Speaker 1: And we continue at what five in the afternoon on
Speaker 1: the John Phillips Show, Mister Randy weggs across the glass Well, John,
Speaker 1: it doesn't get more California than this. A project to
Speaker 1: build a bike lane on the Bay Bridge is ten
Speaker 1: years late, only half complete, and needs seven hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars to finish. Boy, that's right up there with a
Speaker 1: bullet train, isn't it. This is for a bike lane.
Speaker 1: It's a lot of money to make people on Schwins happy.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: telephone number one. Eight hundred two two two five two
Speaker 1: two two. It is our pleasure to welcome our next
Speaker 1: guest to the program. Joel Gilbert is an American filmmaker
Speaker 1: who is also one of the first people in the
Speaker 1: media to be on Eric Swalwell. He was the one
Speaker 1: who filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court trying to
Speaker 1: disqualify Swallwell from running for California governor, striking him from
Speaker 1: the ballot, saying that Swalwell doesn't actually live in California. Well,
Speaker 1: when people started doing the digging in the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: they pretty much confirmed that Swalwell lives in Maryland and
Speaker 1: not in California, as he, of course spends a lot
Speaker 1: of money on hotel rooms in and around his district,
Speaker 1: something you wouldn't have to do if you actually lived here.
Speaker 1: Whether the courts are ultimately willing to do something about it,
Speaker 1: I guess we'll never know, because Eric Swalwell has suspended
Speaker 1: his campaign due too well, unfortunate circumstances. Let's just call
Speaker 1: it that. Joining us right now is the man who
Speaker 1: filed that lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court. You can follow
Speaker 1: him on exit. Joel S Gilbert, Joel Gilbert, welcome.
Speaker 2: Okay, good to be here, Thank you. Filed the lawsuit
Speaker 2: a couple of months ago. It actually ran into Swalwell
Speaker 2: at his town hall in Santa Monica back in January,
Speaker 2: and he came around and shook every buddy's hand before
Speaker 2: it started. They were only about fifty people, and I
Speaker 2: think he recognized me because instead of doing a two
Speaker 2: hour quan thirty minutes, so I think he didn't be
Speaker 2: asking him, hey, can I get your address in California please,
Speaker 2: because you know he didn't have one. I did other
Speaker 2: research on Swawah. One thing led to another. I found
Speaker 2: that he had an illegal alien Brazilian nanny working for
Speaker 2: him for several years that he first paid her from
Speaker 2: the campaign, which you're not allowed to do because the
Speaker 2: campaign can only pay for childcare if it's specific event related.
Speaker 2: I went to Pittsburgh and I did an event Thursday night.
Speaker 2: I had to hire a babysitter. He was charging full time,
Speaker 2: all year round childcare and paying this so pair from Brazil.
Speaker 2: Her visa ran out, He took her off the books
Speaker 2: for two years, paid her illegally, and then put her
Speaker 2: back on the book. So I'd made two complaints a
Speaker 2: DHS Department Homeland Security complaint against Swawall and his wife
Speaker 2: illegally employing an illegal alien, second complaint with the Federal
Speaker 2: Election Commission because you're not allowed to charge full time
Speaker 2: childcare to your donors. Amazingly, Swawell, despite these complaints that
Speaker 2: he knew about because he was retweeting me and calling
Speaker 2: me names on Twitter, even when he ran for governor,
Speaker 2: he paid his wife from his campaign donors to look
Speaker 2: after their own kids. So Swollwell was completely corrupt. Everything
Speaker 2: he did was corrupt. He took advantage of his campaign donors,
Speaker 2: and it all caught up to him with these sexual
Speaker 2: assault allegations, and he had to drop out.
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: He is also one of these people who used his
Speaker 1: campaign account to do things like stay in fancy hotels,
Speaker 1: fly first class, go to sporting events, go to concerts,
Speaker 1: essentially live a life of luxury that he otherwise would
Speaker 1: not be able to afford on a mere congressman salary.
Speaker 2: You're correct. He even charged one hundred orders of staggering
Speaker 2: one hundred orders to Drizzly, which is a wine and
Speaker 2: beer company delivering booze. So he absolutely abused his donors.
Speaker 2: Imagine you're working a job and you give Swallow one
Speaker 2: hundred bucks only to find out he used it for
Speaker 2: fancy hotels, booze, and to pay his wife. He really
Speaker 2: insulted his donors. And it's all pretty amazing because you know,
Speaker 2: I studied Swalwell. When he ran for congress in twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: he had one hundred thousand dollars in student loan debt
Speaker 2: and he also owed one hundred thousand in credit cards.
Speaker 2: Flash forward twenty twenty four, his campaign disclosures showed he
Speaker 2: hadn't paid either one of them off. He's making one
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy four thousand a years a congressman. He
Speaker 2: charges everything to his campaign donors. So there's still some
Speaker 2: mystery out there. Where did this guy's money go? Where
Speaker 2: did it go? Is he paying people off? Is he
Speaker 2: paying lawyers? Is he paying settlements? Is still one more
Speaker 2: thing we're going to learn about Swalwell. We're going to
Speaker 2: find out what he's done with his money all these years,
Speaker 2: because it's just.
Speaker 3: Not clear well.
