October 29, 2025 • 46 mins
On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:
JOE DIGENOVA IS A FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. AND VICTORIA TOENSING IS THE FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
AND
Rachel Hooper is one of the most talented conservative lawyers in the business. Rachel is the General Counsel for the Republican Party of Texas.
JOE DIGENOVA IS A FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. AND VICTORIA TOENSING IS THE FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
AND
Rachel Hooper is one of the most talented conservative lawyers in the business. Rachel is the General Counsel for the Republican Party of Texas.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hello, I have you happy people, Neil Smith and old
Buck Buddy.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Are you hearing Neil?
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Neil?
Speaker 4 (00:09):
I miss you, man.
Speaker 5 (00:10):
Donnes, I have a question.
Speaker 6 (00:12):
We respect for me.
Speaker 7 (00:13):
Down Missy breaking a major story, Chris, congratulations a single
score podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Felts.
Speaker 7 (00:42):
As you may have heard, the Democrats are throwing a
fit over being held accountable for what they have done
to this country. We asked when James Comey was indicted
on two counts, who would be the next Obamagate Russia
collusion host conspiracy person to be held accountable. Well, last
week we found out it was John Brennan, the man
(01:04):
who is has confessed to voting for communists in nineteen seventies.
And this is the guy who is now facing charges
of lying to Congress. Now I say that it's a
criminal referral from Congress. Now, praise God, somebody in the
DOJ is paying attention and decides to prosecute mister Brennan
(01:27):
for lying to Congress.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
It is bad.
Speaker 7 (01:30):
It is illegal to lie under oath. It's illegal to
lie under oath to Congress. So I'm hoping that Pam
Bondy gets some time between Fox appearances to actually pay
attention to this anyway. So there's that, and then there's
also this the pardons. President Trump pardons a guy by
(01:51):
the name of George Santos. He was doing seven years
for a white collar crime. Trump says, look, man, I
think you've served enough time. I'm going to commute your set.
And he's not saying that he's not convicted, he's not
pardoning him, he's commuting his sentences, saying, look for what
you did, you've served.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Enough time, you're out.
Speaker 7 (02:10):
Well that got the ire of none other than Jonathan
carl Over at ABC Fake News.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Listen to this.
Speaker 8 (02:17):
How about the fact that the president in issuing the
pardon or it's clemency. I'm sorry, the clemency. He said,
at least Santos had the courage, conviction and intelligence to
always vote Republican. I looked through this there of now
I think we have a list of them, ten former
Republican members of Congress who the President has either pardoned
or issued clemency for.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Ten.
Speaker 9 (02:39):
Okay, you want to talk about what Joe Joe Biden
did with that power, No family. The only thing he's signed,
by the way, with his own pen. Everything else is autopen. Yeah,
but categories of hardened criminals that they just released from prison.
At least President Trump is fully transparent. He goes out
and explains.
Speaker 8 (02:54):
His say the essentially, I'm partnering somebody because they always
had the courage. That's not the reason conviction and intelligence
to always voute republic.
Speaker 9 (03:02):
That's one snippet of what he said, among many things
about George Santosh.
Speaker 7 (03:05):
Yeah, and you know, do you notice how Jonathan Carl
doesn't want to talk about the Democrats and what they've done.
Joe Biden was the most prolific pardoner or President Auto Penn.
We don't know who the most prolific partner abuse of
that of that presidential power in US history. But Jonathan
Carl didn't blink an eyelash at that. Oh no, he
(03:26):
doesn't care about that. You know that Beijing, Biden let
out a cop killer among other violent criminals, let them out,
commuted their sentences, pardoned, pardoned these individuals. He pardoned crimes, folks,
we didn't know Democrats had committed on the January sixth Committee,
the Unselect Committee, among others, his eminence, doctor Fauci. What
(03:49):
crimes do doctor Fauci commit? Oh, Joe Biden or President
Auto Penn pardoned him. And then here comes Jonathan Carl
in an effort not to talk about anything the Democrats
have done, trying to make a mountain out of this
mole hill of President Trump saying to George Santos, hey man,
you've done your time. You're out. Actually, actually, what Speaker
(04:13):
Johnson said there was very, very pointed. President Trump looked
at the case. He actually reviewed the case and made
a determination.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Beijing. Biden can't say the same thing.
Speaker 8 (04:23):
You a factor in pardoning somebody.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
I don't think.
Speaker 8 (04:25):
I don't think climency.
Speaker 9 (04:27):
Oh, I don't think it was. I just think he's
talking about this individual in his past, and at least
he's open and transparent about it. Joe Biden never told
us anything, and frankly, we're not even sure he knew
who he's pardoning on any of that.
Speaker 7 (04:38):
Oh yeah, we're not sure that if it was these
staffers who were running the Auto Pen, we're not sure
if that's the case at all. We're not sure how
many of these so called pardons were legitimate, or these
clemencies or whatever President auto Pen was issuing.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Folks.
Speaker 7 (04:55):
I've got a double stacked podcast here. We're going to
be visiting with some legal eagles.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
First off, Joe.
Speaker 7 (05:02):
And Victoria Tunsing will be in and talk about some
stuff at the national level. And then Rachel Hooper from
the Republican Party of Texas. She is the general counsel there.
She's going to be giving us some ins and outs
of some of what the law says in regards to
party politics and the efforts by the Republican Party here
as long as Jane Nelson will get out of the
(05:23):
way efforts of the Republican Party to actually close the
primaries so Democrats aren't voting in Republican primaries any longer.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I think, Hey, if.
Speaker 7 (05:33):
You're going to have a Republican primary, you ought not
let the Democrats partake in it. It's all come in
your way. Next on the Salcedo Storm Podcast, and now
a word from my sponsor. My friends, did Bidenomics in
the left wing economy really rock your world? Let American
Medical Plans relieve one burden health insurance. American Medical Plan
specializes in under sixty five health insurance plans that have
(05:56):
zero copays and no deductibles.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
You choose your doctors, you choose your hospitals.
Speaker 7 (06:00):
These plans have nothing to do with your income and
are thirty to sixty percent less than Obamacare. If Obamacare
has your paying out the nose, call American Medical Plans.
Don't let these Marxists destroy one sixth to the US
economy and your access to healthcare without a fight.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
You deserve better.
Speaker 7 (06:18):
You deserve American Medical Plans the answer to the cancer
that is Obamacare.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Chris Salceato, Hello, my friends in liberty lovering community. Did
you know that as a follower of Chris Salsado you
get exclusive bonuses and discounts at quality vendors like my pillow.
My pillow with promo code Team Liberty, you get thirty
to eighty percent off everything you order every time as
(06:47):
part of the Salsado family. So go to MyPillow dot
com forward slash Team Liberty and check out the sheets,
the pillows, the blankets, the mattress toppers, and so much more,
and you get thirty to eighty percent off everything and
many times free shipping with promo code Team Liberty. And
(07:07):
if you don't believe me, check out what Chris has
to say about my Pillow himself.
Speaker 7 (07:12):
You know what they say, my friends. Once you go
my pillow, you never go back. I started out with
the old fashioned my pillow. Loved it. Then I graduated
the to the towels. The MyPillow towels. They take all
the water off. Yeah, and they're so softly.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Just love them.
Speaker 7 (07:26):
And then then I said, well, I gotta have something
to cover my pillow, so I got the whole sheet.
Said once you start, folks, you won't be able to
stop because you're just gonna love the products like I did.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So that's it.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
Ladies and gentlemen, you heard from the man himself. Go
to my pillow dot com for slash Team Liberty and
buy your my pillow. Now you're not only gonna save
thirty to eighty percent on everything you order, but you're
gonna get amazing products for your home. You're gonna support
a great American company, and you're gonna keep the salceedar
Storm podcasts on the air. It's a triple win, and
(08:00):
you'll never sleep better.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Chris Celcido, how.
Speaker 7 (08:05):
Can switching to Patriot Mobile help you? First, when you
switch to Patriot Mobile, you're not gonna be funding a
left wing company. Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative
cell phone company. They donate to the causes you and
I support. How else can it help you? Well, it
will keep voices like mine independent. You switch over to
Patriot Mobile. They have industry leading reliability because they're not
(08:26):
just one network, they have all three major networks. And
every single time you switch to Patriot Mobile using my
promo code storm, you support me and you keep my
voice independent. So just in case somebody in the woke
crowd tries to come around and cancel me, they can't
because you have the power. So go to Patriot Mobile
dot com, slash storm, Patriot Mobile dot com, slash storm
(08:47):
and switch today. Can also dial nine seven to two
Patriot check out all their discounts. Stop funding your political opposition,
help keep me independent. Spend your hard earned money on
folks who have your values, not the woke crowd. Seven
Patriot nine seven to two Patriot, Patriot Mobile dot com,
slash storm.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
Why get your news from people who don't share your values?
Speaker 8 (09:07):
Get new stories from texas Scorecard.
Speaker 9 (09:09):
We provide real news for real Texans.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Go to texascorecard dot com today.
