Matt Gaetz Show - Rep. Jim Jordan, Todd Rokita, Madison Campbell, Paulo Figueiredo

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Congressman Jim Jordan will explain his fresh criminal referral regarding
Obama's former CIA director John Brennan. Spoiler alert, I was
the congressman asking questions when Brennan lied, And the Attorney
General of Indiana, Todd Rokeito will update us on the
unique role Indiana might play in stopping Gavin Newsom's effort
to steal the House of Representatives. President Trump is delivering

(00:22):
on his IVF promises to American families, and Columbia is
being just so Columbia lately.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
It's all next on the Matt Gates Show. Let's do
this shaking up Washington, d C. We're breaking the fever.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Do you ever watch this guy on television?

Speaker 4 (00:39):
It's like a machine.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
He's great. Matt Gates.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
As we join you this evening, the Trump administration seems
to be in a good old fashioned deep state roundup.
In moments, Congressman Jim Jordan joins us to explain a
new criminal referral he's sending to federal prosecutors based on
questions yours truly asked the former CIA director. Some Americans
were initially frustrated that every bad guy or bad gal

(01:08):
wasn't thrown in stockades the moment Trump took office. But
looking back on twenty twenty five, we've seen the following
people indicted. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, he's one
of the worst. Former FBI Director James Comy, he was
like the man on the inside of the coup attempt.
New York Attorney General Tis James, she tried to bankrupt

(01:30):
the Trump organization. She's been indicted for her own fraud challenges.
And even Democrat Congresswoman Lamonica mcgiver has faced charges for
getting in the way of an ice enforcement operation and
really just pushing ice around in an ice facility. Obama
CIA director John Brennan might be next. Sometimes criminals think
they can violate the law, get what they want, and

(01:51):
get away with it, and indeed sometimes that does happen.
I think Obama, Comy, Brennan, Clapper, and so many others
believed that their efforts to smear Trump with the Russia
hoax would indeed work. Even if they couldn't defeat Trump
at the ballot box, they could use the emper mater
of their power to convince the country that somehow he

(02:13):
became president as a result of Vladimir Putin's desires, not
the desires of our countrymen. Back in July, I explained
to our audience what Obama's former CIA director John Brennan
said to Congress that was a lie. I explained why
he told that lie and how I caught.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Him with some precise questioning.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
The year was twenty twenty three, and as a Congressman
on the Weaponizations Subcommittee, I was taking a behind closed
doors deposition of John Brennan. The topic was his leadership
of a letter characterizing the Hunter Biden laptop story as
Russian disinformation? What Russian intelligence operation do you think? I
wanted to discuss most the Steele dossier.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
Of course, this was my question.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
You were involved in analyzing this in I charged that,
referring to the dossier. Brennan replied, no, I was not
involved in analyzing the dossier at all. I said, the
first time I actually saw it was after the election,
and the CIA was not involved at all with the dossier.
You can direct that to the FBI and others. There's

(03:19):
an annex to the Intelligence Committee assessment that the Bureau
asked to be included in there. It was their purview,
their area, not ours at all.

Speaker 2 (03:31):
This is definitive knowing material. It's also a lie.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
According to the report recently released by CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
A recently declassified CIA note shows that quote, the decision
by agency heads to include the Steele Dosier and the
Intelligence Committee assessment ran counter to fundamental tradecraft principles and
ultimately undermined the credibility of a key judgment. Well if

(03:58):
something didn't meet tradecraft standards, why didn't anyone at the
CIA complain? It turns out they did, Quoting now from
the CIA report, Quote, The Intelligence Committee assessment authors and
multiple senior CIA managers, including the two senior leaders of
the CIA Mission Center responsible for Russia, strongly opposed including

(04:20):
the dossier, asserting it meant that even those basic tradecraft
standards were violated. CIA's Deputy director for Analysis warned in
an email to Brennan on twenty nine December that including
the dossier risked quote the credibility of the entire paper.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
Well, if the authors of this Intelligence Committee assessment didn't
want to include the dossier, who overruled them to include it?
The answer, John Brennan quote.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
Despite these objections, Brennan showed a preference for a narrative
consistency the over analytical soundness.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
When confronted with the specific.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Flaws of the dossier, he appeared more swayed by the
dossier's general conformity with existing theories than by legitimate tradecraft concerns.
Brennan ultimately formalized his position in writing stating, quote, my
bottom line is that I believe the information warrants inclusion
in the report. So in some the dossier was assembled

(05:26):
by a foreign spy who hated Trump, It was sourced
through Russian intelligence, the FBI used it to illegally spy on.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
The Trump campaign.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
Top CIA analysts said it should not be included in
their assessment, and then John Brennan made the final, dispositive
decision to include the dossier in the Intel assessment. When
Key opened the doors to this line of inquiry in
a twenty twenty three deposition, which is about the Hunter
Biden laptop lies, he lied about his key role in

(05:54):
analyzing and including the dossier in intelligence work product. Speaking
of liars, Chuck Schumer leads the government into its fourth week.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
Of a shutdown.

Speaker 1 (06:04):
President Trump met with centate Republicans to day at the
White House and gave his assessment of the situation.

Speaker 3 (06:09):
To listen to President, we will not be extorted on
this crazy plot of this. They've never done this before,
nobody has. You always vote for an extension built over
one million federal workers right now, as you know, are
going unpaid. That's a Democrat's vault. They are the obstructionists.
And the reason they're doing it is because we're doing

(06:30):
so well in the greatest moment in the history of
our country in terms of wealth, in terms of job creation,
and in terms of investment.

Speaker 2 (06:40):
Coming in these guys go and strike. They call him
Darth Vader.

Speaker 3 (06:45):
I call him a fine man, but he's cutting Democrat priorities.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
And they're never going to get him back.

Speaker 3 (06:54):
So I'm asking them to be smart. It's not working.
They're getting killed in the polls. Public understands what they're doing.
They're doing the wrong thing.

Speaker 1 (07:03):
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan leads the effort in Congress
to hold the deep state accountable, and he joins us, Now,
mister Chairman, great.

Speaker 2 (07:09):
To have you. I love the I love the subject.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
Walk us through your criminal referral regarding Obama CIA Director
John Brennan.