Speaker 1: And I would imagine, and I'm not a lawyer, but
Speaker 1: I would imagine that there's an element of fraud that
Speaker 1: exists if that's how you're spending the money. Because if
Speaker 1: you're a little old lady getting ginned up late at
Speaker 1: night watching Rachel Maddow and you see him on there
Speaker 1: and you think, Okay, this guy's going to get reelected
Speaker 1: and he can torment Trump for two more years, and
Speaker 1: you write up a check for one hundred bucks, I
Speaker 1: would imagine that little old lady thinks that money's going
Speaker 1: for bumper stickers and maybe for campaign T shirts, and
Speaker 1: maybe for radio ads or television ads to get him reelected.
Speaker 1: The money is not going to make it so that
Speaker 1: he can live like Elieme Clampet.
Speaker 2: No, he absolutely abused his campaign donors for Congress, his
Speaker 2: gubernatorial donors were abused, high end hotels, booze paying his
Speaker 2: wife to watch their kids. You can't do that. So
Speaker 2: he's had a lot of arrogance and disdain, and it
Speaker 2: finally caught up to him with these allegations of sexual assault.
Speaker 2: I thought he was a bad dude. I met him
Speaker 2: in person, I shook his hand, I looked him in
Speaker 2: the eye. It was very uncomfortable around him. He had
Speaker 2: an attitude that he just wants to be this kind
Speaker 2: of anti Trump thug. That's all he wanted to do
Speaker 2: in life. And people let him do that for a
Speaker 2: couple of years, but it all came crashing down as
Speaker 2: we saw now.
Speaker 1: As a documentarian, when you put together a documentary, when
Speaker 1: you're doing research, when you have a project that you're
Speaker 1: working on, I would imagine that, as many people in
Speaker 1: that industry do. You have standards and practices where you
Speaker 1: hear many things, but unless you believe that you can
Speaker 1: prove it, not just to yourself but to a judge.
Speaker 1: If you were to be sued for defamation or libel
Speaker 1: or whatever, you have to have all of your claims
Speaker 1: bulletproof before you're willing to run with them in any
Speaker 1: kind of public forum, let alone put it into a documentary.
Speaker 1: That being said, when you're researching this subject and you're
Speaker 1: doing a deep dive, as you did on Eric Swalwell,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you hear a million different things when you
Speaker 1: were doing your research in your due diligence on the
Speaker 1: issues related to his residency and the issues related to
Speaker 1: how he was spending his campaign account, how the money
Speaker 1: in his campaign account, whether that was legal or not.
Speaker 1: Did you ever hear any rumors from anyone about any
Speaker 1: kind of inappropriate sexual relationships with staffers, with interns, or
Speaker 1: any allegations of sexual assault or rape. Did that ever
Speaker 1: cross you?
Speaker 2: It never came up because I was relying on public
Speaker 2: documents which revealed a tremendous amount it. Swallow is required
Speaker 2: to make FEC filings every quarter, where it shows where
Speaker 2: all his money is going, and that tells you a
Speaker 2: great deal. Now, regarding his lack of any residence in California,
Speaker 2: I did a search in Alameda County property records. He
Speaker 2: never owned a home in California. He never rented anywhere either.
Speaker 2: Three days before my court trial, some woman that used
Speaker 2: to work for his campaign, who lived in a thirteen
Speaker 2: hundred square foot house with her husband, dog, and kid.
Speaker 2: She gave a declaration to the court saying she rented
Speaker 2: her house to Swallwell five years ago, but she provided
Speaker 2: no lease, no documentation. I looked up the homestead exemption
Speaker 2: for Alameda County. Turns out she's taking a seven thousand
Speaker 2: dollars homestead exemption every year, which requires you to live
Speaker 2: in the house. New York Post sent a reporter after
Speaker 2: her house, and there's the German shepherd. She's there with
Speaker 2: her kid. The neighbors said they'd never seen Swallwell. Tom
Speaker 2: Steyers campaign looked it up. I didn't even think to
Speaker 2: do it. Tom Stiers campaign looked up his expenses and
Speaker 2: found that every time he visited Alameda County, his home district,
Speaker 2: he stayed in the Rose Hotel. So that woman gave
Speaker 2: a false declaration to the court. I made a tax
Speaker 2: fraud complaint against her with Alameda County because she took
Speaker 2: a homestead exemption which requires her to live there. But
Speaker 2: she's claiming that she doesn't live that Swalwell does. So
Speaker 2: a lot of people are getting in trouble because of Swalwell.
Speaker 2: This girl named Kastrina Mazurka has a tax rout complaint.
Speaker 2: His wife I made a complaint against her for falsifying
Speaker 2: a visa application for their illegal alien Brazilian nanny, and
Speaker 2: of course the illegal alien Brazilian nanny was overstaying her visa.
Speaker 2: So a lot of people are getting in trouble for
Speaker 2: cooperating with Swalwell's schemes, and they're going to be in
Speaker 2: big trouble with him as well.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's assume that the courts pursue this, and
Speaker 1: let's assume that charges are filed regarding sexual assault, and
Speaker 1: we know that there are district attorneys in Alameda County,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles County, and New York City that are looking
Speaker 1: into some of these allegations. I would imagine that if
Speaker 1: they're looking for some of these people who may or
Speaker 1: may not know information related to the sexual assault allegations,
Speaker 1: they could use this tax these tax complaints to squeeze
Speaker 1: them to get them to sing on the other subjects.
