August 7, 2025 • 55 mins
On this episode of The Kylee Cast, Federalist Senior Contributor Ben Weingarten joins Federalist managing editor Kylee Griswold to discuss justice for Obamagate. Plus, special guest and fellow cheesehead Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle breaks down Democrats’ fake gerrymandering outrage, and Kylee weighs in on Jim Acosta’s demonic AI “interview” with a dead guy.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Why should taxpayers fund the soda and candy habits of
people on food stamps? How long will Texas Democrats hide
out in the massive shadow of Illinois Governor JB. Pritzker?
And will people finally go to prison for Obamagate? All
that and more on the Kylie Cast. Hi everybody, and
(00:30):
welcome to the Kylie Cast. I'm Kylie Griswold, Managing editor
at The Federalist. Be sure to like and subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts, and if you're just listening to
the show, be sure to go check out the full
video version on my personal YouTube channel or the Federalist
channel on Rumble. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com. I would love
(00:52):
to hear from you. I don't know about you, but
I am so not tired of winning.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
We're gonna win so much you may even get tired.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
You know, thanks to democrats endless resistance efforts. Sometimes conservative
progress feels like one step forward, five steps back. But
this week we are marching forward baby. For starters, we
got a big old Maha victory. On Monday, Trump's Agriculture
Secretary Brook Rawlins authorized waivers for six new states that
(01:21):
want to limit the sugary junk people can buy on
food stamps, bringing the total number of states with approval
to limit these taxpayer funded SNAP benefits to twelve. This
is just common sense when you consider that SNAP literally
stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Nutrition is in the name,
but meanwhile it funds garbage food and drinks that fuel
(01:42):
obesity and diabetes, such as soda, other sugary drinks, candy,
and processed junk, and SNAP is bankrolled by tax dollars. So,
in other words, the US government is literally using the
tax dollars of hard working Americans to subsidize the unhealthy
habits of life low income and non working Americans, which
basically just ensures that these welfare recipients will require yet
(02:06):
more government spending in the form of medicaid for all
their junk food induced health problems. HHS Secretary RFK Junior,
the face of Make America Healthy Again, made this exact point.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
This week.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
We're spending four hundred and five million dollars a day
on SNAP and about ten percent is going to sugary
drinks between and if you add candies to that, it's
about thirteen to seventeen percent. And we all believe in
free choice. We live in a democracy. People can make
(02:39):
their own choice about what they're going to buy and
what they're not going to buy. If you want to
buy a sugary soda, you ought to be able to
do that as a US taxpayer should not pay for it.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
And the US taxpayers.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Should not be paying to feed kids foods the forest.
Kids in our country food those that are going to
give them diabetes, and then my agency ends up through
Medicaid and medicare paying for those injuries. We're going to
put an end to that, and we're doing.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
It step by step to state by.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
State, putting a methodical end to it. Yes, bravo. Now
this is a win on a policy level, yes, but
it's also a win for culture. Body positivity has had
its time in the sun. You've all seen the Lizo
magazine covers and the self care speak that pushes for
fat acceptance and basically demonizes healthy people as fat phobic.
But that time is over. A healthy society isn't one
(03:36):
that pretends that all choices are equally valid and good
and healthy, because they're obviously not. Some discrimination is actually good,
like discriminating against a bag of airhead extremes in favor
of some carrots or an apple or some real clean protein.
When it comes to our health, we need to be
able to make value judgments for ourselves, yes, but also
on a societal level. No, a mountain dew, big mac,
(03:58):
and little Debbie snack are not nutritious lunch, and we
don't need to pretend they are. And we certainly don't
need to stamp them with the endorsement of the government
by bankrolling them with billions of tax dollars per year,
especially when four and ten Americans is considered obese. So
that's win number one. Win number two this week came
courtesy of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who exposed just how
(04:20):
insane Democrat state lawmakers and their media enablers are after
a group of Democrat legislators fled the state to avoid
a vote on some mid decade redistricting. But here's the
really funny part. These whiny Democrats who are making the
redistricting out to be an unprecedented attack on democracy are
hiding out in Illinois and New York, two of the
(04:42):
most gerrymandered states in the entire US. But of course,
without these lawmakers. The Texas Legislature doesn't have a quorum.
They need two thirds of the House present and there
are a few lawmakers short, so they can't yet vote
on the congressional maps. So in response, Governor Abbott threatened
to kick these lawmakers out of the Texas House, and
the GOP led House issued civil arrest warrants for these
(05:06):
a wall lawmakers, and in response, media and Democrats are
predictably going berserk over the whole ordeal. They're pretending the
Texas redistricting is unprecedented and they're saying it's jerrymandering driven
by Donald Trump. They're hailing these runaway Democrats as heroes
while whining about the fact that Texas Republicans are using
every tool at their disposal to get them back for
(05:28):
the vote. But this is nothing new, so it's absurd
to hear anyone call this unprecedented. First of all, Democrats
are jerrymandering experts and have basically snaked their way around
every possible state to eke out as many congressional seats
as humanly achievable. Second, just a few years ago, Texas
Democrats employed this exact same maneuver when they fled to
(05:49):
DC to avoid voting on election integrity measures. And Third,
in twenty nineteen, Republican lawmakers in Oregon fled the state
to avoid voting on some ridiculous climate change legislation, and
it was Democrats that issued the arrest warrants for them.
So literally, none of this is unprecedented. Not the redistricting,
or the fleeing, or the arrest warrants, none of it.
(06:11):
Democrats have done it all before. But Texas and Oregon
aren't the only analogs. The Federalists senior elections correspondent Matt
Kittle wrote a great piece this week at The Federalist
comparing the Texas situation to a similar debacle that happened
in Wisconsin in twenty eleven, and he is here to
join me now to discuss Welcome to the Kylie Cast, Matt.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Well, it's great to be here. I love the Kylie Cast.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Thanks so much. It's so great to have you, my fellow. Well,
you are prior Wisconsinine, so it's always great to see
a familiar and friendly Midwest nice face.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
We are Midwest nice is what they call as I'm
of course in the Des Moines area now, but grew up,
spent much of my life in the dairy state, and
as a proud cheesehead one she's head to another. I'm
very excited to be here.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Awesome God's country as we like to call it here. Indeed, indeed, so, Matt,
you wrote about Wisconsin this week. Can you give us
a rundown of this twenty eleven Wisconsin redistricting situation and
explain how exactly it's similar to this Texas dust up.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, Well, it's like you said, this is nothing new.
This is just another page in the political theater of
the left in the Democratic Party in Texas. They are
desperate to hold on to something Democrats in this country
because they have lost everything, and that is a loss
of their own making, of course, their own failed policy
(07:41):
ideas and their own agenda. And that was the case
in Wisconsin back in twenty eleven. If you recall, we
go back nearly a decade and a half ago, the
Republican revolution across the country had just swept in a
Republican majority in the Wisconsin state Legislature, its Assembly and
(08:03):
it Senate, and then Governor Scott Walker, a conservative Republican,
into the Governor's office and immediately the governor and the
Republican controlled legislature had to come up with a budget
fix to take care of a I believe it was
a massive multi billion dollar deficit at that time. To
(08:26):
do so, they needed to get a handle on a
problem that had been haunting Wisconsin and states like it
for years, and that was an out of control public
sector union base more powerful than you can imagine. There
(08:47):
was no taxpayer at the table when it came to
public sector contract negotiations. So what the Republicans opted to
do put a plan in place to reform collective bargaining
public sector collective bargaining in the state, and of course
the left, driven by big labor, went just absolutely nuts.
(09:10):
And when this legislation rolled out, the protests started. You
recall back in late winter early spring of twenty eleven,
I remember seeing reports from the major accomplice media players
broadcast television, NBCABCCBS comparing the Great Protest, the union funded
(09:31):
protest in Madison, Wisconsin, to the Arab Spring that was
going on again in the Middle East, where people who
truly had suffered for years and years under autocrats religious
theocracies were fighting for democracy, although there were different motivations
(09:54):
as well for that too, but nonetheless, to compare what
was happening in the Middle East to the Union temper
tantrum and the Democrat temper tantrum in Wisconsin was beyond
the pale. But that's what our accomplished media does. We
know that. So, looking at losing the battle, the Democrats
(10:16):
in the Minority and the Senate decided, if we can't
beat them, we'll escape them. And that is exactly what
they did. They absconded to Illinois, where they were safe
in the arms of the blue state leftist and they
stayed there for a long time attempting to and they
(10:37):
were successful for a few weeks to stall the vote
on what became Act ten, the reforms to collective bargaining
that significantly limited public sector unions from taking advantage of
Wisconsin taxpayers over and over again. But there was an
(10:57):
interesting turn, and I'm curious if Republicans in Texas will
do what Republicans in Wisconsin did. They're a little different situations,
so I'm not sure they can. But ultimately Senate Republicans
took out Act ten of the Budget Repair Bill, and
(11:20):
they took out all of the fiscal provisions, and so
in state law, you did not need a quorum to
deal with non fiscal issues, and that is exactly what
the Senate did. They beat the Democrats at their own game.
And while they were being heralded by the provdpress and
(11:40):
the National Democratic Party, Republicans in the Senate got down
to work. They passed Act ten by a vote of
eighteen to one all Republicans. The next day it passed
with all Republicans in the Assembly, and Act ten became law.
And these leftists who fled the state to Illinois stood
(12:01):
there twiddling their thumbs, of course, and crying foul.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Of course.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And now the media and Democrats are crying foul over
redistricting in general, which I think is one of the
funniest parts of the story. Wisconsin specifically, Democrats made redrawing
Wisconsin congressional maps one of the main selling points of
electing the most recent liberal judge to the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
so that this is something that they cry foul on.
(12:28):
But this is like their go to play to get
more power. And in fact, I want to get your
reaction to this op ed from New York Governor Kathy Hokel,
which again some of these Democrats are hiding out in
New York. She wrote this piece in the Houston Chronicle,
and it just it killed me when I read it,
and I want your reaction, Matt. Here it is, she says, quote.
(12:48):
We are also reviewing every legal and legislative option to
redraw our maps in New York. If Republicans are changing
the rules, we'll meet them on the same field, with strategy,
with resolve, and without apology. Will say this is too aggressive.
I say it's necessary. What Texas Republicans are doing under
Trump's direction is nothing short of a legal insurrection in
(13:08):
our capital. But using a legal system doesn't make it legitimate.
It's a hijacking of democracy and it must be stopped. So, Matt,
which is it. Is it an insurrection that must be
stopped or is it something that they will also do
because it's aggressive but necessary, they're going to change the rules.
It's like New York is already jerrymandered thanks to Democrats,
(13:29):
and the whole thing is just logically inconsistent, completely incomprehensible.