Speaker 5 (07:17):
Well, as you know, Matt, you're not supposed to lie,
but you're definitely not supposed to lie when you're under
oath in front of the United States Congress. And it
looks like that's exactly what John Brennan did. And one
of the individuals he lied to is the host of
the Matt Gates Show. When you ask him, I thought
a great question about the dossier, and he said, I
had no involvement with the dossier. He told the committee

(07:37):
that he didn't want the dossier in any way referenced
in the Intelligence Community assessment.

Speaker 4 (07:43):
But guess what.

Speaker 5 (07:43):
Tulca Gabberd released the classified version she declassified the Hipsie Report,
and it says just the opposite. It says Brennan was
up to his eyeballs with the dossier that he actually
put in writing.

Speaker 4 (07:56):
He wanted it in the report.

Speaker 5 (07:58):
And the best one was when another CIA official came
to mister Brennan and said, you know, mister Brennan, there's
no intelligence to support the dossier.

Speaker 4 (08:09):
It's ridiculous. It shouldn't be in this report.

Speaker 5 (08:12):
He says, yeah, but doesn't it ring true, which I
think got to his motive. He was out to get
the president put it in the report. The report that
they took up to President Trump when he was President
elect Trump in January of twenty seventeen, and shared with
him they were out to get him, and so based
on your good questions, we got him, I think lying

(08:34):
to Congress, and so that's why we did.

Speaker 4 (08:35):
We don't do many of these referrals.

Speaker 5 (08:37):
It's got to be there, but it sure looks like
it was, and that's why we're sending it to the
Justice Department.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
One of the defenses former Director Brennan could offer is
that this wasn't really a material lie. Whether he was
involved in this or the FBI, that didn't really matter
to the work of the Congress.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
So why do you think the live was material?

Speaker 5 (08:56):
Well, because this is when it all began. I mean,
I think that's really important. We're talking about twenty sixteen
twenty seventeen, between when President Trump was elected, when he
was sworn in. They take this report, they go up
to Trump Tower, briefing on it. They set the stage
established a predicate for the Mueller investigation using this garbage document.

Speaker 4 (09:15):
The dossier. I think this is when it all started.

Speaker 5 (09:17):
And I would also point to I think there's a
pattern with mister Brennan. Had we put included this in
our letter back in twenty seventeen, when then Congressman Gowdy
asked him questions in a public hearing, I think he
was not square with mister GOUDI I think he lied there.
And then of course there's the context of when you
asking the question, when the committee asking the questions. It

(09:38):
was during our investigation of the fifty one former Intel
officials who signed that ridiculous letter that said to Hunter
Biden laptop was a Russian information.

Speaker 4 (09:48):
Operation, which was all garbage.

Speaker 5 (09:50):
So we think there's a pattern of him not being
square with the American people, not being square with Congress.
That's all part of it too. That's why we think
this is material and important.

Speaker 1 (10:00):
And we were asking these questions with Brennan opening the
door to himself as this great expert, right, I mean,
to us, it just seemed bizarre that people were using
their security clearance to try to advance a political campaign.
That's the normal, I would say, you know, cutting the
grass we do in oversight.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
But then when we said, well, mister Brennan, how is.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
It that you were able to draw these conclusions about
the Hunter Biden laptop, he said, well, because I know
everything about Russia.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
I'm an expert on all of these things.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
And then, of course, once he said everything was fair
game to inform his experience, we had to delve into
the Steel dossier because it was so deeply corrupt. Now,
I did think it was interesting, mister Chairman, that he said, well,
this was the FBI. Do you think as these investigations
continue there'll be more of this finger pointing where you know,
back when you and I were some of the only

(10:50):
ones defending President Trump, we were out there saying, look,
all this stuff is nonsense.

Speaker 2 (10:55):
They were saying it was all true.

Speaker 1 (10:56):
Have we now reached the chapter in the book where
CIA they'll blame FBI, They'll blame CIA, and that's how
they'll try to evade accountability.

Speaker 4 (11:04):
Yeah, we may in fact be there.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
You know.

Speaker 5 (11:07):
Of course, mister Comy's been charged with also violating eighteen USC.
One thousand and one and not being square with the Congress,
so we may be there. But yeah, I thought it
was interesting when I went back and looked at the transcript,
how he was pretty strong on that was the FBI.
But what we didn't have then is what was declassified
by OD and I Director Gabbard, where it says, yeah,
but the Cia confronted him on this stuff, and he

(11:28):
still wanted it in the assessment.

Speaker 4 (11:30):
And I think that is the critical point.

Speaker 5 (11:33):
And never forget, I think, and I know your viewers
understand this, but never forget where this all began. The
Clinton campaign paid the law firm Perkins Cooey, who hired
Fuson GPS, who hired a foreigner, Christopher Steele, who wrote
the garbage document.

Speaker 4 (11:47):
So that was the pattern.

Speaker 5 (11:48):
It was political, and they knew it, but they wanted
to get him so bad, doesn't it ring true? They
wanted to get him so bad they took the dossier
Komi did to the Secret Court to get the warrant
to go spy on present Trump's campaign, and then they
used it in the assessment that they actually briefed the
president on. That's how ridiculous this whole thing is. And
I always point out, as I said earlier, this is

(12:10):
when it started. We've now been almost a decade of
this garbage going after President Trump and frankly others as
we've learned of late getting the phone records of eight
United States senators.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
For goodness sake. So this is this is where it began.

Speaker 5 (12:22):
And I think it's important that the people who were
there at the front end who started this are held accountable.

Speaker 1 (12:27):
When I saw the list of the eight US senators,
I was so disappointed. I was like, there were people
working with Jim Jordan who were doing way more to
unearth the deep State than those some of those eight senators.
But you made you made an interesting point about where
we were in time when these events were occurring, and
as the bondie blanche Justice Department is really looking at

(12:48):
all these things together. Do you believe this lie of
John Brennan was a one off criminal act or do
you think this could potentially be charged as part of
a broader conspiracy that takes its route in the Russia hoax.

Speaker 5 (13:02):
Yeah, good question, maybe the fundamental question. I'll leave that
up to the Justice Department. Our job is to present
evidence and information we have. As I said, we don't
do many criminal referrals. We do them when we think
it's there. We think it's there this time, and that's
why we've sent it.

Speaker 4 (13:16):
But yeah, this is again, I think it's.

Speaker 5 (13:19):
All part of this group of key people in that
critical timeframe right at the start of President Trump's first term,
when they began this weaponization of the Justice Department that
we spent so much time digging into.