Speaker 2: Look, there's so much material everywhere you look at Swolwell.
Speaker 2: He's done something inappropriate or outright illegal in my opinion
Speaker 2: from looking at his document it's all public documents, So
Speaker 2: he has at least seven investigations going on between the
Speaker 2: fec DHS criminal complaints. This guy, you just can imagine there.
Speaker 2: I was in the same room with him in January.
Speaker 2: He's looking me in the eye and he's kind of
Speaker 2: takes a half a step back. I don't think he
Speaker 2: knew who he was dealing with, because I was not
Speaker 2: going to give up till I exposed this guy.
Speaker 1: Do you get the impression that he thought, because he
Speaker 1: had a safe seat in Congress and he was a
Speaker 1: star on the impeachment circuit and he was a regular
Speaker 1: on cable news, that he thought that he was bulletproof
Speaker 1: and he could do whatever he wanted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a phenomenon we've seen both in New York
Speaker 2: State and California, where you have these politicians that grow
Speaker 2: up in a Democrat state where they're never questioned, media
Speaker 2: only applauds whatever they do. There's never any opposition when
Speaker 2: they run for office, so when they got into the
Speaker 2: national stage, they really still believe they can do whatever
Speaker 2: they want and they don't have to be questioned. Remember
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris when she appeared in the debate running for
Speaker 2: president and Tulci Gabbert just took her apart. She couldn't
Speaker 2: handle it because she'd never been criticized. So it is
Speaker 2: a phenomenon we see with these Democrats coming out of
Speaker 2: blue states and blue districts, where they just don't understand
Speaker 2: that they have to follow the law on the rules
Speaker 2: because they'd never been asked to before.
Speaker 1: Were you surprised that so many of his allies, both
Speaker 1: within the Democratic Party and the mainstream media abandoned him
Speaker 1: as quickly as they did as soon as the allegation
Speaker 1: started coming out.
Speaker 2: Look, I wasn't surprised because I had already softened him
Speaker 2: up for a couple of months. He had to say, oh, well, okay,
Speaker 2: I don't live in that woman's house, but I rent
Speaker 2: a room. I showed that he clearly was employing an
Speaker 2: illegal alien, So he had no credibility. By the time
Speaker 2: these sexual assault claims came out, he had no credibility.
Speaker 2: Even one of the first accusers said, the only reason
Speaker 2: I didn't come out when he started running for governors
Speaker 2: because I didn't think anyone would believe me. But I
Speaker 2: had knocked down his credibility so much. I think the
Speaker 2: Democrats realized that they couldn't stick with him.
Speaker 1: Were you surprised that more Democrats didn't abandon him after
Speaker 1: you revealed the information that you uncovered, because I looked
Speaker 1: at your stuff and you had him dead to rights.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was really not a question as to
Speaker 1: whether or not Eric Swalwell lived in Maryland or lived
Speaker 1: in California in his home district. You pretty much nailed
Speaker 1: him on that one. But his people didn't abandon him
Speaker 1: when you came out with that information. Yeah, it was
Speaker 1: Tom Steyer that certainly did, who was a rival in
Speaker 1: that race for governor. But the people that had endorsed
Speaker 1: to Eric Swalwell, they weren't pulling their endorsements from him.
Speaker 1: The donors weren't pulling their money from him. They were
Speaker 1: stalling him despite the fact that you had the goods
Speaker 1: on him.
Speaker 2: Look, it's a good point. Look Swawa would attack me
Speaker 2: on Twitter. He'd call me an idiot, he'd call me names.
Speaker 2: He'd say it was a Maga conspiracy without even looking
Speaker 2: at the facts. So these are the way the Democrats
Speaker 2: work is they're used to the media supporting them, so
Speaker 2: they simply deny everything and they think, well, people will
Speaker 2: just move on. The media is not going to say anything,
Speaker 2: just everyone's going to move on. So that's why I
Speaker 2: just kept at it, one thing after the other, FEC complaints,
Speaker 2: tax fraud complaints, Department of Labor complaint against his wife,
Speaker 2: ice complaint, till it just beat his credibility up so
Speaker 2: much that once the woman came forward, that was it.
Speaker 2: But it is a shame that they don't immediately look
Speaker 2: at the facts. And Swollwell tried to deflect by calling
Speaker 2: me names and denying everything, even though the facts were
Speaker 2: right there.
Speaker 1: So the court rejected your challenge. You're appealing that decision
Speaker 1: in the court. Do you believe that if your court
Speaker 1: date happened after this story, the story of sexual assault,
Speaker 1: the allegations of sexual assault, after that story broke, do
Speaker 1: you think you would have gotten a different result.
Speaker 2: I can update you what happened. Look all by myself
Speaker 2: without an attorney. I filed the lawsuit in Sacramento court
Speaker 2: three days before the court case. This woman said, oh no,
Speaker 2: I ran in my house to him. I gave the
Speaker 2: court the information showing that she lived there. They ignored
Speaker 2: it and they found in Swalwell's favor. I appealed to
Speaker 2: the third District Court the same day, the Third District
Speaker 2: Appeals Court of California two pm the same day, they
Speaker 2: denied it. Then I appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: They accepted my case. This was on a Monday afternoon.
Speaker 2: On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court ruled in Swalwell's favor.
