July 18, 2026 • 32 mins
A stunning betrayal inside California politics as a Gavin Newsom appointee turns FBI informant. In this episode of The Joe Pags Show, Joe Pags breaks down the massive political fallout after a high-profile state appointee was caught wearing a wire for the feds. Instead of answering for the deep-seated corruption within his own administration, Governor Gavin Newsom is deflecting and placing the blame squarely on Donald Trump. Joe dives into the court documents, the timeline of the investigation, and how the mainstream media is trying to spin an inside-job corruption scandal into a partisan attack.
What We Cover:
-
The shocking revelation of the insider wearing a wire for the FBI.
-
How the Newsom administration is attempting to shift the narrative to Donald Trump.
-
The broader implications for California governance and national politics.
Follow & Subscribe: Don't miss an episode—subscribe to the Joe Pags podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your audio. Visit joepags.com for more updates and exclusive commentary.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Who is this person that somehow we're told infiltrated Gavin
Newsom's inner circle with a wiretap filled me in.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
So she's actually part of Gavin Newsom's in a circle,
and she wore a wire tap in relation to an
investigation that's been going on since like the Biden DOJ
was involved. Here's the thing everyone's just seeing this headline
that is, you know, Gavin Newsom, one of his inner
circle wore a wire scandalous blah blah blah. But when
(00:32):
you actually break down what happened, not only does it
have almost nothing to do with Gavin Newsom right now,
but you can see how he directly tried to attack
ongoing messaging, almost to the point where, like the way
I'm reading it to me, in my opinion, sounds like
he's lying about everything that's going on and that he
(00:54):
even has anything to do with it, and he's using
it for fundraising. So if you want, I can go
through what actually happened and we can talk about how
Gavin Newsom, being the slimiest human being that he is,
is trying to use this situation to maybe come out
ahead of something that could be coming down the mine.
Don't get me wrong. There is some very weird stuff
(01:14):
that I found about him, about his wife, but the
actual story that he's talking about, the one that everyone's pushing, it's,
if anything, it's pretty damning about the Democrats, but it's
really not as crazy as the headlines make it sound.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Well, I want to I want to start from a
place you just quickly went over. This wasn't the Donald
Trump DOJ. This is the Biden DOJ started this. But
Gavin Newsom is I think you just alluded to, is
trying to make it about Trump targeting him. This has
nothing to do with that. So this let's make sure
everybody watching listening understands this is not Trump going after
(01:53):
his so called political enemies, because Gavin Newsom has almost
literally said that he's going after me because of the
possibility of a presidential run. First of all, Trump is
not running in twenty eight, so he's not going after
his political enemy. And two, this started under the Biden DOJ.
Can you tell me specifically when it started? And how
does somebody become a member of his inner circle? What
(02:13):
she already was, as you just said, but then she
says yes to wearing a wire? Was she in some
hot water already, so take it from where it started
because it wasn't under Trump.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Okay, So this is so convoluted, so like you're gonna
have to bear with me a second here while I
explain next. There's a lot of it from moving parts,
but most of what is coming out now started around
twenty twenty two. So it's a woman called Dana Williamson
who was in late twenty twenty two appointed as Gavin
(02:43):
Newsom's chief of staff. Okay, Dana Williamson is accused and
like it's pending sentencing right now. Ok and two other
people essentially conspired to drain an existing paying account for
is it Jose Bacera? Is that how you pronounce as well?
(03:04):
I wouldn't read the name is Sarah?
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Sarah Sarah?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Okay? But Sarah yes? Oh yeah, duh, Sorry.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
It's okay. So has she committed has she been found
guilty or did she admit guild? What happened with that?
Speaker 2 (03:17):
So she's admitted gil those pleas Okay, So basically what
happened was twenty twenty two, her and two other people,
namely Bessarah's chief of staff, conspired to draye one of
Jose's old campaign accounts that was kind of dormant, just
sitting there, had about two hundred and twenty five thousand
(03:37):
dollars in it. I think this was way back from
when he was like running to be like superintendent or something.
So all this money is sitting there. Dana Williamson so
Newsom's later on chief of staff. Later on that year
she became his chief of staff. A guy Sean McCluskey,
and then a guy called Greg Campbell. They conspired to
funnel the money from that account to Sean mcclus essentially ya.
(04:02):
At some point this woman Alexis Podesta, no relation to
John you know, the Podesta's kind of relationship, but she
got involved and basically took over the process of funneling
that money to McCluskey, who had taken a huge sort
of pay cut. That was his excuse for it. He
took huge pay cut when he followed Bessera to Washington.
(04:25):
Needed money, and so the idea was, let's funnel money
out of this account to McCluskey. No one's ever gonna notice.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Okay, so let's stop there. Let's stop there for a second. So,
by the way, this Alexis Podesta was the one who
wore the wire right, yes, yeah, okay, and it is
it's and it's also at Xavier Besara. It's not Jose
so Xavier. It's okay, Bessera. Everybody knew who you were
talking about. So this guy is somehow involved. This guy
used to be like a health and human services for
the entire country and now he's back in California, thinks
(04:53):
she could be the next governor or something. And this woman,
Alexis Podesta, her position was according to you and I
guess we find this out during from the wire tap.
She's now the one doing the funneling.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yes she sort of, yeah, she sort of managed that,
but basically the wire tap. At the same time this
is all going on, Joe, there's a you know, Dana
Williamson who's a state employee. Yes, she was basically like
accused of secretly helping a company called Activision Blizzard who
(05:28):
is being sued by the state of California. Wow, she
was working with Podesta, who is a lobbyist at the
time for Activision Blizzards. So it's like all these kind
of like legally moving parts blah blah blah, your yawn,
A bunch of political people team together to steal money
from a guy who does not have my friend's name.
(05:48):
It is a severer sorry I got that makes me
feel like an idiot because not at all.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I know that you've done great research on this, so
it sounds like it's just tier after tier after tier
after layer. Kay? Is that how if you're going to
be a corrupt person, Not that you are, but you've
done enough research that you know how this works. If
you put enough layers and tears between the person doing
it and where you're getting it, you get you get
away with it for a while.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
You get away with it for a while, but really
not that long. They didn't get away with it for
that long. In fact, they didn't even really get away
with it. That's the kind of crazy part. They were,
you know, taking this money out, funneling it to McCluskey.
And they will, like you know, submit Like no one's
saying that they didn't do this. They've will submitted plea deals.
They're all awaiting constancing. The only person who isn't is
Podesta because she wore a wire in like there's at
(06:38):
least one example of her for sure wearing a wire.