Speaker 7 (09:13):
Let me bring in Joe Degeneva, former United States Attorney
for Washington DC, and Victoria Tunsing, former Chief counsel for
the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Legal Eagles on the Chris
Helsato Show. Hey guys, Hi, good morning morning to you both. Look,
let's talk Bolton first of both of us. Victoria, I
want you to start. I was playing a SoundBite earlier
(09:34):
from McCabe and McCabe jumps on CNN and he says, well,
you know, unlike the cases where you know, these recent cases,
these evaluations of Pence, who, by the way, is implicated
in the Bolton case and also Joe Biden where they
were accused of mishandling classified information. No, they weren't accused
(09:55):
of mishandling classified information. They were accused of of holding
onto class by information they were never entitled to have. Right,
But I wanted you guys to hear Andy McCabe's evaluation
of it, and then we'll go from there. Here's what
he's saying about Bolton.
Speaker 10 (10:11):
As President Biden in both of those cases, but prosecutors
lacked was any indication, any evidence of intent to hold
that material in an unauthorized place. And there's a lot
of circumstances that support those findings. In this case, the
opposite seems to be true. At least the allegations are
(10:32):
that mister Bolton was frequently taking essentially his summaries of
his day's work, much of which was classified material. And he,
from his position, was certainly in a position to know
that the substance of that material was classified and sending
it to person one in person to over unauthorized systems,
(10:53):
open email systems like AOL and Google, things like.
Speaker 7 (10:56):
That, just like Hillary did so Victoria. Even Andy McCabe,
who is no friend of President Trump and seems to
ally with guys like Bolton, seems to think there's some
there there.
Speaker 5 (11:08):
What do you think, Well, there is a there there.
John Bolton had classified information. He knew it was wrong.
Oh guess what, Chris. He criticized Trump after the mar
Alogo Ray saying, well, you should have handled classified information better.
And to boot it is it is reported in the
(11:29):
in the in the indictment that the Iranians of hactics.
Oh that's a problem, isn't it. So he was careless,
He was negligent at the very least and intentional at
the very most.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
And that's the criteria for the conviction under the statute.
Speaker 7 (11:50):
And Joe, can you address what McCabe suggested about Biden?
When you when you as you pivot to Bolton because
mccab was saying, well, in these investigations, there was no intent.
Let me get this straight. Joe Biden for forty plus
years was storing classified information in his garage next to
the corvette. But there's no intent there. I mean, I
(12:10):
could see one or two documents, that's okay, that could
have been an accident. But over forty years crates and
crates and crates and crates stored in his garage, stored
in his library built by communist China, there is no
way that somebody could say that was all an accident.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Well, actually, Robert Hurr, who was the special counselor who
investigated Joe Biden, said that they weren't going to bring
the case, not because there wasn't evidence, but because Joe
Biden was incompetent basically to answer the questions that they
were asking and would not be competent to stand trial
if he were charged. The bottom line is, if you
possess these documents, that's the end of the case. There's
(12:53):
no need to prove anything else. If you have them
and they're not authorized to be in your possession and
they are not in a skiff, that is a crime.
That's all you have to prove. You don't have to
prove that there was some conspiracy or he knew or
did Obviously, if he accidentally took a document, that would
be one thing. But the evidence in this case is
that John Bolton took documents over a number of years
(13:17):
and took notes and what he calls diaries. By the way,
he's using the word diary. It's not a diary. These
were notes for a book. He's using the word diary
because a diary under Supreme Court president has a special
standing for purposes of privacy rights. So that's the cute
game he and his team are playing. Bottom line is
he had the documents over a number of times. His
(13:39):
notes are classified when he's the National Security Advisor. As
soon as he puts them down on paper, they have
to be vetted before they can leave the White House.
He didn't do that, and so for purposes of this case,
this is a very very substantial case.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Well, that's good to know, and I want you both
to comment on because folks are the narrative over at CNN, MSNBS.
They're saying that these are Trump's political opponents. No, there
are Democrats who are under indictment. There are Republicans who
are under indictment. To me, Victoria, that screams equal application
(14:17):
of justice.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
What does it tell you?
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Well, I've told you several times that in the past,
Joe and I are Washington animals, as you all know,
for decades in the past and in the Trump first term,
I asked someone in the Justice Department, well, aren't you
going to investigate Hillary? That would not be appropriate. That
was the Washington way for your Chris. And so now
(14:44):
the Democrats didn't comply with the Washington way. They went
after Trump. They made up crime to go after Trump.
So now Trump is saying, Okay, if there's really crimes here,
I'm going to pursue them, I'm not going to say
that wouldn't be appropriate.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
And Joe, we're saying it on the macro and the micro.
Speaker 7 (15:01):
You know, out out in Portland we saw violent Antifa
folks being let go after they put a poll through.
One journalist's I, oh no, that person's allowed to skate.
But then you got Nick Soortor who was arrested on
bogus charges, and they were so bogus that not even
the left wing DA out there would prosecute they just
(15:22):
kind of let it go. And then you get onto
the macro where you have the federal government when it's
in Democrat hands and sometimes even fake Republican hands, that
selectively prosecutes based on political connectiveness, and that is antithetical
to everything America is.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
Is it not?
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Absolutely, Chris. What's interesting to me is that I recall
seeing Christopher Ray that's defying before Congress being asked about
Antifa and he said, Antifa is not an organization, it's
an idea into philosophy. Now, that will tell you something
about how good Chris Ray was at his job. A
first year law student, a first year prosecutor, a first
(16:06):
year FBI agent would know that Antiva was a criminal
enterprise functioning throughout the United States and Europe, and it
had funding to do it. So why wasn't the FBI
under Christopher Ray investigating the origins and the funding of Antifa?
And the answer is very simple. Christopher Ray was completely
(16:27):
compromised as the FBI director. And I hope, I hope
that he has looked at for all sorts of things
in the upcoming investigations which the Attorney General says, says
she's conducting. I hope she's right, and I hope Christopher
Ray is squarely in one of those bulls eyes.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I do too.
Speaker 7 (16:48):
And speaking of former FBI directors, by the way, Joe
Degeneva is our guest and Victoria Tunsing our guest, our
legal eagles here on the Chris Helsados Show, speaking of
former FBI directors, Victoria James Comy. James Comy is allowed
to waltz in and turn himself in counter to what
was done to Trump loyalists and devotees in the last regime,
(17:12):
in the Biden regime. And there are some folks who
are saying, who are legal analysts who are on our side,
who are looking at this indictment of Komy to two
issues that he has charged with, They're saying it's a
little thin and seem to have been cobbled together rather hastily.
What is your evaluation of the indictment against Comy? Is
(17:35):
it as strong as the one against Bolton for example?
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Well, it's not as direct, because you know, it's the
papers are there, the documents are there.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
They're classified. That's a pretty cut case.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
But so jury would have to interpret it in Virginia
jury that whether his statement was in contradiction to what
he really did when he denied that he had ever
given a third party information to classified information to hand
out to the press. But it's a strong case that
the problem in Virginia is that it's a jury that
(18:10):
doesn't really like Trump and they could very well go
against Komi and then that would make a major conspiracy.
That would be a problem in a major conspiracy because Comy,
if he's acquitted, could come in and say, ah, double jeopardy,
you can't go after me anymore. So that's my concern
about the Kombe tape.
Speaker 7 (18:28):
Well, you know, on that job, there are those who
are suggesting that his legal defense that the first move
from his legal team was to say the person prosecuting
me was illegally appointed. He's not proclaiming his innocence because
we've got the damn videotape of him basically lying to Congress.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
We've got the videotape. He can't do that.
Speaker 7 (18:47):
So they're saying, oh, the person who's prosecuting me was
illegally appointed.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Isn't that a tell?
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Well, of course it is. Now his lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald,
was the hired gun that they used to go after
their scooter Libby. And so the bottom line is very simple.
Patrick Fitzgerald is a very good lawyer. He's going to
use every tool in his toolbox to try and get
this case dismissed before trial. He's not going to be
able to get the indictment dismissed for lack of specificity,
(19:17):
because any defendant who wants more information can get more
discovery through what's called a bill of particulars and can
flesh out the information, and the judge will order that.
On this question of whether or not the case has
to be dismissed because Lindsay Halligan, the US Attorney for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was not properly appointed, that's
a legal question, and I don't think the judge is
(19:38):
going to be able to find that she was illegally appointed.
But let's remember these judges are not sympathetic to Trump.
We know that the federal judiciary is at war with
the President of the United States. So it's going to
take a sympathetic judge to go to not dismiss this case.
And we don't know this is a biden of a
(20:00):
judge and the Fourth Circuit, which is the court above
this trial court has been very, very anti Trump, even
though it used to be a very conservative circuit. So
Tomy may win on a dismissal over the appointment. I
think that's what this judge may find interesting, but I
don't think it's legally sustainable, and ultimately the case will
(20:20):
go forward. Although I agree with Victoria with a jury
nullification just sitting there ready to happen. Yes, I don't
think this case should have been brought. I think they
should have waited for a bigger conspiracy case against Komy.
