March 28, 2025 • 48 mins
THE WAR ROOM WITH STEPHEN K. BANNON, MARCH 28TH, 2025
GUEST:
NATALIE WINTERS
MAY MAILMAN
ALINA HABBA
ALEX PFEIFFER
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray
for our enemies because we're going to medieval on these people.
You've not got a free shot. And all these networks
lying about the people, the people have had a belly
full of it. I know you don't like hearing that.
I know you tried to do everything in the world
to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.
(00:22):
It's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
And where do people like that go to share the
big line?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Mega media?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I wish in my soul, I wish that any.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Of these people had a conscience. Ask yourself, what is
my task and what is my purpose?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
If that answer is to save my country, this country
will be saved.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
War Room, use your host, Stephen K Man.
Speaker 6 (00:53):
Welcome to the War Room.
Speaker 7 (00:54):
It's Friday, March twenty eight, in the Year of Our Lord,
twenty twenty five.
Speaker 6 (00:58):
It's Natalie g. Winter hosting, not Stephen K.
Speaker 5 (01:01):
Bannon.
Speaker 7 (01:02):
Don't worry, he'll be back for the six PM. But
I'm honored to be able to bring you guys some
exclusive content that we filmed actually believe it or not,
at the White House and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
War Room was part of the inaugural podcast row that
the White House Comms team held. We were among several
other outlet Sage Steal, Jack Piso, Big Viva Fry, The
(01:23):
Daily Wire, The Daily Signal, Doctor Drew, some other shows
you may have known.
Speaker 6 (01:27):
We made the cut. We're always honored to be there.
Speaker 7 (01:29):
I was able to interview a bunch of people that
I'm going to be bringing you, Like I said that,
exclusive content.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Over the next hour.
Speaker 7 (01:35):
And how you know this event was really successful, not
just because of the interviews you're about.
Speaker 6 (01:39):
To see, but the legacy media is.
Speaker 7 (01:40):
Melting down over they're extremely jealous. So without further ado,
Elena Hobbo will start it off strong. I'm honored to
be joined by the one and only May Mailman, the
Deputy Assistant to the President and a senior policy strategist.
You are also around the first term. You're a Trump og.
You've really been a staunch at advocate for all things
(02:01):
actual women's rights, sororities. We'll get into all that, but
our audience obviously Bannon's war room.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
We've been on the receiving end of a lot of
lawfair stuff.
Speaker 7 (02:10):
I think our audience would really love your perspective, we
focus so much on the resistance how they're trying to
counter President Trump's agenda.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
It seems like this time around they're focused a lot
more on.
Speaker 7 (02:21):
Using the courts, using lawfare, and the street protests. But
it seems like the tros, the injunctions are really their
kind of go to strategy.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
From your inside.
Speaker 7 (02:31):
Perspective, how do you think the White House is really
actively engaging and combating a lot of these attacks and
do you think we will be able to prevail over
these radical judges?
Speaker 8 (02:40):
Yeah, so I think people are going to see a
strategy a little bit more clearly in the coming weeks
because we have something like ten requests before the Supreme
Court right now, and kind of depending on how the
Supreme Court rules, you know, the administration is going to
have to respond. And there is this balance I think
people think of, you know, when judge tells you to
(03:00):
do something, you got to do it because you're a
private citizen.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
And if they say, you know, you go to jail, like,
what are you going to do? You got to go
to jail.
Speaker 8 (03:08):
But when you think about constitutional power and the judicial
power versus the executive power, it's a little bit of
a different question. If a judge tells the president to
write an email or something, or to say something that
is completely invasive into the president's authority.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
His article to authority.
Speaker 8 (03:28):
And so I think that, you know, what we're really
trying to explain to people is that judges have the
judicial power. The president has the executive power, and judges
do not have the executive power by the Constitution, they
just don't have it. And so if they're trying to say, hey,
guess what your military needs to kind of look like this,
this is where.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
You need to put your troops.
Speaker 8 (03:49):
They need to have this type of haircut, they need
to run this type of mile, and definitely they need
to be you know, trans identifying. Then that is going
to be invading on the executive's power. So a lot
of cases lined up in the Supreme Court. We'll see
what the Supreme Court says. But the American public, I
think and Congress really needs to get engaged in ensuring
that judges are using their judicial power, which is this
(04:14):
is all it is. This is a judish power to
decide cases and controversies that are before them. So if
you've got a case, you can decide it on the
issue that's before you.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
With the parties that are before you.
Speaker 8 (04:25):
We're seeing judges that are taking you know, it's a
lawsuit against the Department of Labor, and they're like, guess
what all of the government has to comply with this?
Like you said the differently, what are you talking about?
So really trying to focus on what is the authority
of a federal judge and it's way narrower than a
lot of these judges are trying to say.
Speaker 7 (04:45):
And it seems like that interplay all the revision is
history that we're taught aside is essentially the founding of
this country is about right. They act like it's something
so just absolutely wild for you guys to be discussing.
I want to get to the congressional component, but I'm
just curious your thoughts way that the sort of left
wing media democratic operatives are smearing you guys always that
sort of authoritarian, you know, dictatorial playbook for wanting to
(05:08):
engage and interplay with the courts. Do you think that
that line of messaging is going to be effective or
do you think that the American people will kind of
come to realize what you're saying, which is.
Speaker 8 (05:18):
That this is how It's always has been this. We
love democracy. We want to give the most power to
the people as is humanly possible, because that is what
built this country. And so guess what. The people have
the power over the executive. You elect the executive. The
people have the power over Congress, they write the laws.
That people have no power over judges. So the more
(05:40):
it becomes judges creating policy, not deciding cases.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
They can decide cases.
Speaker 8 (05:45):
But as long as it's judges deciding policy, you know
who loses. It's not Trump, but it's not Congress. It's the people.
It's because now the people have no say, they have
no power, there's nothing.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
They can do.
Speaker 8 (05:58):
The best they could maybe do is may be asked
their representative to impeach.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
That's no power at all.
Speaker 8 (06:05):
So if you care about the exact opposite of authoritarianism,
if you care about democracy, if you care about having
the voice of the people in shaping the policies, then
you would you want Congress and you want the executive
to be able to create laws and implement those laws.
But that's why I mentioned Congress so many times, is
because at the end of the day, our constitution creates
(06:28):
a supreme court, but it's up to Congress to create
the lower courts and they can shape what that jurisdiction
looks like. So Congress really has a role here to
say this has gotten out of controls. You guys are
nullifying our laws. We have laws, you're not letting us
do them. And Congress can step in and say, you know,
we're done with this chaos.
Speaker 7 (06:44):
And walk us through what you think that stepping in
needs to look like. Obviously we've had Elon Musk and
some of the more hardline Republicans call for impeaching some
of these very radical judges. Do you think that that
is the best route to take? We obviously have a
hearing coming next week, I believe Jim Jordan speaker Johnson
saying that they're at all options to go after these
radical judges. What do you think is the best path forward?
And we also have a very activist Graspers audience. They
(07:07):
love to make their phone calls to their representatives. Is
there anything that they can be doing people that you
would recommend they call engage liaise with to help you
guys sort of bolster what you guys are trying to
do here.
Speaker 8 (07:17):
Yeah, so I think impeachment needs to obviously always be
on the table for when judges are going beyond their
judicial power. However, impeachment, like I said, is this imperfect
solution because it's one by one, it's slow, and frankly,
it's not going to happen, Like it's just too high
of a threshold in the Senate and in the House
(07:39):
in order to happen. So what's a solution that's not
one by one, and that's actually possible. It is the
judicial power itself. So these nationwide injunctions, it sounds like
this big legal word, and of course your audience knows what.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
It is, but it's before the case is decided.
Speaker 8 (07:55):
It's like it's a judge saying, hey, I haven't really
decided this case yet, but in the interim, I'm just
going to prevent the entire nation from doing the president's policy.
That type of action where you haven't decided a case,
there's been no trial, there's been no documents, there's been
no evidentiary findings, and you're telling the entire executive from
(08:16):
coast to coast that they cannot implement the executive's power.
That is something that Congress can control. Congress could say
we're no longer doing nationwide injunctions. If a state sues,
then yeah, the state can stop the policy in that state.
That's basically what happened during the Trump administration, where states
would sue against, for example, Biden's illegal Title nine rule
(08:38):
and there was never a nationwide injunction. I was part
of a coalition that brought a lawsuit in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, a couple of those southeastern states, and so
a judge did issue an injunction, but it was for
those states.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
So you could easily.
Speaker 8 (08:52):
See Congress doing some sort of policy that limits the
ability of judges to be able to do these sweeping nationwidees.
So anybody on the Judiciary committee, if you want to
make some phone calls, I'd figure out who's on House Judiciary,
who's on Senate Judiciary. Do I have a member who's
there make those phone calls?
Speaker 7 (09:10):
And I want to pivot to sort of the I
guess other side of the lawfair aspect what President Trump,
as I would say, sort of proactively been doing against
a lot of these big, top tier law firms that
were intimately involved with the Russia Gates stuff. The last
four years of all things lawfair, that I'm sure you
know all too well. I'm curious from your perspective, do
you think that the revoking of security clearances and government
(09:31):
contracts from I think probably most notoriously Perkins Coy, we
don't like Mark Elias here in the war room. But
do you think that that is sort of the extent
of where President Trump's i would say crusade against these
very very radical subversive lawfare activists ends, or do you
think that you could potentially see perhaps criminal or otherwise
investigations into some of these firms.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
It seems like our audience.
Speaker 7 (09:54):
Is very interested and seeing these people be held to
account those that committed crimes.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
But where do you think is left to go on
that vertical in terms of these law firms.
Speaker 8 (10:02):
Yeah, so law firms have a tremendous power in our
country that they can use for good or for evil.
I mean all, they have billions of dollars of client
money that they are using to actively harm their clients.
They're making their communities less safe, they're making their elections
less secure. These are things that actively harm their clients.
So I'd love to see clients, frankly start caring about
(10:24):
their law firms acting against their own interests this, you know,
And so as the government, yeah, of course we're interested
in firms that are using their powers to weaponize justice
in order to nullify laws, in order to do all
these sorts of nefarious activities. But then there are individual
(10:44):
actors who have gone further. I mean, there are people
who who have been engaged in the systematic destruction of
election integrity from coast to coast, And so yeah, that's
going to be a longer term.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Project, I think.
Speaker 8 (10:58):
But for the short for the immediate term, what we
need to do is to get law firms to use
their power for good. They have so much ability to
make our country more just. I mean, that's the job
of a lawyer. It's to seek justice and to not
have a partisan weaponized mission. And so we're seeing clients
(11:22):
start to want that. But yes, there are there's definitely
longer term interests in some of the individuals that have
have done great damage to our country.
Speaker 7 (11:32):
So when you see those individuals, are you talking particularly
and sort of the election they we say integrity, They
say that we're you know, big, too.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Euphimistic, But that's what it is. In that space.
Speaker 7 (11:42):
There is more broadly to going all the way back
to the Russia hoax.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Can you send some insight on that?
Speaker 8 (11:48):
So I think that there's so we signed a couple
of executive orders on day one that I think go
a little bit to this. But one of them was
the Weaponization of Government Executive Order, and what it asked
for was a very comp corehensive review for the ways
in which individuals colluded, oftentimes with the government in order
to deprive Americans of their rights. And so these are
(12:09):
people who are going to be inside government, outside of government,
but this is something that the Department of Justice that
others government. We also did a censorship one too, because
that's actually just as nefarious. So there are people who
are using their power to ends that they should not.
