Rick Wilson

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Are you being shadow banded on?

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I hope not. Oh, there we go. We got people,
We've got people. Hey, hey, hey, everybody, twenty three. That's
a grand journey there it is, right, see the numbers
rolling up.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
We're going to get to the three digits any second now.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
Hey, well, thanks for joining everybody.

Speaker 3 (00:17):
And it's been it's only Wednesday, it's already been a
hell of a legal week. And there's no better person
to talk about some of the things that are going
on in this country right now in that space than
our friend preeper Are. He is a former prosecutor, knows
this work, knows this business, understands what the legal ramifications
of the insanity that we are facing in this country

(00:38):
right now are. So Prida wanted to start out with
the unusual nature of one of our newest members of
the Federal Judiciary, Emil Bove, a man who is forty
four years old but looks.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Eighty I think from the weight of evil.

Speaker 3 (00:53):
But talk to us about how different this is to
have somebody going on to the bench who is this
qualified both legally and temperamentally.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Okay, well, you're starting right in with the hard stuff.
I thought we're going to chit chat about the weather. First,
it's very hot. It's very hot in New York. I'm
actually I'm actually wearing a T shirt under my my blazer,
which is not the look that that at my age
and in my station that I usually sport. You know,

(01:26):
Rock seven. I put on the blazer for you. I
put on a blazer for you, even though I'm in
my my little office. So so amiabove, I know very well.
I hired him at the US Attorney's office for this
other district on the strength of a very powerful application
set of recommenders. He's a very smart guy. He's a

(01:47):
very smart lawyer. So I don't know if it's the
case that he's not qualified legally. There are plenty of
people on the appellate courts who have been appointed younger
and are not as skilled in the courtman. In fact,
lots of people have said who are no friends of
mister Bovie and what he has done and some of
the things he's been accused of, have said that in

(02:08):
the courtroom in some of those Trump proceedings, he was
the star of the courtroom. So he knows his way
around the courtroom. He knows his around criminal law. The
other stuff is more. Look, I don't have to give
my own personal opinion. I can tell you that there
are many members of the Senate who I respect and
who I think have good judgment, who called into question

(02:32):
some of the conduct by amil Bove. There was the
whole business about, you know, how he dealt with the
public Integrity Unit in the Justice Department relating to a
particular politician who was charged. There are three whistleblowers who
came forward and talked about his representations to the committee,
about whether he ever encouraged folks to say, you know,

(02:53):
f the courts. So there are a lot of questions here,
and I think, Look, I serve in the Judiciary Committee
as a staffer counseled to Sender Schumer for for five years,
and so I'm a veteran of some of these confirmation battles.
And ordinarily a candidate like this would have failed, even
the candidate of the president's owned party, even if the

(03:15):
president's party had a slight majority in the Senate. I
saw that happen on a number of occasions here, and
you were as well versed in this dynamic as anyone
in the country. You have senators who didn't did not
want to die on this hill. Ye who I think
probably had grave concerns about temperament, as you mentioned it,

(03:36):
probably would have wanted more inquiry and more investigation. But
this is like you know, you remember the NRA in
the old days. Maybe they still do this if they're around.
They would say to members, this vote were going to
count yes, right and and and this vote is going
to we're we're this worrying this vote. Well, Trump has
a version of that, and and he told people on

(03:57):
the vote for this particular third circ at Judge, not
others and other you know, he's had some failures, we're
scoring this vote. And people got the message. And you know,
Susan Collins, uh, clearly I think she voted against right,
she did she and you know, clearly, knowing that it wouldn't
make the difference, very courageously voted no. And he's on
the bench now. The interesting orating question is not whether

(04:21):
he's legally qualified or too young to be on the
on the Third Circuit as as a matter of strict
qualification and intellect, but what's going to happen next? And
lots of credible sources reporting that he's next in line
for a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Let's see how that goes.