Speaker 2: So it was completely papered over the fact that the
Speaker 2: California Constitution requires someone to live in the state of
Speaker 2: California for five full years before running for governor, and
Speaker 2: you have to have a legitimate residence, which she didn't have.
Speaker 2: Theifn on a Supreme court is a dei Supreme court.
Speaker 2: There's one white guy, one black guy, one Asian guy,
Speaker 2: one female Hispanic, one female black, one female white. It's
Speaker 2: all a dei court. When you have a dei court,
Speaker 2: they'll vote in favor of the people that gave them
Speaker 2: the job they weren't qualified for. So that's why they've
Speaker 2: already voted in the Supreme Court. Now, I'm actually proud
Speaker 2: that I was able to take it to the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court all by myself and it did get denied, but
Speaker 2: I think it did expose Swalwell's argument that he was
Speaker 2: first They said oh, he was renting this house. Then
Speaker 2: he said, oh no, no, no, I'm renting a room. A
Speaker 2: renting a room is not a legitimate residence. He's never
Speaker 2: been there, And I think it really took down Swalwell's
Speaker 2: standing as a legitimate commentator because he was just so
Speaker 2: full of bull by then he was on the way out.
Speaker 1: Are there any other politicians currently running for office who's
Speaker 1: residency you're taking a look at.
Speaker 2: I've been taking a look at a lot of them
Speaker 2: all the time because what's nice is mortgages are public,
Speaker 2: So anybody I encourage everyone else listening to start downloading
Speaker 2: mortgages of any politician who's a real low life and
Speaker 2: look whether or not they're obeying the mortgage laws. Some
Speaker 2: people I've looked at and they're violating the laws, like Swallwell.
Speaker 2: Even in Washington, d C. He told his lender that
Speaker 2: that would be his primary residence, and now he's telling
Speaker 2: the state of California that he lives in California. You know,
Speaker 2: either he's committee mortgage fraud in DC or he's not
Speaker 2: qualified to run for governor. But definitely, looking at mortgages
Speaker 2: is a way to see if politicians are following the
Speaker 2: law in their personal life, and you'll be surprised to
Speaker 2: find out a lot of them don't follow the law.
Speaker 1: Jiell Gilbert independent filmmaker. You can follow him on x
Speaker 1: at Joel S. Gilbert Jill Gilbert. Excellent work and thanks
Speaker 1: so much for stopping by.
Speaker 2: Okay anytime?
Speaker 3: Thank you eight.
Speaker 1: Hundred two two two five two two two. He is
Speaker 1: a telephone number. What eight hundred two two two five
Speaker 1: two two two. If you'd like to email the show,
Speaker 1: you can do so at Johnny Don't Like show at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com. That's Johnny Don't Like Show at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com and Randy. Earlier in the show, we revealed
Speaker 1: some big news. We have re signed with the company
Speaker 1: that operates this radio station in southern California and our
Speaker 1: radio station in Northern California, Cumulus Media, for another three
Speaker 1: plus years. So we are going to continue to do
Speaker 1: this from noon to three every single day on seven
Speaker 1: ninety KABC in Los Angeles on eight ten KSFO in
Speaker 1: the Bay Area, and we've got that one hour on
Speaker 1: the weekends on KMJ. Of course, we have the podcast,
Speaker 1: and let me just say it's very important that everybody
Speaker 1: subscribes to that podcast because it's going to be very
Speaker 1: important someday. That's as much as I will reveal right now.
Speaker 1: But we are so excited to be here. We have
Speaker 1: a lot of plans for the future. But the most
Speaker 1: important thing you need to know is that this show
Speaker 1: is not going anywhere for at least three years. And
Speaker 1: coming up tomorrow, we're going on the road. We're leaving
Speaker 1: the studios and we're going to Claremont. We're going to
Speaker 1: be doing the show live from the city of Claremont
Speaker 1: because immediately after we sign off at three, Randy, you
Speaker 1: and I are going to the gubernatorial debate. So CBS
Speaker 1: News California is putting on a gubernatorial debate at Pomona
Speaker 1: College tomorrow. I believe it airs at five point thirty
Speaker 1: at all statewide CBS stations. We were invited by Julie
Speaker 1: Watts to attend and to hang out, and maybe John
Speaker 1: has a little running with Katie Porter. Who knows, but
Speaker 1: we are very excited to be there. And because you
Speaker 1: have to check in at four o'clock and this show
Speaker 1: ends at three o'clock, it was going to be really, really,
Speaker 1: really really tough to get there from either the Coachella
Speaker 1: Valley or Culver City. So we're going to be doing
Speaker 1: the show nearby on location, and then we will be
Speaker 1: attending the debate and we will have lots to talk
Speaker 1: about on Wednesday show. But we are super psyched about it.
Speaker 1: And in fact, Johnny, you think you're talking to Julie
Speaker 1: Watson just a couple minutes here.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: Julie Watts of CBS News will be moderating tomorrow's debate.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: a telephone number one eight hundred two two two five
Speaker 1: two two two. As we mentioned before, tomorrow night, in Claremont,
Speaker 1: Randy and I will be attending the gubernatorial debate. It's
Speaker 1: going to happen at Pomoda College, which is part of
Speaker 1: the Claremont Colleges. I went to Claremont Graduate University for
Speaker 1: my master's degree, and Pomona is on the same campus
Speaker 1: as CGU. They're all there together. It's a beautiful campus.