But then there's also the censorship where you couldn't even
say anything about it. And so where you had the
(12:30):
Biden administration colluding with third party entities to make sure
that voices just like yours would not show up on
any search results, that people would not be able to
see a full spectrum of opinions, and to very much
violate First Amendment rights of Americans. So there's a lot
actually going on, and it's not just going to be
an election integrity. It's a full scale investigation into the
(12:51):
weaponization of government, full scale investigation into censorship. And there's
a lot to uncover. There's a lot to talk about,
but take time. But these are investigations that are one
hundred percent ongoing.
Speaker 7 (13:05):
And in terms of the kind of post Trump potential
for lawfair right four years from now, obviously it's great,
these are wonderful four years. But the way they've dismissed
a lot of these cases right without prejudice, they want
to reintroduce them. Obviously they're going to try to go
after him. I can only imagine probably every day these
people are writing lists of every single thing that he's done.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
They're getting more and more mad.
Speaker 7 (13:25):
Do you see a lot of these lawfair efforts of
a sort of president Trump trying to stop a potential
say democratic president or whoever, if they were to take
the Senator or be able to weaponize these forces again,
not just against him, but more broadly. But do you
see the Democrats wanting to sort of re up those
tactics should they regain power.
Speaker 8 (13:45):
It's an interesting thing because yeah, they wanted they wanted
to say that their dismissal, they wanted to do it quietly, almost,
and they definitely wanted to do it before the Trump
administration came in, because Lord God forbid that there be
a active investigation that the Trump administration would be honestly
able to close. So, yes, this was a very targeted effort.
(14:07):
And so you know, have the Democrats changed their mind,
have they decided that they want to pursue even handed justice?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
We'll see.
Speaker 8 (14:16):
But if the law firms are not going to help
with this, what we saw with a lot of the
Jack Smith investigations is that, for example, Covington was giving
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of pro bono assistance
to Jack Smith himself and the other number of law
firms who gave lawyers over to the January sixth committee,
(14:37):
who were giving work product over to Jack Smith. So
can you stop crazy people from being crazy?
Speaker 1 (14:45):
That's a tough question.
Speaker 8 (14:46):
But can you stop the systemic assistance of law firms
to weaponized justice?
Speaker 1 (14:54):
I hope so, I.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
Think America.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
You use your host, Stephen, Welcome back to the War Room.
I'm honored to be joined now by the one and
only Elena Hobba. Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I think the last.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
Time we were on warmed together, we were up in Bedminster.
They've been doing a preview Sound of Freedom, and I
think the story is why the audience loves you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
I remember, I think you cussed.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
I cussed. I was like, today, is that what you're
going to say?
Speaker 9 (15:27):
That I did it?
Speaker 4 (15:28):
Did it?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
But I was just so passionate it.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
Yes, you did an pussed.
Speaker 7 (15:32):
And you care about actual accountability, and I am old time.
It's okay, it's all good.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
All you know, when I got so fired up, Bannon
got me revved up and.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I was he does way away with words, and I cussed.
Speaker 7 (15:44):
But I think it's because you care about actual accountability
right now.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
So I'm very authentic, strongly worded letters and tweets people
old right, old guard Republican.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
You, I think represent that new, fire breathing, striper Republicanism
that I think this audience loves and cares so much about.
So I have some of the topics that our audience
cares the most about, and I'd love if you could
just sort of give us where you think we stand, where.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
We need to go.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
Okay.
Speaker 7 (16:05):
Doge is obviously expressed an interest in wanting to audit
Ukraine AID. Keith Kellock had intimated that that process was underway.
Where do you think we stand on that? Do you
think that that's an integral part of negotiations?
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Do you think we need to see well the funds
and where they actually I want.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
To say, I don't see it as any different than
anything else that they've done.
Speaker 9 (16:24):
So we've seen AID going.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Through NGOs, going through different tunnels and different avenues to
be hidden and buried. This is just another one. There's
no question that we have to sent a ton of
money to Ukraine, and I think it's not so much
a political thing or a strategic thing as more of
a just consistent ability to cut government waste and fraud,
(16:47):
make sure we're spending taxpayer dollars as we should, and
clean up the mess so that we can balance our
seriously terrible deficit in this country.
Speaker 7 (16:56):
And speaking of messes and waste, fraud and abuse, it
seems like Act Blue is something that is also on
the forefront of everyone's mind, the sort of smurfing the
weird contributions. You're obviously going to be joining or I
think you've been now obviously announced the interim you as
attorney forty Jersey. Congratulations, But through that vertical or even
sort of the DJ with what the White Houses do
(17:16):
or I know there's been a lot of reporting that
you guys are are looking into that, But what do
you think that will ultimately sort of shape up to
be or you guys just looking at.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
It, do you think there could be a criminal investigation.
Speaker 9 (17:26):
I'm not going to speak that.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
I can tell you that I'm obviously aware of what
APT blue is and I think that we have to
make sure that there's no illegal activity again across the board.
I did see that a few people left it from Act.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Blue and Mass exident.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
No coincidence, right, so we have to look at what
happened there.
Speaker 9 (17:46):
Look, I don't know. I'm not in charge of it.
I can tell you that.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
That it's concerning. I think that it's not the first
and last time we'll hear about it, and I hope
that that we continue to look into anything that has corruption,
it has any sort of ties.
Speaker 5 (17:59):
To any war in dollars just not acceptable in this country.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
And we have to keep.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Our elections and our campaigns honest. So you know, as
to that, I hope we get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
If there is something to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
And in terms of the election integrity aspect, our warm
audience is obviously on the front lines of that. Scott
presslers are making a full court press.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
In New Jersey. You're obviously going to be up there.
Speaker 7 (18:21):
Obviously politics campaigns, you know, details aside. But what are
you looking on in terms of the election integrity and
making sure that elections are free, safe and secure in
the state of New Jersey across the sky?
Speaker 4 (18:32):
Well, I've read about an indicted individual just this past
week when I got put in this role that you know,
was taking ballots and was allegedly taking ballots.
Speaker 9 (18:41):
Let me be a lawyer for a minute.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Allegedly taking ballots although they've been indicted and writing in
names and telling people and then basically pushing.
Speaker 9 (18:50):
In twenty twenty election things. That's problematic.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
I mean, if we don't have.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
Election integrity, as the RNC really pushed for in this election,
we do not have a country.
Speaker 9 (19:01):
I mean, the thing that differentiates us from third.
Speaker 5 (19:03):
World countries is that we have fair and free elections.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
As the President has said he doesn't believe in in,
you know, having an election that lasts two weeks and counting.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
Ballots and all that.
Speaker 9 (19:13):
He thinks everybody should have.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
To go show ID you should be an American to.
Speaker 9 (19:18):
Be able to vote.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
How radical?
Speaker 4 (19:20):
Yeah? Crazy, But he's.
Speaker 9 (19:23):
Just, you know, been very clear on that. And that's
because he has dealt with this before.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
He dealt with it in twenty twenty. He'll deal with it,
you know, he dealt with in twenty twenty four. And
we made a very big effort to clean up election
integrity and make sure that there is no fraud when
it comes to our elections. I think that it's important,
frankly for the country in general. I don't see how
you could not get behind us making sure that people
don't vote multiple times, that they're not getting absentee ballots
(19:47):
in one state and another, which I knew.
Speaker 9 (19:49):
I knew people that would call and.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
Say, I just got a second ballot to my house
in Florida.
Speaker 9 (19:54):
I just got a second You know. That's not acceptable.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
That's not the way we operate.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
We have to tighten it up and for new I
can tell you I'll be looking at the voter rules
and cleaning that up too.
Speaker 9 (20:03):
We can't have dead people voting.
Speaker 7 (20:04):
I know, it's crazy or eagles, right, idea. It seems
like one of the ways that President Trump is going
after a lot of the sort of anti election and
target lawyers like Mark Elias is why sure been the
security clearances the government contracts from firms like Perkinskoy obviously come.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
To an Berlin.
Speaker 7 (20:20):
Do you think that that is sort of where the
anti lawfair drive stops or do you think that.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
These I think it's the financial backers. I think that
it's the it's the individuals that I could name, but
the big mega donors that have spent money in a
really unlawful way funding lawfair and witch hunts, as I
know very well, and that has to stop. I mean,
there should be some sort of reform towards that end,
(20:47):
because you should not be able to go after a
political opponent through the court system.
Speaker 9 (20:52):
That's just not what it's meant to be there for.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
So I think you follow the money on that.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
That's really where I believe the problem is.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
And of course we have an issue with some of
these judges, some of these rogue a gs, some of
these rogue das that are more politically motivated and legally minded.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
And when we'll do it, when you look post twenty
twenty eight.
Speaker 7 (21:10):
They've obviously a lot of the cases the lawfair agunst
and they've dismissed without prejudice. They're already talking about probably
trying to all show heel.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Yeah, right, I feel.
Speaker 7 (21:18):
How do you think the administration is working to ensure
that once President Trump is no longer president, that we're
not going to sort of go back to the third
world territory we were in.
Speaker 5 (21:29):
Yeah, I know we're making sure of that.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Number One, we expect that after seeing what he's done
just in a couple of months, after four years, the
American people will yet again vote to keep somebody of
this party in place that has the same compass and
worlds and policies and agendas that we've had. America is
definitely stronger, very quickly, and we'll see.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
What happens there.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
But I can tell you that in this administration that
is something that we are one hundred percent worried about
is making sure that the changes that we make are
long lasting, that these aren't temporary fixes.
Speaker 9 (22:03):
No more band aids. Let's end it. Let's end all the.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Things that America voted to stop that they were tired
of in the last administration.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
So when we are doing things.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
When we're writing executive orders and policies, We're not doing
them as a temporary fix. We're doing them to really change,
to fix the country, frankly, because it was very broken
when we came in.
Speaker 7 (22:20):
And something that you've tried to overhaul systemically across government,
across society is the essuo, obviously of human trafficking intertwined
with illegal and we're great Sharon there. Our audience is
obviously very attuned to that. I'm curious your thoughts. Secretary
Christine Nome had talked about how they were getting ready
to revoke a lot of the funding from these NGOs
(22:40):
that sort of ate, in a bet, the invasion of
this country. But do you think that just stripping the
funds from some of these organizations is enough or do
you think that our audience should expect I know they
certainly wanted, but investigations into a lot of these New.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
Jersey if there's any of that, if there's any shelters
that are harboring illegal immigrants, they will be investigated. I
will not have that in my state. I can tell
you that for sure. And you know, I love Christy.
I think she's doing a stand up job these, I'll
be continuing to work with them.
Speaker 9 (23:10):
I'll be continuing to work with ICE, I'll be with DHS.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Cleaning up human trafficking, and America unfortunately is a very
very very large human trafficking problem because of the open
borders that we had. We have another problem. We have
a cyber sex trafficking problem in this country where it's
transnational and going overseas through Skype, through these things, and
it's really disturbing. I will expect that anybody who has
(23:34):
a crime of moral turpitude, anybody who is a pedophile
in the state of New Jersey, I will have no
mercy on you. I can tell you that I will
go for maximum penalties all the time. There will be
no breaks. And if you are here illegally and you
hurt a child, you will be I can tell you
You'll be visiting Christy no home over there where read
or exactly, but I have no tolerance for that. It's
(23:56):
been something I've been very very passionate about since I've
been here and we're in with Tom Holman and Christy
Nome and Secretary Kennedy.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
It's just been great.
Speaker 7 (24:06):
And last question, your message to other say Democrat state
agees or the states where they have what is it
twenty three the supermajorities that they're shepherding all their resources
to go after below the mass deportation a job to
block the What's your message is a sort of I think,
a representation of how you can use state power to stop.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
A legal immigration potential. Well, I just I.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Would like to understand why they think it's better to
keep terrorists and a terrorists.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
I use that word not just because of the executive.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
Order, but because these are people that have come into
our country unwelcome. Maybe they were welcomed by Joe Biden,
but they are no longer welcome here. That you have
come into our country and you have terrorized our people.
