8-15-25 - 8am - Jay Bratt Department of Justice, Texas Redistricting and Gavin Newsom

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh, my god, Michael, I don't think you get it.
You really don't get it.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Credentials make an expert, not results. Goh gee, I hadn't
thought about it like that. Yeah, you know now that
I understand, Uh, well you picked dumb John by No.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
CNN just ran a cairon that said they've since moved on.
So let me just paraphrase it. European leaders say Trump
well prepared for negotiations with Putin. Huh do you think
suddenly they've gotten the message that maybe we ought to

(00:49):
back this guy up because, uh, the guy before him
didn't do squat. Uh, Russia is uh actually attacking civilians.
They're starting to make a little progress inward. They're they're
starting to make some moves, and you know, Poland and
Lithuanian and Estonia and all the rest of the countries

(01:11):
around Ukraine or are beginning to go maybe we ought
to maybe we have to try to do something here. Really,
I want to move on to some uh some of
the Russia Russia, Russia, Russia, but not not the Russia
Ukraine War. But my god, Russia seems to take up

(01:31):
a lot of a lot of our headspace. But I
want to go back to the text messages about that
last segment for a minute, because yeah, other than that talkback,
which I find very very offensive and really does annoy
the hell out of me. He we should just you know,

(01:52):
someday we should just do nothing but talkback would just
annoy me.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
That's every day.

Speaker 4 (01:58):
It's been quite a while since we've done like a
no politics show or a let.

Speaker 5 (02:02):
No, we just did one. We just did one the
other day. No we didn't, we did, Yes, we did,
we didn't. We did something. Just wasn't it This week?
We just we blew out like two entire segments with
bull crap.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
Yeah, but that's not a whole show.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
And what are you talking about today today?

Speaker 4 (02:19):
When we do it in three hours and we didn't
even advertise the fact that we were doing a no
politics show, right, you know. And then and then those
shows where we do like a Nope show prep show day, Yeah,
those are fun because then we were lying, oh, solely
on the listeners.

Speaker 3 (02:30):
Which I know, I know, scary. But if you want
to annoy me today, just send me a text, you know,
no te a talk back or maybe we'll just wait
someday we'll just do that. Let's just annoy Michael Holliday.
We shouldn't be hard to do because you pretty all
of you pretty much annoying me anyway. So uh five

(02:52):
seven nine two rights my message to Putin if I
was in Trump's shoes. But the Russia has a unique
economic opportunity unity failed states across the board. There's an
opportunity for Russia to transform itself into an economic powerhouse
while Western Europe is busy committing suicide. I think that's

(03:14):
actually a pretty good point, yes, fifty two thirteen. I
find it very interesting that Putin is bringing you Yushikov,
the ambassador that was in the room when the Soviet
Union dissolved and he was promised that NATO would not
move one inch eastward again, showing that Ukraine is about

(03:35):
natal expansion and the threat to Russian sovereignty. It is that,
but you have to add into that mix Putin's personal
desire for a legacy that he attempted or at least
partially re established, even if it's just the Donbass region,

(03:57):
a little bit of the old Soviet Union eighty eight
to seventy seven. All the Democrats knows what they were
taught during the last four years of Biden and during
the eight years of Obama, your president just needs to
sit back, make comments about other countries and red lines,
and just talk a big game, but not actually meet
with the leaders unless one is black one is white,

(04:18):
and then you sit down and have a beer and
try to work things out because the white guy was
a racist. Oh, I'm sorry, I got off track anyway,
You right, that's hilarious. You just vilify other countries in
the media but not actually talk to them, and then
to make sure the other countries get the message, you
just say the word don't, and you might repeat that
once or twice more don't. At that point, the leaders

(04:38):
of the other countries have wet themselves and they will
listen to anything the United States say they need to do. Now,
that's a brilliant text message, because that's exactly our foreign
policy during the twelve years of the Democrats seventy four. Mike,
I would just like to add that Epstein didn't have
the painting of Trump in a blue dress. I think
the Clintons may have been closer friends than what do

(05:00):
you think? I think you're right? All right, let's move on,
because I guess some of the things I want to
talk about specifically. We've talked a little bit about this
tranch of do o J and FBI files. In fact,
if we talked about it at length yesterday, all related
to these multiple investigations now ongoing into the criminal leagues

(05:22):
of classified information. And I think this once again demonstrates
the hypocrisy of the administrative state that still exists within
the Department of Justice and the FBI. For example, a
lot of the usual suspects, you know who they are,
James Comy, Adam Shiff, Peter Struck, those ones that come

