: South American coast, some of you were worried about all
Speaker 2: the fish and marine life that was going to be
Speaker 2: coming into contact with all that cocaine that our drone
Speaker 2: strikes were dumping into the ocean. Oh, but what's going
Speaker 2: to happen to the fishes? People were asking, Well, we
Speaker 2: have our answer, Well, we at least have an answer.
Speaker 2: Research conducted by two universities in some joint venture found
Speaker 2: that salmon on cocaine swim twice as far as normal salmon.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure how they got these fish to do
Speaker 2: a line of blow, but we have our answer. The
Speaker 2: story says, salmon exposed to cocaine in the water swim
Speaker 2: longer distances than those that go without. According to a
Speaker 2: study release this week, joint research by Australia's Griffith University
Speaker 2: and the Swedish University of Egg Sciences studied how the
Speaker 2: drug affected the movements of wild fish in their natural habitat.
Speaker 2: Researchers took one hundred and five wild Atlantic salmon and
Speaker 2: exposed them to coke and then track their movements. They
Speaker 2: found the salmon exposed to the drugs traveled one point
Speaker 2: nine times further per week than their clean living cousins.
Speaker 2: As they put it, the researchers said, we're finding higher
Speaker 2: and higher concentrations of not just illicit drugs, but all
Speaker 2: types of pharmaceuticals in our waterways, and they've worn the
Speaker 2: pollution of waters by common drugs is now posing a
Speaker 2: major and escalating risk to our biodiversity.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 2: Our study shows that drugs are not only a societal
Speaker 2: issue but also a concrete environmental challenge. So there you go.
Speaker 2: This comes after a study on sharks in the Bahamas
Speaker 2: that found that they're being exposed to everything from cocaine,
Speaker 2: to caffeine to painkillers. It opens up a whole new
Speaker 2: avenue of research. I think, are we seeing more shark
Speaker 2: attacks because that we've created cocaine sharks. I'm kidding, of course,
Speaker 2: but I'm guessing we're just about a year or two
Speaker 2: away from some ecozlic group insisting that that's what's happening.
Speaker 2: And as long as we're talking about cocaine, let's talk
Speaker 2: about Congress. That's a great transition. I'm getting a kick
Speaker 2: out of the cleanup that we are told is going
Speaker 2: on in Congress because three scummy House members have been
Speaker 2: forced to quit over the last three weeks or so.
Speaker 2: This of course, started with the Democrats engaging in a
Speaker 2: campaign to explode Eric Swalwell's run for California governor, and
Speaker 2: unfortunately for them, it meant that he had to be
Speaker 2: shoved out of Congress too. They would have liked to
Speaker 2: have kept his vote, but they really couldn't. He had
Speaker 2: to go if they were going to pretend to be
Speaker 2: upset about the decades long womanizing that he was famous
Speaker 2: for in DC. He had to resign from Congress too,
Speaker 2: so he resigned. Then it was a Republican, Tony Gonzalez
Speaker 2: of Texas, who had his own sexual misconduct scandal going on.
Speaker 2: He resigned. And then this week it was another Democrat,
Speaker 2: a black woman from Florida named Sheila McCormick. And I
Speaker 2: admit she's hyphenated, but I stumble over her maiden name,
Speaker 2: sher phyllis surefulless, we'll just call her Bocephus. So then
Speaker 2: there's the third resignation, Sheila Bosephus McCormick. So in a
Speaker 2: chamber of four hundred and thirty five members, three people
Speaker 2: actually are being called out for their scumbaggery. And apparently
Speaker 2: this is a house cleaning. It only is to longtime
Speaker 2: elitists who have set up a system over two hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty years that ensures that they will never really
Speaker 2: be held accountable for their own actions, of your own criminality.
Speaker 2: Only by that measure. Is this any sort of ethical
Speaker 2: house cleaning going on in Congress? Good grief, But bosiphas
Speaker 2: here didn't resign due to a sex scandal. Hers was
Speaker 2: a good old fashioned theft and ethical misconduct scandal. She
Speaker 2: was charged with stealing nearly five million dollars in FEMA
Speaker 2: funds and pled not guilty to that in criminal court.
Speaker 2: But she was going to be expelled from the House
Speaker 2: if she hadn't resigned first. McCormick said in a statement,
Speaker 2: rather than play these political games, I choose to step
Speaker 2: away so that I can devote my time to fighting
Speaker 2: for my neighbors in Florida's twentieth District. I hereby resign
Speaker 2: from the one hundred and nineteenth Congress, effective immediately. By
Speaker 2: the way, Love, the resignation statement makes no sense whatsoever,
Speaker 2: proves she's a moron. Sheila said she's going to resign
Speaker 2: from Congress so that she can focus on better representing
Speaker 2: her constituents in Congress. What it's like saying you're going
Speaker 2: to go on an all cake diet in order to
Speaker 2: lose weight. But McCormick resigned literally minutes before the head
Speaker 2: of the Ethics Committee convened to hearing in order to
Speaker 2: release the final results of their investigation into her activity,
Speaker 2: and that investigation found McCormick was in fact guilty of
Speaker 2: at least twenty five different ethical and criminal counts against
Speaker 2: her quote. Investigators found substantial evidence of conduct consistent with
Speaker 2: the allegations and the indictment, as well as more extensive misconduct. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Sheila McCormick is a real peach. She's only been in
Speaker 2: Congress for about three years, but the rap sheet of
Speaker 2: offenses and crimes that she racked up here is incredible.