It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Well, first of all, are you sure her name is
in Governor Kathy Holcomb, Because that's exactly what we are
being sold by this Democrat and others like her. Oh
my gosh, it's an insurrection these folks. Let me tell you,
the Democrats in this country know a thing or two
about insurrection, because they're behind arguably the biggest insurrection election
(13:58):
interference scandal of of our lifetimes, if not the history
of this country in Russia Gate, of course, where they
did indeed try to hold a soft coup, if you will,
using the deep state and the intelligence officials in the
Obama White House to set in motion what became the
(14:19):
Russia collusion hoax. When it comes to redistricting, they also
have a great deal of experience in that, particularly when
it comes to jerrymandering. The left is nothing if not
great projectionist, and this is absolute projections. Let me tell
you something. Illinois is, as you mentioned before, perhaps the
(14:45):
most jerry mandered state in the Union. Remember, Illinois is
the land of Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln in essence, the father
of the Republican Party in Illinois. Under JB. Pritzker and
a a Democrat dominated legislature, they put in place a
plan to take five Republican districts, that's all they had,
(15:11):
and to pair them down into three squeezing out Republican
representation where had been for years it has It's not
just yours truly, calling Illinois arguably the most jerrymandered state
in the country. People who work in this area of mapping,
(15:35):
congressional mapping, in this legal expertise have noted it as such.
The threats are coming from Gavin Newsom in California, JB.
If they come from JP Pritzker in Illinois, I'm afraid
everyone's going to have to have a good chuckle and say, well,
(15:56):
wait a minute, how much more jerry mandarin can you
do in this eight It is the height of hypocrisy,
It is the height of arrogance, and it is exactly
what happens when you have more than an irresponsible media,
(16:17):
a complicit media that is going along once again for
the right, just as they did in the state of
Wisconsin and nationally in twenty eleven during the big public
temper tantrum of Democrat senators. There.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Yeah, that's right. I actually have a graphic. It is
the congressional maps for Illinois. This is a reminder if
you are just listening to the Kylie Cast on Apple
Podcasts or Spotify, you should be watching it on YouTube
or rumble where you can actually see these graphics. But
take a look at this, Matt. Look at the way
that seventeen sixteen, fifteen thirteen. The way they snake around
(16:55):
is just so absurd. I mean, this is the height
of jerrymanderin right here in Illinois.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Yeah, this would send Elbridge, Jerry, former governor of Massachusetts,
spinning in his grave. You know, that's where all of
this came from. Jerrymander is the salamander to make it
slithering all of these districts just to fit a political motive.
But here's the thing. What the Supreme Court has essentially
(17:26):
said over time is what is the case, and that
is to the victor, go the spoils. If you win,
you get to set the maps. Now, there are some
limits on that, but clearly, as you took a look
at that congressional map in Illinois, there aren't many limits
on that because that is one colorful, snaking chart just
(17:52):
to keep Democrats in just absolute control to the near
extinction of Republicans in Illinois.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Right. I think you're right that it's typical Democrat projection
and propaganda. And of course the media are not going
to hold any Democrats accountable for that, but you also
brought up Gavin Newsom. And I saw this tweet from
Gavin Newsom, biggest state in the Union, and I'm like,
are they just that ignorant? Are they just projecting? Or
are they that ignorant about how these congressional maps work.
(18:21):
Here's Gavin Newsom's tweet, and I'm kind of blind, so
I'm going to try to read this. He quote tweets
DC Dreno and says, oh cool, I can do that too.
Red states with zero DEM House seats, and then he
lists upon a bunch of red states with zero DEM
House seats, and the last four in this list are Alaska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, all of which only
(18:43):
have one House seat which goes to Republicans. This is
not a result of jerry mandering. This is a result
of what we call apportionment. This is how population works.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Well, and it's also how Gavin Newsom works. Because Gavin
Newsom apparently is stupid, so stupid that he thinks the
rest of us are stupid. That's absolutely right. You are
in a red state, you have one representative based on
the numbers that you are allowed that's age old constitutional
(19:18):
representation and the apportionment of that. So it doesn't come
to me as any surprise that Gavin Newsom would try
to gaslight through that kind of thing. It is surprising
to me that Gavin Newsom would have the temerity to say, oh,
you Republicans and the kaycal whole idea of you know,
(19:42):
you're undercutting democracy, You're the threat to democracy, when we
have seen over and over again the Democrats, including Gavin Newsom,
Kathy Hochel, JB. Pritzker, and the Democrats in Texas who
are fleeing their jobs, their duty under the constitution. That's
what the Governor Greg Abbott said, and I think he
(20:03):
was absolutely right, just as Governor Scott Walker then in
Wisconsin was right. Do your damn job, right, That's what
the people elected you to do. And your job is
not to run away or pull some political stunt. Your
job is to debate. If you don't like the proposal,
(20:25):
you fight like hell on the halls of in the
halls of your legislature, but you have to vote, and
if it doesn't work out for you, then you take
other remedies. Maybe you go through the courts like they
will do ultimately when this passes. But for Gavin Newsom
to say anything about, you know, Republicans taking advantage of
(20:49):
poor Democrats, that is the motto of California in reverse.
They have almost driven extinct Republicans in that state's legislature
and certainly in its congressional representation. And they have done
that by a scheme that involves counting massive amounts of
(21:12):
ilegal immigrants in their population totals to gain the system.
That's one of the greatest travesties threats to democracy in
this country. It has been for a long time, and.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
You won't hear a single member of the media say
a word about that, which is just wildly more problematic
than redistricting.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yes, definitely, yes it is, and it's got to change.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
So, Matt, how do you think this whole Texas situation ends.
You mentioned that the dynamics that play are a bit
different than Wisconsin. Maybe there's not something they can just
pull out of the legislation to make it quorum proof
for you know, however you want to say it, But
is there any maneuver that Texas has to replicate what
Wisconsin did that you can see so that they can
(21:58):
hold the boat without the Democrats, or they just have
to wait for them to come home. What's the play here?
Speaker 2 (22:02):
It does the next play is clearly in the court system.
The district court will have to step in and rule, Okay,
you are violating the terms of your agreement with your voters.
You are not representing them. And they of course claim
that they're representing them by not representing them, and maybe
(22:23):
a lot of their constituents in these Democrat controlled districts
are hailing them as heroes. But they ultimately have to
do their jobs, and a court can do what it
needs to do to make sure that those jobs are
being followed. There is, as the governor has put forward,
(22:45):
and he's right to do so, there is a mechanism
to expel members of the legislature that takes away the
necessary quorum numbers that are in place right now. So
it's a matter of time and it's a matter of math,
and we may get there. I think it's a matter
of these stunts only work so long. I think some
(23:07):
members will be returning home because they ultimately have families
too that they want to see, and their bravery, of course,
will fade the longer they stay away. So we'll see
you again. Wisconsin Democrats pulled this stunt for a few weeks.
Republicans finally said, Okay, we're not going to play their
(23:30):
games anymore. We're going to find a way to get
around it, and they did so expertly. I think Texas
ultimate Texas Republicans ultimately will. If not, I think that
the courts will have something definitely to say about it well.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
And they don't need that many of them to come
home to get the quorum. I think there's what fifty
of them that fled, and then they only need less
than ten to meet that quorum threshold. And not only
do they have families back home, but I assume many
of them also have other jobs. They're not getting paid
well to serve in the Texas legislature, so they all
work remotely or you know, have some weird arrangement. They're
(24:02):
probably going to have to return home to get back
to work in both senses. And I also want to
know who's paying for them to be in Illinois, because
there's got to be something going on there too. I
don't have an answer to that, but UH share that. Yeah,
I think yeah, I think so too.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
I think so, yeah, let's let's face it, Kylie, those
French Fries aren't going to fry themselves, so they got
to get back to their jobs. They have things that
they that they're managers in the drive through want them
to a complex, so that's right.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
They would never dare to stoop that low. Matt, don't
don't kid yourself.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Indeed.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
All right, Matt, thanks so much. I appreciate you joining
me today. I hope to have you back again really soon.
Everybody go check out Matt's piece at the Federalist. It's
called it won't end well for Texas Dems fleeing their duties,
just ask Wisconsin liberals. Thanks so much, Matt, appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Thank you anytime.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
Ronald Reagan was right and it's worse than we thought.
The watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connect between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. If I'm
from the government and I'm here to help, isn't bad enough.
The government spends one hundred and eighty one billion dollars
per year on direct cash to private businesses. Did you
see a check in the mail? Whether it's happening in
(25:14):
DC or Down on Wall Street. It's affecting you financially
be informed. Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
So that was win number two. The third win of
the week was something we have all been waiting for
for quite a while. After several tranches of Russiagate documents
from John Radcliffe, Tulsea Gabbard, and now the declassified Durham
Annex released by Senator Chuck Grassley, we learned that Gabbard,
the Director of National Intelligence, made criminal referrals finally to
(25:46):
the Department of Justice. Attorney General Pam Bondi then ordered
the launching of a grand jury investigation, and, according to
exclusive reporting from the Federalist Sean Davis, the DOJ then
requested a bunch more documents from Gabbard's office. Davis reports that,
in addition to requesting all documents, intelligence and correspondence related
(26:07):
to Gabbert's Gabbard's Memo exposing the Rushigate conspiracy, the DOJ
letter also requests all records supporting the recently declassified Hipsie Report,
which is the oversight report from the House Permanent Select
Committee on intelligence, all information related to whistleblower complaints about Brennan,
Clapper and Comy's role in the hoax, and the identification
(26:29):
of everyone cited in Gabbard's memo, the Hipsie Report, whistleblower records,
and the infamous and totally fabricated final Intelligence Community Assessment
known as the ICA. The letter also reportedly requests records
related to how the Inspector General for the DOJ and
Intel community handled the whistleblower complaints, and Davis writes quote
(26:52):
the text of the letter also suggests that the DOJ
may be looking into whether any media leaks related to
the ICA the Intelligence Community Assessment may have been criminal
end quote. So a grand jury is being impaneled and
a federal prosecutor will be reviewing the explosive documents. This
is very huge stuff. Federalist senior contributor Ben Winegarten had
(27:15):
an excellent piece at The Federalist this week about why
it is indeed so important that we get justice for
Russiagate that somebody finally goes to prison, must go to prison,
also why it's going to be so tricky to do that.
So please welcome Ben Winegarden here to join me now, Ben,
(27:37):
I played that clip when I talked about this last week,
but I think I'm obligated to continue playing it until
someone goes to prison. And also you are, Ben, so
it felt like it just felt right to play it now,
So welcome.
Speaker 6 (27:48):
I appreciate that. Tough to follow up that clip, I'll
do my best here.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
It's a classic thank you National treasure for that one. So, Ben,
you write that under Obama's direction, Intel and National Security
ofials coordinated with the media and the Clinton campaign to
frame Trump as a foreign stooge. You write, quote, absent
justice for Obamagate. The lesson to the conspirators is that
they should go even bigger next time. This would be
(28:13):
catastrophic end quote. And of course I agree, and it
turns out so do the majority of voters. A Rasmussen
poll came out on Monday showing that the majority of
respondents said they believe Obama's deep state quote committed crimes
in Russiagate, and more than two thirds almost seventy percent
said there must be consequences for the crimes committed. Ben,
(28:36):
can you describe what justice should even look like here
and why you think the American people are so insistent
on accountability when there's a million things they probably want
to see accountability on, but Russiagate seems to be a
pretty darn big one.