You are bringing in drugs, you are hurting children, you
are raping people, whatever it is that you are doing,
you have no place here.
Speaker 9 (24:52):
So I would just ask when they go to sleep
at night, how.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
They sleep after knowing that they are trying to get
these people back off a plane and into our people.
That look at Lincoln Riley, I mean, I was first
Bill a president past for a reason.
Speaker 9 (25:05):
I don't understand what consciousness.
Speaker 5 (25:07):
What God you pray to that you find it okay?
Speaker 9 (25:11):
To encourage criminal behavior in this country.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
I'd last say, don't have children, don't I don't understand
probably not thinking about my.
Speaker 9 (25:17):
Children when I took this job.
Speaker 5 (25:19):
I thought about my children.
Speaker 7 (25:20):
Last question only because you brought up terrorism. Obviously, the
attacks on Tesla being classified as as domestic terrorism sort
of twofold one. There's been a lot of reporting, We've
done a lot of it here in the war and
how a lot of these people who are you know,
so anti Tesla and protesting Elon Musk, A lot of
it is funded by that same sort of dark money
left wing groups that.
Speaker 9 (25:36):
You're talking about dark right.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
We know money very very obvious. But in the state
of New Jersey for people.
Speaker 9 (25:41):
Who are you going to vandalize Tesla?
Speaker 7 (25:43):
You're going to vandalize Tesla's not only how you know,
how are you going to handle that from a criminal angle,
but will you investigate who is propping up these people
who are funding them?
Speaker 9 (25:52):
Absolutely?
Speaker 5 (25:53):
I look.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
The great thing about about this role is I am
the one USA in New Jersey, but I have a
huge job is and we have several offices, and I
will one hundred percent stand behind the fact that you
do not get to target somebody who has served the
country in a capacity that was asked by the president,
that has sacrificed so much, and then go after it's
not even hymns people's private property, vandalizing it, scaring people
(26:18):
from driving your cars unacceptable. If you are a terrorist,
if you are a criminal, if you are going to
hurt anybody, especially now in the state of New Jersey,
I can tell.
Speaker 9 (26:27):
You I'm coming for you.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
If the audience wants to follow you, stay up to
date with everything you're doing.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Where can they go to do?
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Alena Hava on everything Twitter, Instagram, You can find me
at my little check mark my white House.
Speaker 5 (26:41):
Twitter will probably.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Be shut out to go to handle my main.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
One, so obviously you can find me on Twitter and
Instagram and all the social media, basic and true social.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Thank you so much for joining us to have you
back on. Thank you.
Speaker 9 (27:00):
Who's your host?
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Stephen k Ban?
Speaker 6 (27:08):
Welcome back to the War Room.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
I guess maybe with questions like that, it's not hard
to see why the Biden White House did not.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
Want anyone from war Room anywhere near.
Speaker 7 (27:16):
The press office or any of their cabinet officials. We
still have more content we're going to go back talking
all things government weaponization, even asking about dark money Arabella
Advisors with May Mailman Alex Speiffer, who's one of President
Trump's deputy COM's advisors.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
We're also going to talk to him about.
Speaker 7 (27:31):
Some of their unique comm strategies and how they're going
to get those deportation numbers up.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
But in the meantime, of course, we're.
Speaker 7 (27:37):
As grateful to birch Gold dot com slash Bannon being
the reason that we can bring you content like this,
So you've got to make sure.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
You're texting Bannon to nine eight nine eight nine eight
or checking.
Speaker 7 (27:45):
Out birch Gold dot com slash bannon while you're at
You also know we love guys over at tax Network USA.
That's t NUSA dot com slash bannon, or you can
give a call if you like to do that to
one hundred and five eight one zero zero zero.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
You can get a free consultation.
Speaker 7 (28:04):
And of course Patriot Mobile the guys who put on
wonderful events down in Texas. If you didn't have a
chance to go there, go talk to Glenn's story and
the team. You know, you can always check out Patriot
Mobile dot com slash Bannon. We're about to bounce back
to some of the exclusive interviews.
Speaker 6 (28:20):
Like I said that we filmed yesterday.
Speaker 7 (28:22):
I think that one with Elena Hobbos probably going to
make some heads roll. But when I say heads roll,
I probably mean illegal aliens, people who should be in jail,
election fronsters, and probably a lot of corrupt Democrats and
establishment Republicans at that. In the meantime, let's go back
to May Mailman and Alex Seifert Moore. Like I said,
exclusive content live from the White House. But do you
(28:43):
think that just revoking the security clearances in the government contracts?
Do you think that that is enough for you telling
our audience who I can tell you certainly once more,
there's potentially more coming down the pipeline to really stop
this from all happening again.
Speaker 8 (28:57):
So without get into the Department of Justice and potential
announcements that you can see there, I will say that
law firms themselves are only one piece of the puzzle
in order to end the systemic weaponization of justice. Looking
at the nonprofit sphere and the abuse of nonprofits in
(29:22):
filtering foreign money. That's, for example, another thing that is
criminal but at least should be expensive because that's not
nonprofit activity. So let's just go with nonprofits are one
piece or sorry, law firms are one piece of the puzzle, okay,
and you let us know.
Speaker 7 (29:38):
When you have to go, because I know you're a
busy gal. But our audience is extremely involved in this. Obviously,
they were, like I said, on the receiving end with
Steve having gone to prison.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
But there was a really interesting New York Times.
Speaker 7 (29:47):
Article a few weeks ago talking about how the administration
was looking into potentially Arabella Advisors and a lot of
the dark money network groups on the left sixty to
thirty fun new venture kind of compounded with the Act Blue.
The potential for being in the kind of weird donation
scam that was going on allegedly is there. I know
the New York Times isn't always accurate, but do you
(30:08):
are you guys talking about looking into that sort of
dark money apparatus.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yes.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
So I think we have two executive orders that already
mentioned this a little bit, and I know that there
are things in the work. So the ones that A
were working on this a little bit is the executiveorder
that does mention Mark Elias, which talks about the nefarious actions,
the disc barring actions of lawyers across the country, and
it mentions things that should be done as far as
(30:38):
dark money.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
But I would say also the.
Speaker 8 (30:40):
Election Integrity Executive Order that we just signed this week,
that one also has a section that says that you
need to track money in American elections, including foreign money.
And there's a continued effort on both election integrity and
foreign money specifically. But I will say the Act Blue
issue of money falling from the sky is.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Something that I worked on actually when I.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
Was in the private sector, and it's it's a little
bit of a tough nut to crack because we need
the state attorney generals to go after this. This is
happening to voters in their states. Most of the election
laws are at the state level. So I will say,
if you've got a state attorney general who is willing
(31:29):
to help with election integrity, they have all of the
authority in the states. They need to be starting their
own investigations too, because there are three Democrat states who
started taking actions against.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Win Read based on this exact thing.
Speaker 8 (31:45):
So why is it that the Democrat attorney generals are
able to go after uh when Read But there's no
Republicans that are It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
You call your attorneys semetric warfare. We're not We're not
very good.
Speaker 7 (32:00):
I'm curious how you viewed Doge as a force for
sort of supplementing what you guys are doing, almost sort
of backdooring potentially. I know there was discussion about turning
the voter rolls over potentially for them to audit. But
in that sort of space of the dark money, the
foreign NGO just very black box. Maybe Pandora's box has
a better way to describe it. But how has Doge
(32:21):
sort of augmented or helped what you guys are doing.
Speaker 8 (32:23):
So Doge is excellent if you give Doge a project
and you say so on our Life very high IQ, Yes,
on our Election Integrity Executive Order. Actually we put Doge
in there because there's such a problem with the voter rolls. Right,
You've got these states and they're supposed to have their
voter rolls public, So you should actually be able to
if we the government can supply citizenship information, you should
(32:44):
be able to do that quickly. So guess who we
gave that job too. That's going to be Doge. And
of course this is all public information. This is voter
roles that need to be public. So people freak out
about that.
Speaker 7 (32:53):
All right, but welcus one second through that angle of
attack because it is so hypocritical. Right, They say that, oh,
you guys are not being transparent with.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
DOZE or whatever. That's always their line.
Speaker 7 (33:03):
But these are probably the most like hidden not to tell,
like the nine to ninety four you could barely tell
who's giving billions of dollars.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I know. Yeah, So.
Speaker 8 (33:12):
For Americans want transparency, they want to be able to
know how money is being spent. And so one of
the great things about DOGE is that they really are
and can be tech support. So one of the biggest
challenges of my job sitting in the White House is
I don't know what's happening in the agencies. If I
want to say, hey, what's what is this grant being
(33:35):
spent on or what's this program doing, I got to
call somebody who's got to call somebody who's got to
call somebody who's got to call somebody who has to
get a document.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
They can figure it out.
Speaker 8 (33:44):
What DOGE is trying to help do is make sure
that we know we know where the money is being spent.
And I think, you know, Doge is about cutting and
they want to eliminate this. I think there are other
people who want to just move it right instead of
cutting it. Why can't we harness it for good? Why
(34:04):
can't we give it to people who are going to
make the world a better place?
Speaker 1 (34:07):
And so that's a conversation.
Speaker 8 (34:09):
I think that's maybe the difference between pure Doge and
the White House, which is, we want and that's the
conversation that's happening. And I think that's very healthy for
the White House to have, which is you've got people
who are just all about saving money and then you've
got people who are all about making sure that Americans
are well provided for. And then those conversations are happening
(34:31):
every single day in the White House.
Speaker 7 (34:32):
Can you walk us through a little bit of that interplay,
because I think the media is always on you guys saying, oh,
there's no transparency. Elon Musk is the real president, right,
the one at the shadow cabinet whatever. All the terms
that I guess the left sort of coined, but what
does that sort of not riff but the different kind
of different schools of thought on how to go after
waste fraud in neviws, which I think you see, right,
can you repurpose the Department of Education or do you
(34:53):
just abolish it?
Speaker 1 (34:54):
Right, it's sort of that's the central question.
Speaker 8 (34:56):
So in a sense, Doge is the help, but the
agencies and the White House else are in charge. So
for example, everybody knows that Dose would like to save
money by cutting a certain number of people who aren't
doing anything in the agencies. We've got millions of government employees.
What are most of them doing? And so you know
Doge wants to cut those people. But whose responsibility is
(35:17):
at the end of the day, that's going to be
the Cabinet secretary. So the Cabinet secretary, I think feels
you know, they receive that message and they say what
can be cut?
Speaker 1 (35:26):
So today.
Speaker 8 (35:28):
You know, people are working on where is their waste?
Where is there one agency in your department that's doing
the exact same job as another one, But it all
needs to be going through. So that's the conversation that's happening,
which is like, hey, you guys need to identify waste.
You need to shrink your workforce to the minimum that's required.
You need to close buildings that are unnecessary, buildings you
(35:51):
need to do all these things. And then what happens
next is the agency figures out what's good, what's bad,
how can we consolidate. And it's kind of like, you know,
bringing the businessman in who's going to say let's go go, go,
go go, and then bringing the lawyers in who are like, well,
don't get here this up. And that's exactly how a business.
(36:12):
That's that's how a successful business. That's how successful government
operates and should operate.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
It's I guess open discourse, which we know they don't.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Pretre I'll love to walk through this, and let's set
the stage for what is the thing. If you're at
home and you've been if you've owned a TV set,
every time you've watched Fox or whatever channel, and it's
flow to a commercial during election season, it's Republicans running
ads about closing the border, right, that's all everyone talks about.
(36:39):
And President Trump and this administration is actually closed the border.