Speaker 4 (13:31):
This is when it began.

Speaker 5 (13:32):
I think these individuals call me Clapper Brennan, who were
all involved in changing the assessment.

Speaker 4 (13:37):
That's the other thing.

Speaker 5 (13:37):
Tulsa Gabbert's report said they changed the assessment and made
it say something that just wasn't supported by any evidence.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
You've sent this referral to Attorney General Bondi. You and
I had deep frustrations when we sent things to form
our Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and nothing really happened. Just
talk about the difference in working with such a strong
team like Bondi and Blanche.

Speaker 5 (14:00):
Yeah, good, good folks, taking the facts, applying them to
the law. I've been so impressed. And the difference in
the way that they interact with Congress. You know, we
said subpoenas and all kinds of requests to the Ray FBI,
which is you know, Cash Bettel's doing so much.

Speaker 4 (14:16):
I mean, it's so different to what we have with
Chris Ray.

Speaker 5 (14:18):
And then of course the same with the Justice Department,
Pam versus Merrick Garland and the people we had before him.
Even the response has been night and day. So yeah,
these guys are doing they're doing the lord's work. I
think they're doing it the right way, focused on making
sure people are held accountable and making sure they're focused
on applying the facts to the law and to each
individual case, and then following following through on what needs

(14:41):
to be following through on.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
I similarly trust them. Do you think we've done enough
to deter this in the future. I think you know
you're you're a sportsman, you're a wrestler. There have to
be fair rules for both sides. We don't want to
see political opposition research used against Democrats just because we can.
Do you think that all of all that we've done
over the last several years to une the Russia hoax
functions as a sufficient deterrent going forward into future elections.

Speaker 4 (15:05):
I think so, And I certainly hope. So.

Speaker 5 (15:07):
You know, we don't want the weaponization of the justice part.
We don't have the weaponization of any agency in our
federal government. They're supposed to serve the taxpayers, not go
after taxpayers, and not go after their political opponents. So
I hope and that's the case. But we're going to
continue to dig in and hold people accountable.

Speaker 4 (15:20):
We just did last week.

Speaker 5 (15:21):
We've asked Jack Smith to come in because we interviewed
a couple of his deputies, Matt and you understand this,
and we ask them questions like, who else did you
did you try to surveil and spy on to your
question about only the eight United States senators, I actually
think they're probably more, maybe including names like Congressman Gates
in there. And we asked that question and Jack smith

(15:44):
deputies took the fifth on that question.

Speaker 4 (15:47):
They wouldn't answer that one.

Speaker 5 (15:48):
So we're saying, Okay, we're going to bring Jack Smith
in and see what kind of answer he gives is
to that question in others as well. So we were
committed to holding these people accountable and if in fact
the evidence supports it, refer them to the Justice Department.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
If this is charged as a grand conspiracy, which I
think would be entirely appropriate. Bringing us from that December
ninth meeting where Obama brings the folks together and insists
that they concoct the Russia.

Speaker 2 (16:13):
Hoax, leading all the way up frankly to the rate at.

Speaker 1 (16:16):
Mar A Lago, where President Trump was in possession of
exculpatory documents, and the Biden administration came in and took
them potentially in furtherance of a cover up.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
If that is charged, do you think any of these.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
Guys who were close to Obama would actually turn on
him and offer testimony against the former president.

Speaker 4 (16:35):
I don't know. That's a big question. I don't know.

Speaker 5 (16:38):
And again we'll see if it's a conspiracy charge that
is brought forward in the future, and again I'll leave
that to mister Blant's Attorney General Bondi and their teams
there at the Justice Department. What I know is we
got to do our job, and we have a constitutional
duty to do oversight. You were one of the best
at it when you were a member of Congress. We
got to do our job. We got to get the facts,

(16:59):
ask the right questionquestions, get the right information, put together
the reports that are always helpful to the Justice Department
and more importantly to the American people. We're going to
continue to do that, and if they charge a conspiracy charge,
that's up to them, and I'll leave it to them.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
Final thing I want to chat with you about this shutdown,
is there is there any productive discussion going on behind
the scenes. As you and I know these things typically
and when one side feels as though they've been kind
of sufficiently embarrassed. When do we get to that moment
with Chuck Schumer? It feels like this is sort of
a shutdown about not.

Speaker 4 (17:31):
I don't know, Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 5 (17:34):
I've said now for what three weeks, that Chuck Schumer
is basically having a debate with himself because six months
ago he voted for the bill that he won't vote
for today, and they said, all the answer to us
to vote for that is to expand Obamacare even more,
or to extend the expansion that's already taken place. And
I always point out, remember everything they told us about

(17:55):
Obamacare turned out not to be true, Like you're planning
keep your plan, like your doctor, keep your doctor.

Speaker 4 (17:59):
Premiums are going to go down.

Speaker 5 (18:00):
President Obama even told us premiums will go down on
average fifteen hundred dollars. Well, none of that's played out,
and so they had to expand it. Now they want
to extend it, and they want to extend it again.
Now I'm like, I don't get it, but that's that's
where we're at. We'll just see, hopefully the debate between
Chuck Schuman and himself the first self wins and we
open up the government and then get about doing our

(18:21):
doing our business. I've been here every every week trying
to focus on oversight and the things we do a
lot of in Judiciary and Oversight Committee.

Speaker 4 (18:29):
We'll continue to do that.

Speaker 5 (18:30):
But let's hope, uh, let's hope that the enough senators
will vote the right way.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
Bizarrely, they're taking time off the clock for their own goals,
Like if presumably they have some goal to expand or
to extend to Obamacare credits, there might be the votes to
do that in the House of Representatives. But by taking
the time off the clock, they're actually hurting the people
that they that they're acting like they're trying to help.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
But we're glad you're on the case.

Speaker 5 (18:51):
Judiciary sure tells you it's all political, which tells you
it's all political in their part.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, thanks as always for stopping that program.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
And sharing what's going on.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
You bet, thanks man, And coming up.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
The Attorney General of Indiana says there is a really
important role for the Hoosier state to play in fighting
back against the efforts by California Governor Gavin Newsom to
steal the majority in the House of Representatives. We can
always rely on the Hoosiers and we've got one of
the best.