Speaker 6 (28:49):
Well, first of all, I think that the poll is
very heartening in that it shows that despite or maybe
because of the media media propaganda that's been pumped in
over the last eight years plus. Obviously longer than eight years,
but certainly over the last eight plus years, people are
(29:11):
not desensitized to it. They're actually to it, and they
recognize that there has been a constant stream of efforts
to delegitimize, destroy jail, and ultimately attempts obviously to assassinate
President Trump, but as a proxy in part for tens
(29:32):
of millions of Americans who have rejected ruling class ran
and they understand then, I think intuitively, first of all,
the notion that russia Gate, or Obamagate as it probably
ought to be called, because it all happened under Barack Obama,
and he's been the man sort of insulated by all
(29:52):
of these key players, whether it's Brennan Komi, Clapper or
Susan Rice, we can work down the list, but of
course the bucks with him, he was in that infamous
meeting where Susan Rice then wrote the email in the
last minutes of the Obama presidency about doing things by
the book so called, and it was his government, essentially,
his national security and intelligence apparatus, that was responsible for
(30:15):
starting Russia gates, and then of course those deep state
actors continued on through much of the first Trump term.
So first thing I'd say is it's heartening that Americans
understand the stakes here that if heads don't roll, if
there are not massive, severe consequences commensurate with the severity
(30:35):
of this abuse of power and attempt to disenfranchise tens
of millions of Americans and also frankly genuinely prohibit the
peaceful transfer of power, that we're not going to have
a republic at the end of the day.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
And it would just validate the corruption and the arguable.
Speaker 6 (30:52):
Criminality at hand, and what I believe is criminality at hand.
So what does justice look like to the extent you
can get it?
Speaker 3 (31:01):
To my mind? And I lay this out in my column.
Speaker 6 (31:05):
There's the ideal and then there's what's going to be
practically possible. And it's not clear whether the practical is
going to meet the ideal, But to me, The starting
point is you have to have total and absolute transparency
into the quote unquote investigations into the Trump into Trump
and then the investigations of the investigators. And we're starting
(31:27):
to get that, obviously, and it's amazing we're talking about
events that were nine years ago and finally starting to
get full transparency, even though we don't have fully unretacted documents,
even for the documents that have been declassified and shared
with the American people, you need to know the origins
of the origins, so to speak, with respect to Obamagate,
(31:48):
you need to know every single player involved, who knew what, when,
what did they do with it.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
You need to be able to compare the.
Speaker 6 (31:56):
Public statements and the sworn testimony to what was actually
going going on behind the scenes. And you need to
know every player involved. And that includes, of course, notably
and when talking about what the DOJ is looking for,
including the media leaks, anyone and everyone who could be
implicated in criminality or who might know something to do
the kind of ground up investigation that you actually need.
(32:17):
And then the other part purpose I think of the
transparency is that the American people need to see it
with their own eyes and they need to have the
source documents to the extent they can. So the first
step is transparency. The second step, obviously is accountability. And
part of that accountability, of course, should be ought to
be that the American people distrust and all of the
(32:40):
individuals implicated are entirely discredited.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
That's obviously number one.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
But number two, of course, is to the extent crimes
were committed, or to the extent let's take the non crimes.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Let's start there.
Speaker 6 (32:53):
Non crimes were committed, and anyone who has been implicated, however,
in the corruption, is still operating in the federal government,
still has security clearance, still gets any and all the
advantages of their government service. Those advantages need to be
eliminated full stop. It's not clear that that's necessarily happened,
because how many protege is and subordinates of the likes
of Comie, Clapper and Brannan who might be implicated in
(33:16):
these acts are still working in the federal government.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
I bet a number of them.
Speaker 6 (33:20):
Beyond that, though, of course, is the criminality, and so
you have to unearth the crimes, marshal the evidence necessary
to prosecute them, and then you would need to go
after those people to the fullest extent of the law
on the merits, and then also as a deterrent and
to genuinely show that no one is above the law,
and that there will be a dear cost, a severe
(33:41):
cost to abusing powers to effectively undermine the republic and
again disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. And then last
but obvious, they are all the victims of Obamagate, people
whose lives were abended, being investigated under false pretenses, whose
civil liberty is were eviscerated. Think of course of the
likes of Carter Page, for example, whose coffers were completely
(34:05):
drained trying to pay for legal counsel, and who will
never be able to get their reputations back, their careers back,
the damage done to the families, it's incalculable, the number
of people that we're talking about and the level of
damage done to them, not to mention, of course, the
chilling effect, which itself will prevent good people from serving
(34:26):
probably for generations after this. So restitution recompense would be
the last part of it. And so now we have
started to get more and more transparency, thank god, even
if it's nine years on and it appears that we
are getting towards justice quad justice, which is prosecutions. But
as I lay out in the Peace, of course, there
(34:46):
are a number of potential stumbling blocks here to securing convictions.
And that's even setting aside all of the other the
duress effectively that prosecutors are going to be working under it,
and that the America people might suffer from once the
resistance is unleashed to the extent we actually get prosecutions.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Right, Yeah, So can you speak a little bit to
what those main roadblocks are? Like, why is achieving justice
going to be so tricky in this case? And you know,
does the news this week about the grand jury and
about the federal prosecutor give you any more hope that
some of these roadblocks will be overcome or do you
think it will truly be, you know, nigh impossible to
(35:28):
actually achieve justice here.
Speaker 6 (35:31):
Let me start with the most pessimistic view would be
the our cynical view would be that grand jury probe
is likely to commence and a there are no indictments
that results from that. I think that's almost zero percent
chance because I think I don't think that the DOJ
would start this process if they didn't intend to see
(35:52):
it through to the end. So let's assume that there
are indictments that come down, and there is value to
that alone, to those indictments coming down, because it shows
minimally that if you were implicated in criminality with respect
to Obamagate, that you're going to face the punishment of
a legal process, just like the punishment of the legal
(36:13):
process that was meted out to innocent people in response
to Obamagate. Then we get to what are the actual
charges look like and can you prove those charges? And
then where can you prove those charges? So start with
the charges. It's very vague at this point what potentially
those charges might look like, but some legal scholars have said,
(36:36):
and I think it's also fair to surmise that the
most obvious off the bat is perjury when you match
up the statements, the sworn statements of the likes of
the Brennan's comes Clappers, et cetera, with what was actually happening,
For example, with respect to the inclusion of the Steele
dossier as a key source or substantial creator for the
(37:01):
most provocative and damning claims and probably and unsupported claims
that appears in the ICA about Russia of favoring Trump
and wanting to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
When you look at.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
The private the private acts and what was actually produced
versus what was stated publicly, certainly looks like perjury, looks
like they're dead to rights to the extent the statute
of limitations is extent there, and so you have to
look at what was the last statement that looks like
(37:35):
a lie relative to what the truth was, and then
you can bring those charges. But there are other potential
charges where the statute statute of limitation issue may not
be a barrier, that could be a challenge.
Speaker 3 (37:49):
And so that.
Speaker 6 (37:50):
Includes and I think there is a level of justice
here in terms of hoisting the resistance on its own
petard when it comes to charges like conspiracy to defraud
the US or conspiracy to violate the rights of Donald
Trump or many people in and around his orbit. When
you read those charges, the question is going to be
(38:13):
at least the way that a court would presumably look
at it, And what the administration or what the DOJ
will have to think through is can you find analogs here?
And if you can't find analogs, what's your best argument
for applying these charges to the conduct that we saw
and I'm not a lawyer, but in some ways there's
(38:34):
a political aspect to this, and then there's the legal
aspect of this as well. If you were on the
other side, that is, if you were on the Jack
Smith side, you had no qualms about bringing these charges
in Washington, DC, for example, because you knew that you
would have a favorable judge and a favorable jury most likely,
even if the charges are novel, and even if they
haven't been applied before. Now maybe to the Trump DOJ's benefit,
(38:58):
you had the Biden DOJ seeking to prosecute Trump on
these sorts of grounds. So there is a precedent perhaps,
and that's why I talk about hoisting them on their
own petard and there being some justice to it. But
it's yet to be seen whether or not you can
make these cases. But let's assume you can sufficiently make
these cases.
Speaker 3 (39:19):
Then the next part of it is the.
Speaker 6 (39:21):
Venue where are you bringing these prosecutions? And again the
scuttle butt here and what legal scholars have noted is
obviously DC is probably the most hostile venue possible. But
can you make a case that some or all of
the acts which are involved in a criminal conspiracy or
(39:44):
pertaining to perjury, etc. Maybe other charges that we haven't
even conceived of, because presumably prosecutors can be very creative
and many things are criminalized to the extent they're applied.
What's the venue where can you actually get a fair shake, essentially,
as the DOJ in this case, And it's been speculated
(40:05):
that Florida is.
Speaker 3 (40:06):
The likely venue. It's yet to be seen. We'll have
to see if that's the case.
Speaker 6 (40:10):
But so it really comes down to can you make
those charges stick to the statutes of limitation? Are you
inside or outside of the statutes of limitation? And then
can you actually win? And then beyond that, if you
win at what cost? If you lose at what cost?
And those are all things that require both legal judgment,
(40:34):
practical judgments, and then wisdom and courage as well, because
you know that on the other side of this, no
matter what happens. And again, luckily perhaps the American people
see through the regime media at this point, but of
course you know they're all are already going with this
is retribution.
Speaker 3 (40:51):
There's no there there. This is authoritarian.
Speaker 6 (40:53):
He's trying to he's trying to lock up his political foes,
which of course is exactly what our rule in regime
tried to do it to Donald Trump up and many
in and around his orbit, and try to destroy anyone
who would dare represent these individuals in the court of law.
That persists, by the way, when you look at, for example,
of this effort to try to disbar Jeff Clark.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
For example.
Speaker 6 (41:13):
But the bottom line is that you were going to
have maybe the ultimate hysterical Trump derangement syndrome response. To
the extent you have prosecutions of these individuals, and to
the extent you secure any convictions. But of course there's
a massive cost to not seeking to secure these convictions
and not actually securing them, because again, it simply validates
(41:36):
the efforts of the other side, and it will only
make them that more zealous when they get back into
total power over the federal government to use and abuse
those powers to criminalize dissent. They of course have done
everything they claim their opponents would do and worse. But
the stakes of this are of course again that you're
(41:57):
going to see, in my view, to the extent we
actual we go through with prosecutions, let alone secure convictions,
you're going to see street actions, You're going to see
regime media propagating a level of propaganda that will rival
anything that we've seen to date. And then of course
you're going to have a counter response from the left's
lawfare mechanism, which is going to be egregious. And then
(42:20):
of course you have the more kind of near term
political considerations. All of the wobbly members of the House
and Senate on the Republican side, are they going to
get weak needed when it comes to this, Is there
going to be political blowback repercussions? Could you have a
loss of the House or a loss of the Senate. Again,
public sentiment here gives me some optimism and confidence that
(42:41):
you're not going to have that sort of issue.