I mean, border crossings are down ninety nine percent in
some areas, they're down so much so, and illegal emments
are so free across our border that they're now turning
around in Mexico. So I think the important thing for
everyone to keep in mind, is the securing of the border,
the thing that people have campaigned on for years now,
(37:00):
maybe decades, has actually been accomplished. And we have the
tenth Mound division at the border. We're now building the wall,
and so that part, that key part has been accomplished.
And then as it comes to deportations, as you know,
the President has said, as Tom Homer has said, as
everyone has said, you know, we're going to keep ramping
up the numbers. We're never we're never going to settle
for what we have. And obviously we're also working with
(37:21):
Congress to try and get more funding to increase you know,
ICE's capabilities. But you know, I think everyone's very proud
of the work ICE is doing. They you know, this morning,
an operation you know, led by the FBI and state
and local officials arrested a top MS thirteen leader in
Virginia just you know, thirty miles or so from here,
(37:43):
who wasn't illegal.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
And we're going, of course, so every single.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Day, you know, we're getting good numbers on ICE arresting
criminals throughout the country, and those numbers are just continue
to increase. So I don't I think people should be
very happy about where we are, and especially because I
don't think anyone watching this could have predicted that within
you know, months of the administration, we would basically halt
(38:08):
border crossings. You know, I just saw a stat actually
that the other day we only had sixty six gotaways
at the border, and under Biden, you know, I would
I think sometimes we would have you know, close to
a thousand in a day, so you know, of got away.
So the border numbers are tiny compared to where they were,
and so I think that's.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
The thousands a month and now they're deaf.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah, I think it was like ten k month in February.
My numbers will off, give or take, but like, the
numbers are tiny. And also, why would you want to
cross here illegally? You know you're going to get sported, going.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
To go to nice e'll salvatory.
Speaker 3 (38:42):
You know it's not going to.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Turn out well if you're if you're an illegal immigrant
gang member here. Yeah, if you remember of MS thirteen
or trendon Arragua, you can end up in Guantanamo Bay.
You know, this is not This country was a safe
space for illegal immigrant killers and it is not anymore.
Speaker 7 (38:58):
And walk us through some of the efforts to hamper
whether it's securing the.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Border, the mass deportations.
Speaker 7 (39:03):
We obviously focus a lot on the sort of left
wing NGOs who's raisin detra is to essentially keep the
borders wide open. We know that they were sort of
preemptively lobbying Joe Biden and his regime to get rid
of the detention facilities to allow the massive amount of
people possible. And you know, ever, they were hiring extra
ICE agents not to stop people, but to allow them
to process more people. The City of New York is
(39:25):
doing the same thing. Where has that sort of resistance,
at least on the immigration front in particular, come from.
Speaker 1 (39:31):
Is it the Democratic Party? Is it more these NGOs.
Speaker 7 (39:34):
Is it people who are opposed to sort of the
you know, First administration.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
The divesting from Ice. What is that resistance?
Speaker 2 (39:41):
I think on the immigration front, the uh, you know,
political opponents. I think like politicians have been a bit
more quiet than they have in the past because they
realized the American public is on our side. So the
Washington Posts had this whole story basic saying, well, you
know the problem with trying to advocate against press and
Trump's immigration policies. The majority of the country's with them.
(40:03):
It's not just that like people always like to say, oh,
well you can just support a criminal legals, Well, all
the ill immigrants are criminals, and the majority of Americans
support supporting all illegal immigrants. Uh So, I think the
opposition you see, you know, oftentimes from activist judges.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
You know, the judge.
Speaker 2 (40:21):
Who recently put out this ridiculous comment saying Nazis were
treated better than these trend o ragua. Yes, she's donate,
she's been heavy. She's a heavy. She's a heavy donor
to Democrat politicians. And I might be breaking some news
here for a warnim audience. She was a volunteer on
the Obama campaign.
Speaker 3 (40:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (40:43):
So do you think is the most rodical judge that
has I don't know if, I don't know if.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
But obviously judge Judge Bosberg be the current prize winner.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
We rejoiced.
Speaker 5 (40:59):
Your host Stephen came that.
Speaker 7 (41:07):
I want to pivot this a little to how I
think the sort of riff right, Obviously Trump is I
guess I won't put words in his mouth, but I
would say the word audience. We're very populist, nationalist. I
know President Trump's described himself in some ways as that too.
But the idea that now on the left right, you
have AOC and Bernie hitting essentially it feels like the
campaign trail but kilding these what they alleged to be
huge rallies saying that they're fighting oligarchy, they're putting families
(41:30):
over billionaires.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
But then you go to AOC's website and.
Speaker 7 (41:33):
The first thing that you're hit with is a know
your Rights campaign how to avoid illegal aliens being deported,
pro open borders.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
How do you think that that message?
Speaker 7 (41:42):
Right, the idea that the left to the Democratic Party,
that sort of more maybe populist wing of it, says oh,
we're so pro worker, we're so pro American family. Yet
concurrently they're wanting to open the border wide open right
to essentially the most depressive fo Yeah.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
I think it's completely phony.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
I don't even I don't think we should give Bernie
Sanders AOC any credit of letting them have the populist mantle,
because you know, look this weekend on ABC, Bernie Sanders
was asked, you know what the president's doing well? And
he's like, oh, he's doing well immigration, Okay, then why
during the four years under Joe Biden When you know Bernie,
because the Senate has such a tight margin, he could.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Have wielded his power. He never spoke up on immigration.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
He didn't and in fact, in his last run for office,
his platform spoke about abolishing ice. So it's completely phony
when these people like Bernie or AOC have these rallies
and they talk about speaking up for standing up for
the American people. Standing up for the American people means
standing up not only against crime, but.
Speaker 3 (42:40):
Also standing up for their wages.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
And study after study after study shows that the flood
of illegal immigration drives down wages for American workers. And
that's why when we're securing our border and stopping the
flood in so we're stopping and then we're pushing them out,
we are going to help lift up wages in this country.
And at the same time as we're doing that, we're
creating good jobs for them by bringing manufacturing back. One
(43:04):
thing I want to point your viewers to, and I
don't know how much time I have, but during the.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
All right, I'll be here for hours.
Speaker 2 (43:11):
So during the first term, the Trump administration did a
successful ice raid on a chicken processing plant in Mississippi,
and there was all this hysteria like, oh, how dare he,
you know, arrests these illegal immigrant workers.
Speaker 3 (43:25):
At a chicken plant.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
Well, the New York Times, of all places, did a
story basically a fall up story and what happened to
this chicken plant? And they found out that all the
local residents in that Mississippi area, many of whom were
you poor black Americans citizens, they all got good paying
jobs at this poultry plant and they were really happy.
They're like, this is a great job. I'm getting paid
more money than I got in my last job. So
we're helping out Americans when we deport legal immigrants. And
(43:50):
so you know, Bernie Sanders or AOC, they talk a
big game, but you know their actions aren't reflect it.
Speaker 7 (43:55):
It was almost I think own Economic Review Commission that
put out was in two thousand large study saying that
the most detrimental force to the wages of Black Americans
it was a legal immigration, and legal immigration to some
extent too, I want to pivot a little bit too,
how Congress is sort of augmented bolstering your fight on
the immigration front.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
And then we'll get to the judge stuff too.
Speaker 7 (44:16):
But how can our body and sort of help you
guys get the necessary allies in Congress or where else.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
You know.
Speaker 7 (44:24):
They love making phone calls. They're ready to dial. Who
should they be talking to. What's the best way that
they can get involved to sort of help you guys?
Speaker 2 (44:32):
Look, I think the best thing is, you know, speak
your voice. And I think it's always going to be
clear what the president supports on any issue. He doesn't
really hide his feelings. He's going to be either telling
it to the press and one of our many media availabilities,
or talking about it on truth. So you're going to
know where he stands, and you can, you know, let
your member or center know you agree with him. I
think it's also one thing that's important I think in
(44:55):
general and politics is there's always too much emphasis sometimes
on the stick the carrot, and I think we need
to tell people when we think they're doing a good job.
You know, for example, one person did a great job,
Brendan Gill yesterday at the NPR here and did you
watch that? That was that was amazing. If you guys
haven't seen Brendan Gill's npr c O questioning, that was amazing,
(45:15):
Like we need more you know, fun cool questioning of
these witnesses on the hill because you know, these these
people don't come prepared and we need to, you know,
hold their feet to the fire. And in the case
of NPR, is the President made clear this morning it
needs to be defunded. I mean NPR takes your money
and it funds stuff like reports I'm not kidding on
(45:35):
gender queer dinosaur enthusiasts. They did a report once it
said doorway sizes that is one hundred percent true. They
did a report on saying that doorway sizes are examples
of Layton fat phobia.
Speaker 3 (45:49):
Same with seat belts. They did a report.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Saying we're not gonna get involved in the Latan fat
phobia space, but we will get involved. The funding NPR,
of course, is the as stated. And PR also funded
insane report that said fear of fatness is more unhealthy
than fat itself. So your text dollars are funding comments
her that makes the American public less healthy.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
I saw too.
Speaker 7 (46:15):
They were already weighing in on signal Gate, trying to
make the idea that a bunch of Europeans were really
offended by the messages that Jadie Vance had said.
Speaker 1 (46:24):
They won't stop on the day of the hearing, they thought.
Speaker 7 (46:26):
It was a good day to put out that article.
I want to pivot though. You're talking about Brandon Gill.
He has obviously put out I believe several or at
least one, articles of impeachment against certain judges that have
really tried to, i would say, extra constitutionally interfere with
everything that this president's trying to do. Can you sort
of walk us through what the administration's approach. We were
(46:46):
getting into it with May and she was walking us
through the sort of full spectrum dominance that you guys
are using to tackle. The law fair going after the
law firms are part of it. There's other stuff coming
down the pipeline. But just help our audience understand. We
know there's a hearing next week Jordan. Congress is going
to be talking about potentially maybe impeaching. I know they're
pursuing other courses of action too, But what you think
(47:07):
is sort of the angle of attack to ensure that
his administer his agenda can actually be implemented and not
subverted by these radical and elected judges.
Speaker 2 (47:15):
The impeachment thing, that's sort of out of my purview
what I'm focused on, at least for my role And
one of the things I do here at the White
Houses help run our Rapid Response account is educating.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
The great account if peopleant to follow it.
Speaker 2 (47:28):
Where Rapid Response forty seven is sort of educating the
public on who these judges are. And we did many
tweets and threads last week on a lot of these
judges themselves are former Democrat Party activists, some of them
full leaderships and Democrat Party groups.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
Some of them are donors, So these.
Speaker 1 (47:46):
Are spouses, are you worse?
Speaker 2 (47:48):
So these are very partisan people. So that's where my
focus is looking into these people and making sure people understand,
you know, to look beyond the headline that people impacting
our country and making it sound like, oh, they're just
you know, they're looking at things fairly.
Speaker 3 (48:02):
They're partisans.
Speaker 7 (48:03):
And last question, because I think I'm being told we're
about to wrap. Our audience loves the content on the
Rapid Response forty seven account. They love the memes, they
love the videos, they love the music choices.
Speaker 1 (48:15):
Give us a little inside baseball. What's the team like,
what's the sort of it seems great?
Speaker 2 (48:20):
I mean, I think generally the general attitude is if
you have a good idea.
Speaker 3 (48:25):
Execute it.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
I think you know here, what I love about working
out the White House here with this team is just
very little micromanaging and everyone trusts each other to sort
of execute. And so I think the guys and girls
here when they have a creative idea, they execute it,
This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray
for our enemies because we're going to medieval on these people.
You've not got a free shot. And all these networks
lying about the people, the people have had a belly
full of it. I know you don't like hearing that.
I know you tried to do everything in the world
to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.
(00:22):
It's going to happen.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
And where do people like that go to share the
big line?
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Mega media?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I wish in my soul, I wish that any.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Of these people had a conscience. Ask yourself, what is
my task and what is my purpose?