(05:47):
to my mind. All those names are popping up in
all those newly released documents that are related to the
Russia Gate hoax, but references to one individual in the
disclosure of records in the FBI's multiply multifaceted leak investigation.
I think again demonstrates that there's a double standard in

(06:10):
how the establishment part of of the DOJ actually approached
the miss handley of classified information. A name that I'd
never really thought about until I was digging into it
for yesterday's program, Jay Bratt. Bratt kind of like you know,
Dragons of Bratt. This guy's name is Jay Bratt. Now, wow,

(06:32):
Brad is not specifically mentioned by name in the latest
document done the powerful office that he ran for six years,
the Department of Justices Counterintelligence and Export Control Section. Let
me give you that title again. Jay Bratt was the

(06:53):
head of the Department of Justice's counter Intelligence and Export
Control Section. That department within dj is cited thousands of
times in these documents, and on at least two occasions,
Brad agreed to close investigations into criminal leaks to the

(07:15):
news media before he brought any criminal charges, or any
charges or any charges at all. Both FBI investigation there
are two FBI investigations. There's Foggy Falls. That's the Carter
Page phis A leak that you know where they went.

(07:36):
They used the Steele dossier. They go to the phis
A court, they get the phis A warrant to go
you know, basically evesdrop on Trump and the campaign, and
then they leak that to the press. Carter Page leaks
that to the press. That's called the Foggy Falls investigation.
The other one is called Genetic Christmas Genetic christ that's

(08:01):
the investigation into the Russian election hacking claims. Both of
those deal with the unlawful disclosure of classified government information
to the Kabal. Now those illegal leagues, and I do
believe they're unequivocally unassailably illegal, resulted in two articles that

(08:22):
were deliberately aimed at sabotaging Donald Trump. NBC News in
December of twenty sixteen cited anonymous intel sources who claimed
the Putin personally intervened and interfered in the presidential election.

(08:42):
About four months later, April of twenty seventeen, the Washington Post,
So now we got two titular heads of the kabal.
They wrote an article that revealed the Faiza warrant against
Carter Page, who was the one time campaign advisor. But
in twenty twenty, at least according to FBI memorandum Bratt's office,

(09:10):
Jay Bratt, recommended the closure of both of those investigations. Now,
the records in those files that have been released also
indicate that Brat's office, under his predecessor, and then after
he took over the office in October twenty eighteen, started

(09:31):
stonewalling requests by the Washington Field office for the FBI
for some assistance or help in the Carter Page Piza
inquiry that the FBI was doing. How did this leak
about Carter Page and the pis a warrant to spy

(09:53):
on Carter Page and the Trump campaign. How did that
happen in the documents quote since doj cees that's j
Brat's office and the DCUs Attorney's office we're not willing
to obtain and then it's reducted. The Washington Field Office

(10:18):
exhausted all logical investigating steps to move the case forward
and requested the Department of Justice CES Brat's office and
the dc US Attorney's office to provide the Washington Field
office with a declination memorandum. That's according to one memo,

(10:38):
what's a dec declination memorandum? That is, you tell us
in writing that you're declining to provide the information, or
it could be you're declining to prosecute the information that
we've used together that we've gathered so far. It's a
declination memorandum. Now, Jay Bratt also concurred with all these

(11:03):
other top officials in objecting to a subpoena to the
media in the Genetic Christmas investigation. So where were the
armed raids in the indictments? Because contrast that can trast
Bratt's conduct one year after that as the apparent conduct

(11:25):
between the Biden White House and the Department of Justice
in coming up with this classified document case. Brad was
the one that aggressively pursued the President and his associates
starting in early twenty twenty one. Bratt actually went down
to Marlago in June of twenty twenty two along with

(11:45):
three FBI agents on a reconnaissance mission, all disguised as
some sort of legitimate attempt to help me. Remember, the
Trump team actually said, we're not sure what's classified not classified,
so we need some help in this. So Bratt raised
his hand and said, oh, I'll come down and help you.

(12:07):
I'll go through the documents. So they disguised their mission
as this legitimate attempt to help Team Trump locate more
classified papers in order to comply with a subpoena. That's
why this document's case pisses me off to this day
that he got indicted on that, because this was all,
I mean, what an example of we're trying to comply

(12:30):
with the subpoena. Now it may have been a it
may have been a covert operation on the part of Brat,
but he was like, oh, hand up, I'll come down.
I'll help you go through the documents. After that visit,
that's when Jay Bratt started pushing to get a warrant

(12:51):
to search the president's residence, and that warrant is what
resulted in that nine hour armed rate of mar Lago
in two. Bratt was then after so he he volunteers,
I'll go down and helped the Trump team. Then he
comes back get this, He gets the search warrant, then

(13:12):
they go down, they conduct a nine hour raid. After
all of that, Jay Bratt was then tasked to go
work in Special Counsel Jack Smith's office, and he's the
one that took the lead in prosecuting Trump following Jack
Smith's twenty twenty three criminal indictment in that document's case.