At that point in conversation with Williamson. So here's what
the kind of headlines are hanging on to the headlines
are hanging on to this idea. The Podesta was able
to get into all of these private conversations with Williamson
while Williamson was Newsome's chief of staff. Wow, and so
(07:00):
Newsome is kind of spinning this. I hate to say it,
but he's doing an excellent spin doctoring job on this,
basically saying that the Trump dooj is attacking me, attacking
my people, my inner circle, my family.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Firstly, No, none of that's true, right, none of that's true.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Isn't even his chief of staff anymore. She was quietly
placed on leave when kind of like all this stuff
about her, you know, this FBI probe was actually coming out.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
But he's raising money on this, like Trump's going after him, Right.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Yeah, that's exactly what he's doing. And you know, like
I said, there are some examples of you know, definitely
Cebel Newsoms like the first what do you call her,
the first lady of you know what they.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Call you know what they call her? How stupid it is?
He calls her the first partner of California. That's how
stupid it is. I kid you not. They're calling her
the first partner. All right, so the first Lady of California.
How is she implicated if at all, because it sounds
like her fingers that are at least close to something
that was going on.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
No, in this context, not at all. But the reason
that I think, let me back up a bit. So,
Jennifer Siebel Newsome is involved in all of these nonprofits.
I will not I will not Joe, but I can't
treat her with that lack of perspect It's such a
(08:21):
stupid title, like, well, it's so dumb, like what are
you trans Like that's still not a thing anyway. So
she is involved in this nonprofit and all these nonprofits, Uh,
there's one in particular, I can't remember what it's called,
but you know, has like been so struggling financially, like
hasn't really been able to sort of do anything because
(08:43):
it allegedly has no money, but she's been taking a
salary from it for like years while it's going through
all these struggles. There's a lot of very weird stuff,
like to the tune of tens, if not hundreds of
millions of dollars in relation to the Newsoms and then
nonprofits and they're businesses that doesn't really make a whole
lot of sense. And so here's what I think has happened.
(09:06):
And I'm going to try and do this in like
as Layman's terms as possible or as simply as possible,
because again, there's so many different things, so many different
moving parts in all of this. But essentially, when Dana
Williamson started getting investigated for stealing this money, I think
the probe that was opened under the Biden DOJ, it
(09:28):
looks to me like when you go through an investigation
like this, you're going to find lots and lots of
not just numerical data in terms of like where's the
money going, wire transfers, all that, blah blah blah blah blah.
You've also got at least one wire that was worn.
A bunch of people received notifications that their phones were
(09:51):
basically being searched in relation to this probe. This again,
like all under the probe that was opened I believe
under the Biden DOJ. That was when it came to fruition. Anyway,
it was twenty twenty two under the Biden DJ And
so what I picture Joe is a bunch of FBI
guys or women sitting around a table going through all
of this different evidence, and there's going to be a
(10:13):
sentence somewhere that's going to not necessarily relate to the
case they're investigating, but it's going to point them in
a direction for something else, Like you cannot go through
an investigation like this and not find loads of peripherary periphery, periphery, peripheral, prepheral,
(10:34):
can you tell that my baby hasn't slept for six weeks?
But all of this peripheral information or you know, data
on the periphery of the actual evidence that you're looking for.
And so I think what I'm seeing from Gavin Newsom
is the sort of hype. This is just my guess.
My guess is that he's looking at the scope and
(10:56):
scale of the people that the FBI have looked into
and who they've collected evidence and data from, and he's
probably sweating because somewhere in there maybe something that implicates
him in something completely different. So he's sitting there going, Oh,
the Trump DOJ is investigating me. They're investigating and probing
(11:20):
and harassing my inner circle, my people. This is a
purposeful attack because I'm going to be president one day,
and I'm a grown up and I've got great hair,
and this is all just you know, political theatrics, and
I'm being attacked and I'm a victim, Whereas in reality,
he knows that there's a bunch of FBI guys who
(11:42):
have a bunch of data on his inner circle in
relation to this original case that was started under the
Biden DOJ And he's probably sweating wondering what they actually have.
And I don't know if we're going to find out
what it is that they have anytime soon or everything.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
That's for sure. We know what we know that she
was wearing a wire. We don't know how often she
wore the wire. We don't know where she was when
wearing the wire. I want to understand exactly who she
is though. Was she brought in as his chief of
staff or is she somebody on the periphery some would.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Say on the periphery. So alexis Podesta who wore the wire?
She's had? Okay, this is weird. She's had one of
those careers where she bounces from lots of different places.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
OK.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
So let me get I want to get it in.
I have it in order. Here somewhere the exact order
under which she did everything. So I know that she
worked for Yeah, okay, here we go. So she was
a consultant who served as secretary under Governor Jerry Brown,
so she's been in the game for a while. She
(12:50):
also worked with Activision Blizzard as a lobbyist who were
being sued by the state, and so that's a whole
other thing where she working as a lot lobbyist was
in private communications with the state Dana Williamson, who was
Newsom's chief of staff. So basically Newsom's old chief of
(13:10):
staff stole all of this money or helped steal all
of this money for another guy. That's like, really what
the crux of this thing is? Then she was appointed
buying Newsome to I believe. Let me double check here. Yeah,
it was the State Compensation Insurance for Insurance Fund Board,
which I mean, Joe, like, that sounds like an extremely
(13:33):
boring job. I literally just like, what even is.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
That sounds like sounds like it's a money thing. It's
a fund exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
But she also kept being paid after she was named
as a co conspirator in this sort of process by
which she was essentially what she did and The reason
she's not being charged is because she worked with the FBI.
But what she did was take money from that door
account anyway, from about seventy five hundred ten thousand a month.
(14:04):
She would then pay Williamson's consulting company, and then that
money was then routed back to McCluskey, and mainly it
was his spouse for a sort of you know, a
non existent consulting job, you know on those like pretend
jobs that doesn't exist for these people.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Yeah, we Italians call it a no show job.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, yeah, that was actually So.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Does does she get as the Italians would say, pinched?
Does she get arrested? Does she get cornered? Does she okay,
you're going down unless you were a wire? Does she
does she cut a deal? Or was she somebody who
was actively working with the FBI before? Do we know?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
My gut feeling is that she was approached by someone
because she seemed like easy to flip. I don't think.
I don't think she was working with the FBI before.
I just do not believe that the way, because she
was actually, you know, helping funnel the money. So I
think what they probably did was like, well, she's the
(15:03):
first point of contact here after this, you know, it's
like the money's going from this account to her, why
don't we talk to it, Like, let's go to her
and see if she'll wear a wire, all that kind
of stuff. So she was probably like, I mean, who knows,
it could be the stuff of like you know, these
spy dramas we see where someone like approached her like undercover,
blah blah blah. But I think realistically she probably got
(15:27):
an inkling to the fact that this thing was going
on and said, like, I'll do anything to not get
pinched for this. So that was when she ended up
wearing the wire. And we don't know how many times
she wore it, and we don't know how much information
was This could.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Just be the tip of the iceberg, is what we're saying.
This could be just this is this tip of the spear.
There's a whole lot more here. So Newsom comes out
today and starts complaining about how this administration is trying
to meddle in their voting in California, Like he's completely
throwing everything against the wall that he can, I guess
to get the heat off of him. Now you said
he has him and implicated directly his wife has not
(16:02):
been implicated directly. But I'll ask you the question that
I ask anybody who's investigating like the fraud in Minnesota.