Speaker 4 (00:38):
If that answer is to save my country, this country
will be saved.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
War Room, use your host, Stephen K Man.
Speaker 6 (00:53):
Welcome to the War Room.
Speaker 7 (00:54):
It's Friday, March twenty eight, in the Year of Our Lord,
twenty twenty five.
Speaker 6 (00:58):
It's Natalie g. Winter hosting, not Stephen K.
Speaker 5 (01:01):
Bannon.
Speaker 7 (01:02):
Don't worry, he'll be back for the six PM. But
I'm honored to be able to bring you guys some
exclusive content that we filmed actually believe it or not,
at the White House and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
War Room was part of the inaugural podcast row that
the White House Comms team held. We were among several
other outlet Sage Steal, Jack Piso, Big Viva Fry, The
(01:23):
Daily Wire, The Daily Signal, Doctor Drew, some other shows
you may have known.
Speaker 6 (01:27):
We made the cut. We're always honored to be there.
Speaker 7 (01:29):
I was able to interview a bunch of people that
I'm going to be bringing you, Like I said that,
exclusive content.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Over the next hour.
Speaker 7 (01:35):
And how you know this event was really successful, not
just because of the interviews you're about.
Speaker 6 (01:39):
To see, but the legacy media is.
Speaker 7 (01:40):
Melting down over they're extremely jealous. So without further ado,
Elena Hobbo will start it off strong. I'm honored to
be joined by the one and only May Mailman, the
Deputy Assistant to the President and a senior policy strategist.
You are also around the first term. You're a Trump og.
You've really been a staunch at advocate for all things
(02:01):
actual women's rights, sororities. We'll get into all that, but
our audience obviously Bannon's war room.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
We've been on the receiving end of a lot of
lawfair stuff.
Speaker 7 (02:10):
I think our audience would really love your perspective, we
focus so much on the resistance how they're trying to
counter President Trump's agenda.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
It seems like this time around they're focused a lot
more on.
Speaker 7 (02:21):
Using the courts, using lawfare, and the street protests. But
it seems like the tros, the injunctions are really their
kind of go to strategy.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
From your inside.
Speaker 7 (02:31):
Perspective, how do you think the White House is really
actively engaging and combating a lot of these attacks and
do you think we will be able to prevail over
these radical judges?
Speaker 8 (02:40):
Yeah, so I think people are going to see a
strategy a little bit more clearly in the coming weeks
because we have something like ten requests before the Supreme
Court right now, and kind of depending on how the
Supreme Court rules, you know, the administration is going to
have to respond. And there is this balance I think
people think of, you know, when judge tells you to
(03:00):
do something, you got to do it because you're a
private citizen.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
And if they say, you know, you go to jail, like,
what are you going to do? You got to go
to jail.
Speaker 8 (03:08):
But when you think about constitutional power and the judicial
power versus the executive power, it's a little bit of
a different question. If a judge tells the president to
write an email or something, or to say something that
is completely invasive into the president's authority.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
His article to authority.
Speaker 8 (03:28):
And so I think that, you know, what we're really
trying to explain to people is that judges have the
judicial power. The president has the executive power, and judges
do not have the executive power by the Constitution, they
just don't have it. And so if they're trying to say, hey,
guess what your military needs to kind of look like this,
this is where.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
You need to put your troops.
Speaker 8 (03:49):
They need to have this type of haircut, they need
to run this type of mile, and definitely they need
to be you know, trans identifying. Then that is going
to be invading on the executive's power. So a lot
of cases lined up in the Supreme Court. We'll see
what the Supreme Court says. But the American public, I
think and Congress really needs to get engaged in ensuring
that judges are using their judicial power, which is this
(04:14):
is all it is. This is a judish power to
decide cases and controversies that are before them. So if
you've got a case, you can decide it on the
issue that's before you.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
With the parties that are before you.
Speaker 8 (04:25):
We're seeing judges that are taking you know, it's a
lawsuit against the Department of Labor, and they're like, guess
what all of the government has to comply with this?
Like you said the differently, what are you talking about?
So really trying to focus on what is the authority
of a federal judge and it's way narrower than a
lot of these judges are trying to say.
Speaker 7 (04:45):
And it seems like that interplay all the revision is
history that we're taught aside is essentially the founding of
this country is about right. They act like it's something
so just absolutely wild for you guys to be discussing.
I want to get to the congressional component, but I'm
just curious your thoughts way that the sort of left
wing media democratic operatives are smearing you guys always that
sort of authoritarian, you know, dictatorial playbook for wanting to
(05:08):
engage and interplay with the courts. Do you think that
that line of messaging is going to be effective or
do you think that the American people will kind of
come to realize what you're saying, which is.
Speaker 8 (05:18):
That this is how It's always has been this. We
love democracy. We want to give the most power to
the people as is humanly possible, because that is what
built this country. And so guess what. The people have
the power over the executive. You elect the executive. The
people have the power over Congress, they write the laws.
That people have no power over judges. So the more
(05:40):
it becomes judges creating policy, not deciding cases.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
They can decide cases.
Speaker 8 (05:45):
But as long as it's judges deciding policy, you know
who loses. It's not Trump, but it's not Congress. It's the people.
It's because now the people have no say, they have
no power, there's nothing.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
They can do.
Speaker 8 (05:58):
The best they could maybe do is may be asked
their representative to impeach.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
That's no power at all.
Speaker 8 (06:05):
So if you care about the exact opposite of authoritarianism,
if you care about democracy, if you care about having
the voice of the people in shaping the policies, then
you would you want Congress and you want the executive
to be able to create laws and implement those laws.
But that's why I mentioned Congress so many times, is
because at the end of the day, our constitution creates
(06:28):
a supreme court, but it's up to Congress to create
the lower courts and they can shape what that jurisdiction
looks like. So Congress really has a role here to
say this has gotten out of controls. You guys are
nullifying our laws. We have laws, you're not letting us
do them. And Congress can step in and say, you know,
we're done with this chaos.
Speaker 7 (06:44):
And walk us through what you think that stepping in
needs to look like. Obviously we've had Elon Musk and
some of the more hardline Republicans call for impeaching some
of these very radical judges. Do you think that that
is the best route to take? We obviously have a
hearing coming next week, I believe Jim Jordan speaker Johnson
saying that they're at all options to go after these
radical judges. What do you think is the best path forward?
And we also have a very activist Graspers audience. They
(07:07):
love to make their phone calls to their representatives. Is
there anything that they can be doing people that you
would recommend they call engage liaise with to help you
guys sort of bolster what you guys are trying to
do here.
Speaker 8 (07:17):
Yeah, so I think impeachment needs to obviously always be
on the table for when judges are going beyond their
judicial power. However, impeachment, like I said, is this imperfect
solution because it's one by one, it's slow, and frankly,
it's not going to happen, Like it's just too high
of a threshold in the Senate and in the House
(07:39):
in order to happen. So what's a solution that's not
one by one, and that's actually possible. It is the
judicial power itself. So these nationwide injunctions, it sounds like
this big legal word, and of course your audience knows what.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
It is, but it's before the case is decided.
Speaker 8 (07:55):
It's like it's a judge saying, hey, I haven't really
decided this case yet, but in the interim, I'm just
going to prevent the entire nation from doing the president's policy.
That type of action where you haven't decided a case,
there's been no trial, there's been no documents, there's been
no evidentiary findings, and you're telling the entire executive from
(08:16):
coast to coast that they cannot implement the executive's power.
That is something that Congress can control. Congress could say
we're no longer doing nationwide injunctions. If a state sues,
then yeah, the state can stop the policy in that state.
That's basically what happened during the Trump administration, where states
would sue against, for example, Biden's illegal Title nine rule
(08:38):
and there was never a nationwide injunction. I was part
of a coalition that brought a lawsuit in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, a couple of those southeastern states, and so
a judge did issue an injunction, but it was for
those states.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
So you could easily.
Speaker 8 (08:52):
See Congress doing some sort of policy that limits the
ability of judges to be able to do these sweeping nationwidees.
So anybody on the Judiciary committee, if you want to
make some phone calls, I'd figure out who's on House Judiciary,
who's on Senate Judiciary. Do I have a member who's
there make those phone calls?
Speaker 7 (09:10):
And I want to pivot to sort of the I
guess other side of the lawfair aspect what President Trump,
as I would say, sort of proactively been doing against
a lot of these big, top tier law firms that
were intimately involved with the Russia Gates stuff. The last
four years of all things lawfair, that I'm sure you
know all too well. I'm curious from your perspective, do
you think that the revoking of security clearances and government
(09:31):
contracts from I think probably most notoriously Perkins Coy, we
don't like Mark Elias here in the war room. But
do you think that that is sort of the extent
of where President Trump's i would say crusade against these
very very radical subversive lawfare activists ends, or do you
think that you could potentially see perhaps criminal or otherwise
investigations into some of these firms.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
It seems like our audience.
Speaker 7 (09:54):
Is very interested and seeing these people be held to
account those that committed crimes.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
But where do you think is left to go on
that vertical in terms of these law firms.
Speaker 8 (10:02):
Yeah, so law firms have a tremendous power in our
country that they can use for good or for evil.
I mean all, they have billions of dollars of client
money that they are using to actively harm their clients.
They're making their communities less safe, they're making their elections
less secure. These are things that actively harm their clients.
So I'd love to see clients, frankly start caring about
(10:24):
their law firms acting against their own interests this, you know,
And so as the government, yeah, of course we're interested
in firms that are using their powers to weaponize justice
in order to nullify laws, in order to do all
these sorts of nefarious activities. But then there are individual
(10:44):
actors who have gone further. I mean, there are people
who who have been engaged in the systematic destruction of
election integrity from coast to coast, And so yeah, that's
going to be a longer term.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Project, I think.
Speaker 8 (10:58):
But for the short for the immediate term, what we
need to do is to get law firms to use
their power for good. They have so much ability to
make our country more just. I mean, that's the job
of a lawyer. It's to seek justice and to not
have a partisan weaponized mission. And so we're seeing clients
(11:22):
start to want that. But yes, there are there's definitely
longer term interests in some of the individuals that have
have done great damage to our country.
Speaker 7 (11:32):
So when you see those individuals, are you talking particularly
and sort of the election they we say integrity, They
say that we're you know, big, too.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
Euphimistic, But that's what it is. In that space.
Speaker 7 (11:42):
There is more broadly to going all the way back
to the Russia hoax.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Can you send some insight on that?
Speaker 8 (11:48):
So I think that there's so we signed a couple
of executive orders on day one that I think go
a little bit to this. But one of them was
the Weaponization of Government Executive Order, and what it asked
for was a very comp corehensive review for the ways
in which individuals colluded, oftentimes with the government in order
to deprive Americans of their rights. And so these are
(12:09):
people who are going to be inside government, outside of government,
but this is something that the Department of Justice that
others government. We also did a censorship one too, because
that's actually just as nefarious. So there are people who
are using their power to ends that they should not.
But then there's also the censorship where you couldn't even
say anything about it. And so where you had the
(12:30):
Biden administration colluding with third party entities to make sure
that voices just like yours would not show up on
any search results, that people would not be able to
see a full spectrum of opinions, and to very much
violate First Amendment rights of Americans. So there's a lot
actually going on, and it's not just going to be
an election integrity. It's a full scale investigation into the
(12:51):
weaponization of government, full scale investigation into censorship. And there's
a lot to uncover. There's a lot to talk about,
but take time. But these are investigations that are one
hundred percent ongoing.
Speaker 7 (13:05):
And in terms of the kind of post Trump potential
for lawfair right four years from now, obviously it's great,
these are wonderful four years. But the way they've dismissed
a lot of these cases right without prejudice, they want
to reintroduce them. Obviously they're going to try to go
after him. I can only imagine probably every day these
people are writing lists of every single thing that he's done.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
They're getting more and more mad.