Speaker 2 (19:17):
Coming up next. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 6 (19:23):
Viewers are always asking me how can they watch OAN live?
The solution is simple. It's a streaming platform called cloud tv.
Now it's spelled klowd TV. Simply go to cloudtv dot
com and subscribe to watch twenty four to seven live
feeds of Oayn. The live package is only two dollars

(19:44):
and fifty cents per month for all you can watch. Again,
simply go to cloudtv dot com and do it today. Hey,
did you know that One America News network has launched
a twenty four to seven Twitter like social media replacement.
We're calling it free Talk forty five. So why is

(20:05):
it branded free Talk forty five. Well, free talk because
you will not be censored for expressing your opinion there,
and forty five because forty five is a really lucky number.
So join us at free Talk forty five and express
yourself with no fear of cancelation. Ever, Hey, if your

(20:26):
cable provider doesn't offer One America News Network, you should
get them a call and kindly demand that they carryan
Now you're the customer and without your feedback, your cable
provider will not know that there is a strong demand
across this country for One America News Network. So please

(20:46):
call your cable company today and kindly ask or demand
that they ADDANN to their channel lineup. Hey everyone, here's
a question for you. What does Roku TV, Apple TV,
and Amazon fireTV all have in common? The answer is

(21:07):
that all three platforms offer you the ability to live
stream One America News Network from your Roku TV, Apple TV,
or Amazon Fire device. Simply go to the app store,
search out for an then enjoy all the great programming
offered by Alien, including my show Real America.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
We've talked a lot about Soros prosecutors on this program.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
They're all over the country.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
These left wing activists get mountains of campaign cash to
push for cash list bail, degraded election integrity, and soft
on crime policies. It's the opposite of what we should have.
And actually, if you look at the converse of the
Soros prosecutors, you will find any Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.
Todd Rokita is among the most concerned aggressive attorney generals

(22:01):
in the country. He's tough on criminals, supportive of Trump's
deportation agenda, and he's even pushing back against Gavin Newsom's
efforts to steal the majority in the House of Representatives
with some crazy election on redistricting in California. If California
is the virus to our democracy, Indiana just might be
the anecdote. We spoke recently with Indiana US Enator Jim Banks.

(22:25):
He explained how the Biden administration cheated during the last
national census and that Indiana was uniquely positioned to remedy
that problem.

Speaker 7 (22:33):
After President President Biden came into office, they took all
of the raw data, used this shady formula, and cooked
the books. I mean, they literally altered the congressional maps
for the country. Illegals should not be counted, but that's
what the Democrats did. Indiana is directly impacted because of

(22:54):
the number the numbers. Indiana is a very Republican state.
We have nine congress seats, seven Republicans and two Democrats,
so you could fairly draw the districts in Indiana to end
up with a nine to zero Republican maps.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
So how can a smart, aggressive law man like Attorney
General Todd Rakeda help US solve the crisis that Biden
caused on our streets, on our border, and within the
democratic fibers of our republic. Indiana's outstanding Attorney General, Todd Rakeda,
joins me.

Speaker 2 (23:24):
Now, So, General Rakeda.

Speaker 1 (23:26):
I'm speaking to you from California, where Gavin Newsom is
attempting a redistricting play to steal congressional seats. Is there
anything Indiana can do to fight back?

Speaker 4 (23:37):
Hey, Matt, great to be back with you.

Speaker 8 (23:39):
Well, of course there is, you know, got to fight
fire with fire in these situations. And frankly, more common
sense voters like those found in Indiana have been cheated
of the representation in Congress for years, not decades now,
and so there's absolutely nothing legally wrong with and everything
right about redistricting now, especially given that fact that there's

(24:02):
so many problems have been found with the last census data.
So you know, there's a lot of reasons to do
it now. There's a lot of reasons to make sure
that hoos your voters are fairly represented in Washington.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
I think that Hoosiers would expect their attorney general to
fight for them and ensure that they weren't diluted a
Senator Banks, your senator, our former colleague in the House.
He thinks the Biden administration cooked the books on the census.
Do you share those concerns?

Speaker 6 (24:30):
I do.

Speaker 8 (24:31):
There's clearly been a lot of irreg irregularities already detected,
So I think it's now a question of how much
and only a true non partisan type investigation is going
to be able to reveal all that. And you want
to do that regardless of who's that fault, and this
investigation would show that.

Speaker 6 (24:49):
And maybe there's no one at fault.

Speaker 8 (24:50):
I don't know, but I know there's a lot of
irregularities and that needs to be corrected so that when
you are redistricting in the future, we have an accurate
a count of who and where the representation is.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
What should the rest of America expect next out of
Indiana to do reapportionment and ensure that you accurately reflect
the population that you have in your state.

Speaker 8 (25:20):
Well, in our state, the governor can call a special
session and then the legislators would be would would convene
and decide if and how they are going to reditrict
the map. So a lot of this is on state
senators and representatives. If and when the governor calls that
special session, and he is already indicated publicly that he

(25:43):
that he would and he's inclined to, but he wanted
some feedback from legislators first, you know, and I think
this has to be put to our state legislators. Some
of them are willing to do it, some of them
have been hand ringing and not willing.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
To do it.

Speaker 8 (25:57):
And there's been some as you as you might guess, Matt,
You know, we share the same experience of what I
call Johnny Come lately. Republicans who want to try now
to get on President Trump's good side never have been
before before and before that may try to get in
front of the parade on this redistricting, and I say,
so be it. Well remember what their real record is later.

(26:17):
But they need to get this job done because again,
Hoosiers have been misrepresented, underrepresented in Congress for far too long.

Speaker 1 (26:24):
I would just say to any of the Republicans in
Indiana hand ringing, there's none of that going on in California.
California Democrats are fully aligned to seize as much power
as they can and not through what you would consider
normal democratic means, and they've got Obama behind it. They've
got Newsom behind it, and so what are you doing

(26:46):
to encourage folks in Indiana to have that steel spine
you always displayed in Congress and have as Attorney General
to actually do what Indiana can do to save the
rest of the country.

Speaker 6 (26:59):
Right, Well, we are ready to go to court now.

Speaker 8 (27:01):
The lawsuits have already been promised, and to that, I say, yeah,
that's fine, get in line. We've defended them before. It's
what I do for a living for the people of Indiana. Clearly,
the law is on our side to redistrict. There's nothing
set in stone that you have to do at once
a decade and a certain time every decade.