Is it possible that the governor and his first partner
lady can possibly have all this going on under the
surface and have no clue? I mean, I'm not asking
you to convict them. Obviously, they're not guilty of anything,
but I just wonder, because he seems to be a
(16:23):
bit of an authoritarian and how he does the job,
how could all this be going on under the surface
without him knowing about it? Is there a way to
know that?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Do you know? Joe? I think the only reason that
he maybe didn't know that this was going on is because,
a it's such a tiny amount of money for a
man like him, Like people forget Kevin Newsom's worth like
hundreds of millions of dollars, Like he is an extremely
wealthy guy, like right to a terrifying degree, like extremely well,
his wife is extremely wealthy as well. And so I
(16:55):
think the only reason that maybe he didn't know is
because it's literally like three four people got together almost
like as friends, to be like, let's steal money from
this one account and just give it to our friend
who's like having a bit of a hard time. What
my gut says is Gavin Newsom. Yes, there may be
(17:15):
things like like I sort of said earlier the evidence room,
there's going to be stuff that's like maybe sticking on
him that hasn't come to the surface yet. But in
the context of this, like just this case alone, I
think that he probably didn't know because it was probably
so small. But if he did know, that suggests to
(17:35):
me that this kind of behavior is semi normal. The
these insider politician, like the all the people who sort
of float around these politicians, particularly Newsome, are doing this
as almost a routine. They see these dormant accounts, they
figure out, okay, let's try and like siphon this money
(17:57):
off and get us all paid. So I think that
he maybe knew that the behavior like that action was
being taken, but he may not have known the sort
of intricate inner workings of all of it because it
is such a negligible amount of money for someone like him,
you know, Like I mean, that's that's a bad fundraising
(18:20):
day for Gavin Newsom is two hundred and twenty five
thousand dollars and he's using this whole thing, like you said,
grabbing these headlines to play the victim, to sort of
monopolize the SEO, monopolize people's mindsets around the situation, so
that if something big does drop under the Trump doj
on Newsome, he's going to go well, I told you
(18:42):
that they were trying to weaponize the DJ against me,
And it's like, no, Gavy Bears, you messed up. You
did a bunch of weird stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
With money, Gaby Bears.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
So that's the way I'm kind of looking at it.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It's always a fun time to take the family to
the movies, But why spend thirty dollars when you can
save a bunch of money and get better programming and
better entertainment. Why not join the Angel Guild For just
fifteen dollars a month. You're gonna get two free tickets
to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day, plus
tickets to future Angel theatrical releases, and full access to
Angel streaming Library. It's one of the best entertainment values
(19:14):
I've seen in a very long time. Now, let's talk
about that movie in theaters this Independence Day. Young Washington
tells the story of George Washington before he became a general,
before he became president, and before he became a legend.
At just twenty years old, Washington face failure, setbacks, and
near death experiences that would have broken most people. Instead,
those challenges forged the leader who would help secure America's
(19:37):
independence and future. It's a powerful story of resilience, faith
and purpose. Join the Guild today, save a bunch of money,
get great program in great entertainment. Receive your two free
tickets right now by visiting Angel dot com slash PAGs
Angel dot com slash PAGs do it right now. It
is Ka Hill. Go to Kosmith Hill dot com and
(19:57):
go check out everything she Does's here on Newsmax. Incredible
reas such incredible news and commentary writer. What is Bisara
said about any of this anything?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
He's heartbroken. That's his sort of public statement. So none
of it came back on him. He because you know
the guy who essentially the money went to him and
his wife, the McCluskey's. That was and I don't think
he still is. I can't imagine that he still is.
But that was Sarah's chief of staff who went with
him to DC, and so I think he I think
(20:28):
His statement was basically like, I'm kind of heartbroken that
my friend would do this to me over money. But
in my head, I'm also kind of like, yeah, that's
exactly what I would say if I was but Sarah
and I knew about this, I would also play the victims.
So that's what Democrats do. They just always played the victim.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Well, he was, he was horrible in the federal government.
I'm not impressed with him in the in the race
for governor of California. He's in the in the runoff, right,
I mean, it's him against who is it? It's him
against Steve Hilton, is it not?
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Yes, Steve, it's Steve Hilton. I'm pretty sure and.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Your Basarah, aren't they the ones running in the general
in November. I'm pretty sure that he's the guy. So
let me ask you, yes, Well, will this potentially affect
the actual good editorial race this this November?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Probably not, just because I think that there are way
more There are way more things to attack Democrats about
in California than their form of chief of staff stealing money,
especially when none of it can actually beach like traced
back to Bisera. So I think that if you're in
California and you're a Republican and you're trying to win
(21:33):
this thing, you go after all those big ticket items.
You go after homelessness, the crime epidemic, the cost of living,
the fact that all the wealthy people are leaving, the
fact that everyone who stays is yeah, like a victim
of crime. People are being you know, like people like
their bodies literally piling up on the streets of California cities.
I think that's where most political strategy and messaging will
(21:58):
come from from the Republicans, because that's those the main
things they want to tackle. Right Whereas I think his
chief of staff getting busted in stealing from him essentially
actually kind of works in Bessarah's favor because it makes
him even though I think he knew about it, I
can't prove that. I have literally nothing to base that on.
(22:20):
Just like gut instinct, I think he probably did know
about it. I don't know. I think it a victim.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
It changes the complexion a bit because it is Besarah
versus Hilton. Just looked it up to make sure it's
going to be this guy who is You're right, can
pain himself as the victim. He's getting a big, a
big helping hand from Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom's out there
being the front guy in this. I'm the biggest victim
in all of this in Trump is bad, when in reality,
Xavier Bessera was horrible in the federal level. He was
(22:49):
I think he was a prosecutor before he went to
the federal level. Then he's he wants to be the
governor of the state. And it just so happens that
one of the two guys out of hundreds who ran
I'm sure for the stupid juckup in California, he's one
of the two guys who will be in the general
election this November, and he's the one guy out of
the two that has this scandal within his campaign. This
is let me say this, because knowing all this information
(23:10):
and especially everything that you brought this, this actually is
electioneering like I've i haven't seen in a long time.
And by electioneering, I mean setting up for a result
that you otherwise probably wouldn't have gotten. Steve Hilton's doing well.
Steve Hilton has a real chance to become the governor
of California. So why not make bisera the you know,
the guy who was attacked and attacked by the right,
(23:31):
and of course Donald Trump is supporting Steve Hilton. This
is all very circular. This is all way more intricate
than people know, isn't it. I mean, when you're trying
to win an election, the left will stop at nothing
to win the election.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And they're looking two years out. Joe Physiot is an
amazing analysis. Correct, They're not just looking at you know,
the fact that the Democrats, the Democrats in California cannot
win on any of the key issues that Californians care about.