Speaker 1: If you've never been there before, I highly recommend going
Speaker 1: out there and having a Sunday Brian Shu a dinner
Speaker 1: sometime because it's like an East Coast college town right
Speaker 1: in the middle of California. But Randy, you were profiled
Speaker 1: on CBS News with Julie Watts when you were able
Speaker 1: to get some money that the state of California owed
Speaker 1: to you, based off of a report that she did
Speaker 1: explaining just exactly how to get that money. Thanks to
Speaker 1: Julie Watts's reporting, we found out about claimate dot ca
Speaker 1: dot gov, a website that the California Controller's Office tells
Speaker 1: you if you have money that they owe you, probably
Speaker 1: that was sent to an address you haven't lived to
Speaker 1: in ten years.
Speaker 3: So we did the story.
Speaker 1: I put in my name, I put in all my
Speaker 1: old addresses, and I found three hundred dollars and I
Speaker 1: got three hundred dollars.
Speaker 3: I put it in the bank.
Speaker 1: How great is that?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 1: How long did it take before that money went to
Speaker 1: a wine club immediately?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 1: Well, Julie was kind enough to invite us as her
Speaker 1: guest to tomorrow night's debate because she is one of
Speaker 1: the moderators at the debate, and she is kind enough
Speaker 1: to join us right now. Julie Watts is an investigative
Speaker 1: correspondent for CBS News California, specializing in state capital accountability
Speaker 1: and consumer investigations. You can follow her on Exit Julie
Speaker 1: Watts TV. Julie Watts, thanks so much for stopping by.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me, gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be
Speaker 4: here now.
Speaker 1: I would imagine that for you today is like the
Speaker 1: day before the term paper is due in college, and
Speaker 1: you're going through all your notes and you're sitting in
Speaker 1: front of your laptop and you're writing the questions and
Speaker 1: you're trying to figure out just exactly what topics to
Speaker 1: bring up, what topics to leave out, who which candidates
Speaker 1: should you ask? What question to those sorts of things?
Speaker 5: Do you a stramra on me?
Speaker 4: Right now?
Speaker 3: Is this play?
Speaker 2: Literally? Literally?
Speaker 5: What's happening right now? Although I will say I'm sitting
Speaker 5: in the Bridges Auditorium and they're doing a run through
Speaker 5: right now. They've got Pomona students on stage standing in
Speaker 5: for all of the candidates, and it is in front
Speaker 5: of I do have my laptop in my lap, and
Speaker 5: I was just retiming because we just had a last
Speaker 5: minute candidate we sent out last night that Katie Porter
Speaker 5: is joining us, So I'm retiming and reformatting all of
Speaker 5: my questions to fit in another candidate. So very much
Speaker 5: is like that last minute term paper. But I have
Speaker 5: to tell you, sitting in this auditorium writing these questions
Speaker 5: is incredible. I can't wait for you guys, just see
Speaker 5: it tomorrow.
Speaker 3: It's gorgeous.
Speaker 1: Now, I would imagine there are people who think, Okay,
Speaker 1: it's a trick question. You're trying to find out how
Speaker 1: to cleverly write a trick question to get the candidate
Speaker 1: to look ill prepared. And I look at it and
Speaker 1: I think the exact opposite. I think, Okay, one of
Speaker 1: these people is going to be governor, so you almost
Speaker 1: want to distill it down to just the absolute basics
Speaker 1: because one of them is going to run the state.
Speaker 1: So you want to know what they think about any
Speaker 1: number of subjects that the next governor of California is
Speaker 1: going to have to deal with. So you want to know,
Speaker 1: and is clear of term as possible, what they think
Speaker 1: about subject X, Y or Z. And that's got to
Speaker 1: be difficult to write the question in a way that
Speaker 1: gets that answer.
Speaker 5: Out of them, you know, So I have I'm in
Speaker 5: a really unique situation right because I've sat down with
Speaker 5: most of these folks for upwards of two hours, most
Speaker 5: of them, some a few a little bit shorter. But
Speaker 5: I got to interview all of them. And I have
Speaker 5: sort of built a relationship with many of these candidates
Speaker 5: over the last eight months since I started this interview series,
Speaker 5: and so I kind of know what they're going to
Speaker 5: say already. My job right now is how do I
Speaker 5: get them to still it down and present to I
Speaker 5: always like to say I'm speaking to Mabel and Modesto.
Speaker 5: I'm sure there is a Mabel in Medesto, but I
Speaker 5: like to write my questions and frankly, my stories for Mabel,
Speaker 5: right like I understand the inside baseball, They understand the
Speaker 5: inside baseball, but Mabel doesn't understand how that impacts her. Right,
Speaker 5: So I will say for my segment, I have a
Speaker 5: thirty minute segment in the middle of a debate, and
Speaker 5: it's sort of the accountability segment. And I am really
Speaker 5: trying to say, listen, we're not going to debate to
Speaker 5: the next half hour who is going to be governor
Speaker 5: or who's to blame for California's problems. I want you
Speaker 5: to debate your solutions. And what's really interesting is, you know,
Speaker 5: I know what all of them think about all of
Speaker 5: these issues, and so I want to put them side
Speaker 5: by side. You know, you think we need to completely
Speaker 5: outsource all oil refining. You think we need to drill more.