Speaker 3 (04:40):
Yeah, I mean it that the the article in The
Atlantic and some other you know, DC chatter has been
that this, that this, that the reason this was so
important to Trump and the White House was that is
the plan is if Alito or Thomas goes, he follows.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
So can you make a point about that? Sure, And and
maybe people will say I'm like, you know, full of
full of stuff. So whatever you think of amil Bova,
I am not aware of. First of all, when I
hired people in the Australians office, I didn't know if
they were Democrats, for Republicans, conservatives or liberals. We didn't
hire in that base. I am now learning when people

(05:17):
have later lives, what their political affiliations are and and
and were, and with their partisan relationships are and were.
But I don't know that there's anything about him that
suggests he's some kind of federalist society extreme right wing ideologue.
Is claim to fame and his access to this, to
this position is loyalty to the President of United States,

(05:40):
who represented in a personal capacity in his criminal defense cases.
So if there's a case if he gets on the
Supreme Court, and we're getting way ahead of ourselves. But
you know why not.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
It's hot.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
It's a hot day in New York. Hot day, hot day,
hot damn. And so so maybe maybe on some occasions
when another immunity case or some other privileged case comes
before the Supreme Court, is he a reliable vote for
Donald Trump's interests?

Speaker 2 (06:07):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (06:07):
Probably, But Dald Trump is going to be gone in
amil baby will be forty seven, right, and I don't
know that he's a reliable vote on abortion and on
all sorts of rights issues. He may not be, And
he could turn out to be somebody ultimately that the
Conservatives don't like because we don't know what his jurisprudences,

(06:30):
at least I don't.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
Yeah. I think that's a really good point, preed.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
And I think that there is a degree to which
that rupture between Trump and the Federal Society and Leonard
Leo and all those guys. Yeah, this is like it
has disrupted that that feeder system that Leonard Leo built
up for I don't know, almost twenty five years, maybe
longer actually, of those young conservative judges who were groomed

(06:54):
and mentored by other young conservative judges and lawyers.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
So I think you're right there.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
We don't know what Bob's gonna do beyond stuff I
think directly rated at Trump, and you never know, once
he's on the bench for life, he could be you know,
things can change, let's hope.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
So he's a New Yorker. I don't know, you know,
we don't, we don't have I just I just I
think the jury is out.

Speaker 3 (07:16):
You know.

Speaker 1 (07:16):
Somebody made the comparison to another to a nominee, again
getting way ahead of herselves, but just a blast in
the past. When I was on the Judiciary Committee, as
I mentioned as a staffer, people may have forgotten, there
was a nomination of John Roberts you got confirmed, and
then later the nomination of Samuel Alito, he got confirmed.
In between there was a nominee Harriet Myers. Harriet Myers,

(07:37):
I'll take failed Supreme Court nominations for one thousand and
and I think he won. Harriet Myers loyal like in fact,
you know, quite parallel in some ways. Her access to
that position of the nomination was she was the very
loyal and dedicated White House Council with a very close
relationship to then President Bush. You know, conservative sort of

(08:00):
enough for him, and conservatives, the Leonard Leos of the
world lost their minds because she didn't have a track
record on abortion. People thought she might be wishy washy
and too liberal for the court, certainly more liberal than Roberts,
certainly more liberal than Alita, who eventually replaced her as
the nomini. You could have that with this guy too.

Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yeah, yeah, So I want to change tracks a little
bit and talk about the continued an extraordinary way in
which the Justice Department is being deployed in the Maxwell
and Epstein issue. Talk to me about how extraordinary it
is for the Deputy Attorney General of the United States
to get on a plane and fly to visit a

(08:46):
prisoner in a case that has long since resolved. I mean,
it's under appeal, but she was found guilty and to
spend two days in some sort of creative discussions and
negotiations with her. I think people have yet to catch on, like,
how off the beaten path this is for DJ.