That's the biggest thing we've been under Well we I say,
(24:04):
I lived there for a long time, but California has
been under Democrat rule for far too long, and just
in the last what ten twelve years, let's say, like,
let's be generous with it, let's say, you know, twelve years,
probably a little bit more than that. But I remember
going to say San Francisco in twenty ten and being like,
this is a great city. I'm having a great time
(24:25):
going back in twenty fifteen and being like, whoa, this
is like the walking dead. And so it's been like
that for at least that sort of ten twelve year gap,
and it's spread across the state. When you look at
the actual electoral map of California, it is almost completely
red except for the Bay Area and except for the
(24:45):
sort of southern California coastal like SoCal region, if you will,
and that even ends before you get to San Diego.
Pretty much like there's a few still like pockets of blue.
The whole state is red, and it's been that way
because the Democrats have run the place into the ground,
and so all of the policies, all of the messaging
(25:07):
really do fall on the Republican side, Like if they lose,
they really messed up. This should be kind of an
easy win for them, even with those pockets. But I
think that all of those kind of coastal elites are
going to kind of pick up on what you were
just saying. They're going to say, oh, the only reason
the besarah isn't doing well is because Trump's attacking all
(25:32):
Democrats in California. As they're going to say this show
as they step over bodies on the sidewalk. You know,
that's stupid.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
When I talked to Sheriff Bianco, he actually thought it
would be a bad thing for Trump to endorse Hilton
and he wasn't saying he should have endorsed me and
by me being Bianco. But that's going to fire up
some lefties in California to say, we can't possibly have
the Trump guy, we can't have the Trump chosen guy.
And now Trump is a attacking bisera. Trump is attacking
(26:01):
the first partner. Trump is attacking Gavin Newsom, and no
issues have been talked about. You couldn't be more correct.
Nobody's talking about the issues. Steve Hilton's trying to but
nobody's gonna cover that. They're gonna cover how mean Trump
is to Gavin Newsom. So is. And by the way,
you and I disagree vehemently on the Republicans should win easily.
They're gonna lose. Steve Hilton is going to lose unless
(26:23):
we get the Save America Act done or unless we
get some sort of photo ID done. The left has
been very, very good at making sure they win. I'm
winking for those who are listening, because they're not gonna
do it on the issues. On the issues, k it
should be eighty twenty. Steve Hilton should win, should be
very easy. But on the suicidal empathy of the left
(26:43):
in that state, and the power based and the money
that they have, it's going to be extremely difficult for
anybody who's not onld Schwarzenegger to win. I mean, they
chose the movie start because they're so stupid. In California,
the left, the elites, they wanted. They thought it'd be
cool to have a movie star be their governor for
a while. And by the way, when he got an office,
he he operated as a moderate lefty, not really as
a Republican. So all of that said, this is let
(27:06):
me just go back to what I said little while ago,
and I want you to either reinforce it or push back.
This is them setting up why they're gonna win in November.
They know they're gonna because they're really good at winning
in states like that, but now they have to give
a good reason why. Well, you're right, we didn't win
on the issues. We won because Hilton bad Hilton is
Trump with an accent.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Yes, but I do hold out. Here's the thing, I
got a back.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
You're more hopeful than I am, and I'm glad. Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
No, I think I'm just I don't want to say naive.
I guess I just still have hope that Californians on
that's stupid. But I'm also holding out hope the California Democrats,
like the actual political elite are, because I wouldn't be
(27:59):
surprised if California's sort of political oligarchy, if you will,
the Democrats sacrifice the governorship for the presidency. Because, let's
be honest, Joe, I do think Newsome right now is
the only guy that the Democrats have who could possibly
(28:21):
run in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Okay, what is your running on? What is his resume?
He can say, Look how great I handled California. That's it.
Hair teeth in a smile, hair.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Teeth in the fact that Trump doesn't like him. Democrats, Well,
here's the thing. Democrats are stupid enough to think that
that's a winning strategy for the whole of the United States,
which is just fundamentally untrue. You're right, if the Save
America Act doesn't pass, they will do some weird stuff.
I mean again, I live there. They sent me a ballot.
I can't legally vote.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Listen to my accent, I'm you could have, but you
could have voted.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
But I could have, but I didn't because I'm not
a skull to break the law. Right, Yeah, I'm not
going to break the law. But I think that if
California Democrats aren't super stupid, which I just I really
don't think that that's the case, they might let Steve
Hilton win and then basically stop him. Because remember at
(29:16):
the local level on the coast, where the media is at,
and the media is in the pocket of the Democrats
in such a big way, particularly in California. We all
know this. I'm preaching to the choir here, but you
could let Steve Hilton win and then lower down where
you've got these city and town level politicians, they're just
(29:40):
going to stop anything that he's going to try to
do to actually fix the problem. I mean, look at
what they did to Spencer Pratt. Spencer Pratt, we all
know what happened there. I don't want to get into it,
but we all know that Spencer Pratt should be the
mayor of Los Angeles right now. And so I think
that the corruption at those lower levels will stop Steve
Helton being able to do anything that he's going to
(30:02):
set out to do. So in two years time, the
messaging then becomes, oh, well, California elected MAGA governor and
he achieved nothing, and all of the problems that he
said he was going to fix so much worse. And
they will win on that messaging.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
They're the ones they did it, even though they're the
ones they did it. So yeah, let me, let me,
let me this great analysis, let me finish with this.
Do you really think Gavin Newsom is the guy you
think that he's going to be the guy over Kamala Harris,
over Josh Shapiro out of Pennsylvania, who's scary as a
Democrat nominee for president. I mean, you think that it's
Gavin Newsom just because he wants it.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
I think Josh Shapiro should win it because you're right,
he is scary. Yeah, and he's a you know I
it doesn't matter what you think or feel anyone listening,
Like Jos Shapiro is a great politician and he came
through a lot, and he is a shock. But I
think in terms of the sort of movie star presidential
(31:03):
quality they're gonna put up, They're gonna put up Newsome
like they will. I don't think it's gonna be Kamala.
I think in a primary situation, it's going to be
very very close. If it is Shapiro Newsom will be
very close between the two of them, like very I
think he'll be surprisingly close. But I think Newsome ultimately
wins that primary on name recognition. And I hate to
(31:27):
say it, but I think that like I think he,
I don't know. I want to see a debate between
the two of them, but I think I think.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
I think Shapiro would ruin him. Shapiro would ruin him.
It would not even be the press, that's kind. I'm
with you. You're right, he's not He's not the matinee Idol.
I'm with you. I agree with that. I think that
I think DeSantis or Rubio or Vance smoke all of them.
But it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out
with the left. The left has to pick the air apparent,
(31:55):
and I don't think there is one, and I truly
don't think it's Newsome. Maybe I just don't like the guy,
but I don't think it's him. I think there would
be a dumb move by them to push him in.