Speaker 5: So let's talk about.
Speaker 4: Those two solutions and why you think your answer is correct.
Speaker 5: And then we let you know the audience decide which
Speaker 5: one do I like better. So to the extent that
Speaker 5: I can do it, my goal is going to try
Speaker 5: to keep them on what is your solution to this problem?
Speaker 5: And by no means do I want to trick them? Is?
Speaker 5: It is not my job. I would not be doing
Speaker 5: my job if they can't answer the question right. I actually,
Speaker 5: I genuinely want them to share their thoughts and their
Speaker 5: answers to California's problems.
Speaker 1: We went through a lot of your interviews with a
Speaker 1: lot of the candidates.
Speaker 3: You interviewed all of them.
Speaker 1: And you posted portions of the interviews based on subjects.
Speaker 1: So what do they think about transgender athletes? Sports, what
Speaker 1: do they think about crime? What do they think about
Speaker 1: the bullets? Whatever? The one that I thought that they
Speaker 1: did the worst on, and this is collectively speaking, here
Speaker 1: was the answer to California's insurance crisis, where you pressed
Speaker 1: them on the fact that so many homeowners in California
Speaker 1: cannot buy insurance. Many of them are on the fair plan.
Speaker 1: Many of them who have lost their homes to wildfires
Speaker 1: in Pacific Palisades, Altadena, they're having a tough time getting
Speaker 1: paid on what was supposed to be paid to them
Speaker 1: based on the contracts that they had with those insurance companies.
Speaker 1: And it seemed like for many of the candidates that
Speaker 1: was the one subject that they really hadn't thought through.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 5: I think there's probably a couple of them that had,
Speaker 5: you know, thought it through. But it actually, interestingly, I
Speaker 5: do think maybe Katie Porter had the best answer on
Speaker 5: that one, because my understanding is she has somebody who
Speaker 5: works in the insurance industry in her family, so I
Speaker 5: did think that was she was pretty well thought out
Speaker 5: on that answer specifically. It's interesting, though, Jack gun John,
Speaker 5: Now you have me rethinking my questions because I do
Speaker 5: have insurance on one of my questions, but I'm only
Speaker 5: asking a handful of the candidates, and the way I'm
Speaker 5: framing it is, Listen, half of the folks up there say,
Speaker 5: you know, forget the insurance. They're price gouging us, We
Speaker 5: don't need them, and the other half is saying, no,
Speaker 5: we need to allow them to charge a fair rate
Speaker 5: In order to keep them in the state. And really,
Speaker 5: you know, to your point, I think what people are
Speaker 5: dealing with right now is you've got half the folks
Speaker 5: who can't get insurance. Because keep in mind, insurance is
Speaker 5: a private you know, they're part of companies. They don't
Speaker 5: have to offer you their product, and so if they
Speaker 5: can't make money off that.
Speaker 4: Product, or if there's too much of a risk, they're.
Speaker 5: Not going to offer it. And so right now you
Speaker 5: have politicians having to balance looking like they're siding with
Speaker 5: the insurance industry. But if they fight them too hard,
Speaker 5: you lose the insurance industry, and then nobody can get
Speaker 5: insurance and everyone's on the fair plan, and we all
Speaker 5: know how that goes. And then at the same time,
Speaker 5: you have these insurers, to your point, who are not
Speaker 5: necessary we're under investigation, i should say, for not paying
Speaker 5: out claims appropriately in the wake of the fires, and
Speaker 5: they're also at the same time getting these rate increases. Well,
Speaker 5: those are two separate regulations, and you can't consider whether
Speaker 5: or not they're paying out properly or at least according
Speaker 5: to the way the law's currently written, while you're considering
Speaker 5: whether or not they can get a rate increase. They're
Speaker 5: a very specific criteria determining that rate increase. I don't
Speaker 5: think the vast majority of these candidates understand that nuance
Speaker 5: coming into the threes, but I have heard I will
Speaker 5: tell you from some of the folks in the insurance
Speaker 5: industry that there are a couple of candidates who call
Speaker 5: them and said, sit down with me. I want to
Speaker 5: hear everything, I want to understand everything. And so people
Speaker 5: are now trying to I can do their homework and
Speaker 5: learn these issues, and you know, John, I get you
Speaker 5: know to In their defense, also, a lot of these
Speaker 5: interviews that we did were early on. They were still
Speaker 5: learning the issues. So I am hopeful that by now
Speaker 5: they are more well versed.
Speaker 1: And it's also an issue I think that relates directly
Speaker 1: to the failure of California government, because it's not just
Speaker 1: homeowner's insurance that we're talking about here. We do a
Speaker 1: lot of crime stories here, and whenever, for example, a
Speaker 1: jewelry store gets hit, one of the aspects of that
Speaker 1: story that inevitably comes up is they are uninsured because
Speaker 1: they can't buy insurance because the jewelry stores get hit
Speaker 1: so often that no insurance company is willing to sell
Speaker 1: them a policy, and if they are, it's so expensive
Speaker 1: that the small business can't afford to buy it. And
Speaker 1: it's like, Okay, this is where the state not being
Speaker 1: tough enough on crime is directly jeopardizing an entire industry
Speaker 1: in the state where I don't even know how these
Speaker 1: people survive. I mean, how do you own a business
Speaker 1: that you can't buy an insurance policy on when you
Speaker 1: know it's likely that you're going to get robbed at
Speaker 1: some point in the future. But that's just the reality
Speaker 1: for that industry right now. And oh boy, are they
Speaker 1: suffering because of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's terrifying. And you know, additionally, if.