(13:35):
You know what's kind of ironic is during the court
proceedings in Florida, the same Jay Bratt was busted for
leaking to the media and for mishandling evidence in the
case that was collected during the raid, among other bad behavior.
The court chewed his ass out numerous times for what
I would consider it to be an ethical behavior. You

(13:58):
don't think that that he made administrative state, the deep state,
the establishment state within the Department of Justice and Jack
Smith's special Council Office was out to derail and actually
do whatever they could to euphemistically kill Donald Trump. You see,
I have to say him euphemistically killed now because we

(14:19):
now know that people will really do physically trying to
kill Trump. But of course none of it had anything
to do with because well Brad maintained that he had
a severe, severe he had a sincere devotion to protecting
our national secrets. He's just another cog in the government
media mag wheel that tried for nearly a decade to

(14:41):
destroy Trump. No, that's not true. He was just simply
trying to do his job. Really, what bull crap here
is the former president at the time now the president
spending millions of dollars to defend himself and what I
believe is a bogus classified document. It's case copp. Government

(15:02):
officials found themselves spared the same treatment despite what I
think are several wide ranging investigations into criminal leaks that
ensnared the Obama White House advisors have ensnared members of
Congress and ensnared congressional staffers between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty.

(15:24):
Why the doublet Well, of course we know why the
double standard, but I have to ask to make you
think about why the double standard. There's also an investigation
that was called Echo's Fate. That investigation originated with the
leak that resulted in an article in the Washington Post
in January twenty seventeen that first disclosed the conversations between

(15:47):
General Flynn and Ambassador serge A Kislack, which were classified
documents that were classified memos to the Washington Post. That article,
according to an FBI email that's included in all these disclosures,

(16:09):
was the fruit of the similarly infamous January five, twenty seventeen,
meaning at the White House, when Komi briefed Obama and
all this top advisors about the Russia investigation and the
Flem matter. These people, I rarely use the word treason.

(16:30):
In fact, I object when people use the word treason
because I think it's way overused. This is really beginning
to and I know many of you came to the
conclusion much earlier than I did, but the legal brain
in me I need to see evidence. I'm beginning to
see evidence of a huge attempt to unlawfully go after

(16:56):
a former president. Now maybe it's not treason, but it's
certainly criminals they certainly themselves violated the If Trump is
guilty in the classified documents case, which I don't think
he was, these people certainly are.

Speaker 6 (17:16):
Here's what I think about credentials. Detachable pen is, detachable
pen is, detachable pen is?

Speaker 1 (17:32):
What he's not the.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
Detached of a pen is?

Speaker 1 (17:36):
Don't worry he's using all of his time?

Speaker 3 (17:38):
Is he detachable pen is?

Speaker 6 (17:42):
One more detached of a pen is?

Speaker 3 (17:47):
So is a credential like a detachable penis useless? Is that?
Is that the point?

Speaker 1 (17:54):
I didn't, you know?

Speaker 4 (17:55):
I just play him. I don't leave him. I just
play him. And one time would have been more than sufficient.
Numerous times is annoying.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
Five times, six times yep.

Speaker 3 (18:15):
Five times too many, five times too many, very annoying.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
The thirteen year old me said, that was hilarious, though.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
It's why I have the love hate relationship I do
with my audience. Just unbelievably. They just you know, can't
live with them. I can't live without them. So let's
go to Texas again. I don't care whether you're tired
of hearing about this or not. The political implications of
watching the Democrats respond to Texas attempt to do a

(18:54):
mid decade redistricting is freaking hilarious. In fact, I would say,
right now, the Democrats response to everything going on that
you and I voted for, or that you and I want,
or that you and I agree, and even if you don't,
even if you disagree about Texas doing this, if you

(19:16):
would just set your disagreement for a side for a
moment and just look at how the Democrats are responding,
you can still disagree about what Texas is doing and
still absolutely engage in joy with how the Democrats are responding.
It's freaking hilarious. It's as if you're now at this,

(19:41):
these are the Democrats talking. You're now trying to do
what we've been doing in terms of cheating for decades,
and we don't like that. No, we don't like that,
so stop it. Stop it. In fact, if you do that,
we're gonna do it even worse. We're gonna do it worser,
worse or worse or worser. Now. I don't think that
what the Democrats, that the Republicans in Texas are doing