Speaker 7 (20:31):
Right, And you know what, I think I understand this.
I think I understand the strategy that Komy is the
first domino to fall, and you put pressure on some
of the weak links and see if they'll turn.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
But we'll see where this goes.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Last thing I want to talk about with with Victoria
Tunsing and Joe Degeneva Folks, is what happened to the
Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Victoria.
Speaker 7 (20:50):
I'm going to play a SoundBite from the NAAPC, the
NBAPCP lawyer. Now, as you all know, it's the National
Association for the Advancement of Progressive Colored People, the NAAPCP,
and the lawyer. Aside from arguing that hey sometimes you
need to be a racist to fix racism. She also
(21:12):
made this argument, Listen.
Speaker 11 (21:14):
That's right, and in the state of Louisiana. That analysis
was conducted in the narn case, and it was clear that,
regardless of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates,
whether they were Democrats or not. And we know that
there is such a significant chasm between how black and
white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that
(21:38):
even if there is some correlation between race and party,
that race is the driving factor.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Wow.
Speaker 7 (21:44):
Okay, so let me get this. Did she just say,
did Jeni Nelson just say that the reason why we
need the racist provision of Section two in the Voting
Rights Act is because Democrats don't vote for black White
Democrats don't vote for black people.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
Those racist Democrats. Chris, my goodness, I am a white
Republican and I look forward to voting for a black
Republican for governor of Florida next year Byron Donald. I'm
really looking forward to that. I think that was one
of the most racist statements I've ever heard made. Then.
And by the way, there's a black US Senator from Georgia.
(22:23):
Isn't Georgia in the South. How'd that happen?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Huh?
Speaker 5 (22:25):
How did Corey Booker get elected New Jersey?
Speaker 7 (22:29):
Barack Obama? Hello, Barack Obama. Yeah, okay, so Joe I
got something now. Victoria just said she's never heard something
so racist in her life. Well, Katanji Brown Jackson, the
woman who doesn't know what a woman is says, hold
my beer listen.
Speaker 12 (22:49):
I guess I'm thinking of it. Of the fact that
remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new
idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of
paradigmatic example of this is something like the Ada Congress
passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of
(23:13):
a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities,
and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks
were not able to access these buildings, and it didn't
matter whether the person who built the building or the
person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary.
(23:36):
That's irrelevant. Congress has said the facilities have to be
made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible.
I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here.
The idea in section two is that we are responding
to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that
(24:00):
disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don't have
equal access to the voting system right they're disabled. In fact,
we use the word disabled in Milligan. We say that's
a way in which you see that these processes are
not equally open.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
So Joe, according to the woman who doesn't know what
a woman is, if you are a quote person of
color that I hate the term. If you're a person
of color, you are disabled. According to the Supreme Court
justice talk about racist.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Well, I think Katimeji Brown Jackson really represents the kind
of thinking that's so obsolete. She wants remedies like Section
two of the Civil Rights Act to stay in the
law forever. The Supreme Court has said that these remedies
are time limited, that there's only so long we can
continue to say we have to remedy past discrimination. I
(24:59):
would say that sixty years after the passage of the
voting rights back, that's three generations of Americans, with an
America which has had a black president and a black
vice president, that we have long since remedied anything that
the voting right back was aimed at. I think Katanji
Brown Jackson is in a time war, and I think
(25:20):
it's because she doesn't know what a woman is or
she's politically driven.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
And the Democrats realize that once they get rid of
Section two, that they're actually going to have to run
on issues rather than skin color. And they have no
issues because they're not pro American anymore. These Democrats Joe
de Geneva, Victoria Tunsing, guys, always appreciate the analysis.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Come back soon.
Speaker 7 (25:44):
You will do as you know, been paying attention to
the upcoming primaries. You know, my metric folks, that I
will be judging any and all candidates in the primaries
asking for my votes actually in the general election too,
And the number one question be asking is how well
have you defended me and mine from these these leftist kooks,
(26:04):
freaks and nuts that took to the streets in violent fashion,
pledging violence to kill Stephen Miller, to kill President Trump,
wanted to see President Trump did. How well have you
defended me in mind from them? And that's the criteria
I'm using. And you know, part of the problem with
that is getting rid of fake Republicans and Democrats influence
(26:26):
in the Republican Party. To help me sort through all
of this, I want to bring on Rachel Hooper. She
is one of the most talented conservative lawyers in the business.
Rachel is the general counsel for the Republican Party of Texas.
Speaker 6 (26:38):
Miss Hooper, welcome, Thank you so much, Chris, Good morning.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Good morning to you.
Speaker 7 (26:43):
How important is it that we close the primaries, stop
letting Democrats choose GOP politicians.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
How critical is it?
Speaker 6 (26:54):
We believe it's critical. I believe it's critical. Most importantly,
the Republican delegates to our state convention believe it's critical.
And we saw an example a few weeks ago where
a woman who was trying to stop children at Stratford
(27:16):
High School from having a turning point USA Chapter. She
is the vice president of her local Democrat group. She
voted in the Republican primary in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Wow, well, well yeah, folks, that the same people who
took to the streets this weekend in Dallas and Austin
and other left wing cities. They are the ones who
there are certain air quotes Republicans who want to keep
them voting in Republican primaries. Let me ask you this
that the state of Texas is on board trying to
(27:51):
I should say the Republican Party of Texas is on
board trying to close the primaries. What is the White
House political team saying? Are they on board with this effort?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
As far as you know, well as far as I
know they are, But really and truly they recognize I
think what most people recognize is that convention in twenty twenty.
Speaker 6 (28:13):
Four, closing our primary was the number one priority of
many of the delegates, and Chris, I think it's important.
I've heard the criticisms. I think it's important for people
to understand what closing the primary is. Our primary election
is the time for Republicans to select their nominee for
(28:39):
an office for the November ballot. So what has been happening?
And we have seen many examples. I'm going to give
Dave Feelin as the main example.
Speaker 7 (28:53):
It's a great one where we saw.
Speaker 6 (28:57):
He had Democrats out and vote for him in his
primary election in twenty twenty four, and that put him,
first of all, put him in a runoff. Then it
had him winning the runoff election. And how do we
know they were Democrats? Because right now public information is
(29:23):
whether you participate in a Republican primary or Democrat primary,
or no primary at all. So we know that Democrats
supported Dave Feeling to get him into office.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Unbelievable. Unbelievable, folks. We're talking to Rachel Hooper. She's a
very talented conservative lawyer. She's the general counsel for the
Republican Party of Texas. Now the state Party has decided
they want to make this a priority. It would have
gone a lot easier if the legislature, which we're going
to deal with here in a minute, if the legislature
(29:57):
had done this through the rule of law, but they
decided to punt courtesy of a guy with the name
of Matt Shaheen. So if the efforts by the party
are successful, is there a chance that we could close
down the primaries for the twenty twenty six contest.
Speaker 6 (30:16):
Well, right now we're in a lawsuit over that, and
you brought up Matt Shaheen. So I think this is
a great point. When Matt Rinaldi, our immediate former past
chairman of the state Party, when Matt Rinaldi was in
the legislature, he offered legislation on closing our primary and
(30:39):
do you know who joined him as an author in
that legislation, Matt Shaheen. So somehow this man has changed
his mind and he is listening to establishment quote unquote
Republicans who are trying to give every reason in the book.
Speaker 5 (31:01):
To not close our primary.
Speaker 6 (31:04):
So what I would say is what we did, which
we took a bold step. We took a very bold
step under the leadership of Chairman Abraham George in suing
the State of Texas and suing the Secretary of State
to close our primary. So now we are in a
lawsuit the Republican Party of Texas versus the State of
(31:26):
Texas and Secretary of State Jane Nelson. And this lawsuit
is pending in Amarillo in federal court.
Speaker 7 (31:36):
And the Attorney General of the State of Texas has
concurred with the party that this that forcing the Republican
Party to allow Democrats to vote in it is unconstitutional.
It violates the right of association. At least am I
summarizing his brief in support of the Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Am I doing that correctly?
Speaker 6 (31:56):
That's great, that is very important. Texas A Jornie General
Ken Paxton, representing the State of Texas, joined with the
Republican Party of Texas to file a motion to enter
what's called a consent judgment or basically saying I agree
with this lawsuit and to close the Republican primary elections
(32:19):
in Texas. And Chris he asked about how quickly can
this happen, Well, it can happen very quickly if our
Secretary of State gets on board. Right now, she is
throwing roadblocks up at every turn to stop this. We
came to her during at the beginning of session and said, hey,
(32:42):
the delegates want this, they passed the rules, they want
closed primaries. What are you going to do about it?
And she said, well, let's just wait and see and
let the legislative session pass. So we are doing everything
we can to push this forward. Texas Attorney General Ken
(33:03):
Paxson has joined the Republican Party of Texas in this effort,
and we are so grateful for that.