Speaker 4: I have time, I'm going allude to this in one
Speaker 4: of my questions.
Speaker 5: Right now, school districts insurance are going up to the
Speaker 5: point where they're laying off teachers just to be able
Speaker 5: to afford insurance. It's partially because they're seeing an influx
Speaker 5: in litigation due to old lawsuits. But as insurance is increasing,
Speaker 5: these education pools are all in the same insurance pools.
Speaker 5: So it may be that somebody else has a claim,
Speaker 5: but your school district now has an insurance premium increase,
Speaker 5: and so now your school district has to let go
Speaker 5: of three teachers.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 5: You're right. I think insurance is one of we can
Speaker 5: do a whole debate unjust insurance. Really there's so many
Speaker 5: nuanced issues.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean it relates to everything, Like we said, crime, fires,
Speaker 1: the high cost of living. There are very few subjects
Speaker 1: that the insurance crisis doesn't touch here in the state
Speaker 1: of California right now.
Speaker 5: That's so true, although I think you probably didn't say for.
Speaker 3: Gas, right that's very tent too.
Speaker 5: That's everything requires jaff or how the ripple effects off
Speaker 5: the gap.
Speaker 1: Well, the debate is going to be a big one.
Speaker 1: It's tomorrow night in Claremont, and I believe there's another
Speaker 1: debate or maybe even two more coming up next week.
Speaker 1: So right now they're sharpening their skills and hoping to
Speaker 1: put their best foot forward. And I can't remember a
Speaker 1: gubernatorial election in the state of California where this late
Speaker 1: in the game we really didn't know what was going
Speaker 1: to happen. This is the first truly contested truly, I
Speaker 1: don't know. It could go to maybe four or five
Speaker 1: different candidates, and I can't remember the last time that
Speaker 1: that was that was in play.
Speaker 5: You know, it makes it so exciting. And these guys, listen,
Speaker 5: they all have dirt on each other two and so
Speaker 5: I'm just sitting here at my popcorn waiting to see
Speaker 5: what next. Much of the next scandal is going to drop,
Speaker 5: and you know, we just we just never know what's
Speaker 5: going to happen next. It's the reason that CBS from
Speaker 5: the beginning has always really wanted to have the most
Speaker 5: inclusive debate and things back to the usc ADC debate.
Speaker 5: They there are people now. Javier Baveras is pulling, you know,
Speaker 5: is near right now, and he wouldn't even been included
Speaker 5: in that debate. So I really think that goes to
Speaker 5: show that anything can happen. And you know, we are
Speaker 5: the very last debate before ballots dropped, so we're hopeful
Speaker 5: that you know, everybody watches our debate. I like to
Speaker 5: think that we're the biggest debate and we'll have you guys.
Speaker 3: In the crowds.
Speaker 5: Of course, it's going to be fun. But yeah, I
Speaker 5: really think tomorrow night is going to be consequential. I
Speaker 5: think it's going to be a turning point in this race,
Speaker 5: and I would not be surprised if the field changes
Speaker 5: after tomorrow night.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, Michael Trachio, who is the Via Regosa affiliated strategist
Speaker 1: who tweeted out that Eric Swalwell was going to have
Speaker 1: problems with aids and with interns, has tweeted out that
Speaker 1: there are more Katie Porter videos that will drop before
Speaker 1: the ballots go out. So maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: He was right on the last one and he put
Speaker 1: it out on x for the world to see with
Speaker 1: this problem tweeted.
Speaker 5: About concluded about a few different candidates. So I'm just
Speaker 5: sitting here. Wait. You know, we hear a lot. Hear
Speaker 5: a lot of rumors, right that we never report. We
Speaker 5: just kind of have to wait till they're verified. So
Speaker 5: you and I'll be finding out the same time as
Speaker 5: any of these rumors end up being true.
Speaker 3: That is very true.
Speaker 1: Julie Watts, who's going to be hosting tomorrow's debate, which
Speaker 1: is going to be aired statewide here in the state
Speaker 1: of California, CBS locally in Los Angeles, kpi X in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, KOVR in Sacramento, KKEL I guess is also
Speaker 1: going to be airing it as well, so make sure
Speaker 1: you tune in tomorrow at five thirty, Julie'll be asking
Speaker 1: the questions to all the candidates who are running for
Speaker 1: governor here in California. Julie, thanks so much for stopping by.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. John Oh And it's streaming nationally
Speaker 5: on CBS and twenty four seven.
Speaker 1: All right, Julie Watts, you can follow her on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Julie Watts TV.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: a telephone number, one eight hundred two five to two two.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to Javier bach Rhea and Ashley Zavala
Speaker 1: and find out what he had to say about Dana Williamson,
Speaker 1: who was his top aid, who was allegedly Gavin's top aide,
Speaker 1: and his top aid stole his money.
Speaker 3: That's right, allegedly speaking.