So I don't think he's very smart, and I think
that he would be jd Vance debating this guy, come on,
that would be ridiculous. Or Rubio or Deysantis even it's
gonna be interesting to watch. Thank you for breaking all
this down, Thank you for analyzing and hopefully people got
(32:16):
some information out of this that we weren't getting from
the from the big media. And let's do it again
next week. You're the best.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
I'm here for it. Thanks Joey Okay.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
You're awesome. That's it for this one. We drop another Unshaken,
Unafraid with Joe Pag soon. Make sure you subscribe
Who is this person that somehow we're told infiltrated Gavin
Newsom's inner circle with a wiretap filled me in.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
So she's actually part of Gavin Newsom's in a circle,
and she wore a wire tap in relation to an
investigation that's been going on since like the Biden DOJ
was involved. Here's the thing everyone's just seeing this headline
that is, you know, Gavin Newsom, one of his inner
circle wore a wire scandalous blah blah blah. But when
(00:32):
you actually break down what happened, not only does it
have almost nothing to do with Gavin Newsom right now,
but you can see how he directly tried to attack
ongoing messaging, almost to the point where, like the way
I'm reading it to me, in my opinion, sounds like
he's lying about everything that's going on and that he
(00:54):
even has anything to do with it, and he's using
it for fundraising. So if you want, I can go
through what actually happened and we can talk about how
Gavin Newsom, being the slimiest human being that he is,
is trying to use this situation to maybe come out
ahead of something that could be coming down the mine.
Don't get me wrong. There is some very weird stuff
(01:14):
that I found about him, about his wife, but the
actual story that he's talking about, the one that everyone's pushing, it's,
if anything, it's pretty damning about the Democrats, but it's
really not as crazy as the headlines make it sound.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Well, I want to I want to start from a
place you just quickly went over. This wasn't the Donald
Trump DOJ. This is the Biden DOJ started this. But
Gavin Newsom is I think you just alluded to, is
trying to make it about Trump targeting him. This has
nothing to do with that. So this let's make sure
everybody watching listening understands this is not Trump going after
(01:53):
his so called political enemies, because Gavin Newsom has almost
literally said that he's going after me because of the
possibility of a presidential run. First of all, Trump is
not running in twenty eight, so he's not going after
his political enemy. And two, this started under the Biden DOJ.
Can you tell me specifically when it started? And how
does somebody become a member of his inner circle? What
(02:13):
she already was, as you just said, but then she
says yes to wearing a wire? Was she in some
hot water already, so take it from where it started
because it wasn't under Trump.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Okay, So this is so convoluted, so like you're gonna
have to bear with me a second here while I
explain next. There's a lot of it from moving parts,
but most of what is coming out now started around
twenty twenty two. So it's a woman called Dana Williamson
who was in late twenty twenty two appointed as Gavin
(02:43):
Newsom's chief of staff. Okay, Dana Williamson is accused and
like it's pending sentencing right now. Ok and two other
people essentially conspired to drain an existing paying account for
is it Jose Bacera? Is that how you pronounce as well?
(03:04):
I wouldn't read the name is Sarah?
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Sarah Sarah?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Okay? But Sarah yes? Oh yeah, duh, Sorry.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
It's okay. So has she committed has she been found
guilty or did she admit guild? What happened with that?
Speaker 2 (03:17):
So she's admitted gil those pleas Okay, So basically what
happened was twenty twenty two, her and two other people,
namely Bessarah's chief of staff, conspired to draye one of
Jose's old campaign accounts that was kind of dormant, just
sitting there, had about two hundred and twenty five thousand
(03:37):
dollars in it. I think this was way back from
when he was like running to be like superintendent or something.
So all this money is sitting there. Dana Williamson so
Newsom's later on chief of staff. Later on that year
she became his chief of staff. A guy Sean McCluskey,
and then a guy called Greg Campbell. They conspired to
funnel the money from that account to Sean mcclus essentially ya.
(04:02):
At some point this woman Alexis Podesta, no relation to
John you know, the Podesta's kind of relationship, but she
got involved and basically took over the process of funneling
that money to McCluskey, who had taken a huge sort
of pay cut. That was his excuse for it. He
took huge pay cut when he followed Bessera to Washington.
(04:25):
Needed money, and so the idea was, let's funnel money
out of this account to McCluskey. No one's ever gonna notice.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
Okay, so let's stop there. Let's stop there for a second. So,
by the way, this Alexis Podesta was the one who
wore the wire right, yes, yeah, okay, and it is
it's and it's also at Xavier Besara. It's not Jose
so Xavier. It's okay, Bessera. Everybody knew who you were
talking about. So this guy is somehow involved. This guy
used to be like a health and human services for
the entire country and now he's back in California, thinks
(04:53):
she could be the next governor or something. And this woman,
Alexis Podesta, her position was according to you and I
guess we find this out during from the wire tap.
She's now the one doing the funneling.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yes she sort of, yeah, she sort of managed that,
but basically the wire tap. At the same time this
is all going on, Joe, there's a you know, Dana
Williamson who's a state employee. Yes, she was basically like
accused of secretly helping a company called Activision Blizzard who
(05:28):
is being sued by the state of California. Wow, she
was working with Podesta, who is a lobbyist at the
time for Activision Blizzards. So it's like all these kind
of like legally moving parts blah blah blah, your yawn,
A bunch of political people team together to steal money
from a guy who does not have my friend's name.
(05:48):
It is a severer sorry I got that makes me
feel like an idiot because not at all.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I know that you've done great research on this, so
it sounds like it's just tier after tier after tier
after layer. Kay? Is that how if you're going to
be a corrupt person, Not that you are, but you've
done enough research that you know how this works. If
you put enough layers and tears between the person doing
it and where you're getting it, you get you get
away with it for a while.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
You get away with it for a while, but really
not that long. They didn't get away with it for
that long. In fact, they didn't even really get away
with it. That's the kind of crazy part. They were,
you know, taking this money out, funneling it to McCluskey.
And they will, like you know, submit Like no one's
saying that they didn't do this. They've will submitted plea deals.
They're all awaiting constancing. The only person who isn't is
Podesta because she wore a wire in like there's at
(06:38):
least one example of her for sure wearing a wire.
At that point in conversation with Williamson. So here's what
the kind of headlines are hanging on to the headlines
are hanging on to this idea. The Podesta was able
to get into all of these private conversations with Williamson
while Williamson was Newsome's chief of staff. Wow, and so
(07:00):
Newsome is kind of spinning this. I hate to say it,
but he's doing an excellent spin doctoring job on this,
basically saying that the Trump dooj is attacking me, attacking
my people, my inner circle, my family.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Firstly, No, none of that's true, right, none of that's true.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Isn't even his chief of staff anymore. She was quietly
placed on leave when kind of like all this stuff
about her, you know, this FBI probe was actually coming out.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
But he's raising money on this, like Trump's going after him, Right.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Yeah, that's exactly what he's doing. And you know, like
I said, there are some examples of you know, definitely
Cebel Newsoms like the first what do you call her,
the first lady of you know what they.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Call you know what they call her? How stupid it is?
He calls her the first partner of California. That's how
stupid it is. I kid you not. They're calling her
the first partner. All right, so the first Lady of California.