Speaker 7 (33:11):
Well, folks, in case you're wondering, Jane Nelson is appointed
to her position as Secretary of State. She serves as
the pleasure of the governor, and she is not accountable
to the people of the state of Texas. If she were,
she might have a different a different take on fighting
to keep Democrats voting, these same people that took to
(33:32):
the streets this weekend voting in Republican primaries. Rachel Hooper
is our guest. She is the general counsel for the
Republican Party of Texas. So let's pivot now to what
happened a couple of weeks ago with the SRAC. I
wanted to get the important stuff out of the way
so we could focus on this effort to bring and
I think this is what we could classify this as, Rachel,
(33:53):
this effort by the party to make Republican means something,
to set standards and to give the people of Texas
another tool to keep their politicians in line between elections.
So Rule forty four was invented. We got ten centurs
referred to the SREC from the local parties. Only five
(34:17):
got punished. Only three is my understanding, who are running
again for reelection out of that five. To those who
were disappointed in the outcome, here, what revisions need to
happen to Rule forty four to make sure those who
betray their voters and the party platform are no longer
able to sully the party brand. What needs to happen
(34:38):
to Rule forty four to make it.
Speaker 6 (34:39):
Better thank you for that question. So I don't know
that anything needs to necessarily happen to Rule forty four.
Speaker 5 (34:48):
Rule forty four.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
Is a rule adopted by the delegates that convention that
lays out the central process. What the state a publican
Executive committee did, which is a representative from each of
the Senate districts, a man and woman. What they did
is they studied what the legislature did to our legislative
(35:12):
priorities determined by the delegates. And this study showed that
forty three bills passed, finally passed, and were signed into
law that were related to our legislative priorities. Last session,
under Dad's feeling, we got six, So forty three is
(35:34):
better than six. So in a lot of ways, we
had a great session. It started out very rough. It
started out very rough with the State Party opposing the
speaker and the way the Speaker got into office. And
this is not the first time this has happened. Please
remember last session where you saw Tony Tenderholt put in
(36:00):
name in for speaker and you saw a couple of members,
including Representative Tenderholt, go against the caucus and because they
did not support Dave feelings so we have to be
very careful and not have selective purity tests. We have
(36:20):
to look at the facts and not our feelings. And
so when you look at the facts, we studied each
of the ten center resolutions that came from county parties,
and we study those and we make sure that they
follow our rules. In fact, we got more than those ten,
(36:41):
and the rules weren't followed in certain situations. So what
happened last Saturday is the State Republican Executive Committee took
up those central resolutions and determined there's two steps. Number one,
are we going to concur in the central resolution? And
(37:03):
then the second step is if you do concur what
is the punishment?
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Right?
Speaker 7 (37:09):
And none of the Republicans who were where there was
a concurrence had the what they call the death penalty,
which is throwing them off the Republican ballot saying hey,
you enable democrats, you are a Democrat in behavior, so
you're not going to be allowed to represent the Republican brand.
And I know that would have invited lawsuits, and that
(37:29):
leads to my next question. And this is what I've
been struggling as somebody who's not an attorney, because for me,
I believe in the right of association. I believe that
the Democrat Party has a right to guard its brand
and the Republican Party has a right to guard its brand.
But what I was told by several people is that
that if a Republican gets voted in and then proceeds
(37:51):
to vote like a Democrat, enable Democrats. And by the way,
that's my standard that in a Republican controlled assembly, you
should have zero Democrat bills and zero Democrat priorities being passed.
That's the way it is around the rest of the country.
I'm not sure why it's different here, and certainly in
places like California where the Democrats are in charge, zero
(38:15):
Republican priorities get addressed because the Democrats are in the majority.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
That's just the way it is.
Speaker 7 (38:20):
So my question legally is on what legal ground does
any fake Republicans. Let's use Jeff Leach as an example.
Jeff Leach gets out there, he gets elected as a Republican,
he goes into the legislature and has his track record
of doing nothing but enabling Democrats every step of the way. Right,
(38:42):
why what legal ground if let's say he was thrown
off the ballot in a censure resolution. He would go,
of course, sue go to court. On what legal ground
would he be able to say, Hey, me, as a
left winger, I have every right to be a Republican.
On what legal ground does he have the right to
do that?
Speaker 6 (39:01):
Well, and let me say this, none of this is
as simple as you just said. So for example, Jeff Leach,
that's a complicated situation. I'm very upset personally at the
positions that Representative Leech has has taken and the efforts
he has undertaken to help a man who I believe
(39:27):
murdered his own child, Robert Roverson. So he did pass
some pro life legislation as well that he authored.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
So there.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
Let me first say this, the idea that the State
Republican Executive Committee didn't do anything related to these centers
is false, wrong, and misunderstands the process. There are three
penalties that can be imposed. Penalty three, which is I
call it the death penalty. It says that the ballot
(40:03):
applications shall be refused for twenty four months. That is
a brand new penalty. It has never been used and
it's important, I believe to have it in our rules.
But that needs to be used very sparingly. We had
the grassroots trying to impose it in every case, so
(40:26):
we had we had a situation where the grassroots are
very aggressive on just wanting to punish everyone and remove
everyone from the ballot, which that's not a careful consideration
of our rules and application of them. So what happened
is five of the ten Republicans who had centers before
(40:52):
the State Republican Executives Committee, two penalties were actually assessed.
One is that the part campaign against them in the
primary election. We saw this work last time against Daide
Feeling and against Tony Gonzalez. The party centered both of
(41:12):
them last time, and both of them came very close
to losing.
Speaker 3 (41:19):
That's why Dave.
Speaker 6 (41:20):
Feeling is not running again. That's actually why Dave Feeling
is not the speaker again. And then penalty two is
discouraging the office holder from participating in the primary. So
if you do have a righteous, viable candidate against these people,
these are things that they could use in campaigning saying
(41:44):
oh yeah, wow, let's use this. They're wanting to use
something called penalty three, the death penalty, which guess what, Chris,
to answer your question, relates to the right of association
a constitutional argument, which is the same argument we're using
to close close.
Speaker 7 (42:03):
The primaries exactly so so so again that the question, again,
this is just me trying to understand the legal premise.
Let's let's choose another fake Republican, Jared Patterson, who did
get censured, by the way, and I think he got
he got one of the strongest censers short of being
thrown off the Republican ballot. Jared Patterson, who is the
(42:26):
consummate left winger. On what constitutional basis does he have
the right to as a left winger to call himself
a Republican if the Republican Party itself says, dude, you
don't represent what the Republican Party stands for. Who what
gives the elected official more authority to redefine the Republican
(42:48):
Party than the Republican Party has to define itself. I
guess that's what I'm asking.
Speaker 6 (42:53):
Sure, I think that's the wrong question. So the wrong question.
You're asking it a different way. What would happen is
if penalty three were assessed against any officeholder. It's how
does the party have the right.
Speaker 5 (43:09):
To do that?
Speaker 6 (43:10):
And if you look time and time again, our courts
in Texas have aired on the side of leaving people
on the ballot. We saw that last time when John Divine, Justice,
John Divine's opponent tried to throw him off the ballot
over his campaign signatures. So that that is the question
(43:34):
that would be asked. But in our minds at the party,
Jared Patterson lost lost his ability to call himself part
of the grassroots for sure, when he wouldn't even honor
Jill Glover, who's a woman who we honor every day
(43:58):
at a party. He wouldn't even honor her on the floor.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
I know.
Speaker 6 (44:04):
And maybe he's really gross.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Yes he is.
Speaker 7 (44:08):
He is very gross, And you know, Rachel, That's that's
how I look at it, uh. And it may have
been the wrong legal framework, but I look at both
the Democrat and the Republican Party as private entities. They're
private groups, and my sense is is that as private groups,
they should not be forced by government or by a
(44:28):
judge to accept those who don't define them as they
want to be defined. You like, if you join a
country club and they say you require a shirt and
jacket and tie, and you show up in jeans and
a T shirt, they have the right to say, no,
you're not properly attired. You can't come in my in
my view as the same principle that if you want
(44:50):
to define the Republican Party as a left wing party
that accommodates and kiss the rear ends of Democrats, you
shouldn't be allowed to do that. And that's kind of
where my conservative mind sits. But maybe that's not The legal.
Speaker 6 (45:04):
Freedom of association is the answer to your question, and
that is what we're arguing to close the primary. We
do not want to do anything at all to disrupt
our efforts there because we have a great case and
we are focused on closing our primary, which I think
will have if you have a viable candidate that will
(45:26):
assess the multi free automatically.
Speaker 7 (45:29):
All right, Rachel Hooper, she is folks, as you could hear.
She knows, she knows of what she speaks. One of
the most talented conservative lawyers in the business. General counsel
for the Republican Party of Texas As always love the conversation, Lady,
come back soon.
Speaker 6 (45:43):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 7 (45:45):
That's going to put a wrap on this Salcedo Storm
podcast till we visit again. My friends, Remember this a
society's worth isn't measured by how much powers stolen by governments.