Speaker 2: She's actually been criminally charged for dozens of real crimes
Speaker 2: in addition to the House Ethical investigation and the findings
Speaker 2: that pushed her out of Congress. This woman's going to
Speaker 2: prison regardless of what Congress has done. She stole from FEMA,
Speaker 2: She clearly stole from her own campaign and filed false
Speaker 2: and inaccurate campaign statements. That's a crime, and this is
Speaker 2: across numerous election cycles. The investigators say she's charged with
Speaker 2: falsifying paperwork on loans, accepting bribes, lying about her campaign finances,
Speaker 2: spending all sorts of tax payer money on quote luxury
Speaker 2: goods like jewelry and designer clothing. HeLa McCormick is the
Speaker 2: sort of person who never intended to do this job
Speaker 2: honestly or properly. You have to put yourself in her
Speaker 2: mindset when she ran for Congress. In one when you
Speaker 2: look at the timeline and the charges against her. McCormick
Speaker 2: was a slippery grifter right from the start, from the
Speaker 2: moment she ran from Congress, and in the three short
Speaker 2: years she's been in Congress, she's pulled off every dishonest
Speaker 2: and illegal stunt she could think up. Apparently during that time.
Speaker 2: Here's a fun twist. Sheila McCormick one office in a
Speaker 2: special election in Florida to replace longtime scumbag Elsie Hastings.
Speaker 2: Hastings was a decades long congressman from Florida who was
Speaker 2: also among the most famous sexual predators in scumbags in Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. Hastings was Eric Swallall before Swalwell was ever born.
Speaker 2: So the people in that district in Florida traded one
Speaker 2: scumbag criminal for another when they went from Hastings to McCormick.
Speaker 2: I'll say one other thing about Sheila McCormick resigning, and
Speaker 2: it comes from her criminal lawyer. I do think he's right.
Speaker 2: I'm not cutting Sheila any slack here because she did
Speaker 2: the crimes and you put herself in this situation. But
Speaker 2: I acknowledge the correctness of her lawyer's statement. McCormick's criminal
Speaker 2: lawyer says she had to resign from Congress because there
Speaker 2: was no way she was going to get a fair
Speaker 2: criminal trial after the United States House of Representatives officially
Speaker 2: declared her a criminal scumbag. He said, how can she
Speaker 2: possibly go into court and have a fair trial if
Speaker 2: her jurors have already heard that she was found guilty
Speaker 2: by the House of Representatives. It's an impossibility. So she
Speaker 2: was left with no choice but to resign. That's true,
Speaker 2: but it only means that she made a spark decision
Speaker 2: to resign because when she ran for Congress, she had
Speaker 2: to know that she would be living as a public
Speaker 2: figure and beholden to her constituents and held to an
Speaker 2: ethical standard. I mean, she had to know on day one.
Speaker 2: There are actually little seminars that they go through with
Speaker 2: new House members. So she had to know on day
Speaker 2: one the House had a process for investigating ethical and
Speaker 2: criminal violations. And so it isn't some great constitutional question
Speaker 2: as to whether her rights are going to be violated here.
Speaker 2: She set herself up for any such consequences when she
Speaker 2: ran for office in one one. I don't feel sorry
Speaker 2: for her in any way, but if you still do,
Speaker 2: here's the Kapper. Please understand that Sheila Bosephus McCormick doesn't
Speaker 2: appear to be a decent person in any way. She
Speaker 2: committed all of these crimes and all this misconduct, and
Speaker 2: she shows no remorse and only wants to portray herself
Speaker 2: as some sort of victim. And at that point, once
Speaker 2: you realize that, I think any normal person is going
Speaker 2: to say, well f her. Then meanwhile, this little flurry
Speaker 2: of scandals and resignations has Speaker Mike Johnson vowing to finally,
Speaker 2: finally adds some tougher rules of conduct on US House members.
Speaker 2: And it's long overdue, folks, This is two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years overdue, because as great as this country is,
Speaker 2: the people who both formed this Republic and those who
Speaker 2: have come to DC in the two hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: years since to represent Americans in Congress have spent all
Speaker 2: of this time protecting themselves from consequences and exempting themselves
Speaker 2: from accountability. The idea that we've had an ethical House
Speaker 2: and Senate policing themselves over the last two hundred fifty
Speaker 2: years is ridiculous. Heck, the idea that we've had an
Speaker 2: ethical House and Senate policing themselves over the last two
Speaker 2: decades is ridiculous. There is clearly so much corruption and
Speaker 2: grifting and scumbaggery and skullduggery going on in Washington, DC
Speaker 2: that you cannot possibly pretend our leaders in DC really
Speaker 2: care about it or want to stop it. There's a
Speaker 2: reason it's called the swamp. Consider that around this time
Speaker 2: last year, DOGE was uncovering decades long schemes in which
Speaker 2: lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, but mostly the Democrats,
Speaker 2: were kicking taxpayer money to all sorts of ridiculous and
Speaker 2: even fake outside groups and mngos just so they could
Speaker 2: set up their friends and relatives with dishonest, cushy incomes
Speaker 2: and funnel a bunch of that money back into their
Speaker 2: own campaigns. It's gone on for decades. These are the
Speaker 2: people who are supposed to view as honest or ethical.