Speaker 7 (13:25):
Do you see a lot of these lawfair efforts of
a sort of president Trump trying to stop a potential
say democratic president or whoever, if they were to take
the Senator or be able to weaponize these forces again,
not just against him, but more broadly. But do you
see the Democrats wanting to sort of re up those
tactics should they regain power.
Speaker 8 (13:45):
It's an interesting thing because yeah, they wanted they wanted
to say that their dismissal, they wanted to do it quietly, almost,
and they definitely wanted to do it before the Trump
administration came in, because Lord God forbid that there be
a active investigation that the Trump administration would be honestly
able to close. So, yes, this was a very targeted effort.
(14:07):
And so you know, have the Democrats changed their mind,
have they decided that they want to pursue even handed justice?
Speaker 1 (14:15):
We'll see.
Speaker 8 (14:16):
But if the law firms are not going to help
with this, what we saw with a lot of the
Jack Smith investigations is that, for example, Covington was giving
one hundred and fifty thousand dollars of pro bono assistance
to Jack Smith himself and the other number of law
firms who gave lawyers over to the January sixth committee,
(14:37):
who were giving work product over to Jack Smith. So
can you stop crazy people from being crazy?
Speaker 1 (14:45):
That's a tough question.
Speaker 8 (14:46):
But can you stop the systemic assistance of law firms
to weaponized justice?
Speaker 1 (14:54):
I hope so, I.
Speaker 5 (14:55):
Think America.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
You use your host, Stephen, Welcome back to the War Room.
I'm honored to be joined now by the one and
only Elena Hobba. Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 5 (15:14):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I think the last.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
Time we were on warmed together, we were up in Bedminster.
They've been doing a preview Sound of Freedom, and I
think the story is why the audience loves you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
I remember, I think you cussed.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
I cussed. I was like, today, is that what you're
going to say?
Speaker 9 (15:27):
That I did it?
Speaker 4 (15:28):
Did it?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
But I was just so passionate it.
Speaker 4 (15:30):
Yes, you did an pussed.
Speaker 7 (15:32):
And you care about actual accountability, and I am old time.
It's okay, it's all good.
Speaker 4 (15:37):
All you know, when I got so fired up, Bannon
got me revved up and.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I was he does way away with words, and I cussed.
Speaker 7 (15:44):
But I think it's because you care about actual accountability
right now.
Speaker 4 (15:46):
So I'm very authentic, strongly worded letters and tweets people
old right, old guard Republican.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
You, I think represent that new, fire breathing, striper Republicanism
that I think this audience loves and cares so much about.
So I have some of the topics that our audience
cares the most about, and I'd love if you could
just sort of give us where you think we stand, where.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
We need to go.
Speaker 6 (16:04):
Okay.
Speaker 7 (16:05):
Doge is obviously expressed an interest in wanting to audit
Ukraine AID. Keith Kellock had intimated that that process was underway.
Where do you think we stand on that? Do you
think that that's an integral part of negotiations?
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Do you think we need to see well the funds
and where they actually I want.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
To say, I don't see it as any different than
anything else that they've done.
Speaker 9 (16:24):
So we've seen AID going.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
Through NGOs, going through different tunnels and different avenues to
be hidden and buried. This is just another one. There's
no question that we have to sent a ton of
money to Ukraine, and I think it's not so much
a political thing or a strategic thing as more of
a just consistent ability to cut government waste and fraud,
(16:47):
make sure we're spending taxpayer dollars as we should, and
clean up the mess so that we can balance our
seriously terrible deficit in this country.
Speaker 7 (16:56):
And speaking of messes and waste, fraud and abuse, it
seems like Act Blue is something that is also on
the forefront of everyone's mind, the sort of smurfing the
weird contributions. You're obviously going to be joining or I
think you've been now obviously announced the interim you as
attorney forty Jersey. Congratulations, But through that vertical or even
sort of the DJ with what the White Houses do
(17:16):
or I know there's been a lot of reporting that
you guys are are looking into that, But what do
you think that will ultimately sort of shape up to
be or you guys just looking at.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
It, do you think there could be a criminal investigation.
Speaker 9 (17:26):
I'm not going to speak that.
Speaker 4 (17:28):
I can tell you that I'm obviously aware of what
APT blue is and I think that we have to
make sure that there's no illegal activity again across the board.
I did see that a few people left it from Act.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Blue and Mass exident.
Speaker 4 (17:41):
No coincidence, right, so we have to look at what
happened there.
Speaker 9 (17:46):
Look, I don't know. I'm not in charge of it.
I can tell you that.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
That it's concerning. I think that it's not the first
and last time we'll hear about it, and I hope
that that we continue to look into anything that has corruption,
it has any sort of ties.
Speaker 5 (17:59):
To any war in dollars just not acceptable in this country.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
And we have to keep.
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Our elections and our campaigns honest. So you know, as
to that, I hope we get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 5 (18:10):
If there is something to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
And in terms of the election integrity aspect, our warm
audience is obviously on the front lines of that. Scott
presslers are making a full court press.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
In New Jersey. You're obviously going to be up there.
Speaker 7 (18:21):
Obviously politics campaigns, you know, details aside. But what are
you looking on in terms of the election integrity and
making sure that elections are free, safe and secure in
the state of New Jersey across the sky?
Speaker 4 (18:32):
Well, I've read about an indicted individual just this past
week when I got put in this role that you know,
was taking ballots and was allegedly taking ballots.
Speaker 9 (18:41):
Let me be a lawyer for a minute.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Allegedly taking ballots although they've been indicted and writing in
names and telling people and then basically pushing.
Speaker 9 (18:50):
In twenty twenty election things. That's problematic.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
I mean, if we don't have.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
Election integrity, as the RNC really pushed for in this election,
we do not have a country.
Speaker 9 (19:01):
I mean, the thing that differentiates us from third.
Speaker 5 (19:03):
World countries is that we have fair and free elections.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
As the President has said he doesn't believe in in,
you know, having an election that lasts two weeks and counting.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
Ballots and all that.
Speaker 9 (19:13):
He thinks everybody should have.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
To go show ID you should be an American to.
Speaker 9 (19:18):
Be able to vote.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
How radical?
Speaker 4 (19:20):
Yeah? Crazy, But he's.
Speaker 9 (19:23):
Just, you know, been very clear on that. And that's
because he has dealt with this before.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
He dealt with it in twenty twenty. He'll deal with it,
you know, he dealt with in twenty twenty four. And
we made a very big effort to clean up election
integrity and make sure that there is no fraud when
it comes to our elections. I think that it's important,
frankly for the country in general. I don't see how
you could not get behind us making sure that people
don't vote multiple times, that they're not getting absentee ballots
(19:47):
in one state and another, which I knew.
Speaker 9 (19:49):
I knew people that would call and.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
Say, I just got a second ballot to my house
in Florida.
Speaker 9 (19:54):
I just got a second You know. That's not acceptable.
Speaker 5 (19:56):
That's not the way we operate.
Speaker 4 (19:57):
We have to tighten it up and for new I
can tell you I'll be looking at the voter rules
and cleaning that up too.
Speaker 9 (20:03):
We can't have dead people voting.
Speaker 7 (20:04):
I know, it's crazy or eagles, right, idea. It seems
like one of the ways that President Trump is going
after a lot of the sort of anti election and
target lawyers like Mark Elias is why sure been the
security clearances the government contracts from firms like Perkinskoy obviously come.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
To an Berlin.
Speaker 7 (20:20):
Do you think that that is sort of where the
anti lawfair drive stops or do you think that.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
These I think it's the financial backers. I think that
it's the it's the individuals that I could name, but
the big mega donors that have spent money in a
really unlawful way funding lawfair and witch hunts, as I
know very well, and that has to stop. I mean,
there should be some sort of reform towards that end,
(20:47):
because you should not be able to go after a
political opponent through the court system.
Speaker 9 (20:52):
That's just not what it's meant to be there for.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
So I think you follow the money on that.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
That's really where I believe the problem is.
Speaker 4 (20:58):
And of course we have an issue with some of
these judges, some of these rogue a gs, some of
these rogue das that are more politically motivated and legally minded.
Speaker 1 (21:06):
And when we'll do it, when you look post twenty
twenty eight.
Speaker 7 (21:10):
They've obviously a lot of the cases the lawfair agunst
and they've dismissed without prejudice. They're already talking about probably
trying to all show heel.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
Yeah, right, I feel.
Speaker 7 (21:18):
How do you think the administration is working to ensure
that once President Trump is no longer president, that we're
not going to sort of go back to the third
world territory we were in.
Speaker 5 (21:29):
Yeah, I know we're making sure of that.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
Number One, we expect that after seeing what he's done
just in a couple of months, after four years, the
American people will yet again vote to keep somebody of
this party in place that has the same compass and
worlds and policies and agendas that we've had. America is
definitely stronger, very quickly, and we'll see.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
What happens there.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
But I can tell you that in this administration that
is something that we are one hundred percent worried about
is making sure that the changes that we make are
long lasting, that these aren't temporary fixes.
Speaker 9 (22:03):
No more band aids. Let's end it. Let's end all the.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
Things that America voted to stop that they were tired
of in the last administration.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
So when we are doing things.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
When we're writing executive orders and policies, We're not doing
them as a temporary fix. We're doing them to really change,
to fix the country, frankly, because it was very broken
when we came in.
Speaker 7 (22:20):
And something that you've tried to overhaul systemically across government,
across society is the essuo, obviously of human trafficking intertwined
with illegal and we're great Sharon there. Our audience is
obviously very attuned to that. I'm curious your thoughts. Secretary
Christine Nome had talked about how they were getting ready
to revoke a lot of the funding from these NGOs
(22:40):
that sort of ate, in a bet, the invasion of
this country. But do you think that just stripping the
funds from some of these organizations is enough or do
you think that our audience should expect I know they
certainly wanted, but investigations into a lot of these New.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
Jersey if there's any of that, if there's any shelters
that are harboring illegal immigrants, they will be investigated. I
will not have that in my state. I can tell
you that for sure. And you know, I love Christy.
I think she's doing a stand up job these, I'll
be continuing to work with them.
Speaker 9 (23:10):
I'll be continuing to work with ICE, I'll be with DHS.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
Cleaning up human trafficking, and America unfortunately is a very
very very large human trafficking problem because of the open
borders that we had. We have another problem. We have
a cyber sex trafficking problem in this country where it's
transnational and going overseas through Skype, through these things, and
it's really disturbing. I will expect that anybody who has
(23:34):
a crime of moral turpitude, anybody who is a pedophile
in the state of New Jersey, I will have no
mercy on you. I can tell you that I will
go for maximum penalties all the time. There will be
no breaks. And if you are here illegally and you
hurt a child, you will be I can tell you
You'll be visiting Christy no home over there where read
or exactly, but I have no tolerance for that. It's
(23:56):
been something I've been very very passionate about since I've
been here and we're in with Tom Holman and Christy
Nome and Secretary Kennedy.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
It's just been great.
Speaker 7 (24:06):
And last question, your message to other say Democrat state
agees or the states where they have what is it
twenty three the supermajorities that they're shepherding all their resources
to go after below the mass deportation a job to
block the What's your message is a sort of I think,
a representation of how you can use state power to stop.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
A legal immigration potential. Well, I just I.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
Would like to understand why they think it's better to
keep terrorists and a terrorists.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
I use that word not just because of the executive.
Speaker 4 (24:36):
Order, but because these are people that have come into
our country unwelcome. Maybe they were welcomed by Joe Biden,
but they are no longer welcome here. That you have
come into our country and you have terrorized our people.
You are bringing in drugs, you are hurting children, you
are raping people, whatever it is that you are doing,
you have no place here.