How is she implicated if at all, because it sounds
like her fingers that are at least close to something
that was going on.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
No, in this context, not at all. But the reason
that I think, let me back up a bit. So,
Jennifer Siebel Newsome is involved in all of these nonprofits.
I will not I will not Joe, but I can't
treat her with that lack of perspect It's such a
(08:21):
stupid title, like, well, it's so dumb, like what are
you trans Like that's still not a thing anyway. So
she is involved in this nonprofit and all these nonprofits, Uh,
there's one in particular, I can't remember what it's called,
but you know, has like been so struggling financially, like
hasn't really been able to sort of do anything because
(08:43):
it allegedly has no money, but she's been taking a
salary from it for like years while it's going through
all these struggles. There's a lot of very weird stuff,
like to the tune of tens, if not hundreds of
millions of dollars in relation to the Newsoms and then
nonprofits and they're businesses that doesn't really make a whole
lot of sense. And so here's what I think has happened.
(09:06):
And I'm going to try and do this in like
as Layman's terms as possible or as simply as possible,
because again, there's so many different things, so many different
moving parts in all of this. But essentially, when Dana
Williamson started getting investigated for stealing this money, I think
the probe that was opened under the Biden DOJ, it
(09:28):
looks to me like when you go through an investigation
like this, you're going to find lots and lots of
not just numerical data in terms of like where's the
money going, wire transfers, all that, blah blah blah blah blah.
You've also got at least one wire that was worn.
A bunch of people received notifications that their phones were
(09:51):
basically being searched in relation to this probe. This again,
like all under the probe that was opened I believe
under the Biden DOJ. That was when it came to fruition. Anyway,
it was twenty twenty two under the Biden DJ And
so what I picture Joe is a bunch of FBI
guys or women sitting around a table going through all
of this different evidence, and there's going to be a
(10:13):
sentence somewhere that's going to not necessarily relate to the
case they're investigating, but it's going to point them in
a direction for something else, Like you cannot go through
an investigation like this and not find loads of peripherary periphery, periphery, peripheral, prepheral,
(10:34):
can you tell that my baby hasn't slept for six weeks?
But all of this peripheral information or you know, data
on the periphery of the actual evidence that you're looking for.
And so I think what I'm seeing from Gavin Newsom
is the sort of hype. This is just my guess.
My guess is that he's looking at the scope and
(10:56):
scale of the people that the FBI have looked into
and who they've collected evidence and data from, and he's
probably sweating because somewhere in there maybe something that implicates
him in something completely different. So he's sitting there going, Oh,
the Trump DOJ is investigating me. They're investigating and probing
(11:20):
and harassing my inner circle, my people. This is a
purposeful attack because I'm going to be president one day,
and I'm a grown up and I've got great hair,
and this is all just you know, political theatrics, and
I'm being attacked and I'm a victim, Whereas in reality,
he knows that there's a bunch of FBI guys who
(11:42):
have a bunch of data on his inner circle in
relation to this original case that was started under the
Biden DOJ And he's probably sweating wondering what they actually have.
And I don't know if we're going to find out
what it is that they have anytime soon or everything.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
That's for sure. We know what we know that she
was wearing a wire. We don't know how often she
wore the wire. We don't know where she was when
wearing the wire. I want to understand exactly who she
is though. Was she brought in as his chief of
staff or is she somebody on the periphery some would.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Say on the periphery. So alexis Podesta who wore the wire?
She's had? Okay, this is weird. She's had one of
those careers where she bounces from lots of different places.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
OK.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
So let me get I want to get it in.
I have it in order. Here somewhere the exact order
under which she did everything. So I know that she
worked for Yeah, okay, here we go. So she was
a consultant who served as secretary under Governor Jerry Brown,
so she's been in the game for a while. She
(12:50):
also worked with Activision Blizzard as a lobbyist who were
being sued by the state, and so that's a whole
other thing where she working as a lot lobbyist was
in private communications with the state Dana Williamson, who was
Newsom's chief of staff. So basically Newsom's old chief of
(13:10):
staff stole all of this money or helped steal all
of this money for another guy. That's like, really what
the crux of this thing is? Then she was appointed
buying Newsome to I believe. Let me double check here. Yeah,
it was the State Compensation Insurance for Insurance Fund Board,
which I mean, Joe, like, that sounds like an extremely
(13:33):
boring job. I literally just like, what even is.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
That sounds like sounds like it's a money thing. It's
a fund exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
But she also kept being paid after she was named
as a co conspirator in this sort of process by
which she was essentially what she did and The reason
she's not being charged is because she worked with the FBI.
But what she did was take money from that door
account anyway, from about seventy five hundred ten thousand a month.
(14:04):
She would then pay Williamson's consulting company, and then that
money was then routed back to McCluskey, and mainly it
was his spouse for a sort of you know, a
non existent consulting job, you know on those like pretend
jobs that doesn't exist for these people.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Yeah, we Italians call it a no show job.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, yeah, that was actually So.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
Does does she get as the Italians would say, pinched?
Does she get arrested? Does she get cornered? Does she okay,
you're going down unless you were a wire? Does she
does she cut a deal? Or was she somebody who
was actively working with the FBI before? Do we know?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
My gut feeling is that she was approached by someone
because she seemed like easy to flip. I don't think.
I don't think she was working with the FBI before.
I just do not believe that the way, because she
was actually, you know, helping funnel the money. So I
think what they probably did was like, well, she's the
(15:03):
first point of contact here after this, you know, it's
like the money's going from this account to her, why
don't we talk to it, Like, let's go to her
and see if she'll wear a wire, all that kind
of stuff. So she was probably like, I mean, who knows,
it could be the stuff of like you know, these
spy dramas we see where someone like approached her like undercover,
blah blah blah. But I think realistically she probably got
(15:27):
an inkling to the fact that this thing was going
on and said, like, I'll do anything to not get
pinched for this. So that was when she ended up
wearing the wire. And we don't know how many times
she wore it, and we don't know how much information
was This could.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Just be the tip of the iceberg, is what we're saying.
This could be just this is this tip of the spear.
There's a whole lot more here. So Newsom comes out
today and starts complaining about how this administration is trying
to meddle in their voting in California, Like he's completely
throwing everything against the wall that he can, I guess
to get the heat off of him. Now you said
he has him and implicated directly his wife has not
(16:02):
been implicated directly. But I'll ask you the question that
I ask anybody who's investigating like the fraud in Minnesota.
Is it possible that the governor and his first partner
lady can possibly have all this going on under the
surface and have no clue? I mean, I'm not asking
you to convict them. Obviously, they're not guilty of anything,
but I just wonder, because he seems to be a
(16:23):
bit of an authoritarian and how he does the job,
how could all this be going on under the surface
without him knowing about it? Is there a way to
know that?