A society's worth is measured by how much power is
reserved for you and me, We the
Speaker 2 (45:58):
People, keep finding for free him out there, my friends,
Hello, I have you happy people, Neil Smith and old
Buck Buddy.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Are you hearing Neil?
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Neil?
Speaker 4 (00:09):
I miss you, man.
Speaker 5 (00:10):
Donnes, I have a question.
Speaker 6 (00:12):
We respect for me.
Speaker 7 (00:13):
Down Missy breaking a major story, Chris, congratulations a single
score podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Felts.
Speaker 7 (00:42):
As you may have heard, the Democrats are throwing a
fit over being held accountable for what they have done
to this country. We asked when James Comey was indicted
on two counts, who would be the next Obamagate Russia
collusion host conspiracy person to be held accountable. Well, last
week we found out it was John Brennan, the man
(01:04):
who is has confessed to voting for communists in nineteen seventies.
And this is the guy who is now facing charges
of lying to Congress. Now I say that it's a
criminal referral from Congress. Now, praise God, somebody in the
DOJ is paying attention and decides to prosecute mister Brennan
(01:27):
for lying to Congress.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
It is bad.
Speaker 7 (01:30):
It is illegal to lie under oath. It's illegal to
lie under oath to Congress. So I'm hoping that Pam
Bondy gets some time between Fox appearances to actually pay
attention to this anyway. So there's that, and then there's
also this the pardons. President Trump pardons a guy by
(01:51):
the name of George Santos. He was doing seven years
for a white collar crime. Trump says, look, man, I
think you've served enough time. I'm going to commute your set.
And he's not saying that he's not convicted, he's not
pardoning him, he's commuting his sentences, saying, look for what
you did, you've served.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Enough time, you're out.
Speaker 7 (02:10):
Well that got the ire of none other than Jonathan
carl Over at ABC Fake News.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Listen to this.
Speaker 8 (02:17):
How about the fact that the president in issuing the
pardon or it's clemency. I'm sorry, the clemency. He said,
at least Santos had the courage, conviction and intelligence to
always vote Republican. I looked through this there of now
I think we have a list of them, ten former
Republican members of Congress who the President has either pardoned
or issued clemency for.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Ten.
Speaker 9 (02:39):
Okay, you want to talk about what Joe Joe Biden
did with that power, No family. The only thing he's signed,
by the way, with his own pen. Everything else is autopen. Yeah,
but categories of hardened criminals that they just released from prison.
At least President Trump is fully transparent. He goes out
and explains.
Speaker 8 (02:54):
His say the essentially, I'm partnering somebody because they always
had the courage. That's not the reason conviction and intelligence
to always voute republic.
Speaker 9 (03:02):
That's one snippet of what he said, among many things
about George Santosh.
Speaker 7 (03:05):
Yeah, and you know, do you notice how Jonathan Carl
doesn't want to talk about the Democrats and what they've done.
Joe Biden was the most prolific pardoner or President Auto Penn.
We don't know who the most prolific partner abuse of
that of that presidential power in US history. But Jonathan
Carl didn't blink an eyelash at that. Oh no, he
(03:26):
doesn't care about that. You know that Beijing, Biden let
out a cop killer among other violent criminals, let them out,
commuted their sentences, pardoned, pardoned these individuals. He pardoned crimes, folks,
we didn't know Democrats had committed on the January sixth Committee,
the Unselect Committee, among others, his eminence, doctor Fauci. What
(03:49):
crimes do doctor Fauci commit? Oh, Joe Biden or President
Auto Penn pardoned him. And then here comes Jonathan Carl
in an effort not to talk about anything the Democrats
have done, trying to make a mountain out of this
mole hill of President Trump saying to George Santos, hey man,
you've done your time. You're out. Actually, actually, what Speaker
(04:13):
Johnson said there was very, very pointed. President Trump looked
at the case. He actually reviewed the case and made
a determination.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
Beijing. Biden can't say the same thing.
Speaker 8 (04:23):
You a factor in pardoning somebody.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
I don't think.
Speaker 8 (04:25):
I don't think climency.
Speaker 9 (04:27):
Oh, I don't think it was. I just think he's
talking about this individual in his past, and at least
he's open and transparent about it. Joe Biden never told
us anything, and frankly, we're not even sure he knew
who he's pardoning on any of that.
Speaker 7 (04:38):
Oh yeah, we're not sure that if it was these
staffers who were running the Auto Pen, we're not sure
if that's the case at all. We're not sure how
many of these so called pardons were legitimate, or these
clemencies or whatever President auto Pen was issuing.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Folks.
Speaker 7 (04:55):
I've got a double stacked podcast here. We're going to
be visiting with some legal eagles.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
First off, Joe.
Speaker 7 (05:02):
And Victoria Tunsing will be in and talk about some
stuff at the national level. And then Rachel Hooper from
the Republican Party of Texas. She is the general counsel there.
She's going to be giving us some ins and outs
of some of what the law says in regards to
party politics and the efforts by the Republican Party here
as long as Jane Nelson will get out of the
(05:23):
way efforts of the Republican Party to actually close the
primaries so Democrats aren't voting in Republican primaries any longer.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
I think, Hey, if.
Speaker 7 (05:33):
You're going to have a Republican primary, you ought not
let the Democrats partake in it. It's all come in
your way. Next on the Salcedo Storm Podcast, and now
a word from my sponsor. My friends, did Bidenomics in
the left wing economy really rock your world? Let American
Medical Plans relieve one burden health insurance. American Medical Plan
specializes in under sixty five health insurance plans that have
(05:56):
zero copays and no deductibles.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
You choose your doctors, you choose your hospitals.
Speaker 7 (06:00):
These plans have nothing to do with your income and
are thirty to sixty percent less than Obamacare. If Obamacare
has your paying out the nose, call American Medical Plans.
Don't let these Marxists destroy one sixth to the US
economy and your access to healthcare without a fight.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
You deserve better.
Speaker 7 (06:18):
You deserve American Medical Plans the answer to the cancer
that is Obamacare.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Chris Salceato, Hello, my friends in liberty lovering community. Did
you know that as a follower of Chris Salsado you
get exclusive bonuses and discounts at quality vendors like my pillow.
My pillow with promo code Team Liberty, you get thirty
to eighty percent off everything you order every time as
(06:47):
part of the Salsado family. So go to MyPillow dot
com forward slash Team Liberty and check out the sheets,
the pillows, the blankets, the mattress toppers, and so much more,
and you get thirty to eighty percent off everything and
many times free shipping with promo code Team Liberty. And
(07:07):
if you don't believe me, check out what Chris has
to say about my Pillow himself.
Speaker 7 (07:12):
You know what they say, my friends. Once you go
my pillow, you never go back. I started out with
the old fashioned my pillow. Loved it. Then I graduated
the to the towels. The MyPillow towels. They take all
the water off. Yeah, and they're so softly.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Just love them.
Speaker 7 (07:26):
And then then I said, well, I gotta have something
to cover my pillow, so I got the whole sheet.
Said once you start, folks, you won't be able to
stop because you're just gonna love the products like I did.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So that's it.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
Ladies and gentlemen, you heard from the man himself. Go
to my pillow dot com for slash Team Liberty and
buy your my pillow. Now you're not only gonna save
thirty to eighty percent on everything you order, but you're
gonna get amazing products for your home. You're gonna support
a great American company, and you're gonna keep the salceedar
Storm podcasts on the air. It's a triple win, and
(08:00):
you'll never sleep better.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
Chris Celcido, how.
Speaker 7 (08:05):
Can switching to Patriot Mobile help you? First, when you
switch to Patriot Mobile, you're not gonna be funding a
left wing company. Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative
cell phone company. They donate to the causes you and
I support. How else can it help you? Well, it
will keep voices like mine independent. You switch over to
Patriot Mobile. They have industry leading reliability because they're not
(08:26):
just one network, they have all three major networks. And
every single time you switch to Patriot Mobile using my
promo code storm, you support me and you keep my
voice independent. So just in case somebody in the woke
crowd tries to come around and cancel me, they can't
because you have the power. So go to Patriot Mobile
dot com, slash storm, Patriot Mobile dot com, slash storm
(08:47):
and switch today. Can also dial nine seven to two
Patriot check out all their discounts. Stop funding your political opposition,
help keep me independent. Spend your hard earned money on
folks who have your values, not the woke crowd. Seven
Patriot nine seven to two Patriot, Patriot Mobile dot com,
slash storm.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
Why get your news from people who don't share your values?
Speaker 8 (09:07):
Get new stories from texas Scorecard.
Speaker 9 (09:09):
We provide real news for real Texans.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Go to texascorecard dot com today.
Speaker 7 (09:13):
Let me bring in Joe Degeneva, former United States Attorney
for Washington DC, and Victoria Tunsing, former Chief counsel for
the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Legal Eagles on the Chris
Helsato Show. Hey guys, Hi, good morning morning to you both. Look,
let's talk Bolton first of both of us. Victoria, I
want you to start. I was playing a SoundBite earlier
(09:34):
from McCabe and McCabe jumps on CNN and he says, well,
you know, unlike the cases where you know, these recent cases,
these evaluations of Pence, who, by the way, is implicated
in the Bolton case and also Joe Biden where they
were accused of mishandling classified information. No, they weren't accused
(09:55):
of mishandling classified information. They were accused of of holding
onto class by information they were never entitled to have. Right,
But I wanted you guys to hear Andy McCabe's evaluation
of it, and then we'll go from there. Here's what
he's saying about Bolton.