Speaker 9 (24:52):
So I would just ask when they go to sleep
at night, how.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
They sleep after knowing that they are trying to get
these people back off a plane and into our people.
That look at Lincoln Riley, I mean, I was first
Bill a president past for a reason.
Speaker 9 (25:05):
I don't understand what consciousness.
Speaker 5 (25:07):
What God you pray to that you find it okay?
Speaker 9 (25:11):
To encourage criminal behavior in this country.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
I'd last say, don't have children, don't I don't understand
probably not thinking about my.
Speaker 9 (25:17):
Children when I took this job.
Speaker 5 (25:19):
I thought about my children.
Speaker 7 (25:20):
Last question only because you brought up terrorism. Obviously, the
attacks on Tesla being classified as as domestic terrorism sort
of twofold one. There's been a lot of reporting, We've
done a lot of it here in the war and
how a lot of these people who are you know,
so anti Tesla and protesting Elon Musk, A lot of
it is funded by that same sort of dark money
left wing groups that.
Speaker 9 (25:36):
You're talking about dark right.
Speaker 1 (25:37):
We know money very very obvious. But in the state
of New Jersey for people.
Speaker 9 (25:41):
Who are you going to vandalize Tesla?
Speaker 7 (25:43):
You're going to vandalize Tesla's not only how you know,
how are you going to handle that from a criminal angle,
but will you investigate who is propping up these people
who are funding them?
Speaker 9 (25:52):
Absolutely?
Speaker 5 (25:53):
I look.
Speaker 4 (25:54):
The great thing about about this role is I am
the one USA in New Jersey, but I have a
huge job is and we have several offices, and I
will one hundred percent stand behind the fact that you
do not get to target somebody who has served the
country in a capacity that was asked by the president,
that has sacrificed so much, and then go after it's
not even hymns people's private property, vandalizing it, scaring people
(26:18):
from driving your cars unacceptable. If you are a terrorist,
if you are a criminal, if you are going to
hurt anybody, especially now in the state of New Jersey,
I can tell.
Speaker 9 (26:27):
You I'm coming for you.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 7 (26:30):
If the audience wants to follow you, stay up to
date with everything you're doing.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Where can they go to do?
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Alena Hava on everything Twitter, Instagram, You can find me
at my little check mark my white House.
Speaker 5 (26:41):
Twitter will probably.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Be shut out to go to handle my main.
Speaker 4 (26:46):
One, so obviously you can find me on Twitter and
Instagram and all the social media, basic and true social.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
Thank you so much for joining us to have you
back on. Thank you.
Speaker 9 (27:00):
Who's your host?
Speaker 3 (27:00):
Stephen k Ban?
Speaker 6 (27:08):
Welcome back to the War Room.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
I guess maybe with questions like that, it's not hard
to see why the Biden White House did not.
Speaker 1 (27:13):
Want anyone from war Room anywhere near.
Speaker 7 (27:16):
The press office or any of their cabinet officials. We
still have more content we're going to go back talking
all things government weaponization, even asking about dark money Arabella
Advisors with May Mailman Alex Speiffer, who's one of President
Trump's deputy COM's advisors.
Speaker 6 (27:30):
We're also going to talk to him about.
Speaker 7 (27:31):
Some of their unique comm strategies and how they're going
to get those deportation numbers up.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
But in the meantime, of course, we're.
Speaker 7 (27:37):
As grateful to birch Gold dot com slash Bannon being
the reason that we can bring you content like this,
So you've got to make sure.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
You're texting Bannon to nine eight nine eight nine eight
or checking.
Speaker 7 (27:45):
Out birch Gold dot com slash bannon while you're at
You also know we love guys over at tax Network USA.
That's t NUSA dot com slash bannon, or you can
give a call if you like to do that to
one hundred and five eight one zero zero zero.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
You can get a free consultation.
Speaker 7 (28:04):
And of course Patriot Mobile the guys who put on
wonderful events down in Texas. If you didn't have a
chance to go there, go talk to Glenn's story and
the team. You know, you can always check out Patriot
Mobile dot com slash Bannon. We're about to bounce back
to some of the exclusive interviews.
Speaker 6 (28:20):
Like I said that we filmed yesterday.
Speaker 7 (28:22):
I think that one with Elena Hobbos probably going to
make some heads roll. But when I say heads roll,
I probably mean illegal aliens, people who should be in jail,
election fronsters, and probably a lot of corrupt Democrats and
establishment Republicans at that. In the meantime, let's go back
to May Mailman and Alex Seifert Moore. Like I said,
exclusive content live from the White House. But do you
(28:43):
think that just revoking the security clearances in the government contracts?
Do you think that that is enough for you telling
our audience who I can tell you certainly once more,
there's potentially more coming down the pipeline to really stop
this from all happening again.
Speaker 8 (28:57):
So without get into the Department of Justice and potential
announcements that you can see there, I will say that
law firms themselves are only one piece of the puzzle
in order to end the systemic weaponization of justice. Looking
at the nonprofit sphere and the abuse of nonprofits in
(29:22):
filtering foreign money. That's, for example, another thing that is
criminal but at least should be expensive because that's not
nonprofit activity. So let's just go with nonprofits are one
piece or sorry, law firms are one piece of the puzzle, okay,
and you let us know.
Speaker 7 (29:38):
When you have to go, because I know you're a
busy gal. But our audience is extremely involved in this. Obviously,
they were, like I said, on the receiving end with
Steve having gone to prison.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
But there was a really interesting New York Times.
Speaker 7 (29:47):
Article a few weeks ago talking about how the administration
was looking into potentially Arabella Advisors and a lot of
the dark money network groups on the left sixty to
thirty fun new venture kind of compounded with the Act Blue.
The potential for being in the kind of weird donation
scam that was going on allegedly is there. I know
the New York Times isn't always accurate, but do you
(30:08):
are you guys talking about looking into that sort of
dark money apparatus.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yes.
Speaker 8 (30:12):
So I think we have two executive orders that already
mentioned this a little bit, and I know that there
are things in the work. So the ones that A
were working on this a little bit is the executiveorder
that does mention Mark Elias, which talks about the nefarious actions,
the disc barring actions of lawyers across the country, and
it mentions things that should be done as far as
(30:38):
dark money.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
But I would say also the.
Speaker 8 (30:40):
Election Integrity Executive Order that we just signed this week,
that one also has a section that says that you
need to track money in American elections, including foreign money.
And there's a continued effort on both election integrity and
foreign money specifically. But I will say the Act Blue
issue of money falling from the sky is.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
Something that I worked on actually when I.
Speaker 8 (31:07):
Was in the private sector, and it's it's a little
bit of a tough nut to crack because we need
the state attorney generals to go after this. This is
happening to voters in their states. Most of the election
laws are at the state level. So I will say,
if you've got a state attorney general who is willing
(31:29):
to help with election integrity, they have all of the
authority in the states. They need to be starting their
own investigations too, because there are three Democrat states who
started taking actions against.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Win Read based on this exact thing.
Speaker 8 (31:45):
So why is it that the Democrat attorney generals are
able to go after uh when Read But there's no
Republicans that are It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
You call your attorneys semetric warfare. We're not We're not
very good.
Speaker 7 (32:00):
I'm curious how you viewed Doge as a force for
sort of supplementing what you guys are doing, almost sort
of backdooring potentially. I know there was discussion about turning
the voter rolls over potentially for them to audit. But
in that sort of space of the dark money, the
foreign NGO just very black box. Maybe Pandora's box has
a better way to describe it. But how has Doge
(32:21):
sort of augmented or helped what you guys are doing.
Speaker 8 (32:23):
So Doge is excellent if you give Doge a project
and you say so on our Life very high IQ, Yes,
on our Election Integrity Executive Order. Actually we put Doge
in there because there's such a problem with the voter rolls. Right,
You've got these states and they're supposed to have their
voter rolls public, So you should actually be able to
if we the government can supply citizenship information, you should
(32:44):
be able to do that quickly. So guess who we
gave that job too. That's going to be Doge. And
of course this is all public information. This is voter
roles that need to be public. So people freak out
about that.
Speaker 7 (32:53):
All right, but welcus one second through that angle of
attack because it is so hypocritical. Right, They say that, oh,
you guys are not being transparent with.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
DOZE or whatever. That's always their line.
Speaker 7 (33:03):
But these are probably the most like hidden not to tell,
like the nine to ninety four you could barely tell
who's giving billions of dollars.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I know. Yeah, So.
Speaker 8 (33:12):
For Americans want transparency, they want to be able to
know how money is being spent. And so one of
the great things about DOGE is that they really are
and can be tech support. So one of the biggest
challenges of my job sitting in the White House is
I don't know what's happening in the agencies. If I
want to say, hey, what's what is this grant being
(33:35):
spent on or what's this program doing, I got to
call somebody who's got to call somebody who's got to
call somebody who's got to call somebody who has to
get a document.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
They can figure it out.
Speaker 8 (33:44):
What DOGE is trying to help do is make sure
that we know we know where the money is being spent.
And I think, you know, Doge is about cutting and
they want to eliminate this. I think there are other
people who want to just move it right instead of
cutting it. Why can't we harness it for good? Why
(34:04):
can't we give it to people who are going to
make the world a better place?
Speaker 1 (34:07):
And so that's a conversation.
Speaker 8 (34:09):
I think that's maybe the difference between pure Doge and
the White House, which is, we want and that's the
conversation that's happening. And I think that's very healthy for
the White House to have, which is you've got people
who are just all about saving money and then you've
got people who are all about making sure that Americans
are well provided for. And then those conversations are happening
(34:31):
every single day in the White House.
Speaker 7 (34:32):
Can you walk us through a little bit of that interplay,
because I think the media is always on you guys saying, oh,
there's no transparency. Elon Musk is the real president, right,
the one at the shadow cabinet whatever. All the terms
that I guess the left sort of coined, but what
does that sort of not riff but the different kind
of different schools of thought on how to go after
waste fraud in neviws, which I think you see, right,
can you repurpose the Department of Education or do you
(34:53):
just abolish it?
Speaker 1 (34:54):
Right, it's sort of that's the central question.
Speaker 8 (34:56):
So in a sense, Doge is the help, but the
agencies and the White House else are in charge. So
for example, everybody knows that Dose would like to save
money by cutting a certain number of people who aren't
doing anything in the agencies. We've got millions of government employees.
What are most of them doing? And so you know
Doge wants to cut those people. But whose responsibility is
(35:17):
at the end of the day, that's going to be
the Cabinet secretary. So the Cabinet secretary, I think feels
you know, they receive that message and they say what
can be cut?
Speaker 1 (35:26):
So today.
Speaker 8 (35:28):
You know, people are working on where is their waste?
Where is there one agency in your department that's doing
the exact same job as another one, But it all
needs to be going through. So that's the conversation that's happening,
which is like, hey, you guys need to identify waste.
You need to shrink your workforce to the minimum that's required.
You need to close buildings that are unnecessary, buildings you
(35:51):
need to do all these things. And then what happens
next is the agency figures out what's good, what's bad,
how can we consolidate. And it's kind of like, you know,
bringing the businessman in who's going to say let's go go, go,
go go, and then bringing the lawyers in who are like, well,
don't get here this up. And that's exactly how a business.
(36:12):
That's that's how a successful business. That's how successful government
operates and should operate.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
It's I guess open discourse, which we know they don't.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
Pretre I'll love to walk through this, and let's set
the stage for what is the thing. If you're at
home and you've been if you've owned a TV set,
every time you've watched Fox or whatever channel, and it's
flow to a commercial during election season, it's Republicans running
ads about closing the border, right, that's all everyone talks about.
(36:39):
And President Trump and this administration is actually closed the border.