Speaker 2 (27:23):
Ultimately, this is.

Speaker 8 (27:24):
A political process, and especially when Hoosiers have been underrepresented
in the nation's capital, it's really an imperative duty to
get this corrected and not wait until the next decade.
So legally where I'm very sound ground. These lawsuits, if filed,
I could already say, will most certainly be meritless and

(27:47):
will win.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
So the Trump advanced administration right now is attacking crime
in America cities. You are the top lawman in Indiana,
so I want to chat about that. We've seen some
governors and mayors say that they've got ice free zone,
that they're resisting cooperation. You sued a sheriff who you
thought wasn't cooperating enough. The courts ultimately let him off

(28:08):
the hook. But are you satisfied that your local law
enforcement in Indiana is doing enough to ensure that the
Trump advance deportation agenda advances?

Speaker 8 (28:20):
Well, many are, some aren't, and some are still suspect.
And frankly, we're suing two sheriffs right now, and no
one got left off the hook. We had a judge
give a very bad, in my opinion, a very bad decision.
A court give a very bad decision that we will
most certainly appeal. So no one's off any kind of
hook now in Indiana. And yeah, you know, most, like

(28:43):
I said, some, if not most, law enforcement are helpful eyes.
We just had Tom Holman come to the state last
week to kind of give law enforcement and legislators a
pep talk and say how much he needed some additional
laws in Indiana. You know, so we are ready willing
and able to help President Trump get this mess cleaned up.

(29:06):
I invite the President Trump to bring the National Guard
to the cities like Indianapolis, which has a higher crime
rate than Chicago per capita. You know, so if you
adjust for size, in a lot of ways, Indianapolis is even.

Speaker 9 (29:22):
Worse, you know.

Speaker 8 (29:23):
And again another Democrat run city through and through, and so, yeah,
we do need help. And you know, albeit I'm not
the chief law enforcement officer, I'm the chief legal officer,
but certainly appreciate justice and appreciate law and order.

Speaker 9 (29:37):
And how that out.

Speaker 8 (29:39):
Ultimately, Matt, as you know, leads to greater liberty in
the end, and you can't be you know, you can't
have that kind of liberty if you're scared to walk out.

Speaker 6 (29:47):
Your front door.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
If you had to isolate the policies in Indianapolis that
have made Hoosiers less safe who lived there, what would
be some of those policy choices that were really bad.

Speaker 8 (30:00):
Well, I'll tell you there's this, uh in Indiana, it
really has to be looked at and and and in Indiana,
criminal jurisdiction is the discretion of file criminal charges is
tightly held by locally elected county prosecutors. And when they
have that kind of discretion and don't use it when
they when they when they say, you know, we are

(30:23):
not going to prosecute whole categories of crime. You know,
it's the old adage, Matt, what gets rewarded is what
gets done. So if you don't, if you're not going
to prosecute crime, then crime is going to get rewarded
and and and that's exactly what's happening. It's there's no
magic to this or nothing more complicated than that.

Speaker 9 (30:39):
It's pretty simple.

Speaker 8 (30:40):
Meanwhile, if you adhere to, you know, the broken windows
theory of crime that Rudy Giuliliani used when he cleaned
up New York. You know, if you're not going to
tolerate even a broken window, then you're certainly not going
to tolerate worse crimes. And all of a sudden you
get a cleaner, safer place to live. And that's the
kind of philosophy that we have to get back to.
That the that the socialists, the liberal, very liberal Democrats

(31:03):
don't seem the grabs, the ones that are funded by
cerros and others. And you know, in Indianapolis you have
basically a whole city council of Democrats. There's some Republicans
that that do a good job, but Democrats that that
you know, again, let crime be rewarded basically by not
being punished.

Speaker 6 (31:22):
So that's what gets done.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
No, it's it's unfortunate that happens anywhere.

Speaker 1 (31:27):
There is a theme. We see that in the Democrat
run cities. We're so grateful that you're the Attorney General
of Indiana and that you've been there right there with
the Trump Vance administration all along the way, helping them
achieve their agenda. Todd Rokita, thanks for being with us again.

Speaker 8 (31:42):
Hey, thanks, MATC.

Speaker 4 (31:43):
Go to be with you and.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
Coming up, President Trump continues to deliver on his promise
to expand IVF access and to make family formation more
affordable in this country. Madison Campbell will be with us
to discuss it next.

Speaker 6 (32:00):
Hey, did you know that One America News Network has
launched a twenty four to seven Twitter like social media replacement.
We're calling it free Talk forty five. So why is
it branded free Talk forty five? Well, free talk because
you will not be censored for expressing your opinion there,
and forty five because forty five is a really lucky number.

(32:22):
So join us at free Talk forty five and express
yourself with no fear of cancelation.

Speaker 9 (32:29):
Ever.

Speaker 6 (32:31):
Hey, if your cable provider doesn't offer one America News Network,
you should give them a call and kindly demand that
they CARRYAN. Now, you're the customer, and without your feedback,
your cable provider will not know that there is a
strong demand across this country for one America News Network.
So please call your cable company today and kindly ask

(32:55):
or demand that they ADDNN to their channel lineup. Hey everyone,
here's a question for you. What does Roku TV, Apple TV,
and Amazon fireTV all have in common? The answer is
that all three platforms offer you the ability to live

(33:16):
stream one America News Network from your Roku TV, Apple
TV or Amazon Fire device. Simply go to the app store,
search out FORAN, then enjoy all the great programming offered
by ON, including my show Real America. Viewers are always
asking me how can they watch OAN live. The solution

(33:40):
is simple. It's a streaming platform called cloud tv. Now
it's spelled klowd TV. Simply go to cloudtv dot com
and subscribe to watch twenty four to seven live feeds
of on. The live package is only two dollars and
fifty cents per month for all you can watch. Again,

(34:01):
simply go to cloudtv dot com and do it.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
Today in vitro fertilization IVF. It's the way families who've
had a hard time getting pregnant can enjoy family formation
and family growth. There was a time some Republicans were
opposed to expanded access to IVF. I strongly disagreed with

(34:25):
them and even went on CNN to say, so, the
Republican Party cannot be the party against family formation. And
when we're at the point where we're confusing like families
like those you just had on with abortionists, like something
is totally wrong. The people who want to have a
family should have the government and the law on their side.
And the notion that discarded embryos in IVF somehow turn

(34:50):
these people who want children and want families and want
the American dream into criminals is really wrong. That whole
life means me in pro IVF, and I've worked side
by side progressive Democrats like Sarah Jacobs to make sure
that our military members can have access to IVF in
the event of deployment or other challenges to family formation.
So you're always going to find me on the side

(35:11):
of family formation. President Trump has boldly led on this issue,
standing firmly on the side of America's aspiring moms and dads.
In February, Trump sign and executive order directing the development
of policy recommendations to help Americans access IVF.