Speaker 1 (09:10):
Yeah, so it's way up the beaten path to have
someone who's the number two in the department personally interview
a witness. People might say, well, why don't you have
the prosecutor who knows the most about the case and
is steeped in the facts, and was in fact the prosecutor,
the lead prosecutor of Maxwell, of Gillian Maxwell. Oh right,

(09:31):
she was fired. Lots of people speculate because their last
name is Comy, Marian Comy.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Usually you would have somebody who steeped in the facts
and had less on their plate in the deputy attorney general,
you think, but but I think, sort of less less
important than you know, which personnel was sent to this
interview is the fact that the interview is happening at all.
It raises a lot of questions.

Speaker 2 (09:58):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
The suggestion is look And one of the reason there
raised a lot of questions is before I have a document,
people call it receipts. I have a receipt here on
July seventh. The thing that brought all this fury and
fervor and furor and any other f word that you
want to use to this controversy is that the Magabase,

(10:20):
for a very very long time, was told by people
who were civilians and then came into government, including Cash
Betel and Dan Bongino. We're going to blow the little
you know off this thing. All this material related to
Jeffrey Epstein, we're going to make public. And then they
put out this document that says, among other things, we
found no basis to revisit the disclosure of materials and

(10:43):
will not permit the release of They say child pornography,
but they mean all the materials. There is no incriminating
client list, and we did not uncover evidence that could
predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Also perpetuating unfounded
theories about Epstein doesn't serve the ends of combating child
exploitation and bringing justice to victims, And no further disclosure

(11:04):
would be appropriate or warrant or warranted. So why are
we going to interview Julaine Now? It's also unusual and
bizarre because Julaanne Maxwell, like every other defendant who's ever
come through or target so that matter who's come through
the doors at the Southern District of New York and elsewhere,

(11:24):
has absolutely the opportunity to provide information, including the names
of clients and other kinds of things. But some conditions
have to be met. If you want to have a
working system that's credible and that serves the interest of justice,
you have to be credible. Right, people should be reminded
that miss Maxwell has separately been charged with two counts

(11:45):
of perjury in making false statements about these very matters,
Leaving Jeffrey Epstein. You have to accept response. You can't
provide information reliably about other people unless you've come cleaned
about yourself. That makes common sense. Even the layperson can
understand that. Accept the responsibility for heinous actions that are
proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of her

(12:06):
peers in New York for which she got the maximum
sentenced twenty years. So not credible, no acceptance of responsibility.
And then it's not clear what information she actually has
and that can be corroborated. So you have somebody with
all these flaws who's been convicted, who is an associate
of and and and and the co conspirator of somebody
that the administration itself describes is the greatest pedophile of

(12:28):
all time, who is incentivized by the dangling of a
pardon to give particular information that would exonerate Trump and
and and implicate his enemies by somebody who's Who's Who's way,
for whom this is way above below their pay grade

(12:49):
in a non transparent way. Unclear if there are other witnesses.
Repbi and is taking notes. That's what you have. That
combination of things is crazy, unusual and unprecedented.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
Yeah, it just strikes me that.

Speaker 3 (13:03):
It also is increasingly striking me that Blank seems to
be running the department more than BONDI is in some ways.
I mean this, He clearly has hired more confidence with
the President than than the body.

Speaker 1 (13:17):
Attorney general is looking for that, I'm sitting here at
my desk and I'm looking. I don't I would know
if there was a client list on my desk or not.
In fact, I have a client list, not that kind
of client list, because I have I have actual clients,
So you know, I don't know what the dynamic is there.
Obviously they're both close to the president. You know, Todd

(13:41):
has more of a connection to the Southern Diist of
New York. That's where he served and I served with him,
So maybe that makes sense. Maybe he's closer to the
actual practice of law. I'd like to know who is
there in the meeting with him, and I think they
should disclose and make public who else was there and
what they're doing here. But yeah, the whole the whole
gambit is very odd. And I'm suspicious of it.

Speaker 3 (14:06):
I'm curious about about I mean, I think the political
implications of pardoning her are well beyond what the what
the White House.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
Understands with their own base.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
I think they So, can you answer your own question,
because I don't know, what can you explain to me politically?
How you survive the pardon of the co conspirator of
the greatest pedophile You.

Speaker 2 (14:27):
You don't, you don't.