Speaker 2: Come on, and whether it's sex scandals or taking bribes
Speaker 2: or whatever, it's clear that Washington, d C. Really is
Speaker 2: the swamp. It is clear that over two hundred and
Speaker 2: fifty years now, the people whom we as Americans have
Speaker 2: sent to Congress to represent us and rule us govern
Speaker 2: us mostly abandon their ethics and sense of integrity once
Speaker 2: they get there. And not all of them, not everyone,
Speaker 2: but way way too many of our longtime DC dwelling
Speaker 2: lawmakers have more interest in being exempted from the social mores,
Speaker 2: the ethics, the laws of our society than they have
Speaker 2: any interest in following them and are holding the members
Speaker 2: of their own chamber accountable. And it's why I'm getting
Speaker 2: such a kick out of this, this fake purge that's
Speaker 2: going on. This is being called a purge three congressmen
Speaker 2: who are obviously guilty of ethical and criminal violations. And yeah,
Speaker 2: it really is on both sides. I've seen a lot
Speaker 2: of claims on social media lately, as Eric Swollwell got
Speaker 2: shoved out, what Republicans never punish their predators and pedophiles?
Speaker 2: You know? Right now it's vogue on both sides of
Speaker 2: the aisle, but really on the left to smear everyone
Speaker 2: as a pedophile. This seems to be the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: sixth smear. Yeah, well, why aren't you pollutioning your own
Speaker 2: pedal files? That's what passes for a snappy retort. But
Speaker 2: the truth is neither side has been good at policing
Speaker 2: their own because if you think about it, if you
Speaker 2: hold members of your own party accountable, You're losing their
Speaker 2: vote in the Chamber. Right. The truth is neither side
Speaker 2: is very good or interested in really holding their own
Speaker 2: members accountable, and this list that Congress released earlier this
Speaker 2: week proves it. They released a list of House members
Speaker 2: investigated for sexual harassment over the last forty years, and
Speaker 2: they claim it was twenty eight people. Twenty eight members,
Speaker 2: fourteen Democrats and twelve Republicans. First of all, that number
Speaker 2: seems low, but you can see that being a sexually
Speaker 2: harassing creep is not exclusive to either party, and that
Speaker 2: both sides have had their scandals in general. Though from
Speaker 2: what I've seen in the forty years that I've been
Speaker 2: watching this, in general, Republicans have been significantly better at
Speaker 2: acknowledging the scumbags within their midst and actually doing something
Speaker 2: to punish them or push them out. Republicans did shove
Speaker 2: out George Santos and Matt Getz on their watch, by
Speaker 2: the way, those are just recent examples. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 2: and the Democrats protected Eric Swolwell and Elsie Hastings for decades.
Speaker 2: They ignored Barney Frank scandal altogether, etc. The truth is
Speaker 2: that sexual harassment claims on Capitol Hill are being filed
Speaker 2: quite routinely and by the dozens, and the American people
Speaker 2: never hear about them. We don't hear about the vast
Speaker 2: majority of them. And by the way, the same goes
Speaker 2: for scandals related to bribes and campaign finance abuse, etc.
Speaker 2: The vast majority of Congressmen who are called out for
Speaker 2: unethical behavior suffer no consequences, and the average voter never
Speaker 2: hears about it. So color me skeptical as House Speaker
Speaker 2: Mike Johnson now promises to tighten the sexual misconduct rules
Speaker 2: in that lower chamber. And you know, if I trust
Speaker 2: anyone on this, it would be Mike Johnson. Not only
Speaker 2: is he a religious man and committed to clean government,
Speaker 2: but he has two young daughters who are working as
Speaker 2: staffers on Capitol Hill. So I don't doubt that Mike
Speaker 2: Johnson will be serious about finally maybe making some decent changes. However,
Speaker 2: I highly doubt that the majority of the over four
Speaker 2: hundred members in his chamber are really going to vote
Speaker 2: in favor of placing tougher sexual harassment rules onto themselves
Speaker 2: and onto future congresses. These are bodies the House and
Speaker 2: Senate that have protected their own members vigorously over the
Speaker 2: last two hundred and fifty years. Mike Johnson said this
Speaker 2: week that he's taking suggestions from other lawmakers and ways
Speaker 2: to tighten these rules. Quote, I will lead that myself,
Speaker 2: he said. All Right, we'll see where it goes, but
Speaker 2: I won't be holding my breath.
Speaker 1: The Jayweber Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio podcasts, produced
Speaker 1: and engineered by Gregory john The Jayweber Podcast is presented
Speaker 1: by Creative Planning, helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness,
Speaker 1: one personalized plan at a time. Listen to all of
Speaker 1: Jay Weber's podcasts, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.