Speaker 2 (35:27):
More easily and affordably.

Speaker 1 (35:29):
The order specifically called on the Domestic Policy Council to
deliver proposals to protect IVF access and aggressively reduce out
of pocket and health planned costs for IVF treatment, and
the work hasn't stopped this month. Two major steps have
also been announced. First, a deal with fertility drug maker
EMD Serno to significantly lower the costs of certain IVF

(35:52):
medications for cash pay payments. Those reductions could save people
somewhere between forty two and seven twenty nine percent off
of those costs. Second, guidance has been given allowing employers
and insurers more flexibility to offer standalone fertility and IVF
benefit plans, kind of like how you're able to add

(36:12):
on a dental or vision plan. Now, that'll make it
easier for companies to include or expand fertility coverage for
their employees. The administration also emphasized reducing regulatory or statutory
barriers to IVF and fertility care, improving transparency and encouraging.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
More reliable access.

Speaker 1 (36:31):
IVF can be financially out of reach for so many
couples who want a baby. A single cycle can cost
twelve thousand to twenty five thousand dollars even more. By
making a key medication cheaper and expanding benefit options, President
Trump's steps aim to remove the financial and structural barriers
to having more babies and having bigger families. Trump has

(36:54):
also launched a two prong approach, lowering the cost of
these medications and expanding of the benefits offered. With this
supportive tone towards these families seeking to grow, joining US
Now Lead a Health founder Madison Campbell Madison, President Trump
has expanded access to IVF.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
What do you think it means for family formation in America?

Speaker 10 (37:13):
I think it's amazing. One in five US women experience
in fertility, So this is a really big step in
the right direction. We have over eight million Americans who
are struggling, and I don't know if you know this,
but the average IVF cycle costs around fifteen K to
twenty five K. So the Trump administration actually putting plans
in place to lower this cost for families really is

(37:36):
going to make a nationwide impact.

Speaker 1 (37:38):
We've had a few Republicans over the years who didn't
like IVF. I disagreed with them, as do a majority
of Republicans.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
But what would you say to the holdouts?

Speaker 10 (37:48):
I mean, I would say that the biggest problem that
our country is facing is the lack of family creation.
And so for Republicans who truly believe that families are
at the forefront of everything we fight for, putting work
into IVF is just one way of doing that. And
so I believe that Trump administration understands the importance of this,
and I believe Republicans should not be holding out on

(38:11):
IVF treatment and in fact should be embracing what the
Trump administration is doing.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
One of the tools that the Trump administration is unlocked
is the flexibility of employers to be able to work
with insurance companies with This is like an add on
that you can get, like vision or dental. Do you
think of a lot of Americans will choose that as
part of their benefits package and their relationship with employers.

Speaker 10 (38:35):
I believe young women who are kind of, you know,
getting into the corporate ladder oftentimes are not having children
until maybe mid thirties, late thirties and so I think
that the employers being able to add fertility packages is
something that a lot of young women will pick because
we understand that egg freezing and IVF is going to
be a big part of, you know, kind of our

(38:56):
everyday life. Considering the fact that women are having babies
lives later and later into life.

Speaker 1 (39:02):
There's also a lot more knowledge we have now about
how much Americans are exposed to chemicals and different environmental
contaminants that impact fertility. At a time when we have
lower sperm counts among men, when we're having women have
periods earlier and earlier and going to a mental cycle earlier.

(39:23):
Do you think that increases the importance of these IVF
policies And do you have a perspective on the work
we need to do ahead to look into some.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
Of those root causes of infertility.

Speaker 10 (39:34):
So I believe this has to be a multifaceted approach.
So the Trump administration is doing more than any other
administration and actually putting plans in place to address this problem,
But we need to go a step further. Like you said,
there's so much research that needs to be out there
about the declining fertility of so many women. I would
like to look into different plastics, like even plastics in

(39:55):
our clothes or in the water that we drink. I
think that that's a huge problem for both men and women,
and so I believe the administration needs to start here.
But where we really need to grow is in broad
spectrum research on why fertility problems are happening in the
first place.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
I can't imagine anything more important to humanity to research
then why we aren't making as many humans, and I
do think those environmental conditions probably have something to do
with it. I do want to talk about our military
for a moment. I worked frequently with Democrats to try
to expand IVF access and also access to the female

(40:32):
members of our military who wanted to freeze their eggs.
Do you believe that is an important function of the
Department of War?

Speaker 10 (40:40):
I believe it is an important function of the Department
of War in order to keep morale up, in order
to create families, whether those are individuals who are serving
or wives of those who are serving. I think it's
important that we offer this benefit. So I would want
to offer the benefit of IVF across the military population.

Speaker 1 (40:59):
There are you know, these steps we've been discussing that
the Trump administration has taken.

Speaker 2 (41:03):
What do you think's next?

Speaker 1 (41:04):
What do you think is the is the next thing
on the horizon that can advance this movement and this
access you've been fighting for.

Speaker 10 (41:11):
Like I said, I think the most important thing that
we do next is really research into the harmful chemicals
in environmental toxins that could be creating infertility problems. But
then I would want the Trump administration to maybe even
go a step forward and say, Okay, well, now we're
allowing employers to you add this on as a service,
but maybe should we look into different mandates where individuals,

(41:34):
you know, if you have x amount of population, can
we actually mandate that you offer something And it doesn't
have to be necessarily IVF, but it could be even
fertility counseling. I think making the employment situation better for
women so people understand that families are important part of
our everyday life and our country is going to be
really great for the Trump administration to get behind.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
Madison Campbell, founder of Lead to Health, Thank you for
coming on and sharing your perspective.