Speaker 3 (42:43):
So let's hope that the.
Speaker 6 (42:44):
American people continue to see what the truth is here,
and let's see more transparency, because I think that's only
going to fuel the cause for needed justice.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
Right it seems to me that the stakes or I
guess the risks of making a half hearted effort and
not walking away with convictions are much higher than any
potential political blowback in the mid terms if you do
secure convictions or you know, any potential media blowback, which
I mean the trust in media has tanked. I mean,
even trusted media now versus in twenty sixteen is like
markedly different. And so you know, I think I think
(43:16):
the biggest risk is only making a half hearted effort,
not actually walking away with any convictions and just you know,
useless Republicans being useless Republicans, and not actually securing any
victories for Republicans, for their constituents, what have you. You
also talked about the victims of this, of course, Carter Page,
and I mean, there have been many, but I'm also
just thinking about the American people as a whole being
(43:38):
victims of this, and the way that you know, Donald
Trump only only got eight years four years under the
Russia hoax, and just how much opportunity and time was
lost that just can never be recovered. And I hope
that prosecutors just get really creative and in the way
that Democrat prosecutors have gotten creative in coming up with
you know, legitimate but unique legal means to go after
(44:03):
the co conspirators here. And yeah, you brought up the
statute of limitations to on potential crimes. But then every
day we see the media still peddling the same hoax,
up to and including Clapper and Brennan themselves pending their
own piece in the New York Times that's full of lies,
full of the same Russia Gate lies, the same lies
they told under oath. I mean in your mind, and
(44:24):
you're not a lawyer, but does this extend the statute
of limitations at all? Are they just engaging in more
obstruction of justice or conspiracy here or do you think
that doesn't apply?
Speaker 6 (44:35):
Well, I think in the court of public opinion, it's
a conspiracy that's very.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Live and well.
Speaker 6 (44:41):
Look no further than what they wrote in the New
York Times a week before recording this, where they continue
to gas light and obvious gate and disingenuously try and
defend themselves, but they're also trying to keep their story straight,
a crooked story straight. And then of course you have
potentially since you reference the media, and obviously I view
(45:03):
the media as co conspirators in this. Whether that's legal
or not obviously is open for debate, and of course
those in the media are going to claim all manner
of defenses.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
By the way, it's interesting to think.
Speaker 6 (45:14):
About why is it that, besides in wanting to secure
fat paychecks, that the likes of the brand ends and
the clappers and the comies of the world are out
out there in the media, and some of them are contributors.
Is that in part a measure of defense. Potentially we'll
have to see. But at the end of the day,
we're there illegal leaks. I think it's very clear there
were illegal leaks. And what this further show is discrediting
(45:37):
the media is that regime media has effectively become not
just a mouthpiece for our ruling regime and our national
security and intelligence apparatus when it's not under control of
conservatives or America First type leaders, but what it shows
that they're an extension essentially. Something that Lea Smith has
argued before is that this is what the media is
(45:59):
like in the Middle East, and that's exactly what our
media has become like. It's part of the intelligence apparatus. Now,
some will argue that this goes back many decades to
talk about Project Mockingbird, etc. And you kind have a
fascinating conversation about that, but it's never been more transparent
how corrupted and the extent to which the media has
(46:20):
served as an extension of our ruling regime. And of course,
as a federalist has reported on extensively the circularity with
respect to what was presented to the FISA courts. You know,
one party feeds the other party, and then there's a
report in the press, and then the report on the
press is cited as a justification for eviscerating the civil
liberties of an American. So whether or not we're going
(46:43):
to be able to make the case that the statutes
are starting just now because they're still talking the way
that they were before is yet to be seen. And
then obviously they're not under oath when they're talking in
the public, but it may show something about the patterns
that they have pursued. And so I think what they
say publicly is certainly going to be fair game when
(47:06):
you come to things like state of mind and intent
and questions like that, and the patterns in their public proclamations.
Speaker 3 (47:14):
Versus what went on privately.
Speaker 6 (47:16):
And then another aspect of this, by the way, that's
worth noting is with the DOJ looking into essentially anyone
and everyone involved from the jump, are people going to
commit crimes now? Are people going to obstruct or defy
or lie under oath now?
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Potentially? And so could you have new crimes.
Speaker 6 (47:35):
That people engage in today as a consequence of their
responses to being probed. That's something to bear in mind
as well. But the one thing that's very disconcerting here
is obviously there's been substantial reporting about documents being in
burn bags, etc. There's been, as I noted in my article,
a nine year head start effectively for those who were
(47:57):
culpable and those who are complicit here to destroy potentially
evidence or otherwise seek to obstruct. Let's not forget, of
course we had the Molor Special Council. If you think
that that was part of the cover up. What bodies
did they find and what was buried by the Molar
(48:17):
Special Council? So all manner of very live questions. And
the one thing that might give one hope is that
this appears to be being executed by the Trump DOJ
like a Rico case, where you're looking at all of
the fish involved, and maybe you're going to get some
people to flip and turn, and there may be some
(48:37):
people you can squeeze as you move your way up
to the ringleaders.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
So I remained cautiously optimistic.
Speaker 6 (48:45):
But what I will say again is that I don't
think that the DOJ would let it be known that
there was a grand jury probe coming unless they didn't
intend to try and go all the way to indict
and try and prosecute, and that the shrewd legal minds there,
we'll try and bring the charges that they think have
the best chance of sticking before a venue that is
(49:06):
going to give the fairest shot on behalf of the
American people, and to your point, to try and restore
to the American people that which really can't be restored
to your point, because we didn't get four years of
a first Trump term, we got only a fraction.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Of it, right right well, And I'm also encouraged by
the fact that I mean the media doing a full
court press on downplaying or ignoring the story, the way
that Brennan and Clapper and like you said, members of
the intel community coming out and speaking on this publicly
to try to downplay it. And I mean, you know,
the nine year head start, Yes, but I believe it
(49:41):
was Cash Bettel and maybe some others in Trump's intel
community who have implied that the rate on mar A
Lago was an attempt to find a copy of this
Hipsie report and destroy it or whatever you know it's like.
And the fact that they're finding these documents in the
burn bags and whatnot. They clearly did not get rid
of as much evidence as they sought too, and so
hopefully their head start wasn't enough to head off these indictments,
(50:05):
and hopefully people are going to go to prison bent
that's the hope.
Speaker 6 (50:09):
That's the only thing, the only deterrent at the end
of the day to this kind of criminality and corruption
is people have to face massive, massive, unrivaled punishment for
engaging in massive and unrivaled attacks on our republic. And
since you mentioned Cash Patel, I mean it is worth
noting if anyone would be well positioned and uniquely qualified
(50:34):
to engage in this investigation, it's the person, probably the
lead co author of and researcher behind the Devin noun
As Memo, which play in an essential role in starting
to unravel this plot. And the fact that you had
our ruling regime go after Devin Noon as then leading
the House Intelligence Committee as well as going after Cash Patel,
(50:56):
I think speaks volumes about the capability and the will
that's being brought to bear here on the investigative side.
So that's another heartening aspect of this. But the challenge,
of course, is you are up against the ruling regime
in exile, let's say, at the highest possible levels. And
(51:16):
as Chuck Schumerschet said, they can get you six ways
from Sunday, and they have done that in scores. But
that said, there's never been a better chance, notwithstanding any
potential statutes of limitation issues, to get this done.
Speaker 3 (51:30):
Donald Trump is a lamb duck.
Speaker 6 (51:32):
There are unique opportunities here to pursue justice, and like
you said, people needed to go to jail because if
they don't, we won't have a republic at the end
of the day.
Speaker 1 (51:42):
Yeah, completely agree, completely agree. Thanks so much, Ben. I
appreciate you joining me today. Definitely go check out his
piece on the Federalist website why reigning justice on the
Russia hoaxers is so tricky and so important. Definitely go
check it out. Thanks so much, Ben. I hope you'll
join me again soon.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
Thanks much for having me. It's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
All right, it's time for a quick little I mean,
come on, I did, I mean could because I couldn't
pass up the opportunity to comment on this insane and
frankly super creepy clip from Jim Acosta.
Speaker 4 (52:17):
This week.
Speaker 1 (52:17):
Now, you recall that Jim Acosta worked at CNN for
a long time and is probably best known for being
a self important political activist rather than a journalist. But
he left the network in January after CNN switched up
its lineup, which looked an awful lot like an attempt
to demote Acosta to a less favorable time slot for
his show, and boy howdy, what a trajectory he has had.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Now.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
Acosta hosts a blog slash show on Substack, and his
latest guest was not real. Jim Acosta tweeted on Monday
that you wouldn't want to miss that day's show because quote,
I'll be having a one of a kind interview with
Joaquin Oliver. He died in the Parkland school shooting in
(53:00):
twenty eighteen, but his parents have created an AI version
of their son to deliver a powerful message on gun violence.
Speaker 3 (53:08):
End quote.
Speaker 1 (53:09):
And of course, Acosta turned off replies to his post
so nobody could ratio him with comments about how bizarre
this is. But as you can see, there are an
awful lot of quote tweets and not a whole lot
of likes.
Speaker 2 (53:19):
Here's the clip, Joaquin, I would like to know what
your solution would be for gun violence.
Speaker 3 (53:26):
Great question.
Speaker 7 (53:27):
I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws,
mental health support.
Speaker 3 (53:31):
And community engagement.
Speaker 7 (53:32):
We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections,
making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It's about building
a culture of kindness and understanding. What do you think
about that?
Speaker 2 (53:42):
I think that's a great idea, Joaquin.
Speaker 1 (53:46):
This is all so bizarre and weird and dare I
say demonic. He's essentially conjuring up an AI fueled humanoid
that resembles a real person who was murdered by a
school shooter just to make a political state about guns.
It's hard to imagine being Joaquin Oliver's parents, but imagine
not only generating a humanoid version of your child, but
(54:08):
then also giving AI to a has been journalist to
air all over the Internet. And then imagine being Jim
Acosta and saying out loud to an AI. I think
that's a great idea, Joaquin, Dude, he's not real. It's
really disturbing in part because it elicits this uneasy, uncanny
Valley response, because it's not convincingly human for obvious reasons,
(54:33):
but also because of the way Oliver's parents and Jim
Acosta create and then go along with this. You know,
I've seen other people do this too with still images
on Twitter, where they use AI to animate a still
photo of a since deceased loved one, and it evokes
this weird emotional response of creating a memory that's not
really there and not quite human. This Acosta thing evokes
(54:57):
a similar feeling to when you're in a room full
of people who are all using biologically incorrect pronouns to
refer to a transidentifying person. It just doesn't feel right anyway,
super weird at best, unhealthy at worst, demonic. And you know,
I never thought I'd be surprised that Jim Acosta could
get worse. But I mean, come on, I said, I
(55:18):
mean cub oud All right, that's going to do it
for me today. Thanks again so much for tuning into
the Kylie Cast. I will be back here with more
very soon. Until then, just remember the truth hurts, but
it won't kill you.