Speaker 10 (10:11):
As President Biden in both of those cases, but prosecutors
lacked was any indication, any evidence of intent to hold
that material in an unauthorized place. And there's a lot
of circumstances that support those findings. In this case, the
opposite seems to be true. At least the allegations are
(10:32):
that mister Bolton was frequently taking essentially his summaries of
his day's work, much of which was classified material. And he,
from his position, was certainly in a position to know
that the substance of that material was classified and sending
it to person one in person to over unauthorized systems,
(10:53):
open email systems like AOL and Google, things like.
Speaker 7 (10:56):
That, just like Hillary did so Victoria. Even Andy McCabe,
who is no friend of President Trump and seems to
ally with guys like Bolton, seems to think there's some
there there.
Speaker 5 (11:08):
What do you think, Well, there is a there there.
John Bolton had classified information. He knew it was wrong.
Oh guess what, Chris. He criticized Trump after the mar
Alogo Ray saying, well, you should have handled classified information better.
And to boot it is it is reported in the
(11:29):
in the in the indictment that the Iranians of hactics.
Oh that's a problem, isn't it. So he was careless,
He was negligent at the very least and intentional at
the very most.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
And that's the criteria for the conviction under the statute.
Speaker 7 (11:50):
And Joe, can you address what McCabe suggested about Biden?
When you when you as you pivot to Bolton because
mccab was saying, well, in these investigations, there was no intent.
Let me get this straight. Joe Biden for forty plus
years was storing classified information in his garage next to
the corvette. But there's no intent there. I mean, I
(12:10):
could see one or two documents, that's okay, that could
have been an accident. But over forty years crates and
crates and crates and crates stored in his garage, stored
in his library built by communist China, there is no
way that somebody could say that was all an accident.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Well, actually, Robert Hurr, who was the special counselor who
investigated Joe Biden, said that they weren't going to bring
the case, not because there wasn't evidence, but because Joe
Biden was incompetent basically to answer the questions that they
were asking and would not be competent to stand trial
if he were charged. The bottom line is, if you
possess these documents, that's the end of the case. There's
(12:53):
no need to prove anything else. If you have them
and they're not authorized to be in your possession and
they are not in a skiff, that is a crime.
That's all you have to prove. You don't have to
prove that there was some conspiracy or he knew or
did Obviously, if he accidentally took a document, that would
be one thing. But the evidence in this case is
that John Bolton took documents over a number of years
(13:17):
and took notes and what he calls diaries. By the way,
he's using the word diary. It's not a diary. These
were notes for a book. He's using the word diary
because a diary under Supreme Court president has a special
standing for purposes of privacy rights. So that's the cute
game he and his team are playing. Bottom line is
he had the documents over a number of times. His
(13:39):
notes are classified when he's the National Security Advisor. As
soon as he puts them down on paper, they have
to be vetted before they can leave the White House.
He didn't do that, and so for purposes of this case,
this is a very very substantial case.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Well, that's good to know, and I want you both
to comment on because folks are the narrative over at CNN, MSNBS.
They're saying that these are Trump's political opponents. No, there
are Democrats who are under indictment. There are Republicans who
are under indictment. To me, Victoria, that screams equal application
(14:17):
of justice.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
What does it tell you?
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Well, I've told you several times that in the past,
Joe and I are Washington animals, as you all know,
for decades in the past and in the Trump first term,
I asked someone in the Justice Department, well, aren't you
going to investigate Hillary? That would not be appropriate. That
was the Washington way for your Chris. And so now
(14:44):
the Democrats didn't comply with the Washington way. They went
after Trump. They made up crime to go after Trump.
So now Trump is saying, Okay, if there's really crimes here,
I'm going to pursue them, I'm not going to say
that wouldn't be appropriate.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
And Joe, we're saying it on the macro and the micro.
Speaker 7 (15:01):
You know, out out in Portland we saw violent Antifa
folks being let go after they put a poll through.
One journalist's I, oh no, that person's allowed to skate.
But then you got Nick Soortor who was arrested on
bogus charges, and they were so bogus that not even
the left wing DA out there would prosecute they just
(15:22):
kind of let it go. And then you get onto
the macro where you have the federal government when it's
in Democrat hands and sometimes even fake Republican hands, that
selectively prosecutes based on political connectiveness, and that is antithetical
to everything America is.
Speaker 6 (15:40):
Is it not?
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Absolutely, Chris. What's interesting to me is that I recall
seeing Christopher Ray that's defying before Congress being asked about
Antifa and he said, Antifa is not an organization, it's
an idea into philosophy. Now, that will tell you something
about how good Chris Ray was at his job. A
first year law student, a first year prosecutor, a first
(16:06):
year FBI agent would know that Antiva was a criminal
enterprise functioning throughout the United States and Europe, and it
had funding to do it. So why wasn't the FBI
under Christopher Ray investigating the origins and the funding of Antifa?
And the answer is very simple. Christopher Ray was completely
(16:27):
compromised as the FBI director. And I hope, I hope
that he has looked at for all sorts of things
in the upcoming investigations which the Attorney General says, says
she's conducting. I hope she's right, and I hope Christopher
Ray is squarely in one of those bulls eyes.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I do too.
Speaker 7 (16:48):
And speaking of former FBI directors, by the way, Joe
Degeneva is our guest and Victoria Tunsing our guest, our
legal eagles here on the Chris Helsados Show, speaking of
former FBI directors, Victoria James Comy. James Comy is allowed
to waltz in and turn himself in counter to what
was done to Trump loyalists and devotees in the last regime,
(17:12):
in the Biden regime. And there are some folks who
are saying, who are legal analysts who are on our side,
who are looking at this indictment of Komy to two
issues that he has charged with, They're saying it's a
little thin and seem to have been cobbled together rather hastily.
What is your evaluation of the indictment against Comy? Is
(17:35):
it as strong as the one against Bolton for example?
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Well, it's not as direct, because you know, it's the
papers are there, the documents are there.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
They're classified. That's a pretty cut case.
Speaker 5 (17:48):
But so jury would have to interpret it in Virginia
jury that whether his statement was in contradiction to what
he really did when he denied that he had ever
given a third party information to classified information to hand
out to the press. But it's a strong case that
the problem in Virginia is that it's a jury that
(18:10):
doesn't really like Trump and they could very well go
against Komi and then that would make a major conspiracy.
That would be a problem in a major conspiracy because Comy,
if he's acquitted, could come in and say, ah, double jeopardy,
you can't go after me anymore. So that's my concern
about the Kombe tape.
Speaker 7 (18:28):
Well, you know, on that job, there are those who
are suggesting that his legal defense that the first move
from his legal team was to say the person prosecuting
me was illegally appointed. He's not proclaiming his innocence because
we've got the damn videotape of him basically lying to Congress.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
We've got the videotape. He can't do that.
Speaker 7 (18:47):
So they're saying, oh, the person who's prosecuting me was
illegally appointed.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Isn't that a tell?
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Well, of course it is. Now his lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald,
was the hired gun that they used to go after
their scooter Libby. And so the bottom line is very simple.
Patrick Fitzgerald is a very good lawyer. He's going to
use every tool in his toolbox to try and get
this case dismissed before trial. He's not going to be
able to get the indictment dismissed for lack of specificity,
(19:17):
because any defendant who wants more information can get more
discovery through what's called a bill of particulars and can
flesh out the information, and the judge will order that.
On this question of whether or not the case has
to be dismissed because Lindsay Halligan, the US Attorney for
the Eastern District of Virginia, was not properly appointed, that's
a legal question, and I don't think the judge is
(19:38):
going to be able to find that she was illegally appointed.
But let's remember these judges are not sympathetic to Trump.
We know that the federal judiciary is at war with
the President of the United States. So it's going to
take a sympathetic judge to go to not dismiss this case.
And we don't know this is a biden of a
(20:00):
judge and the Fourth Circuit, which is the court above
this trial court has been very, very anti Trump, even
though it used to be a very conservative circuit. So
Tomy may win on a dismissal over the appointment. I
think that's what this judge may find interesting, but I
don't think it's legally sustainable, and ultimately the case will
(20:20):
go forward. Although I agree with Victoria with a jury
nullification just sitting there ready to happen. Yes, I don't
think this case should have been brought. I think they
should have waited for a bigger conspiracy case against Komy.
Speaker 7 (20:31):
Right, And you know what, I think I understand this.
I think I understand the strategy that Komy is the
first domino to fall, and you put pressure on some
of the weak links and see if they'll turn.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
But we'll see where this goes.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Last thing I want to talk about with with Victoria
Tunsing and Joe Degeneva Folks, is what happened to the
Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
Victoria.