(20:04):
is jerrymandering at all. I don't think it's unconstitutional, illegal, immoral,
or wrong to do it mid term, mid mid decade.
I don't have a problem with that. I understand the consequences.
I understand that we might, you know, get into this
political battle, but sometimes you have to just start the

(20:26):
battle in order to win the war. And if that's
what we're going to do, and Texas is willing to
do it, well, then have at it, because not every
state's going to do it. I don't think it's I
don't think it'd be nearly as bad as everybody thinks
it's going to be. But that's one of the tropes
that both the left and the right will use to
argue against Texas doing what it's doing, because then that's like,

(20:49):
you know that that's like a nuclear option that's going
to cause everybody start redistricting, you know, every two years
or whatever. No, some states have no incentive to read district.
But when you've been cheated out of population and you
can prove that that, I don't have a problem with it.
Well anyway, So throughout this entire episode, these democrats, you know,

(21:11):
running and hiding to avoid dealing with an issue that
they cannot win. They can't win it. The ultimate endgame
is is as clear as well, I would say, as
clear as these windows in this studio. But well, they
haven't been cleaned in decades, so I can't say that.
In the past, runaway Democrats have lasted through several special

(21:35):
sessions before finally giving up their stupid theater antis. But
I think this latest generation of mostly millennial Democrats, I
don't think they're nearly as hardy or hardy either either
word hearty or hardy as their boomer or Gen X ancestors.

(21:57):
ABC thirteen News in Houston reported this week that these
sad excuses for public servants are already caving in after
just a single fifteen day session. Tom Abrams or I'm sorry,
ABC News Texas Democrats to return home for second special session.

(22:18):
ABC thirteen sources confirm. Here's an excerpt. ABC thirteen is
confirmed with multiple sources that House Democrats are returning to Texas.
Eyewitness News has not confirmed the date, but we do
know that Democrats believe they've accomplished their mission by killing
the first special session and by raising national awareness about

(22:39):
the mid decade redistricting effort. If that was your mission,
then I would say get a Carl Rove Mission Accomplished
banner and put it all across the country because you
have accomplished that. I just don't think it has the
results you think it has. The story continues. It is
unclear what today they will be in Austin at the Capitol,

(23:01):
but they stress that they will push for Hill Country
flooding relief to be the priority. Okay, I don't have
a problem with that either, but you're still gonna have
to deal with redistricting and you're going to lose that.
After our initial reporting online, says ABC thirteen and on TV.
A spokesman for the Texas Democratic Caucus sent the following

(23:25):
statement ABC News members are still assessing their strategies going
forward and are in a private meeting to make decisions
about future plans. Currently, if and when Texas House Democrats
breaking korm decide to go home, it's squarely dependent on
the actions of the Governor's speaker and the Texas Republicans
in charge, the decisions they make with regard to prioritizing

(23:46):
flood victims over redistricting. That hurts Texans. It's kind of pathetic, really,
but I think what's happening is the polling numbers on
which these speakable Democrats base every single decision they make.
It's not going to remain very supportive any longer, because

(24:08):
they've actually planted the seeds for bad poll numbers. If
if you say you'll come back, but you'll only come
back if you first deal with helping flood victims, because
the inverse of that is you'res also saying we're not
coming back because we want to hold flood victims as

(24:32):
our hostages before we'll come back. Wow, that's that's a
pretty gutsy and stupid move on Democrats. But we shouldn't
be surprised by that. It's really pathetic because that will
drive the polling numbers down, which then in turn will
cause them to go, oh hey, gang, we need to

(24:53):
get back. Our poll numbers are in the tank. Well, yeah,
because you basically admitted you were holding flood victims hostage
to them getting any sort of financial or other type
of relief until you got your way. Yeah, we're not
we're not. We're not gonna help people that have been
lost their homes, lost their businesses, some have lost their lives.
We're not gonna We're not gonna come home until until

(25:14):
you agree to our terms.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
Wow, holy crap.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
Every one of them ought to be vilified. But I
digress and then they got the problem that the Attorney General,
Kim Paxton, is trying to put Beto Beta Beto A.
Rourke in jail for continuing to use his pack so
he can fund their antics despite a court order telling

(25:42):
Beto to stop doing it. Imagine that you're so stupid
that you get a oh, I mean it didn't one
Democrat one time say that everybody's above that, nobody's above
the law. Starting to say everybody's about the law, because
in this county, I'd make anythink everybody is above the law.
And some Democrats tell us that nobody's above the law.