Why should taxpayers fund the soda and candy habits of
people on food stamps? How long will Texas Democrats hide
out in the massive shadow of Illinois Governor JB. Pritzker?
And will people finally go to prison for Obamagate? All
that and more on the Kylie Cast. Hi everybody, and
(00:30):
welcome to the Kylie Cast. I'm Kylie Griswold, Managing editor
at The Federalist. Be sure to like and subscribe wherever
you get your podcasts, and if you're just listening to
the show, be sure to go check out the full
video version on my personal YouTube channel or the Federalist
channel on Rumble. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com. I would love
(00:52):
to hear from you. I don't know about you, but
I am so not tired of winning.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
We're gonna win so much you may even get tired.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
You know, thanks to democrats endless resistance efforts. Sometimes conservative
progress feels like one step forward, five steps back. But
this week we are marching forward baby. For starters, we
got a big old Maha victory. On Monday, Trump's Agriculture
Secretary Brook Rawlins authorized waivers for six new states that
(01:21):
want to limit the sugary junk people can buy on
food stamps, bringing the total number of states with approval
to limit these taxpayer funded SNAP benefits to twelve. This
is just common sense when you consider that SNAP literally
stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Nutrition is in the name,
but meanwhile it funds garbage food and drinks that fuel
(01:42):
obesity and diabetes, such as soda, other sugary drinks, candy,
and processed junk, and SNAP is bankrolled by tax dollars. So,
in other words, the US government is literally using the
tax dollars of hard working Americans to subsidize the unhealthy
habits of life low income and non working Americans, which
basically just ensures that these welfare recipients will require yet
(02:06):
more government spending in the form of medicaid for all
their junk food induced health problems. HHS Secretary RFK Junior,
the face of Make America Healthy Again, made this exact point.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
This week.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
We're spending four hundred and five million dollars a day
on SNAP and about ten percent is going to sugary
drinks between and if you add candies to that, it's
about thirteen to seventeen percent. And we all believe in
free choice. We live in a democracy. People can make
(02:39):
their own choice about what they're going to buy and
what they're not going to buy. If you want to
buy a sugary soda, you ought to be able to
do that as a US taxpayer should not pay for it.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
And the US taxpayers.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Should not be paying to feed kids foods the forest.
Kids in our country food those that are going to
give them diabetes, and then my agency ends up through
Medicaid and medicare paying for those injuries. We're going to
put an end to that, and we're doing.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
It step by step to state by.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
State, putting a methodical end to it. Yes, bravo. Now
this is a win on a policy level, yes, but
it's also a win for culture. Body positivity has had
its time in the sun. You've all seen the Lizo
magazine covers and the self care speak that pushes for
fat acceptance and basically demonizes healthy people as fat phobic.
But that time is over. A healthy society isn't one
(03:36):
that pretends that all choices are equally valid and good
and healthy, because they're obviously not. Some discrimination is actually good,
like discriminating against a bag of airhead extremes in favor
of some carrots or an apple or some real clean protein.
When it comes to our health, we need to be
able to make value judgments for ourselves, yes, but also
on a societal level. No, a mountain dew, big mac,
(03:58):
and little Debbie snack are not nutritious lunch, and we
don't need to pretend they are. And we certainly don't
need to stamp them with the endorsement of the government
by bankrolling them with billions of tax dollars per year,
especially when four and ten Americans is considered obese. So
that's win number one. Win number two this week came
courtesy of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who exposed just how
(04:20):
insane Democrat state lawmakers and their media enablers are after
a group of Democrat legislators fled the state to avoid
a vote on some mid decade redistricting. But here's the
really funny part. These whiny Democrats who are making the
redistricting out to be an unprecedented attack on democracy are
hiding out in Illinois and New York, two of the
(04:42):
most gerrymandered states in the entire US. But of course,
without these lawmakers. The Texas Legislature doesn't have a quorum.
They need two thirds of the House present and there
are a few lawmakers short, so they can't yet vote
on the congressional maps. So in response, Governor Abbott threatened
to kick these lawmakers out of the Texas House, and
the GOP led House issued civil arrest warrants for these
(05:06):
a wall lawmakers, and in response, media and Democrats are
predictably going berserk over the whole ordeal. They're pretending the
Texas redistricting is unprecedented and they're saying it's jerrymandering driven
by Donald Trump. They're hailing these runaway Democrats as heroes
while whining about the fact that Texas Republicans are using
every tool at their disposal to get them back for
(05:28):
the vote. But this is nothing new, so it's absurd
to hear anyone call this unprecedented. First of all, Democrats
are jerrymandering experts and have basically snaked their way around
every possible state to eke out as many congressional seats
as humanly achievable. Second, just a few years ago, Texas
Democrats employed this exact same maneuver when they fled to
(05:49):
DC to avoid voting on election integrity measures. And Third,
in twenty nineteen, Republican lawmakers in Oregon fled the state
to avoid voting on some ridiculous climate change legislation, and
it was Democrats that issued the arrest warrants for them.
So literally, none of this is unprecedented. Not the redistricting,
or the fleeing, or the arrest warrants, none of it.
(06:11):
Democrats have done it all before. But Texas and Oregon
aren't the only analogs. The Federalists senior elections correspondent Matt
Kittle wrote a great piece this week at The Federalist
comparing the Texas situation to a similar debacle that happened
in Wisconsin in twenty eleven, and he is here to
join me now to discuss Welcome to the Kylie Cast, Matt.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Well, it's great to be here. I love the Kylie Cast.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Thanks so much. It's so great to have you, my fellow. Well,
you are prior Wisconsinine, so it's always great to see
a familiar and friendly Midwest nice face.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
We are Midwest nice is what they call as I'm
of course in the Des Moines area now, but grew up,
spent much of my life in the dairy state, and
as a proud cheesehead one she's head to another. I'm
very excited to be here.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Awesome God's country as we like to call it here. Indeed, indeed, so, Matt,
you wrote about Wisconsin this week. Can you give us
a rundown of this twenty eleven Wisconsin redistricting situation and
explain how exactly it's similar to this Texas dust up.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Yeah, Well, it's like you said, this is nothing new.
This is just another page in the political theater of
the left in the Democratic Party in Texas. They are
desperate to hold on to something Democrats in this country
because they have lost everything, and that is a loss
of their own making, of course, their own failed policy
(07:41):
ideas and their own agenda. And that was the case
in Wisconsin back in twenty eleven. If you recall, we
go back nearly a decade and a half ago, the
Republican revolution across the country had just swept in a
Republican majority in the Wisconsin state Legislature, its Assembly and
(08:03):
it Senate, and then Governor Scott Walker, a conservative Republican,
into the Governor's office and immediately the governor and the
Republican controlled legislature had to come up with a budget
fix to take care of a I believe it was
a massive multi billion dollar deficit at that time. To
(08:26):
do so, they needed to get a handle on a
problem that had been haunting Wisconsin and states like it
for years, and that was an out of control public
sector union base more powerful than you can imagine. There
(08:47):
was no taxpayer at the table when it came to
public sector contract negotiations. So what the Republicans opted to
do put a plan in place to reform collective bargaining
public sector collective bargaining in the state, and of course
the left, driven by big labor, went just absolutely nuts.
(09:10):
And when this legislation rolled out, the protests started. You
recall back in late winter early spring of twenty eleven,
I remember seeing reports from the major accomplice media players
broadcast television, NBCABCCBS comparing the Great Protest, the union funded
(09:31):
protest in Madison, Wisconsin, to the Arab Spring that was
going on again in the Middle East, where people who
truly had suffered for years and years under autocrats religious
theocracies were fighting for democracy, although there were different motivations
(09:54):
as well for that too, but nonetheless, to compare what
was happening in the Middle East to the Union temper
tantrum and the Democrat temper tantrum in Wisconsin was beyond
the pale. But that's what our accomplished media does. We
know that. So, looking at losing the battle, the Democrats
(10:16):
in the Minority and the Senate decided, if we can't
beat them, we'll escape them. And that is exactly what
they did. They absconded to Illinois, where they were safe
in the arms of the blue state leftist and they
stayed there for a long time attempting to and they
(10:37):
were successful for a few weeks to stall the vote
on what became Act ten, the reforms to collective bargaining
that significantly limited public sector unions from taking advantage of
Wisconsin taxpayers over and over again. But there was an
(10:57):
interesting turn, and I'm curious if Republicans in Texas will
do what Republicans in Wisconsin did. They're a little different situations,
so I'm not sure they can. But ultimately Senate Republicans
took out Act ten of the Budget Repair Bill, and
(11:20):
they took out all of the fiscal provisions, and so
in state law, you did not need a quorum to
deal with non fiscal issues, and that is exactly what
the Senate did. They beat the Democrats at their own game.
And while they were being heralded by the provdpress and
(11:40):
the National Democratic Party, Republicans in the Senate got down
to work. They passed Act ten by a vote of
eighteen to one all Republicans. The next day it passed
with all Republicans in the Assembly, and Act ten became law.
And these leftists who fled the state to Illinois stood
(12:01):
there twiddling their thumbs, of course, and crying foul.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Of course.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
And now the media and Democrats are crying foul over
redistricting in general, which I think is one of the
funniest parts of the story. Wisconsin specifically, Democrats made redrawing
Wisconsin congressional maps one of the main selling points of
electing the most recent liberal judge to the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
so that this is something that they cry foul on.
(12:28):
But this is like their go to play to get
more power. And in fact, I want to get your
reaction to this op ed from New York Governor Kathy Hokel,
which again some of these Democrats are hiding out in
New York. She wrote this piece in the Houston Chronicle,
and it just it killed me when I read it,
and I want your reaction, Matt. Here it is, she says, quote.
(12:48):
We are also reviewing every legal and legislative option to
redraw our maps in New York. If Republicans are changing
the rules, we'll meet them on the same field, with strategy,
with resolve, and without apology. Will say this is too aggressive.
I say it's necessary. What Texas Republicans are doing under
Trump's direction is nothing short of a legal insurrection in
(13:08):
our capital. But using a legal system doesn't make it legitimate.
It's a hijacking of democracy and it must be stopped. So, Matt,
which is it. Is it an insurrection that must be
stopped or is it something that they will also do
because it's aggressive but necessary, they're going to change the rules.
It's like New York is already jerrymandered thanks to Democrats,
(13:29):
and the whole thing is just logically inconsistent, completely incomprehensible.