Speaker 2 (16:32):
Do you know? Joe? I think the only reason that
he maybe didn't know that this was going on is because,
a it's such a tiny amount of money for a
man like him, Like people forget Kevin Newsom's worth like
hundreds of millions of dollars, Like he is an extremely
wealthy guy, like right to a terrifying degree, like extremely well,
his wife is extremely wealthy as well. And so I
(16:55):
think the only reason that maybe he didn't know is
because it's literally like three four people got together almost
like as friends, to be like, let's steal money from
this one account and just give it to our friend
who's like having a bit of a hard time. What
my gut says is Gavin Newsom. Yes, there may be
(17:15):
things like like I sort of said earlier the evidence room,
there's going to be stuff that's like maybe sticking on
him that hasn't come to the surface yet. But in
the context of this, like just this case alone, I
think that he probably didn't know because it was probably
so small. But if he did know, that suggests to
(17:35):
me that this kind of behavior is semi normal. The
these insider politician, like the all the people who sort
of float around these politicians, particularly Newsome, are doing this
as almost a routine. They see these dormant accounts, they
figure out, okay, let's try and like siphon this money
(17:57):
off and get us all paid. So I think that
he maybe knew that the behavior like that action was
being taken, but he may not have known the sort
of intricate inner workings of all of it because it
is such a negligible amount of money for someone like him,
you know, Like I mean, that's that's a bad fundraising
(18:20):
day for Gavin Newsom is two hundred and twenty five
thousand dollars and he's using this whole thing, like you said,
grabbing these headlines to play the victim, to sort of
monopolize the SEO, monopolize people's mindsets around the situation, so
that if something big does drop under the Trump doj
on Newsome, he's going to go well, I told you
(18:42):
that they were trying to weaponize the DJ against me,
And it's like, no, Gavy Bears, you messed up. You
did a bunch of weird stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
With money, Gaby Bears.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
So that's the way I'm kind of looking at it.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
It's always a fun time to take the family to
the movies, But why spend thirty dollars when you can
save a bunch of money and get better programming and
better entertainment. Why not join the Angel Guild For just
fifteen dollars a month. You're gonna get two free tickets
to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day, plus
tickets to future Angel theatrical releases, and full access to
Angel streaming Library. It's one of the best entertainment values
(19:14):
I've seen in a very long time. Now, let's talk
about that movie in theaters this Independence Day. Young Washington
tells the story of George Washington before he became a general,
before he became president, and before he became a legend.
At just twenty years old, Washington face failure, setbacks, and
near death experiences that would have broken most people. Instead,
those challenges forged the leader who would help secure America's
(19:37):
independence and future. It's a powerful story of resilience, faith
and purpose. Join the Guild today, save a bunch of money,
get great program in great entertainment. Receive your two free
tickets right now by visiting Angel dot com slash PAGs
Angel dot com slash PAGs do it right now. It
is Ka Hill. Go to Kosmith Hill dot com and
(19:57):
go check out everything she Does's here on Newsmax. Incredible
reas such incredible news and commentary writer. What is Bisara
said about any of this anything?
Speaker 2 (20:05):
He's heartbroken. That's his sort of public statement. So none
of it came back on him. He because you know
the guy who essentially the money went to him and
his wife, the McCluskey's. That was and I don't think
he still is. I can't imagine that he still is.
But that was Sarah's chief of staff who went with
him to DC, and so I think he I think
(20:28):
His statement was basically like, I'm kind of heartbroken that
my friend would do this to me over money. But
in my head, I'm also kind of like, yeah, that's
exactly what I would say if I was but Sarah
and I knew about this, I would also play the victims.
So that's what Democrats do. They just always played the victim.
Speaker 1 (20:44):
Well, he was, he was horrible in the federal government.
I'm not impressed with him in the in the race
for governor of California. He's in the in the runoff, right,
I mean, it's him against who is it? It's him
against Steve Hilton, is it not?
Speaker 2 (20:56):
Yes, Steve, it's Steve Hilton. I'm pretty sure and.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Your Basarah, aren't they the ones running in the general
in November. I'm pretty sure that he's the guy. So
let me ask you, yes, Well, will this potentially affect
the actual good editorial race this this November?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Probably not, just because I think that there are way
more There are way more things to attack Democrats about
in California than their form of chief of staff stealing money,
especially when none of it can actually beach like traced
back to Bisera. So I think that if you're in
California and you're a Republican and you're trying to win
(21:33):
this thing, you go after all those big ticket items.
You go after homelessness, the crime epidemic, the cost of living,
the fact that all the wealthy people are leaving, the
fact that everyone who stays is yeah, like a victim
of crime. People are being you know, like people like
their bodies literally piling up on the streets of California cities.
I think that's where most political strategy and messaging will
(21:58):
come from from the Republicans, because that's those the main
things they want to tackle. Right Whereas I think his
chief of staff getting busted in stealing from him essentially
actually kind of works in Bessarah's favor because it makes
him even though I think he knew about it, I
can't prove that. I have literally nothing to base that on.
(22:20):
Just like gut instinct, I think he probably did know
about it. I don't know. I think it a victim.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
It changes the complexion a bit because it is Besarah
versus Hilton. Just looked it up to make sure it's
going to be this guy who is You're right, can
pain himself as the victim. He's getting a big, a
big helping hand from Gavin Newsom. Gavin Newsom's out there
being the front guy in this. I'm the biggest victim
in all of this in Trump is bad, when in reality,
Xavier Bessera was horrible in the federal level. He was
(22:49):
I think he was a prosecutor before he went to
the federal level. Then he's he wants to be the
governor of the state. And it just so happens that
one of the two guys out of hundreds who ran
I'm sure for the stupid juckup in California, he's one
of the two guys who will be in the general
election this November, and he's the one guy out of
the two that has this scandal within his campaign. This
is let me say this, because knowing all this information
(23:10):
and especially everything that you brought this, this actually is
electioneering like I've i haven't seen in a long time.
And by electioneering, I mean setting up for a result
that you otherwise probably wouldn't have gotten. Steve Hilton's doing well.
Steve Hilton has a real chance to become the governor
of California. So why not make bisera the you know,
the guy who was attacked and attacked by the right,
(23:31):
and of course Donald Trump is supporting Steve Hilton. This
is all very circular. This is all way more intricate
than people know, isn't it. I mean, when you're trying
to win an election, the left will stop at nothing
to win the election.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And they're looking two years out. Joe Physiot is an
amazing analysis. Correct, They're not just looking at you know,
the fact that the Democrats, the Democrats in California cannot
win on any of the key issues that Californians care about.
That's the biggest thing we've been under Well we I say,
(24:04):
I lived there for a long time, but California has
been under Democrat rule for far too long, and just
in the last what ten twelve years, let's say, like,
let's be generous with it, let's say, you know, twelve years,
probably a little bit more than that. But I remember
going to say San Francisco in twenty ten and being like,
this is a great city. I'm having a great time
(24:25):
going back in twenty fifteen and being like, whoa, this
is like the walking dead. And so it's been like
that for at least that sort of ten twelve year gap,
and it's spread across the state. When you look at
the actual electoral map of California, it is almost completely
red except for the Bay Area and except for the
(24:45):
sort of southern California coastal like SoCal region, if you will,
and that even ends before you get to San Diego.