Speaker 3 (14:30):
There's already there's already about uh three and ten voters
who voted for Trump think that he was involved with
Epstein in some way. New poll out today about that,
And as we talked about it, as you mentioned, for
a decade, the Republican Party had this identity in their
head that that there was a huge global conspiracy of
democratic pedophiles, Pizza rush. We know, you know the whole story, folks,

(14:54):
And that idea is so powerful for them and so
obsessive for.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
Them that.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
Maxwell was part of that demonology of this pedophile theory
and and letting her either commuting her sentence or pardoning
her completely, it doesn't matter either way.

Speaker 2 (15:16):
I think he's already kind of poisoned well with.

Speaker 3 (15:18):
His own base over this issue, because it does strike
people myself included, you know, as as inexplicable. And you know,
he's the guy who said when she was sentenced in
twenty twenty, I.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
Wish her well.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
I wish her well. And then and then he says
he ever wish Has he ever wished you well?

Speaker 2 (15:38):
No?

Speaker 3 (15:38):
I I not, not that I am aware, and I
think I'd probably know if he had. But he did
actually wish for Bill Barr to investigate me one time,
which even Bill Barr said no, which I was kind
of gratified by.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
I guess I am a favor.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
But the idea of pardoning her, I don't think he
understands that. The he's out of credit with his own
people on this issue, so he doesn't have the latitude
Cashie followup.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
So he He's many things, and I think he continues
to be underestimated politically and otherwise. But the one thing
that he's been very good at is understanding, really, really
rigorously and precisely what his base wants to hear, what
the limitations of his influence over them might be, and

(16:28):
there's almost no limit. He's right about the Fifth Avenue shooting. Sure,
he's right about he got convicted by on thirty four
counts of Manhattan. I don't care has he has he
has he has he lost touch with that? Or is
this an issue something that's like screwed his brain up?
How do you think there's some kind of a mess up.

Speaker 3 (16:45):
I think I think the problem for Donald right now,
and you're absolutely correct, he has a very fairal sense
of a cunning like connection to the base. I think
that's some of the stuff with Epstein is now so
long ago for him that he doesn't remember what's in
the files. He doesn't remember what could be there. He
doesn't remember or know what is known about his relationship

(17:10):
with Empty.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
So he's more scared of what's in the files than
he is of his base.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
That's that's my theory of the case right now, Pried,
is that he has something in his brain that's that's
making him behave in this way that is way off
kilter for his normal behavior set. It's it's way off
axis for how he normally is able to read and
manipulate the people that follow him so and.

Speaker 1 (17:35):
Look and that stuff. But you know, as you know, Rick,
that stuff was planted by Obama.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
Oh yeah, he actually snuffed back to be.

Speaker 1 (17:44):
Used three elections later when Trump is back.

Speaker 2 (17:46):
You know of his obny as the kids saying, are
there cash?

Speaker 1 (17:52):
The other question about the magas, what does it tell
you that this is the thing of all the things,
this is the thing that has caused an actual, real,
we'll see if it's abiding or not, but a real
and substantial rift between the MAGA base and their president.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
Look, I think it goes back to that idea that
a lot of these folks believe that they were saving
the children and they and they believe this theory because
it was so Look, people believe in conspiracy theories because
it gives them a cohesive vision of the world. When
they don't have a cohesive vision of the world, it
must be because of the UFOs or the Illuminati, or

(18:32):
the chial predators or whatever whatever that you know, whatever
theory of the day engages them. Now, this theory was
particularly appealing to them because it was packaged well. It
let them fill in the blanks of turning people they
opposed politically into people who.

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Were demonic or truly evil.

Speaker 3 (18:54):
And I don't think I don't think anybody expected it
to take off like it did, but there were people
on the right. Uh, Jack Boso, Big Mike Cernovich, Gateway Pundit,
all these big.

Speaker 2 (19:06):
Influencers on the right who made this into.