It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Well, first of all, are you sure her name is
in Governor Kathy Holcomb, Because that's exactly what we are
being sold by this Democrat and others like her. Oh
my gosh, it's an insurrection these folks. Let me tell you,
the Democrats in this country know a thing or two
about insurrection, because they're behind arguably the biggest insurrection election
(13:58):
interference scandal of of our lifetimes, if not the history
of this country in Russia Gate, of course, where they
did indeed try to hold a soft coup, if you will,
using the deep state and the intelligence officials in the
Obama White House to set in motion what became the
(14:19):
Russia collusion hoax. When it comes to redistricting, they also
have a great deal of experience in that, particularly when
it comes to jerrymandering. The left is nothing if not
great projectionist, and this is absolute projections. Let me tell
you something. Illinois is, as you mentioned before, perhaps the
(14:45):
most jerry mandered state in the Union. Remember, Illinois is
the land of Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln in essence, the father
of the Republican Party in Illinois. Under JB. Pritzker and
a a Democrat dominated legislature, they put in place a
plan to take five Republican districts, that's all they had,
(15:11):
and to pair them down into three squeezing out Republican
representation where had been for years it has It's not
just yours truly, calling Illinois arguably the most jerrymandered state
in the country. People who work in this area of mapping,
(15:35):
congressional mapping, in this legal expertise have noted it as such.
The threats are coming from Gavin Newsom in California, JB.
If they come from JP Pritzker in Illinois, I'm afraid
everyone's going to have to have a good chuckle and say, well,
(15:56):
wait a minute, how much more jerry mandarin can you
do in this eight It is the height of hypocrisy,
It is the height of arrogance, and it is exactly
what happens when you have more than an irresponsible media,
(16:17):
a complicit media that is going along once again for
the right, just as they did in the state of
Wisconsin and nationally in twenty eleven during the big public
temper tantrum of Democrat senators. There.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Yeah, that's right. I actually have a graphic. It is
the congressional maps for Illinois. This is a reminder if
you are just listening to the Kylie Cast on Apple
Podcasts or Spotify, you should be watching it on YouTube
or rumble where you can actually see these graphics. But
take a look at this, Matt. Look at the way
that seventeen sixteen, fifteen thirteen. The way they snake around
(16:55):
is just so absurd. I mean, this is the height
of jerrymanderin right here in Illinois.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Yeah, this would send Elbridge, Jerry, former governor of Massachusetts,
spinning in his grave. You know, that's where all of
this came from. Jerrymander is the salamander to make it
slithering all of these districts just to fit a political motive.
But here's the thing. What the Supreme Court has essentially
(17:26):
said over time is what is the case, and that
is to the victor, go the spoils. If you win,
you get to set the maps. Now, there are some
limits on that, but clearly, as you took a look
at that congressional map in Illinois, there aren't many limits
on that because that is one colorful, snaking chart just
(17:52):
to keep Democrats in just absolute control to the near
extinction of Republicans in Illinois.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Right. I think you're right that it's typical Democrat projection
and propaganda. And of course the media are not going
to hold any Democrats accountable for that, but you also
brought up Gavin Newsom. And I saw this tweet from
Gavin Newsom, biggest state in the Union, and I'm like,
are they just that ignorant? Are they just projecting? Or
are they that ignorant about how these congressional maps work.
(18:21):
Here's Gavin Newsom's tweet, and I'm kind of blind, so
I'm going to try to read this. He quote tweets
DC Dreno and says, oh cool, I can do that too.
Red states with zero DEM House seats, and then he
lists upon a bunch of red states with zero DEM
House seats, and the last four in this list are Alaska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, all of which only
(18:43):
have one House seat which goes to Republicans. This is
not a result of jerry mandering. This is a result
of what we call apportionment. This is how population works.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Well, and it's also how Gavin Newsom works. Because Gavin
Newsom apparently is stupid, so stupid that he thinks the
rest of us are stupid. That's absolutely right. You are
in a red state, you have one representative based on
the numbers that you are allowed that's age old constitutional
(19:18):
representation and the apportionment of that. So it doesn't come
to me as any surprise that Gavin Newsom would try
to gaslight through that kind of thing. It is surprising
to me that Gavin Newsom would have the temerity to say, oh,
you Republicans and the kaycal whole idea of you know,
(19:42):
you're undercutting democracy, You're the threat to democracy, when we
have seen over and over again the Democrats, including Gavin Newsom,
Kathy Hochel, JB. Pritzker, and the Democrats in Texas who
are fleeing their jobs, their duty under the constitution. That's
what the Governor Greg Abbott said, and I think he
(20:03):
was absolutely right, just as Governor Scott Walker then in
Wisconsin was right. Do your damn job, right, That's what
the people elected you to do. And your job is
not to run away or pull some political stunt. Your
job is to debate. If you don't like the proposal,
(20:25):
you fight like hell on the halls of in the
halls of your legislature, but you have to vote, and
if it doesn't work out for you, then you take
other remedies. Maybe you go through the courts like they
will do ultimately when this passes. But for Gavin Newsom
to say anything about, you know, Republicans taking advantage of
(20:49):
poor Democrats, that is the motto of California in reverse.
They have almost driven extinct Republicans in that state's legislature
and certainly in its congressional representation. And they have done
that by a scheme that involves counting massive amounts of
(21:12):
ilegal immigrants in their population totals to gain the system.
That's one of the greatest travesties threats to democracy in
this country. It has been for a long time, and.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
You won't hear a single member of the media say
a word about that, which is just wildly more problematic
than redistricting.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
Yes, definitely, yes it is, and it's got to change.
Speaker 1 (21:37):
So, Matt, how do you think this whole Texas situation ends.
You mentioned that the dynamics that play are a bit
different than Wisconsin. Maybe there's not something they can just
pull out of the legislation to make it quorum proof
for you know, however you want to say it, But
is there any maneuver that Texas has to replicate what
Wisconsin did that you can see so that they can
(21:58):
hold the boat without the Democrats, or they just have
to wait for them to come home. What's the play here?
Speaker 2 (22:02):
It does the next play is clearly in the court system.
The district court will have to step in and rule, Okay,
you are violating the terms of your agreement with your voters.
You are not representing them. And they of course claim
that they're representing them by not representing them, and maybe
(22:23):
a lot of their constituents in these Democrat controlled districts
are hailing them as heroes. But they ultimately have to
do their jobs, and a court can do what it
needs to do to make sure that those jobs are
being followed. There is, as the governor has put forward,
(22:45):
and he's right to do so, there is a mechanism
to expel members of the legislature that takes away the
necessary quorum numbers that are in place right now. So
it's a matter of time and it's a matter of math,
and we may get there. I think it's a matter
of these stunts only work so long. I think some
(23:07):
members will be returning home because they ultimately have families
too that they want to see, and their bravery, of course,
will fade the longer they stay away. So we'll see
you again. Wisconsin Democrats pulled this stunt for a few weeks.
Republicans finally said, Okay, we're not going to play their
(23:30):
games anymore. We're going to find a way to get
around it, and they did so expertly. I think Texas
ultimate Texas Republicans ultimately will. If not, I think that
the courts will have something definitely to say about it well.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
And they don't need that many of them to come
home to get the quorum. I think there's what fifty
of them that fled, and then they only need less
than ten to meet that quorum threshold. And not only
do they have families back home, but I assume many
of them also have other jobs. They're not getting paid
well to serve in the Texas legislature, so they all
work remotely or you know, have some weird arrangement. They're
(24:02):
probably going to have to return home to get back
to work in both senses. And I also want to
know who's paying for them to be in Illinois, because
there's got to be something going on there too. I
don't have an answer to that, but UH share that. Yeah,
I think yeah, I think so too.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
I think so, yeah, let's let's face it, Kylie, those
French Fries aren't going to fry themselves, so they got
to get back to their jobs. They have things that
they that they're managers in the drive through want them
to a complex, so that's right.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
They would never dare to stoop that low. Matt, don't
don't kid yourself.
Speaker 2 (24:31):
Indeed.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
All right, Matt, thanks so much. I appreciate you joining
me today. I hope to have you back again really soon.
Everybody go check out Matt's piece at the Federalist. It's
called it won't end well for Texas Dems fleeing their duties,
just ask Wisconsin liberals. Thanks so much, Matt, appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
Thank you anytime.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
Ronald Reagan was right and it's worse than we thought.
The watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connect between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. If I'm
from the government and I'm here to help, isn't bad enough.
The government spends one hundred and eighty one billion dollars
per year on direct cash to private businesses. Did you
see a check in the mail? Whether it's happening in
(25:14):
DC or Down on Wall Street. It's affecting you financially
be informed. Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
So that was win number two. The third win of
the week was something we have all been waiting for
for quite a while. After several tranches of Russiagate documents
from John Radcliffe, Tulsea Gabbard, and now the declassified Durham
Annex released by Senator Chuck Grassley, we learned that Gabbard,
the Director of National Intelligence, made criminal referrals finally to
(25:46):
the Department of Justice. Attorney General Pam Bondi then ordered
the launching of a grand jury investigation, and, according to
exclusive reporting from the Federalist Sean Davis, the DOJ then
requested a bunch more documents from Gabbard's office. Davis reports that,
in addition to requesting all documents, intelligence and correspondence related
(26:07):
to Gabbert's Gabbard's Memo exposing the Rushigate conspiracy, the DOJ
letter also requests all records supporting the recently declassified Hipsie Report,
which is the oversight report from the House Permanent Select
Committee on intelligence, all information related to whistleblower complaints about Brennan,
Clapper and Comy's role in the hoax, and the identification
(26:29):
of everyone cited in Gabbard's memo, the Hipsie Report, whistleblower records,
and the infamous and totally fabricated final Intelligence Community Assessment
known as the ICA. The letter also reportedly requests records
related to how the Inspector General for the DOJ and
Intel community handled the whistleblower complaints, and Davis writes quote
(26:52):
the text of the letter also suggests that the DOJ
may be looking into whether any media leaks related to
the ICA the Intelligence Community Assessment may have been criminal
end quote. So a grand jury is being impaneled and
a federal prosecutor will be reviewing the explosive documents. This
is very huge stuff. Federalist senior contributor Ben Winegarten had
(27:15):
an excellent piece at The Federalist this week about why
it is indeed so important that we get justice for
Russiagate that somebody finally goes to prison, must go to prison,
also why it's going to be so tricky to do that.
So please welcome Ben Winegarden here to join me now, Ben,
(27:37):
I played that clip when I talked about this last week,
but I think I'm obligated to continue playing it until
someone goes to prison. And also you are, Ben, so
it felt like it just felt right to play it now,
So welcome.
Speaker 6 (27:48):
I appreciate that. Tough to follow up that clip, I'll
do my best here.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
It's a classic thank you National treasure for that one. So, Ben,
you write that under Obama's direction, Intel and National Security
ofials coordinated with the media and the Clinton campaign to
frame Trump as a foreign stooge. You write, quote, absent
justice for Obamagate. The lesson to the conspirators is that
they should go even bigger next time. This would be
(28:13):
catastrophic end quote. And of course I agree, and it
turns out so do the majority of voters. A Rasmussen
poll came out on Monday showing that the majority of
respondents said they believe Obama's deep state quote committed crimes
in Russiagate, and more than two thirds almost seventy percent
said there must be consequences for the crimes committed. Ben,
(28:36):
can you describe what justice should even look like here
and why you think the American people are so insistent
on accountability when there's a million things they probably want
to see accountability on, but Russiagate seems to be a
pretty darn big one.