Speaker 7 (20:50):
I'm going to play a SoundBite from the NAAPC, the
NBAPCP lawyer. Now, as you all know, it's the National
Association for the Advancement of Progressive Colored People, the NAAPCP,
and the lawyer. Aside from arguing that hey sometimes you
need to be a racist to fix racism. She also
(21:12):
made this argument, Listen.
Speaker 11 (21:14):
That's right, and in the state of Louisiana. That analysis
was conducted in the narn case, and it was clear that,
regardless of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates,
whether they were Democrats or not. And we know that
there is such a significant chasm between how black and
white voters vote in Louisiana that there's no question that
(21:38):
even if there is some correlation between race and party,
that race is the driving factor.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Wow.
Speaker 7 (21:44):
Okay, so let me get this. Did she just say,
did Jeni Nelson just say that the reason why we
need the racist provision of Section two in the Voting
Rights Act is because Democrats don't vote for black White
Democrats don't vote for black people.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
Those racist Democrats. Chris, my goodness, I am a white
Republican and I look forward to voting for a black
Republican for governor of Florida next year Byron Donald. I'm
really looking forward to that. I think that was one
of the most racist statements I've ever heard made. Then.
And by the way, there's a black US Senator from Georgia.
(22:23):
Isn't Georgia in the South. How'd that happen?
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Huh?
Speaker 5 (22:25):
How did Corey Booker get elected New Jersey?
Speaker 7 (22:29):
Barack Obama? Hello, Barack Obama. Yeah, okay, so Joe I
got something now. Victoria just said she's never heard something
so racist in her life. Well, Katanji Brown Jackson, the
woman who doesn't know what a woman is says, hold
my beer listen.
Speaker 12 (22:49):
I guess I'm thinking of it. Of the fact that
remedial action absent discriminatory intent is really not a new
idea in the civil rights laws. And my kind of
paradigmatic example of this is something like the Ada Congress
passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of
(23:13):
a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities,
and so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks
were not able to access these buildings, and it didn't
matter whether the person who built the building or the
person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary.
(23:36):
That's irrelevant. Congress has said the facilities have to be
made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible.
I guess I don't understand why that's not what's happening here.
The idea in section two is that we are responding
to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that
(24:00):
disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don't have
equal access to the voting system right they're disabled. In fact,
we use the word disabled in Milligan. We say that's
a way in which you see that these processes are
not equally open.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
So Joe, according to the woman who doesn't know what
a woman is, if you are a quote person of
color that I hate the term. If you're a person
of color, you are disabled. According to the Supreme Court
justice talk about racist.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Well, I think Katimeji Brown Jackson really represents the kind
of thinking that's so obsolete. She wants remedies like Section
two of the Civil Rights Act to stay in the
law forever. The Supreme Court has said that these remedies
are time limited, that there's only so long we can
continue to say we have to remedy past discrimination. I
(24:59):
would say that sixty years after the passage of the
voting rights back, that's three generations of Americans, with an
America which has had a black president and a black
vice president, that we have long since remedied anything that
the voting right back was aimed at. I think Katanji
Brown Jackson is in a time war, and I think
(25:20):
it's because she doesn't know what a woman is or
she's politically driven.
Speaker 7 (25:25):
And the Democrats realize that once they get rid of
Section two, that they're actually going to have to run
on issues rather than skin color. And they have no
issues because they're not pro American anymore. These Democrats Joe
de Geneva, Victoria Tunsing, guys, always appreciate the analysis.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
Come back soon.
Speaker 7 (25:44):
You will do as you know, been paying attention to
the upcoming primaries. You know, my metric folks, that I
will be judging any and all candidates in the primaries
asking for my votes actually in the general election too,
And the number one question be asking is how well
have you defended me and mine from these these leftist kooks,
(26:04):
freaks and nuts that took to the streets in violent fashion,
pledging violence to kill Stephen Miller, to kill President Trump,
wanted to see President Trump did. How well have you
defended me in mind from them? And that's the criteria
I'm using. And you know, part of the problem with
that is getting rid of fake Republicans and Democrats influence
(26:26):
in the Republican Party. To help me sort through all
of this, I want to bring on Rachel Hooper. She
is one of the most talented conservative lawyers in the business.
Rachel is the general counsel for the Republican Party of Texas.
Speaker 6 (26:38):
Miss Hooper, welcome, Thank you so much, Chris, Good morning.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Good morning to you.
Speaker 7 (26:43):
How important is it that we close the primaries, stop
letting Democrats choose GOP politicians.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
How critical is it?
Speaker 6 (26:54):
We believe it's critical. I believe it's critical. Most importantly,
the Republican delegates to our state convention believe it's critical.
And we saw an example a few weeks ago where
a woman who was trying to stop children at Stratford
(27:16):
High School from having a turning point USA Chapter. She
is the vice president of her local Democrat group. She
voted in the Republican primary in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Wow, well, well yeah, folks, that the same people who
took to the streets this weekend in Dallas and Austin
and other left wing cities. They are the ones who
there are certain air quotes Republicans who want to keep
them voting in Republican primaries. Let me ask you this
that the state of Texas is on board trying to
(27:51):
I should say the Republican Party of Texas is on
board trying to close the primaries. What is the White
House political team saying? Are they on board with this effort?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
As far as you know, well as far as I
know they are, But really and truly they recognize I
think what most people recognize is that convention in twenty twenty.
Speaker 6 (28:13):
Four, closing our primary was the number one priority of
many of the delegates, and Chris, I think it's important.
I've heard the criticisms. I think it's important for people
to understand what closing the primary is. Our primary election
is the time for Republicans to select their nominee for
(28:39):
an office for the November ballot. So what has been happening?
And we have seen many examples. I'm going to give
Dave Feelin as the main example.
Speaker 7 (28:53):
It's a great one where we saw.
Speaker 6 (28:57):
He had Democrats out and vote for him in his
primary election in twenty twenty four, and that put him,
first of all, put him in a runoff. Then it
had him winning the runoff election. And how do we
know they were Democrats? Because right now public information is
(29:23):
whether you participate in a Republican primary or Democrat primary,
or no primary at all. So we know that Democrats
supported Dave Feeling to get him into office.
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Unbelievable. Unbelievable, folks. We're talking to Rachel Hooper. She's a
very talented conservative lawyer. She's the general counsel for the
Republican Party of Texas. Now the state Party has decided
they want to make this a priority. It would have
gone a lot easier if the legislature, which we're going
to deal with here in a minute, if the legislature
(29:57):
had done this through the rule of law, but they
decided to punt courtesy of a guy with the name
of Matt Shaheen. So if the efforts by the party
are successful, is there a chance that we could close
down the primaries for the twenty twenty six contest.
Speaker 6 (30:16):
Well, right now we're in a lawsuit over that, and
you brought up Matt Shaheen. So I think this is
a great point. When Matt Rinaldi, our immediate former past
chairman of the state Party, when Matt Rinaldi was in
the legislature, he offered legislation on closing our primary and
(30:39):
do you know who joined him as an author in
that legislation, Matt Shaheen. So somehow this man has changed
his mind and he is listening to establishment quote unquote
Republicans who are trying to give every reason in the book.
Speaker 5 (31:01):
To not close our primary.
Speaker 6 (31:04):
So what I would say is what we did, which
we took a bold step. We took a very bold
step under the leadership of Chairman Abraham George in suing
the State of Texas and suing the Secretary of State
to close our primary. So now we are in a
lawsuit the Republican Party of Texas versus the State of
(31:26):
Texas and Secretary of State Jane Nelson. And this lawsuit
is pending in Amarillo in federal court.
Speaker 7 (31:36):
And the Attorney General of the State of Texas has
concurred with the party that this that forcing the Republican
Party to allow Democrats to vote in it is unconstitutional.
It violates the right of association. At least am I
summarizing his brief in support of the Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
Am I doing that correctly?
Speaker 6 (31:56):
That's great, that is very important. Texas A Jornie General
Ken Paxton, representing the State of Texas, joined with the
Republican Party of Texas to file a motion to enter
what's called a consent judgment or basically saying I agree
with this lawsuit and to close the Republican primary elections
(32:19):
in Texas. And Chris he asked about how quickly can
this happen, Well, it can happen very quickly if our
Secretary of State gets on board. Right now, she is
throwing roadblocks up at every turn to stop this. We
came to her during at the beginning of session and said, hey,
(32:42):
the delegates want this, they passed the rules, they want
closed primaries. What are you going to do about it?
And she said, well, let's just wait and see and
let the legislative session pass. So we are doing everything
we can to push this forward. Texas Attorney General Ken
(33:03):
Paxson has joined the Republican Party of Texas in this effort,
and we are so grateful for that.