Speaker 6: Of following the law, I mean you were a victim
Speaker 6: of a crime that really, I mean shook Sacramento this
Speaker 6: past late late last fall. A couple of people who
Speaker 6: are close to you are now facing prison time for it,
Speaker 6: for stealing nearly a quarter of a million dollars in
Speaker 6: your campaign funds. I just I know you've said it
Speaker 6: was a gut punch to see that. Dana Williamson, who's
Speaker 6: a well known political consultant. Your former chief of staff
Speaker 6: had this scheme essentially to funnel money from your campaign
Speaker 6: account to this longtime chief of staff of yours. I mean,
Speaker 6: I just want to confirm on the record here.
Speaker 3: Had funneled money. I think she was funneling beer. Oh yeah,
Speaker 3: she was funneling lots of liquids.
Speaker 6: To this longtime chief of staff of yours. I mean,
Speaker 6: I just want to confirm on the record here, like
Speaker 6: you were really truly misled there.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 7: As I said, gut punch, you put your trust in people.
Speaker 7: But what you also have to remember is as much
Speaker 7: as you've had a working relationship over years, as much
Speaker 7: as you've done things together and succeeded in so many ways,
Speaker 7: at the end of the day, we're all accountable.
Speaker 1: What is it with being Attorney General of California that
Speaker 1: makes you so wed to the cliches?
Speaker 3: Bob Bonta?
Speaker 7: The law is the law, and no one is above
Speaker 7: the law. And so when accountability comes knocking your way.
Speaker 1: Boy, he's saying it so many times now, he's getting
Speaker 1: tongue tied.
Speaker 7: You got to show up. And so I don't think
Speaker 7: anyone will challenge what the law is, and we all
Speaker 7: have to face up to it. But it was a
Speaker 7: real gut punch.
Speaker 6: This scheme, I mean involved taking ten thousand dollars a
Speaker 6: month up to from this dormant state campaign account of yours,
Speaker 6: and I just I mean looking through your congressional campaigns,
Speaker 6: I mean dating back to the nineties, like never once
Speaker 6: did you pay that amount for this kind of maintenance
Speaker 6: for legal services for nothing? I mean, like, did you really.
Speaker 1: I want this guy looking at our budget? Keep in
Speaker 1: mind how many hospice care facilities were in one building
Speaker 1: in the San Fernando Valley seventy eight. How many billions
Speaker 1: of dollars were stolen from us in EDD fraud thirty
Speaker 1: how many millions of dollars billions of dollars have been
Speaker 1: stolen from us in the phony Bologney homeless services organizations
Speaker 1: at least twenty five billion. And this guy can't keep
Speaker 1: an eye on one bank account that belongs to him,
Speaker 1: and he wants to be in charge of protecting California's budget,
Speaker 1: Like did you really not?
Speaker 6: That wasn't that didn't raise any flags for you that
Speaker 6: those payments.
Speaker 7: So we were paying for management of a dormant account,
Speaker 7: making sure that nothing was no laws were violated. Because
Speaker 7: I was Secretary of Health and Human Service as a
Speaker 7: cabinet member.
Speaker 1: He has name dropped that job so many times. How
Speaker 1: much could it cost to maintain a dormant account? What
Speaker 1: do you have to do? Maybe fill out forms once
Speaker 1: a year, that's it.
Speaker 7: I had to distance myself from anything that looked political
Speaker 7: or campaign related. I had ethics rules that were in
Speaker 7: place that required me to distance myself, and so I
Speaker 7: depended on people that I trusted to be able to
Speaker 7: manage that the right way.
Speaker 1: We were they managed it in Mexico. Oh yes, with
Speaker 1: very expensive handbags.
Speaker 7: We were going to pay for the management. You always
Speaker 7: pay for someone to oversee to file the right documents
Speaker 7: in the rest, and I was willing to pay the
Speaker 7: price to make sure that I didn't have to worry
Speaker 7: about it. Lo and behold, I.
Speaker 1: Paid the most and I got nothing for it.
Speaker 3: Finally got dragged into a scandal while I.
Speaker 7: Was willing to pay a price. And by the way,
Speaker 7: the attorneys of the campaign account signed off on all
Speaker 7: those payments as well. Wasn't as if there wasn't someone
Speaker 7: who was checking. The attorneys were checking and they were, so.
Speaker 3: They're probably crooked too.
Speaker 1: How many crooked people did this guy have on staff? Well,
Speaker 1: Sacramento was full of crooked consultants and crooked strategists and
Speaker 1: crooked attorneys.
Speaker 7: Yes, and they were saying, you know, everything seemed kosher.
Speaker 7: What happened was after the payments, the way the money
Speaker 7: was used is where the violation occurred. There was no
Speaker 7: violation in terms of the payment. That's why I and
Speaker 7: my campaign were not implicated in the actual activities.
Speaker 6: I mean the people involved. I mean a really well
Speaker 6: known lobbyist and consultant. I mean two of them, Dana Williamson,
Speaker 6: and one is escaping me right now.
Speaker 1: That was his chief of staff, wasn't it. And there
Speaker 1: was another lobbyist too, But.
Speaker 6: I mean they just these are powerful people in Sacramento.
Speaker 6: I mean, like, just not to speak for you, but
Speaker 6: it sounds like you were swindled or.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: This might go down as a worse interview for him
Speaker 1: than the Alex interview, the scrubb At interview. I think
Speaker 1: this one makes him look even dumber. And he looked
Speaker 1: pretty dumb on that debate stage too.
Speaker 7: But when you do the scrub