Speaker 6 (28:49):
Well, first of all, I think that the poll is
very heartening in that it shows that despite or maybe
because of the media media propaganda that's been pumped in
over the last eight years plus. Obviously longer than eight years,
but certainly over the last eight plus years, people are
(29:11):
not desensitized to it. They're actually to it, and they
recognize that there has been a constant stream of efforts
to delegitimize, destroy jail, and ultimately attempts obviously to assassinate
President Trump, but as a proxy in part for tens
(29:32):
of millions of Americans who have rejected ruling class ran
and they understand then, I think intuitively, first of all,
the notion that russia Gate, or Obamagate as it probably
ought to be called, because it all happened under Barack Obama,
and he's been the man sort of insulated by all
(29:52):
of these key players, whether it's Brennan Komi, Clapper or
Susan Rice, we can work down the list, but of
course the bucks with him, he was in that infamous
meeting where Susan Rice then wrote the email in the
last minutes of the Obama presidency about doing things by
the book so called, and it was his government, essentially,
his national security and intelligence apparatus, that was responsible for
(30:15):
starting Russia gates, and then of course those deep state
actors continued on through much of the first Trump term.
So first thing I'd say is it's heartening that Americans
understand the stakes here that if heads don't roll, if
there are not massive, severe consequences commensurate with the severity
(30:35):
of this abuse of power and attempt to disenfranchise tens
of millions of Americans and also frankly genuinely prohibit the
peaceful transfer of power, that we're not going to have
a republic at the end of the day.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
And it would just validate the corruption and the arguable.
Speaker 6 (30:52):
Criminality at hand, and what I believe is criminality at hand.
So what does justice look like to the extent you
can get it?
Speaker 3 (31:01):
To my mind? And I lay this out in my column.
Speaker 6 (31:05):
There's the ideal and then there's what's going to be
practically possible. And it's not clear whether the practical is
going to meet the ideal, But to me, The starting
point is you have to have total and absolute transparency
into the quote unquote investigations into the Trump into Trump
and then the investigations of the investigators. And we're starting
(31:27):
to get that, obviously, and it's amazing we're talking about
events that were nine years ago and finally starting to
get full transparency, even though we don't have fully unretacted documents,
even for the documents that have been declassified and shared
with the American people, you need to know the origins
of the origins, so to speak, with respect to Obamagate,
(31:48):
you need to know every single player involved, who knew what, when,
what did they do with it.
Speaker 3 (31:54):
You need to be able to compare the.
Speaker 6 (31:56):
Public statements and the sworn testimony to what was actually
going going on behind the scenes. And you need to
know every player involved. And that includes, of course, notably
and when talking about what the DOJ is looking for,
including the media leaks, anyone and everyone who could be
implicated in criminality or who might know something to do
the kind of ground up investigation that you actually need.
(32:17):
And then the other part purpose I think of the
transparency is that the American people need to see it
with their own eyes and they need to have the
source documents to the extent they can. So the first
step is transparency. The second step, obviously is accountability. And
part of that accountability, of course, should be ought to
be that the American people distrust and all of the
(32:40):
individuals implicated are entirely discredited.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
That's obviously number one.
Speaker 6 (32:46):
But number two, of course, is to the extent crimes
were committed, or to the extent let's take the non crimes.
Speaker 3 (32:52):
Let's start there.
Speaker 6 (32:53):
Non crimes were committed, and anyone who has been implicated, however,
in the corruption, is still operating in the federal government,
still has security clearance, still gets any and all the
advantages of their government service. Those advantages need to be
eliminated full stop. It's not clear that that's necessarily happened,
because how many protege is and subordinates of the likes
of Comie, Clapper and Brannan who might be implicated in
(33:16):
these acts are still working in the federal government.
Speaker 3 (33:18):
I bet a number of them.
Speaker 6 (33:20):
Beyond that, though, of course, is the criminality, and so
you have to unearth the crimes, marshal the evidence necessary
to prosecute them, and then you would need to go
after those people to the fullest extent of the law
on the merits, and then also as a deterrent and
to genuinely show that no one is above the law,
and that there will be a dear cost, a severe
(33:41):
cost to abusing powers to effectively undermine the republic and
again disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. And then last
but obvious, they are all the victims of Obamagate, people
whose lives were abended, being investigated under false pretenses, whose
civil liberty is were eviscerated. Think of course of the
likes of Carter Page, for example, whose coffers were completely
(34:05):
drained trying to pay for legal counsel, and who will
never be able to get their reputations back, their careers back,
the damage done to the families, it's incalculable, the number
of people that we're talking about and the level of
damage done to them, not to mention, of course, the
chilling effect, which itself will prevent good people from serving
(34:26):
probably for generations after this. So restitution recompense would be
the last part of it. And so now we have
started to get more and more transparency, thank god, even
if it's nine years on and it appears that we
are getting towards justice quad justice, which is prosecutions. But
as I lay out in the Peace, of course, there
(34:46):
are a number of potential stumbling blocks here to securing convictions.
And that's even setting aside all of the other the
duress effectively that prosecutors are going to be working under it,
and that the America people might suffer from once the
resistance is unleashed to the extent we actually get prosecutions.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Right, Yeah, So can you speak a little bit to
what those main roadblocks are? Like, why is achieving justice
going to be so tricky in this case? And you know,
does the news this week about the grand jury and
about the federal prosecutor give you any more hope that
some of these roadblocks will be overcome or do you
think it will truly be, you know, nigh impossible to
(35:28):
actually achieve justice here.
Speaker 6 (35:31):
Let me start with the most pessimistic view would be
the our cynical view would be that grand jury probe
is likely to commence and a there are no indictments
that results from that. I think that's almost zero percent
chance because I think I don't think that the DOJ
would start this process if they didn't intend to see
(35:52):
it through to the end. So let's assume that there
are indictments that come down, and there is value to
that alone, to those indictments coming down, because it shows
minimally that if you were implicated in criminality with respect
to Obamagate, that you're going to face the punishment of
a legal process, just like the punishment of the legal
(36:13):
process that was meted out to innocent people in response
to Obamagate. Then we get to what are the actual
charges look like and can you prove those charges? And
then where can you prove those charges? So start with
the charges. It's very vague at this point what potentially
those charges might look like, but some legal scholars have said,
(36:36):
and I think it's also fair to surmise that the
most obvious off the bat is perjury when you match
up the statements, the sworn statements of the likes of
the Brennan's comes Clappers, et cetera, with what was actually happening,
For example, with respect to the inclusion of the Steele
dossier as a key source or substantial creator for the
(37:01):
most provocative and damning claims and probably and unsupported claims
that appears in the ICA about Russia of favoring Trump
and wanting to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 3 (37:14):
When you look at.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
The private the private acts and what was actually produced
versus what was stated publicly, certainly looks like perjury, looks
like they're dead to rights to the extent the statute
of limitations is extent there, and so you have to
look at what was the last statement that looks like
(37:35):
a lie relative to what the truth was, and then
you can bring those charges. But there are other potential
charges where the statute statute of limitation issue may not
be a barrier, that could be a challenge.
Speaker 3 (37:49):
And so that.
Speaker 6 (37:50):
Includes and I think there is a level of justice
here in terms of hoisting the resistance on its own
petard when it comes to charges like conspiracy to defraud
the US or conspiracy to violate the rights of Donald
Trump or many people in and around his orbit. When
you read those charges, the question is going to be
(38:13):
at least the way that a court would presumably look
at it, And what the administration or what the DOJ
will have to think through is can you find analogs here?
And if you can't find analogs, what's your best argument
for applying these charges to the conduct that we saw
and I'm not a lawyer, but in some ways there's
(38:34):
a political aspect to this, and then there's the legal
aspect of this as well. If you were on the
other side, that is, if you were on the Jack
Smith side, you had no qualms about bringing these charges
in Washington, DC, for example, because you knew that you
would have a favorable judge and a favorable jury most likely,
even if the charges are novel, and even if they
haven't been applied before. Now maybe to the Trump DOJ's benefit,
(38:58):
you had the Biden DOJ seeking to prosecute Trump on
these sorts of grounds. So there is a precedent perhaps,
and that's why I talk about hoisting them on their
own petard and there being some justice to it. But
it's yet to be seen whether or not you can
make these cases. But let's assume you can sufficiently make
these cases.
Speaker 3 (39:19):
Then the next part of it is the.
Speaker 6 (39:21):
Venue where are you bringing these prosecutions? And again the
scuttle butt here and what legal scholars have noted is
obviously DC is probably the most hostile venue possible. But
can you make a case that some or all of
the acts which are involved in a criminal conspiracy or
(39:44):
pertaining to perjury, etc. Maybe other charges that we haven't
even conceived of, because presumably prosecutors can be very creative
and many things are criminalized to the extent they're applied.
What's the venue where can you actually get a fair shake, essentially,
as the DOJ in this case, And it's been speculated
(40:05):
that Florida is.
Speaker 3 (40:06):
The likely venue. It's yet to be seen. We'll have
to see if that's the case.
Speaker 6 (40:10):
But so it really comes down to can you make
those charges stick to the statutes of limitation? Are you
inside or outside of the statutes of limitation? And then
can you actually win? And then beyond that, if you
win at what cost? If you lose at what cost?
And those are all things that require both legal judgment,
(40:34):
practical judgments, and then wisdom and courage as well, because
you know that on the other side of this, no
matter what happens. And again, luckily perhaps the American people
see through the regime media at this point, but of
course you know they're all are already going with this
is retribution.
Speaker 3 (40:51):
There's no there there. This is authoritarian.
Speaker 6 (40:53):
He's trying to he's trying to lock up his political foes,
which of course is exactly what our rule in regime
tried to do it to Donald Trump up and many
in and around his orbit, and try to destroy anyone
who would dare represent these individuals in the court of law.
That persists, by the way, when you look at, for example,
of this effort to try to disbar Jeff Clark.
Speaker 3 (41:12):
For example.
Speaker 6 (41:13):
But the bottom line is that you were going to
have maybe the ultimate hysterical Trump derangement syndrome response. To
the extent you have prosecutions of these individuals, and to
the extent you secure any convictions. But of course there's
a massive cost to not seeking to secure these convictions
and not actually securing them, because again, it simply validates
(41:36):
the efforts of the other side, and it will only
make them that more zealous when they get back into
total power over the federal government to use and abuse
those powers to criminalize dissent. They of course have done
everything they claim their opponents would do and worse. But
the stakes of this are of course again that you're
(41:57):
going to see, in my view, to the extent we
actual we go through with prosecutions, let alone secure convictions,
you're going to see street actions, You're going to see
regime media propagating a level of propaganda that will rival
anything that we've seen to date. And then of course
you're going to have a counter response from the left's
lawfare mechanism, which is going to be egregious. And then
(42:20):
of course you have the more kind of near term
political considerations. All of the wobbly members of the House
and Senate on the Republican side, are they going to
get weak needed when it comes to this, Is there
going to be political blowback repercussions? Could you have a
loss of the House or a loss of the Senate. Again,
public sentiment here gives me some optimism and confidence that
(42:41):
you're not going to have that sort of issue.