Speaker 10 (42:00):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
Are you ready for flu season or just hoping for
the best. Don't get caught off guard. Be prepared with
All Family Pharmacy. Their process is simple and straightforward. A
licensed doctor reviews every order in the prescription is included.
Unlike big chain pharmacies that push the flu shot is
the only option. All Family Pharmacy believes in medical freedom.
You get real options. You pick the medicines you know
work for you, and now's the time to stock up

(42:22):
your cabinet.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
They have everything you need.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
TAMA Flu for flu treatment and prevention, antibiotics, anti virals, ivermectin,
hydroxychloroquin immune support, and more than two hundred medications to
choose from. It's my go to for prescription medications. You
also get your supplements delivered right to your door. Shipping
is fast and if you need it right away, overnight
shipping is also available. Be proactive, prepare. Visit Allfamilypharmacy dot

(42:45):
com forward slash matt use code Matt ten to save
ten percent. Again, that's All Family Pharmacy dot Com forward
slash Matt code Matt ten And coming up, we will
look at what's going on in the US Columbia relationship.
There is a bizarre allegation regarding the President of Columbia
and in the midst of that both the Columbia and
the United States have withdrawn their ambassadors. This used to

(43:07):
be our biggest ally in Latin America. We're going to
check on where things stand now with Latin America expert
Paula Figuredo.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 6 (43:20):
Hey, if your cable provider doesn't offer One America News Network,
you should give them a call and kindly demand that
they carry OAN. Now, you're the customer, and without your feedback,
your cable provider will not know that there is a
strong demand across this country for one America News Network.
So please call your cable company today and kindly ask

(43:44):
or demand that they add OANN to their channel lineup.
Hey everyone, here's a question for you. What does Roku TV,
Apple TV, and Amazon fireTV all have an common The
answer is that all three platforms offer you the ability

(44:04):
to live stream One America News Network from your Roku
TV AppleTV or Amazon Fire device. Simply go to the
app store, search out for AN, then enjoy all the
great programming offered by OE in, including my show Real America.
Viewers are always asking me how can they watch OAN live.

(44:28):
The solution is simple. It's a streaming platform called cloud
TV now it's spelled klowd TV. Simply go to cloudtv
dot com and subscribe to watch twenty four to seven
live feeds of OAN. The live package is only two
dollars and fifty cents per month for all you can watch. Again,

(44:50):
simply go to cloudtv dot com and do it today. Hey,
did you know that One America news network has launched
a twenty four seven and Twitter like social media replacement.
We're calling it free Talk forty five. So why is
it branded free Talk forty five? Well, free talk because

(45:10):
you will not be censored for expressing your opinion there,
and forty five because forty five is a really lucky number.
So join us at free Talk forty five and express
yourself with no fear of cancelation.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
Ever, President Trump has accused Gustavo Petro, the president of Columbia,
of being an illegal drug dealer. Both countries have recalled
their ambassadors. Trump has cut off aid to the South
American country, and tariffs are just the beginning of a
sequence of threats the United States has.

Speaker 2 (45:41):
Sent Columbia's way. Columbia has pushed back.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
They've challenged Trump's authority in counter narcotics efforts the trade
and security stakes are high. Columbia is, or was, one
of America's key partners in Latin America for trade and
fighting narcotics.

Speaker 2 (45:57):
But before Trump, a lot of.

Speaker 1 (45:59):
These countries took American aid, turned the other way for
the narcos and cartels, and then laughed at our country
all along the way. Trump won't allow that. Here's what
America first looks like. If Columbia isn't pulling its weight
on drug production, then we're not gonna send billions in
aid and let goods flow into America tra free. We'll

(46:20):
shift to a tougher stance that makes sense. The message
to other countries should be clear, you either help us
stop the flow of narcotics into the United States or
there are consequences. What's so bizarre about this clash is
that before Petro's election, the US Columbia relationship was viewed
as pretty good. Plan Colombia was a joint effort by

(46:40):
our countries to crush the drug trade and create economic
opportunity for people outside of the narcos.

Speaker 2 (46:46):
For every dollar the United States.

Speaker 1 (46:47):
Put into Plan Colombia, the Colombians actually put in nine dollars.
That's not usually how it goes, but the election of
President Petro sent everything off the rails. And this is
a case study and how fast things can go really
bad with an ally. After just one bad election, President
Petro's own foreign minister, Alvaro Leva, had to resign because

(47:11):
when the two were in Paris, President Petro allegedly found
some drugs and went missing for two days. When your
own finance minister has to resign because you get coked
up and roam around Paris for two days with nobody.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
Able to find you, it's a problem.

Speaker 1 (47:27):
In a resignation letter that Leva posted on X in April,
he claimed, quote it was in Paris where I could
confirm that you had the problem of drug addiction. He
alleged that during the twenty twenty three official trip to France,
Petro quote went missing for two days and suggested that
drugs were the culprit. He further claimed, quote your disappearances,

(47:48):
late arrivals, and unacceptable absences, meaningless trips, incoherent phrases and
questionable company have been registered and continue to be registered.

Speaker 9 (47:59):
Ouch.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
He also urged the president to quote disassociate yourself from
those who have abused you, who have taken advantage of
your extremely complex situation and who have done and continue
to do.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
You terrible harm.

Speaker 1 (48:12):
In another letter of pressuring Petro to resign in May,
Leva repeated the claim of drug addiction, saying the Columbian
president was quote dependent on substances that compromise emotional and
mental equilibrium close quote. Petro responded by saying the accusation
was slander and then he kept doing erratic things.

Speaker 2 (48:29):
So what should president do? What should President.

Speaker 1 (48:32):
Trump do with a coked up Columbian president who is
frustrating US anti narcotic operations? Back with us now our
expert on all things Latin America, the host of the
Palo Figuredo Show. Palo Figuredo, thanks for joining me, my friend.
Both Columbia and America have now withdrawn their ambassadors.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
How's this being viewed throughout Latin America?

Speaker 11 (48:54):
Good evening, Matt, and thanks for having me. I mean,
President Trump's delivering America first right now with his takedown
of Columbian President Gustava Petro. It's just a fake ally
who has led to drug production explode. He turned Colombian
into the world's cocaine factory, and he's flooding our streets
with poison, and I mean it's getting worse.

Speaker 9 (49:17):
Right.

Speaker 11 (49:17):
Trump's calling him a legal drug leader in that sharp post,
and you have the investors being called by their countries.
You have Trump backing it up with reducing aids. Terrafts
are coming fast, and you have the matter of the

(49:39):
US strikes already sinking and linked boats in the Caribbean.