I mean, border crossings are down ninety nine percent in
some areas, they're down so much so, and illegal emments
are so free across our border that they're now turning
around in Mexico. So I think the important thing for
everyone to keep in mind, is the securing of the border,
the thing that people have campaigned on for years now,
(37:00):
maybe decades, has actually been accomplished. And we have the
tenth Mound division at the border. We're now building the wall,
and so that part, that key part has been accomplished.
And then as it comes to deportations, as you know,
the President has said, as Tom Homer has said, as
everyone has said, you know, we're going to keep ramping
up the numbers. We're never we're never going to settle
for what we have. And obviously we're also working with
(37:21):
Congress to try and get more funding to increase you know,
ICE's capabilities. But you know, I think everyone's very proud
of the work ICE is doing. They you know, this morning,
an operation you know, led by the FBI and state
and local officials arrested a top MS thirteen leader in
Virginia just you know, thirty miles or so from here,
(37:43):
who wasn't illegal.
Speaker 3 (37:43):
And we're going, of course, so every single.
Speaker 2 (37:46):
Day, you know, we're getting good numbers on ICE arresting
criminals throughout the country, and those numbers are just continue
to increase. So I don't I think people should be
very happy about where we are, and especially because I
don't think anyone watching this could have predicted that within
you know, months of the administration, we would basically halt
(38:08):
border crossings. You know, I just saw a stat actually
that the other day we only had sixty six gotaways
at the border, and under Biden, you know, I would
I think sometimes we would have you know, close to
a thousand in a day, so you know, of got away.
So the border numbers are tiny compared to where they were,
and so I think that's.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
The thousands a month and now they're deaf.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
Yeah, I think it was like ten k month in February.
My numbers will off, give or take, but like, the
numbers are tiny. And also, why would you want to
cross here illegally? You know you're going to get sported, going.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
To go to nice e'll salvatory.
Speaker 3 (38:42):
You know it's not going to.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Turn out well if you're if you're an illegal immigrant
gang member here. Yeah, if you remember of MS thirteen
or trendon Arragua, you can end up in Guantanamo Bay.
You know, this is not This country was a safe
space for illegal immigrant killers and it is not anymore.
Speaker 7 (38:58):
And walk us through some of the efforts to hamper
whether it's securing the.
Speaker 1 (39:01):
Border, the mass deportations.
Speaker 7 (39:03):
We obviously focus a lot on the sort of left
wing NGOs who's raisin detra is to essentially keep the
borders wide open. We know that they were sort of
preemptively lobbying Joe Biden and his regime to get rid
of the detention facilities to allow the massive amount of
people possible. And you know, ever, they were hiring extra
ICE agents not to stop people, but to allow them
to process more people. The City of New York is
(39:25):
doing the same thing. Where has that sort of resistance,
at least on the immigration front in particular, come from.
Speaker 1 (39:31):
Is it the Democratic Party? Is it more these NGOs.
Speaker 7 (39:34):
Is it people who are opposed to sort of the
you know, First administration.
Speaker 1 (39:37):
The divesting from Ice. What is that resistance?
Speaker 2 (39:41):
I think on the immigration front, the uh, you know,
political opponents. I think like politicians have been a bit
more quiet than they have in the past because they
realized the American public is on our side. So the
Washington Posts had this whole story basic saying, well, you
know the problem with trying to advocate against press and
Trump's immigration policies. The majority of the country's with them.
(40:03):
It's not just that like people always like to say, oh,
well you can just support a criminal legals, Well, all
the ill immigrants are criminals, and the majority of Americans
support supporting all illegal immigrants. Uh So, I think the
opposition you see, you know, oftentimes from activist judges.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
You know, the judge.
Speaker 2 (40:21):
Who recently put out this ridiculous comment saying Nazis were
treated better than these trend o ragua. Yes, she's donate,
she's been heavy. She's a heavy. She's a heavy donor
to Democrat politicians. And I might be breaking some news
here for a warnim audience. She was a volunteer on
the Obama campaign.
Speaker 3 (40:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (40:43):
So do you think is the most rodical judge that
has I don't know if, I don't know if.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
But obviously judge Judge Bosberg be the current prize winner.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
We rejoiced.
Speaker 5 (40:59):
Your host Stephen came that.
Speaker 7 (41:07):
I want to pivot this a little to how I
think the sort of riff right, Obviously Trump is I
guess I won't put words in his mouth, but I
would say the word audience. We're very populist, nationalist. I
know President Trump's described himself in some ways as that too.
But the idea that now on the left right, you
have AOC and Bernie hitting essentially it feels like the
campaign trail but kilding these what they alleged to be
huge rallies saying that they're fighting oligarchy, they're putting families
(41:30):
over billionaires.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
But then you go to AOC's website and.
Speaker 7 (41:33):
The first thing that you're hit with is a know
your Rights campaign how to avoid illegal aliens being deported,
pro open borders.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
How do you think that that message?
Speaker 7 (41:42):
Right, the idea that the left to the Democratic Party,
that sort of more maybe populist wing of it, says oh,
we're so pro worker, we're so pro American family. Yet
concurrently they're wanting to open the border wide open right
to essentially the most depressive fo Yeah.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
I think it's completely phony.
Speaker 2 (41:58):
I don't even I don't think we should give Bernie
Sanders AOC any credit of letting them have the populist mantle,
because you know, look this weekend on ABC, Bernie Sanders
was asked, you know what the president's doing well? And
he's like, oh, he's doing well immigration, Okay, then why
during the four years under Joe Biden When you know Bernie,
because the Senate has such a tight margin, he could.
Speaker 3 (42:19):
Have wielded his power. He never spoke up on immigration.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
He didn't and in fact, in his last run for office,
his platform spoke about abolishing ice. So it's completely phony
when these people like Bernie or AOC have these rallies
and they talk about speaking up for standing up for
the American people. Standing up for the American people means
standing up not only against crime, but.
Speaker 3 (42:40):
Also standing up for their wages.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
And study after study after study shows that the flood
of illegal immigration drives down wages for American workers. And
that's why when we're securing our border and stopping the
flood in so we're stopping and then we're pushing them out,
we are going to help lift up wages in this country.
And at the same time as we're doing that, we're
creating good jobs for them by bringing manufacturing back. One
(43:04):
thing I want to point your viewers to, and I
don't know how much time I have, but during the.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
All right, I'll be here for hours.
Speaker 2 (43:11):
So during the first term, the Trump administration did a
successful ice raid on a chicken processing plant in Mississippi,
and there was all this hysteria like, oh, how dare he,
you know, arrests these illegal immigrant workers.
Speaker 3 (43:25):
At a chicken plant.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
Well, the New York Times, of all places, did a
story basically a fall up story and what happened to
this chicken plant? And they found out that all the
local residents in that Mississippi area, many of whom were
you poor black Americans citizens, they all got good paying
jobs at this poultry plant and they were really happy.
They're like, this is a great job. I'm getting paid
more money than I got in my last job. So
we're helping out Americans when we deport legal immigrants. And
(43:50):
so you know, Bernie Sanders or AOC, they talk a
big game, but you know their actions aren't reflect it.
Speaker 7 (43:55):
It was almost I think own Economic Review Commission that
put out was in two thousand large study saying that
the most detrimental force to the wages of Black Americans
it was a legal immigration, and legal immigration to some
extent too, I want to pivot a little bit too,
how Congress is sort of augmented bolstering your fight on
the immigration front.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
And then we'll get to the judge stuff too.
Speaker 7 (44:16):
But how can our body and sort of help you
guys get the necessary allies in Congress or where else.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
You know.
Speaker 7 (44:24):
They love making phone calls. They're ready to dial. Who
should they be talking to. What's the best way that
they can get involved to sort of help you guys?
Speaker 2 (44:32):
Look, I think the best thing is, you know, speak
your voice. And I think it's always going to be
clear what the president supports on any issue. He doesn't
really hide his feelings. He's going to be either telling
it to the press and one of our many media availabilities,
or talking about it on truth. So you're going to
know where he stands, and you can, you know, let
your member or center know you agree with him. I
think it's also one thing that's important I think in
(44:55):
general and politics is there's always too much emphasis sometimes
on the stick the carrot, and I think we need
to tell people when we think they're doing a good job.
You know, for example, one person did a great job,
Brendan Gill yesterday at the NPR here and did you
watch that? That was that was amazing. If you guys
haven't seen Brendan Gill's npr c O questioning, that was amazing,
(45:15):
Like we need more you know, fun cool questioning of
these witnesses on the hill because you know, these these
people don't come prepared and we need to, you know,
hold their feet to the fire. And in the case
of NPR, is the President made clear this morning it
needs to be defunded. I mean NPR takes your money
and it funds stuff like reports I'm not kidding on
(45:35):
gender queer dinosaur enthusiasts. They did a report once it
said doorway sizes that is one hundred percent true. They
did a report on saying that doorway sizes are examples
of Layton fat phobia.
Speaker 3 (45:49):
Same with seat belts. They did a report.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Saying we're not gonna get involved in the Latan fat
phobia space, but we will get involved. The funding NPR,
of course, is the as stated. And PR also funded
insane report that said fear of fatness is more unhealthy
than fat itself. So your text dollars are funding comments
her that makes the American public less healthy.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
I saw too.
Speaker 7 (46:15):
They were already weighing in on signal Gate, trying to
make the idea that a bunch of Europeans were really
offended by the messages that Jadie Vance had said.
Speaker 1 (46:24):
They won't stop on the day of the hearing, they thought.
Speaker 7 (46:26):
It was a good day to put out that article.
I want to pivot though. You're talking about Brandon Gill.
He has obviously put out I believe several or at
least one, articles of impeachment against certain judges that have
really tried to, i would say, extra constitutionally interfere with
everything that this president's trying to do. Can you sort
of walk us through what the administration's approach. We were
(46:46):
getting into it with May and she was walking us
through the sort of full spectrum dominance that you guys
are using to tackle. The law fair going after the
law firms are part of it. There's other stuff coming
down the pipeline. But just help our audience understand. We
know there's a hearing next week Jordan. Congress is going
to be talking about potentially maybe impeaching. I know they're
pursuing other courses of action too, But what you think
(47:07):
is sort of the angle of attack to ensure that
his administer his agenda can actually be implemented and not
subverted by these radical and elected judges.
Speaker 2 (47:15):
The impeachment thing, that's sort of out of my purview
what I'm focused on, at least for my role And
one of the things I do here at the White
Houses help run our Rapid Response account is educating.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
The great account if peopleant to follow it.
Speaker 2 (47:28):
Where Rapid Response forty seven is sort of educating the
public on who these judges are. And we did many
tweets and threads last week on a lot of these
judges themselves are former Democrat Party activists, some of them
full leaderships and Democrat Party groups.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
Some of them are donors, So these.
Speaker 1 (47:46):
Are spouses, are you worse?
Speaker 2 (47:48):
So these are very partisan people. So that's where my
focus is looking into these people and making sure people understand,
you know, to look beyond the headline that people impacting
our country and making it sound like, oh, they're just
you know, they're looking at things fairly.
Speaker 3 (48:02):
They're partisans.
Speaker 7 (48:03):
And last question, because I think I'm being told we're
about to wrap. Our audience loves the content on the
Rapid Response forty seven account. They love the memes, they
love the videos, they love the music choices.
Speaker 1 (48:15):
Give us a little inside baseball. What's the team like,
what's the sort of it seems great?
Speaker 2 (48:20):
I mean, I think generally the general attitude is if
you have a good idea.
Speaker 3 (48:25):
Execute it.
Speaker 2 (48:26):
I think you know here, what I love about working
out the White House here with this team is just
very little micromanaging and everyone trusts each other to sort
of execute. And so I think the guys and girls
here when they have a creative idea, they execute it,
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.