Speaker 3 (42:43):
So let's hope that the.
Speaker 6 (42:44):
American people continue to see what the truth is here,
and let's see more transparency, because I think that's only
going to fuel the cause for needed justice.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
Right it seems to me that the stakes or I
guess the risks of making a half hearted effort and
not walking away with convictions are much higher than any
potential political blowback in the mid terms if you do
secure convictions or you know, any potential media blowback, which
I mean the trust in media has tanked. I mean,
even trusted media now versus in twenty sixteen is like
markedly different. And so you know, I think I think
(43:16):
the biggest risk is only making a half hearted effort,
not actually walking away with any convictions and just you know,
useless Republicans being useless Republicans, and not actually securing any
victories for Republicans, for their constituents, what have you. You
also talked about the victims of this, of course, Carter Page,
and I mean, there have been many, but I'm also
just thinking about the American people as a whole being
(43:38):
victims of this, and the way that you know, Donald
Trump only only got eight years four years under the
Russia hoax, and just how much opportunity and time was
lost that just can never be recovered. And I hope
that prosecutors just get really creative and in the way
that Democrat prosecutors have gotten creative in coming up with
you know, legitimate but unique legal means to go after
(44:03):
the co conspirators here. And yeah, you brought up the
statute of limitations to on potential crimes. But then every
day we see the media still peddling the same hoax,
up to and including Clapper and Brennan themselves pending their
own piece in the New York Times that's full of lies,
full of the same Russia Gate lies, the same lies
they told under oath. I mean in your mind, and
(44:24):
you're not a lawyer, but does this extend the statute
of limitations at all? Are they just engaging in more
obstruction of justice or conspiracy here or do you think
that doesn't apply?
Speaker 6 (44:35):
Well, I think in the court of public opinion, it's
a conspiracy that's very.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
Live and well.
Speaker 6 (44:41):
Look no further than what they wrote in the New
York Times a week before recording this, where they continue
to gas light and obvious gate and disingenuously try and
defend themselves, but they're also trying to keep their story straight,
a crooked story straight. And then of course you have
potentially since you reference the media, and obviously I view
(45:03):
the media as co conspirators in this. Whether that's legal
or not obviously is open for debate, and of course
those in the media are going to claim all manner
of defenses.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
By the way, it's interesting to think.
Speaker 6 (45:14):
About why is it that, besides in wanting to secure
fat paychecks, that the likes of the brand ends and
the clappers and the comies of the world are out
out there in the media, and some of them are contributors.
Is that in part a measure of defense. Potentially we'll
have to see. But at the end of the day,
we're there illegal leaks. I think it's very clear there
were illegal leaks. And what this further show is discrediting
(45:37):
the media is that regime media has effectively become not
just a mouthpiece for our ruling regime and our national
security and intelligence apparatus when it's not under control of
conservatives or America First type leaders, but what it shows
that they're an extension essentially. Something that Lea Smith has
argued before is that this is what the media is
(45:59):
like in the Middle East, and that's exactly what our
media has become like. It's part of the intelligence apparatus. Now,
some will argue that this goes back many decades to
talk about Project Mockingbird, etc. And you kind have a
fascinating conversation about that, but it's never been more transparent
how corrupted and the extent to which the media has
(46:20):
served as an extension of our ruling regime. And of course,
as a federalist has reported on extensively the circularity with
respect to what was presented to the FISA courts. You know,
one party feeds the other party, and then there's a
report in the press, and then the report on the
press is cited as a justification for eviscerating the civil
liberties of an American. So whether or not we're going
(46:43):
to be able to make the case that the statutes
are starting just now because they're still talking the way
that they were before is yet to be seen. And
then obviously they're not under oath when they're talking in
the public, but it may show something about the patterns
that they have pursued. And so I think what they
say publicly is certainly going to be fair game when
(47:06):
you come to things like state of mind and intent
and questions like that, and the patterns in their public proclamations.
Speaker 3 (47:14):
Versus what went on privately.
Speaker 6 (47:16):
And then another aspect of this, by the way, that's
worth noting is with the DOJ looking into essentially anyone
and everyone involved from the jump, are people going to
commit crimes now? Are people going to obstruct or defy
or lie under oath now?
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Potentially? And so could you have new crimes.
Speaker 6 (47:35):
That people engage in today as a consequence of their
responses to being probed. That's something to bear in mind
as well. But the one thing that's very disconcerting here
is obviously there's been substantial reporting about documents being in
burn bags, etc. There's been, as I noted in my article,
a nine year head start effectively for those who were
(47:57):
culpable and those who are complicit here to destroy potentially
evidence or otherwise seek to obstruct. Let's not forget, of
course we had the Molor Special Council. If you think
that that was part of the cover up. What bodies
did they find and what was buried by the Molar
(48:17):
Special Council? So all manner of very live questions. And
the one thing that might give one hope is that
this appears to be being executed by the Trump DOJ
like a Rico case, where you're looking at all of
the fish involved, and maybe you're going to get some
people to flip and turn, and there may be some
(48:37):
people you can squeeze as you move your way up
to the ringleaders.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
So I remained cautiously optimistic.
Speaker 6 (48:45):
But what I will say again is that I don't
think that the DOJ would let it be known that
there was a grand jury probe coming unless they didn't
intend to try and go all the way to indict
and try and prosecute, and that the shrewd legal minds there,
we'll try and bring the charges that they think have
the best chance of sticking before a venue that is
(49:06):
going to give the fairest shot on behalf of the
American people, and to your point, to try and restore
to the American people that which really can't be restored
to your point, because we didn't get four years of
a first Trump term, we got only a fraction.
Speaker 1 (49:20):
Of it, right right well, And I'm also encouraged by
the fact that I mean the media doing a full
court press on downplaying or ignoring the story, the way
that Brennan and Clapper and like you said, members of
the intel community coming out and speaking on this publicly
to try to downplay it. And I mean, you know,
the nine year head start, Yes, but I believe it
(49:41):
was Cash Bettel and maybe some others in Trump's intel
community who have implied that the rate on mar A
Lago was an attempt to find a copy of this
Hipsie report and destroy it or whatever you know it's like.
And the fact that they're finding these documents in the
burn bags and whatnot. They clearly did not get rid
of as much evidence as they sought too, and so
hopefully their head start wasn't enough to head off these indictments,
(50:05):
and hopefully people are going to go to prison bent
that's the hope.
Speaker 6 (50:09):
That's the only thing, the only deterrent at the end
of the day to this kind of criminality and corruption
is people have to face massive, massive, unrivaled punishment for
engaging in massive and unrivaled attacks on our republic. And
since you mentioned Cash Patel, I mean it is worth
noting if anyone would be well positioned and uniquely qualified
(50:34):
to engage in this investigation, it's the person, probably the
lead co author of and researcher behind the Devin noun
As Memo, which play in an essential role in starting
to unravel this plot. And the fact that you had
our ruling regime go after Devin Noon as then leading
the House Intelligence Committee as well as going after Cash Patel,
(50:56):
I think speaks volumes about the capability and the will
that's being brought to bear here on the investigative side.
So that's another heartening aspect of this. But the challenge,
of course, is you are up against the ruling regime
in exile, let's say, at the highest possible levels. And
(51:16):
as Chuck Schumerschet said, they can get you six ways
from Sunday, and they have done that in scores. But
that said, there's never been a better chance, notwithstanding any
potential statutes of limitation issues, to get this done.
Speaker 3 (51:30):
Donald Trump is a lamb duck.
Speaker 6 (51:32):
There are unique opportunities here to pursue justice, and like
you said, people needed to go to jail because if
they don't, we won't have a republic at the end
of the day.
Speaker 1 (51:42):
Yeah, completely agree, completely agree. Thanks so much, Ben. I
appreciate you joining me today. Definitely go check out his
piece on the Federalist website why reigning justice on the
Russia hoaxers is so tricky and so important. Definitely go
check it out. Thanks so much, Ben. I hope you'll
join me again soon.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
Thanks much for having me. It's a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
All right, it's time for a quick little I mean,
come on, I did, I mean could because I couldn't
pass up the opportunity to comment on this insane and
frankly super creepy clip from Jim Acosta.
Speaker 4 (52:17):
This week.
Speaker 1 (52:17):
Now, you recall that Jim Acosta worked at CNN for
a long time and is probably best known for being
a self important political activist rather than a journalist. But
he left the network in January after CNN switched up
its lineup, which looked an awful lot like an attempt
to demote Acosta to a less favorable time slot for
his show, and boy howdy, what a trajectory he has had.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Now.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
Acosta hosts a blog slash show on Substack, and his
latest guest was not real. Jim Acosta tweeted on Monday
that you wouldn't want to miss that day's show because quote,
I'll be having a one of a kind interview with
Joaquin Oliver. He died in the Parkland school shooting in
(53:00):
twenty eighteen, but his parents have created an AI version
of their son to deliver a powerful message on gun violence.
Speaker 3 (53:08):
End quote.
Speaker 1 (53:09):
And of course, Acosta turned off replies to his post
so nobody could ratio him with comments about how bizarre
this is. But as you can see, there are an
awful lot of quote tweets and not a whole lot
of likes.
Speaker 2 (53:19):
Here's the clip, Joaquin, I would like to know what
your solution would be for gun violence.
Speaker 3 (53:26):
Great question.
Speaker 7 (53:27):
I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws,
mental health support.
Speaker 3 (53:31):
And community engagement.
Speaker 7 (53:32):
We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections,
making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It's about building
a culture of kindness and understanding. What do you think
about that?
Speaker 2 (53:42):
I think that's a great idea, Joaquin.
Speaker 1 (53:46):
This is all so bizarre and weird and dare I
say demonic. He's essentially conjuring up an AI fueled humanoid
that resembles a real person who was murdered by a
school shooter just to make a political state about guns.
It's hard to imagine being Joaquin Oliver's parents, but imagine
not only generating a humanoid version of your child, but
(54:08):
then also giving AI to a has been journalist to
air all over the Internet. And then imagine being Jim
Acosta and saying out loud to an AI. I think
that's a great idea, Joaquin, Dude, he's not real. It's
really disturbing in part because it elicits this uneasy, uncanny
Valley response, because it's not convincingly human for obvious reasons,
(54:33):
but also because of the way Oliver's parents and Jim
Acosta create and then go along with this. You know,
I've seen other people do this too with still images
on Twitter, where they use AI to animate a still
photo of a since deceased loved one, and it evokes
this weird emotional response of creating a memory that's not
really there and not quite human. This Acosta thing evokes
(54:57):
a similar feeling to when you're in a room full
of people who are all using biologically incorrect pronouns to
refer to a transidentifying person. It just doesn't feel right anyway,
super weird at best, unhealthy at worst, demonic. And you know,
I never thought I'd be surprised that Jim Acosta could
get worse. But I mean, come on, I said, I
(55:18):
mean cub oud All right, that's going to do it
for me today. Thanks again so much for tuning into
the Kylie Cast. I will be back here with more
very soon. Until then, just remember the truth hurts, but
it won't kill you.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!