Speaker 9 (49:44):
So this is real leadership. That's what we voted for.

Speaker 11 (49:48):
We're cutting off the cash to a deadbeat who's grabbed
billions of American tex spayer while ignoring the cartels.

Speaker 1 (49:55):
President Trump did have a sharp post directed at President Petro,
but what Trump said is not nearly as harsh as
what members of Petro's own government have said about him,
saying that he's a bit of a drug adult fool.
How are Colombians reacting to Petro's behaviors and the fact
that they're now emerging in this really noxious interaction with

(50:16):
President Trump in the United States.

Speaker 11 (50:19):
It's not looking good for him and he's under a
lot of pressure. You have to flash back well a
little bit, because under President Alvaru Ribi from two thousand
and two, I believe in two twenty ten, Columbia was
our top partner in the US. The plan Colombia Crush
the narcos. We put in billions and they match every

(50:42):
US dollar with nine of their own. You had Coca
feuges burned, King King's got extra dieted, had seizures went
through the roof, and you have Ribi who fought hard
for the win and the Columbia criminal and the violent
went down.

Speaker 9 (51:02):
Severely and today great news.

Speaker 11 (51:04):
Just hours ago a Columbia Appelese couurt overturned his conviction
from bribery or rebe called a political persecution, which he
was from the left all along, from Petro side.

Speaker 9 (51:16):
And now it looks like justice is service.

Speaker 11 (51:18):
It's very similar to what happened to President Trump in
the United States with a weaponization of the judicial system
and what's happening in Brazil with former president Bolsnaro as well.
So you have now Reby been cleared from all the charges,
and you have Petro being pretty much in this bad

(51:40):
situation with the United States, and it's not looking good
for him. He's under a lot of pressure, his popularity
is rock bottom. So yeah, it's a big shift in Columbia,
I guess.

Speaker 1 (51:53):
And you talked about all of those successes. Those occurred
when Columbia was driven by a center right government. Petro
represents this first major shift to the left for Columbia
in upcoming elections. Is their hope in Columbia that they
would return to a coalition on the right, a leader
on the right that would give them the opportunity to

(52:14):
fight back against the narcos rather than providing them a
customer base in the presidential office.

Speaker 11 (52:20):
You're absolutely right. Petro takes over in twenty twenty two.
He stops the glenfil state spraying over like green excuses
and swaps the tough enforcement for soft rural handouts, and boom.

Speaker 9 (52:37):
You had a record of two hundred and fifty.

Speaker 11 (52:39):
Three thousand hactors off coca in twenty twenty three from
the United Nations data. So production is sowaring, the manual
eradication is pretty much ended, and Petro is not battling drugs,
he's speeding them. And Trump's Trump is shutting it cold down.

(53:00):
So what you have Petro cannot be re elected president
in Colombia, and he's popular is very low. So you
have the expectation that maybe the center right will return
and fix the mess that Petro is leaving behind, including
in terms of relationship with the United States, who was
Columbia's big partners for the past twenty years.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
And when dealing with any foreign leader, Paalo, you have
to start by sort of assessing whether or not they're
being rational.

Speaker 6 (53:31):
Right.

Speaker 1 (53:32):
If you can start with the premise that someone's being rational,
then you present them with rational choices that lead to
a better relationship.

Speaker 2 (53:40):
Here with Petro, all.

Speaker 1 (53:42):
Of the imbalance in his own government seems to suggest
there's something else at play. How should we think about
his mentality in approaching his relationship with the United States
in the coming months.

Speaker 11 (53:55):
I think his biggest concern has to do where how
to make the cartels happy in Colombia, you know, And
this crashes with the Trump's zero tolerance push across the region,
like hitting Venezuela very hard right now, only in twenty

(54:17):
twenty five. He's sunk already six drug boats off their
coasts in September, So he's wiping down traffickers, saving lives
in America, increasing the bounty on Maduro, and that's that's
not good for the drug cartel business. So Petro's mass
shines a light on the sickness in Latin America left

(54:39):
his crowd. This guy came from m nineteen, a grilla
gang soaked in the nineteen eighties narco money, and now
his zone acts for an minister.

Speaker 9 (54:52):
Is bails and a brill with a killer ladder.

Speaker 11 (54:55):
So Petro is just part of a network that might
involve even Lula da Silva in Brazil. Who knows right
the Sompala Forro leftist web that from a farx old
Coke Texas to Madru's cartel playground splits out rules that

(55:16):
baby the traffickers behind justice talk. So I believe Brazil
Lula the Silva slots right in and that's the interest
that I believe Petro is defending, more than the interests
of the Colombian people.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
You mentioned these interdictions with these narco boats running back
and forth in the Gulf of America.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
In the United States, those are very popular.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
When we see that the drug boats are getting blown up,
I think most Americans cheer.

Speaker 2 (55:45):
How's that being viewed in Latin America, Well.

Speaker 11 (55:49):
I'd say all the good people in Latin America there
are the people that suffer the most with the narco cartels.
Most of the gang violence in South America is promoted
and perpetrated by these cartels. So it's a type of
revenge and a little bit of accountability as well.

Speaker 9 (56:06):
Uh, the United States is doing.

Speaker 11 (56:07):
A lot of what our own police forces in Latin
American countries can't do. We wish we had this type
of equipment to get rid of drug traffickers like the
President Trump is doing.

Speaker 5 (56:19):
So.

Speaker 11 (56:19):
I think the good people of these countries are more
on this side of the United States than on the
side of the drug cartels.

Speaker 1 (56:27):
Well, we certainly hope that that effort continues, and we
hope that Columbia gets back on track.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
It sounds like they've got some rough months ahead.

Speaker 1 (56:34):
At paler Figuredo hosts the Palette Figuredo Show, expert on
all things going on in Latin American politics.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
Thanks for joining us as.

Speaker 9 (56:40):
Always, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
That's all the time we have. We'll be back tomorrow
nine Eastern six s Pacific. Make sure to sign up
for the OAN Live app if you haven't already, just
go to o a NN dot com, follow me on
x at Matt Gates.

Speaker 2 (56:52):
You can always email us the.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
Matt Gates Show at o ANN dot com and stay
right here. Fine Point with Chanell Rion is up next.
Let's go get them as