(26:03):
And here they have a legitimate court order, they have
an injunction ordering them to come home. You can't do this,
it's against Texas law, and they're refusing to do it.
And Beta was giving them the money to pay for
the hotels and their meals and everything else. Wow, what
a grand conspiracy. It's funny how when you threaten real

(26:27):
consequences for stupid choices, stupid decisions, that that suddenly kind
of ends the stupidity and you have to deal with reality.
That goes back to the very beginning of the program,
when we talked about the woman that you can go
see that's got the nine kids and three in the oven,
and she's all upset because, well, we're cutting back on

(26:48):
food stamps, on snap benefits for whatever reason, she's going
to lose some Maybe there's some fraud involved, who knows
what reason. Maybe she has other sources of vega, who knows.
I don't care. I don't care because I'm I think
we should be doing that in the first place. But
suddenly she's facing real consequences. And now, oh she's going
to take talk to bitch about it. But what's she

(27:08):
going to do. She's probably going to figure out a
way to feed her kids. But anyway, back to the
whole thing about what's going on in Texas, the best
part has to do with California. Yes, because now Gavin
Newsom finds himself in after weeks of blustering about what
Texas is doing, he finds himself in a real pickle.

(27:32):
And I'll explain why. Good day, cook.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
Well, I'm sorry. Are we done the talk back? Yeah?
The very insightful talkback that was, like.

Speaker 3 (27:54):
So just before we go on there, mister Redbeard says,
I have a very insightful talk back for you, Please
pay attention and respond accordingly your thoughts. So I did.
I took a step to Dike Coke.

Speaker 1 (28:06):
I don't leave them, I just play them.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
You know, wouldn't you like to be able to see
some of these goobers with their phone or whatever how
they're making their old talkbacks when you like to watch them,
sometimes like a little bit of voyeurism.

Speaker 4 (28:22):
And the sad thing is I think that one was
probably a real talkback, asking a real question or leading
a real statement. Oh seriously, just for whatever reason, the
microphone didn't pick up, or the transmission from the phone
through the app to us didn't quite work out.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
Wait a minute, are you implying that perhaps an iHeart
product did not perform as design? I would never or
perhaps actually did work as design. Have you thought about
that right? Think about it may have actually worked as designed. Quickly,
I want to get to Newsom, because you know that
Newsom's out there threatening that he's gonna, Oh, if Texas

(28:58):
does this, well, we're going to do this well. The
California congressional map is already heavily jerrymandered. As I've pointed
out before, forty percent of Republicans in California are represented
by only seventeen percent of the state's fifty two House members.
And as Newsome, you know, the guy really is stupid.

(29:20):
We were taught Dragon, I were not you, but we're
somebody else. We were talking about stupid people during the break.
Imagine that. But I don't want you to think. I
don't want you to think it was about you. Oh no,
it wasn't about you. With somebody else. It was. It
was Dragon's boss, That's who we were talking about. Newsomb

(29:42):
really is a dummy. He wants to redistrict in the
in the middle of the decade, so he starts this
slanderous campaign against Governor Abbott and of course Donald Trump,
because you know he wants to be president. He forgets
that there is a provision in the California state Constitution
that limits redistricting to only once per decade period, no exceptions.

(30:07):
So unlike the Texas Constitution or Texas statutes, and unlike
the US Constitution, which mandates that we do a census
once a decade, but redistricting is up to the states.
Texas can do it. Governor, you have a constitutional restriction
that says you can do it. And then there's this

(30:29):
really inconvenient fact that back in two thousand and eight,
seventeen years ago, California voters were sick of all of
the hyperpartisan ranker over the redistricting process, so in a
ballot initiative, they created a statewide redistricting Commission to take

(30:51):
the process out of the California Assemblies prerogative. The map
created by that commission in twenty twenty he needed at
least sixteen majority of Republican districts, but then the Democrats
were able to steal seven of those districts through voter
fraud and voter harvesting. Well, I guess the same thing

(31:12):
in twenty twenty four, limiting the Republicans to just nine
out of fifty two. So if Gavin Newsom wants to
really carry out his threat to respond in kind to Texas,
he's going to have to successfully convince California voters in
very short order to approve ballot initiatives to force the

(31:33):
redistricting Commission into a special session, and then second to
actually amend the state's constitution to allow the commission to
do redistricting twice in a single decade. Are you with
me so far? Because of that, now you might be
thinking that California voters are so irreparably ignorant and stupid
and well in fact brainwashed that this might be an

(31:54):
easy thing for Newson to do.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Eh.

Speaker 3 (31:58):
I don't think so. I think California's j H maybe
a little smarter than that. So maybe it's not quite
as hopeless as we think. Unlike Colorado,