Speaker 7 (33:11):
Well, folks, in case you're wondering, Jane Nelson is appointed
to her position as Secretary of State. She serves as
the pleasure of the governor, and she is not accountable
to the people of the state of Texas. If she were,
she might have a different a different take on fighting
to keep Democrats voting, these same people that took to
(33:32):
the streets this weekend voting in Republican primaries. Rachel Hooper
is our guest. She is the general counsel for the
Republican Party of Texas. So let's pivot now to what
happened a couple of weeks ago with the SRAC. I
wanted to get the important stuff out of the way
so we could focus on this effort to bring and
I think this is what we could classify this as, Rachel,
(33:53):
this effort by the party to make Republican means something,
to set standards and to give the people of Texas
another tool to keep their politicians in line between elections.
So Rule forty four was invented. We got ten centurs
referred to the SREC from the local parties. Only five
(34:17):
got punished. Only three is my understanding, who are running
again for reelection out of that five. To those who
were disappointed in the outcome, here, what revisions need to
happen to Rule forty four to make sure those who
betray their voters and the party platform are no longer
able to sully the party brand. What needs to happen
(34:38):
to Rule forty four to make it.
Speaker 6 (34:39):
Better thank you for that question. So I don't know
that anything needs to necessarily happen to Rule forty four.
Speaker 5 (34:48):
Rule forty four.
Speaker 6 (34:49):
Is a rule adopted by the delegates that convention that
lays out the central process. What the state a publican
Executive committee did, which is a representative from each of
the Senate districts, a man and woman. What they did
is they studied what the legislature did to our legislative
(35:12):
priorities determined by the delegates. And this study showed that
forty three bills passed, finally passed, and were signed into
law that were related to our legislative priorities. Last session,
under Dad's feeling, we got six, So forty three is
(35:34):
better than six. So in a lot of ways, we
had a great session. It started out very rough. It
started out very rough with the State Party opposing the
speaker and the way the Speaker got into office. And
this is not the first time this has happened. Please
remember last session where you saw Tony Tenderholt put in
(36:00):
name in for speaker and you saw a couple of members,
including Representative Tenderholt, go against the caucus and because they
did not support Dave feelings so we have to be
very careful and not have selective purity tests. We have
(36:20):
to look at the facts and not our feelings. And
so when you look at the facts, we studied each
of the ten center resolutions that came from county parties,
and we study those and we make sure that they
follow our rules. In fact, we got more than those ten,
(36:41):
and the rules weren't followed in certain situations. So what
happened last Saturday is the State Republican Executive Committee took
up those central resolutions and determined there's two steps. Number one,
are we going to concur in the central resolution? And
(37:03):
then the second step is if you do concur what
is the punishment?
Speaker 2 (37:08):
Right?
Speaker 7 (37:09):
And none of the Republicans who were where there was
a concurrence had the what they call the death penalty,
which is throwing them off the Republican ballot saying hey,
you enable democrats, you are a Democrat in behavior, so
you're not going to be allowed to represent the Republican brand.
And I know that would have invited lawsuits, and that
(37:29):
leads to my next question. And this is what I've
been struggling as somebody who's not an attorney, because for me,
I believe in the right of association. I believe that
the Democrat Party has a right to guard its brand
and the Republican Party has a right to guard its brand.
But what I was told by several people is that
that if a Republican gets voted in and then proceeds
(37:51):
to vote like a Democrat, enable Democrats. And by the way,
that's my standard that in a Republican controlled assembly, you
should have zero Democrat bills and zero Democrat priorities being passed.
That's the way it is around the rest of the country.
I'm not sure why it's different here, and certainly in
places like California where the Democrats are in charge, zero
(38:15):
Republican priorities get addressed because the Democrats are in the majority.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
That's just the way it is.
Speaker 7 (38:20):
So my question legally is on what legal ground does
any fake Republicans. Let's use Jeff Leach as an example.
Jeff Leach gets out there, he gets elected as a Republican,
he goes into the legislature and has his track record
of doing nothing but enabling Democrats every step of the way. Right,
(38:42):
why what legal ground if let's say he was thrown
off the ballot in a censure resolution. He would go,
of course, sue go to court. On what legal ground
would he be able to say, Hey, me, as a
left winger, I have every right to be a Republican.
On what legal ground does he have the right to
do that?
Speaker 6 (39:01):
Well, and let me say this, none of this is
as simple as you just said. So for example, Jeff Leach,
that's a complicated situation. I'm very upset personally at the
positions that Representative Leech has has taken and the efforts
he has undertaken to help a man who I believe
(39:27):
murdered his own child, Robert Roverson. So he did pass
some pro life legislation as well that he authored.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
So there.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
Let me first say this, the idea that the State
Republican Executive Committee didn't do anything related to these centers
is false, wrong, and misunderstands the process. There are three
penalties that can be imposed. Penalty three, which is I
call it the death penalty. It says that the ballot
(40:03):
applications shall be refused for twenty four months. That is
a brand new penalty. It has never been used and
it's important, I believe to have it in our rules.
But that needs to be used very sparingly. We had
the grassroots trying to impose it in every case, so
(40:26):
we had we had a situation where the grassroots are
very aggressive on just wanting to punish everyone and remove
everyone from the ballot, which that's not a careful consideration
of our rules and application of them. So what happened
is five of the ten Republicans who had centers before
(40:52):
the State Republican Executives Committee, two penalties were actually assessed.
One is that the part campaign against them in the
primary election. We saw this work last time against Daide
Feeling and against Tony Gonzalez. The party centered both of
(41:12):
them last time, and both of them came very close
to losing.
Speaker 3 (41:19):
That's why Dave.
Speaker 6 (41:20):
Feeling is not running again. That's actually why Dave Feeling
is not the speaker again. And then penalty two is
discouraging the office holder from participating in the primary. So
if you do have a righteous, viable candidate against these people,
these are things that they could use in campaigning saying
(41:44):
oh yeah, wow, let's use this. They're wanting to use
something called penalty three, the death penalty, which guess what, Chris,
to answer your question, relates to the right of association
a constitutional argument, which is the same argument we're using
to close close.
Speaker 7 (42:03):
The primaries exactly so so so again that the question, again,
this is just me trying to understand the legal premise.
Let's let's choose another fake Republican, Jared Patterson, who did
get censured, by the way, and I think he got
he got one of the strongest censers short of being
thrown off the Republican ballot. Jared Patterson, who is the
(42:26):
consummate left winger. On what constitutional basis does he have
the right to as a left winger to call himself
a Republican if the Republican Party itself says, dude, you
don't represent what the Republican Party stands for. Who what
gives the elected official more authority to redefine the Republican
(42:48):
Party than the Republican Party has to define itself. I
guess that's what I'm asking.
Speaker 6 (42:53):
Sure, I think that's the wrong question. So the wrong question.
You're asking it a different way. What would happen is
if penalty three were assessed against any officeholder. It's how
does the party have the right.
Speaker 5 (43:09):
To do that?
Speaker 6 (43:10):
And if you look time and time again, our courts
in Texas have aired on the side of leaving people
on the ballot. We saw that last time when John Divine, Justice,
John Divine's opponent tried to throw him off the ballot
over his campaign signatures. So that that is the question
(43:34):
that would be asked. But in our minds at the party,
Jared Patterson lost lost his ability to call himself part
of the grassroots for sure, when he wouldn't even honor
Jill Glover, who's a woman who we honor every day
(43:58):
at a party. He wouldn't even honor her on the floor.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
I know.
Speaker 6 (44:04):
And maybe he's really gross.
Speaker 2 (44:07):
Yes he is.
Speaker 7 (44:08):
He is very gross, And you know, Rachel, That's that's
how I look at it, uh. And it may have
been the wrong legal framework, but I look at both
the Democrat and the Republican Party as private entities. They're
private groups, and my sense is is that as private groups,
they should not be forced by government or by a
(44:28):
judge to accept those who don't define them as they
want to be defined. You like, if you join a
country club and they say you require a shirt and
jacket and tie, and you show up in jeans and
a T shirt, they have the right to say, no,
you're not properly attired. You can't come in my in
my view as the same principle that if you want
(44:50):
to define the Republican Party as a left wing party
that accommodates and kiss the rear ends of Democrats, you
shouldn't be allowed to do that. And that's kind of
where my conservative mind sits. But maybe that's not The legal.
Speaker 6 (45:04):
Freedom of association is the answer to your question, and
that is what we're arguing to close the primary. We
do not want to do anything at all to disrupt
our efforts there because we have a great case and
we are focused on closing our primary, which I think
will have if you have a viable candidate that will
(45:26):
assess the multi free automatically.
Speaker 7 (45:29):
All right, Rachel Hooper, she is folks, as you could hear.
She knows, she knows of what she speaks. One of
the most talented conservative lawyers in the business. General counsel
for the Republican Party of Texas As always love the conversation, Lady,
come back soon.
Speaker 6 (45:43):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 7 (45:45):
That's going to put a wrap on this Salcedo Storm
podcast till we visit again. My friends, Remember this a
society's worth isn't measured by how much powers stolen by governments.
A society's worth is measured by how much power is
reserved for you and me, We the
Speaker 2 (45:58):
People, keep finding for free him out there, my friends,
Popular Podcasts
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!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.