Speaker 3 (19:11):
An indictment of Hillary Clinton and an indictment of the
Democratic Party, an indictment of the left, the indictment of
the press, indictment of George Soros, all that stuff.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
So I think it's just, you know, I think it's
just it's.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
Such an okay, But I'm sorry. I see the comments.
People are very people are being very funny about my
naive te and incredulousness. So I appreciate that, folks, But
if you're going to pick a thing, by the way,
which has it's not based on one hundred percent line.
They're actually at the center of all this. There is
a pedophile, yeah, and there was, and there was an

(19:46):
eight or and a better of that pedophile, Galla Maxwell.
So it's not like the pizza thing, where I think
it's based on nothing at all. The other thing that's
connected to this, this this article of fates for them
and Donald Trump is not unknown to that guy. It's
to blow up the pizza conspiracy. And Donald Trump also
has a pizza shop with a basement that no one's

(20:08):
been in. Did then not see that this was lightning
for him too.

Speaker 3 (20:12):
I I think they really believed in their heart of
hearts that Donald Trump uh and Jeffrey Epstein were fellow
rich guys who might have known each other. Maybe there
are a couple dozen hundred pictures I don't know of
them together, but they couldn't possibly be connected because Donald
Trump was saving the children.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
And it really, I mean the cognitive distance they.

Speaker 1 (20:34):
Were indence his behavior backstage at a teen at a
teen beauty pageant.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
Yeah, you know, and that his daughter, you know, the
look Trump. It was no secret to anybody who was
in New York or in Palm Beach, and my, my, my,
I heard more rumors about him in Palm Beach, where
he used to spend an incredible amount of time, even
though it did in New York when I worked for Giuliani,

(21:03):
that he was a degenerate.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
He was always chasing girls.

Speaker 3 (21:05):
It was always after you know, young young, hot girls
in Palm Beach. You know, New York and Palm Beach
both have them in abundance. But I mean, the the
the Epstein stuff was always was always like a time
bomb for this guy. And I can't, I still can't
understand what part of him said, no, this is gonna

(21:26):
be fine because it it like like most conspiracies, they
eventually out, and most cover ups, like the one they're
engaging in right now, which I think is pretty clumsy,
they always out. I mean, conspiracies generally, break cover ups
always do.

Speaker 1 (21:44):
Can of the you know, thousands of people who have
tuned in, how many think are MAGA followers?

Speaker 2 (21:49):
They probably few, probably a few.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
Here's the question to pose to the to them, to
the MAGA base that wants transparency. And if you listen
to my podcast, you know I've been focused on this point.
The Trump administration, after saying we're not going to make
any other disclosures, is asking for extraordinary relief by requesting
grand jury material, which is really really hard to get

(22:13):
from district court judges to authorize their release. One judge
is already said no, properly, legitimately, lawfully.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (22:20):
There's a gigantic amount of material, including materials you know,
collected in connection with searches other interviews not done in
the grand jury. Huge amount of luminous material that the
Department of Justice did not present to the grand jury,
did not come through the mechanism of the grand jury
in which they could release tomorrow. They're good and prudential

(22:42):
and norms real.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
It was actually my next question for you was about
that they.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
Can totally They can totally do that. How are they
explaining to how is is anybody in the magabase asking like,
why aren't you disclosing that stuff when you can? And
making a big show of asking for more sensitive stuff
to be closed and getting stymied by the courts. I mean,
how dumb does I mean? I don't know yet.

Speaker 2 (23:06):
They think they're very dumb.

Speaker 3 (23:08):
The White House thinks these folks are very dumb, and
they're really working to suppress these influencers who are in
the Joe Rogans of the world. They lost him, They've
kind of lost him, right, They've kind of lost Joe Rogan.
Laura Lumer is in a weird spot because she is
while she is very close to the president, she's also

(23:30):
been extremely critical of the White House's handling of all
the Epsteine related materials. But they've been trying to sort
of get the influencer types to shut up.

Speaker 2 (23:41):
It hasn't worked.