Pretty much like there's a few still like pockets of blue.
The whole state is red, and it's been that way
because the Democrats have run the place into the ground,
and so all of the policies, all of the messaging
(25:07):
really do fall on the Republican side, Like if they lose,
they really messed up. This should be kind of an
easy win for them, even with those pockets. But I
think that all of those kind of coastal elites are
going to kind of pick up on what you were
just saying. They're going to say, oh, the only reason
the besarah isn't doing well is because Trump's attacking all
(25:32):
Democrats in California. As they're going to say this show
as they step over bodies on the sidewalk. You know,
that's stupid.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
When I talked to Sheriff Bianco, he actually thought it
would be a bad thing for Trump to endorse Hilton
and he wasn't saying he should have endorsed me and
by me being Bianco. But that's going to fire up
some lefties in California to say, we can't possibly have
the Trump guy, we can't have the Trump chosen guy.
And now Trump is a attacking bisera. Trump is attacking
(26:01):
the first partner. Trump is attacking Gavin Newsom, and no
issues have been talked about. You couldn't be more correct.
Nobody's talking about the issues. Steve Hilton's trying to but
nobody's gonna cover that. They're gonna cover how mean Trump
is to Gavin Newsom. So is. And by the way,
you and I disagree vehemently on the Republicans should win easily.
They're gonna lose. Steve Hilton is going to lose unless
(26:23):
we get the Save America Act done or unless we
get some sort of photo ID done. The left has
been very, very good at making sure they win. I'm
winking for those who are listening, because they're not gonna
do it on the issues. On the issues, k it
should be eighty twenty. Steve Hilton should win, should be
very easy. But on the suicidal empathy of the left
(26:43):
in that state, and the power based and the money
that they have, it's going to be extremely difficult for
anybody who's not onld Schwarzenegger to win. I mean, they
chose the movie start because they're so stupid. In California,
the left, the elites, they wanted. They thought it'd be
cool to have a movie star be their governor for
a while. And by the way, when he got an office,
he he operated as a moderate lefty, not really as
a Republican. So all of that said, this is let
(27:06):
me just go back to what I said little while ago,
and I want you to either reinforce it or push back.
This is them setting up why they're gonna win in November.
They know they're gonna because they're really good at winning
in states like that, but now they have to give
a good reason why. Well, you're right, we didn't win
on the issues. We won because Hilton bad Hilton is
Trump with an accent.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
Yes, but I do hold out. Here's the thing, I
got a back.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
You're more hopeful than I am, and I'm glad. Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
No, I think I'm just I don't want to say naive.
I guess I just still have hope that Californians on
that's stupid. But I'm also holding out hope the California Democrats,
like the actual political elite are, because I wouldn't be
(27:59):
surprised if California's sort of political oligarchy, if you will,
the Democrats sacrifice the governorship for the presidency. Because, let's
be honest, Joe, I do think Newsome right now is
the only guy that the Democrats have who could possibly
(28:21):
run in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
Okay, what is your running on? What is his resume?
He can say, Look how great I handled California. That's it.
Hair teeth in a smile, hair.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Teeth in the fact that Trump doesn't like him. Democrats, Well,
here's the thing. Democrats are stupid enough to think that
that's a winning strategy for the whole of the United States,
which is just fundamentally untrue. You're right, if the Save
America Act doesn't pass, they will do some weird stuff.
I mean again, I live there. They sent me a ballot.
I can't legally vote.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Listen to my accent, I'm you could have, but you
could have voted.
Speaker 2 (28:54):
But I could have, but I didn't because I'm not
a skull to break the law. Right, Yeah, I'm not
going to break the law. But I think that if
California Democrats aren't super stupid, which I just I really
don't think that that's the case, they might let Steve
Hilton win and then basically stop him. Because remember at
(29:16):
the local level on the coast, where the media is at,
and the media is in the pocket of the Democrats
in such a big way, particularly in California. We all
know this. I'm preaching to the choir here, but you
could let Steve Hilton win and then lower down where
you've got these city and town level politicians, they're just
(29:40):
going to stop anything that he's going to try to
do to actually fix the problem. I mean, look at
what they did to Spencer Pratt. Spencer Pratt, we all
know what happened there. I don't want to get into it,
but we all know that Spencer Pratt should be the
mayor of Los Angeles right now. And so I think
that the corruption at those lower levels will stop Steve
Helton being able to do anything that he's going to
(30:02):
set out to do. So in two years time, the
messaging then becomes, oh, well, California elected MAGA governor and
he achieved nothing, and all of the problems that he
said he was going to fix so much worse. And
they will win on that messaging.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
They're the ones they did it, even though they're the
ones they did it. So yeah, let me, let me,
let me this great analysis, let me finish with this.
Do you really think Gavin Newsom is the guy you
think that he's going to be the guy over Kamala Harris,
over Josh Shapiro out of Pennsylvania, who's scary as a
Democrat nominee for president. I mean, you think that it's
Gavin Newsom just because he wants it.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
I think Josh Shapiro should win it because you're right,
he is scary. Yeah, and he's a you know I
it doesn't matter what you think or feel anyone listening,
Like Jos Shapiro is a great politician and he came
through a lot, and he is a shock. But I
think in terms of the sort of movie star presidential
(31:03):
quality they're gonna put up, They're gonna put up Newsome
like they will. I don't think it's gonna be Kamala.
I think in a primary situation, it's going to be
very very close. If it is Shapiro Newsom will be
very close between the two of them, like very I
think he'll be surprisingly close. But I think Newsome ultimately
wins that primary on name recognition. And I hate to
(31:27):
say it, but I think that like I think he,
I don't know. I want to see a debate between
the two of them, but I think I think.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
I think Shapiro would ruin him. Shapiro would ruin him.
It would not even be the press, that's kind. I'm
with you. You're right, he's not He's not the matinee Idol.
I'm with you. I agree with that. I think that
I think DeSantis or Rubio or Vance smoke all of them.
But it'll be interesting to see how it shakes out
with the left. The left has to pick the air apparent,
(31:55):
and I don't think there is one, and I truly
don't think it's Newsome. Maybe I just don't like the guy,
but I don't think it's him. I think there would
be a dumb move by them to push him in.
So I don't think he's very smart, and I think
that he would be jd Vance debating this guy, come on,
that would be ridiculous. Or Rubio or Deysantis even it's
gonna be interesting to watch. Thank you for breaking all
this down, Thank you for analyzing and hopefully people got
(32:16):
some information out of this that we weren't getting from
the from the big media. And let's do it again
next week. You're the best.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
I'm here for it. Thanks Joey Okay.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
You're awesome. That's it for this one. We drop another Unshaken,
Unafraid with Joe Pag soon. Make sure you subscribe
Popular Podcasts
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.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com