Speaker 3 (23:43):
But as you pointed out, there's a ton of this
material that that thousands of the thousand FBI agents who
went in there to look through the material to flag
Trump's name, which again I think I'd love for you
to speak to that before we wrap up. That's also
absolutely extraordinary. I don't think of how nats have been
deployed to anything since nine to eleven.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
Yeah, I mean maybe January sixth, maybe January sixth, but
maybe not that many. But what's also weird about that
that I haven't heard people talk about, but I may
have missed it. You now have a thousand, if it's true,
and you not have a thousand people who are ordinary
human beings and won't forever be with the FBI. And

(24:25):
in any group of thousand people, there's going to be
folks with loose lips. Oh yes, who are in like
ordinarily given the sensitivity of this for a million reasons,
good faith reasons, bad faith reasons, political reasons, prudential reasons,
victim reasons. You want to keep this stuff close hold,
You don't open it up to a thousand agents. So

(24:47):
I don't know what's going on there. So I'm not
smart enough to figure out. I'm not smart enough to
understand how dumb some other people are. Does that make sense?

Speaker 3 (24:55):
You can't you know, what you can't underscore. I mean,
I think there is a can sspiracy and a cover
up here. I think there's also panic and impulsivity and
stupidity here on the part of the White House. I
think I think, you know, I had heard weeks ago
that Susie Wilds was told tell Pam BONDI wrap this
thing up, clean this up. Shortly after we start getting

(25:20):
you know, we we we we start getting the the
that statement like there's no evidence there, there's no there,
they're nothing to see here, move along, and nothing's gone
right for them since they've been in a panic since
that moment. And and you know, if we had a
functioning legislature in Washington, there would be investigations of this
because it is a clumsy and sort of messed up

(25:40):
cover up. But it's all all, it all, it all,
to my mind, is is a part and parcel to
a corrupted Department of Justice.

Speaker 2 (25:48):
At this point, Yeah, no, you.

Speaker 1 (25:52):
Make you make very good points. You know, we're past
our twenty minutes.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
We are ye.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Sixty seconds answer this question. Yeah, what's your Democrats be
doing politically? Because I'm not the political guy, so they
be like performatively seeking the documents released because it's bad
for the president. Should they sit tight?

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Yeah, Look, they can do They can walk and chew gum.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
They can work the economy stuff, they can work the
Ebstein stuff. They can work the redistrict and stuff all simultaneously.
And they should use their power in the in Congress
to the greatest degree of their ability to do so,
because Donald Trump will resist and it will continue to
make the story worse for him.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
It will continue to make it more messed up for
him as he goes. So all right, my friend, well listen,
I've run out the clock. I appreciate you as always the.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
Rick Wilson, thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
All right, folks, we'll see you again next time. Thanks
pretty thanks for kings.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Get back to work.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
Never stops. Hey, folks.

Speaker 3 (27:20):
Quick note for everybody, look at this camera straightened out
here somewhat quick note. Texas has just released their redistricting map.
I want you to understand what this means.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
This is war democrats. Listen to me closely.

Speaker 3 (27:37):
We're gonna put a link up a QR or something
on this page so you can see a link to
an article I just run on substack. It was private,
but a very generous founding member bought ten memberships on
the condition that I make in public. So I made
it public. Everybody can read this. This is the battle
plan on how to go at the Republicans not only
in Texas, but in Florida, Ohio and other states. Were

(27:59):
there planning to do this mid cycle redistricting. This is
called war Democrats. If you are not thinking this through,
please let this wake you the hell up. Republicans will
add five seats in Texas, three in Florida. They're bragging
about being able to get five to seven in Florida.

(28:21):
I don't think they can do that, and more in
other states. This is your wake up call to California
and New York and Illinois and Washington and Oregon and
other states. Do not think for a moment that preserving
normality now is an important mission. Do not think for

(28:43):
a moment, Oh, we don't want to go down the
same slippery slope they're going down.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Fuck that. Wake up, wake up.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
If they start this process, you must act in a
way to counterveil it. If they add five, you add seven.
If they add four, you add seven more. Ratchet it up.
I don't care at this point about the legal niceties
of this if you allow them to take the House

(29:15):
back by cheating with these bullshit redistricting plans and the
Texas plan.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
As a guy who's been involved in redistricting.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
Several times, I can tell you just one read of
that map, it is apartheid.

Speaker 2 (29:28):
It is not redistricting.

Speaker 3 (29:31):
They have jammed every African American voter into the smallest
possible districts to create five more Republican seats. Democrats, this
is on you now. Gavin News has been very feisty
lately on social media. Gavin, it's time to put up
or shut up in California. If these fuckers do this,

(29:52):
it's on you. Governor Pritzker, get you people together. It's
time to go fight. Governor Hokeel. I don't want to
hear a word about it.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
Just go do it.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
Because Governor Hochel, your folks blue redistricting in the twenty
twenty cycle, which ensured Republican seats in New York and
restored the Republican majority.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
Make up for it.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
Now, get in there, get call them into a special session,
an emergency session, whatever you have to do, because right
now they don't think you can cause pain to them.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
They think you're too afraid.

Speaker 3 (30:32):
All of the Democratic governors and legislators who are out
there the Republicans think you are too afraid to follow
them down this path.

Speaker 2 (30:42):
In New York, Governor Hockel.

Speaker 3 (30:44):
You could easily easily redistrict the egregious, at least deaphonic,
the Gretchen Wieners of politics out of that seat. You
could easily redistrict Mike Lawler out of that seat. You
could probably redistrict nikl Loota out of that seat. Folks,
if you let the Republicans cheat on this, you will

(31:06):
give them the greatest possible gift they could have.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
They will cheat.

Speaker 3 (31:10):
Their way to the majority in a year which they
will lose it in a fair fight, and then you
will never get power back. You will never get a
majority back because they once they have the majority, for
two more years of Trump. That's the ballgame. That's it,
it's done, that's all you got. I'm a very passionate

(31:36):
about this subject right now. And look, Donald Trump is
being eaten alive by the Epstein matter. And a lot
of the folks in Texas right now think they're going
to play this game. Play fuck around, go and pass
this new map. Follow Florida, will follow suit shortly thereafter.
This is the test for Democrats. If you're in a

(31:59):
state that's a democratic majority and controls the legislative process,
and you let Texas and Florida and probably Ohio fuck
you on this stuff, you deserve to lose. If you
think you're gonna run for president or higher office ever
and you do nothing about this, you deserve to lose.

(32:21):
I've written a long piece about it. I've explained how
it needs to go. I hope you'll read it. I
hope you'll understand that we are in a vital moment here.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
This isn't.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
This isn't for fun, This isn't just politics as usual.
They are trying to cheat their way to a majority.
I know many Democrats will sow, but we're not like them.
We don't do the nasty cheating things that matter do. Okay,
that's why you fucking lose. That's why you lose because

(32:56):
power is not real unless you use it. They're going
to use their power in Florida and Texas and Ohio
and other places to maximize the number of seats. This
is like a nuclear arms race. And you want to
come with a live laugh, love throw pillow instead, of
a nuke. Move quickly, move decisively.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
Do it.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
If you let them cheat like this, it's not just oh,
we didn't get the majority back in twenty six, there's
no more majority to have. Take it seriously, Take action, Democrats.
This is the kind of thing that as an ex Republican,
I can tell you the Republicans is gonna take enormous

(33:45):
joy at pulling off on you.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
They're gonna take enormous glee in fucking you over. They're
gonna take it.

Speaker 3 (33:50):
They're gonna be delighted, delighted that you go, oh, well,
you know, that's slippery slope. We don't want to go
down that. Don't fall for it. Don't read the article.
Let me know what you think. Support us at the
Lincoln Project. We're gonna go out and katch some shit
because we're mad at these people too. You should be angry,
You should be furious. This should really enrage the hell

(34:13):
out of you. There's nothing here more important than waging
this fight in the States. And that means you, Governor
Hokel and that means you, Governor Newsom, and that means
other democratic governors who understand governor governors who understand what's
at stake, and what's at stake, folks, is everything.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
Get to it. Fucked you said,