August 15, 2025 • 18 mins
Final Thoughts for the Week: DC Police Takeover * Curren Price Charges * Gerrymandering America
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Lad with if you didn't know, there are some published reports, Mark,
I don't know if you've even seen this.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
You should be on the lookout for it.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
There's some published reports tonight that convicted sex trafficker Glaine
Maxwell has reportedly been cleared to leave prison on work release.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, I saw that.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
You heard that right, cleared to leave prison on work release.
This is after being granted a sweetheart prison reassignment to
some minimum security federal facility. Can we be just be honest,
you just why don't we skip to the end and
give Gelaane Maxwell for pardon because that's where all of
(00:54):
this is headed. But did you know that by law,
Maxwell is not eligible for minimum security detention because of
the nature of her conviction. You can't be a convicted
sex trafficker in the way that Maxwell is and get
minimum security.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yet here we are.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
She's not eligible for work release either, and yet say
it with me, here we are. I get how everybody
wants the truth to come out regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Well
maybe not everybody, but most bodies like me. I'm one
of these people. But I don't get how Congress passes
out subpoenas regarding Jeffrey Epstein when there's already an adjudicated
(01:34):
case to go by. Victims have testified in regard to
Gelan Maxwell, who was later convicted, there's really nothing to investigate,
per se.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Everyone's pretty much on record.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And I don't get how Congress wants to speak to
Bill and Hillary Clinton more so than any of the
victims of Maxwell or Maxwell herself. And don't get me wrong,
Bill oh Clinton definitely can and should offer up testimony. Okay,
let's be clear on this, But so can Donald Trump.
I mean, you don't get to be one of Epstein's
(02:10):
former best friends for years and not be on the
list at least to offer a few words. Where'd you go,
where'd you hang out? Did you see anything?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Did you know?
Speaker 1 (02:24):
You know, former best friends, that's what you're supposed to do. Instead,
we get the Geelane Maxwell gift giving season after meeting
privately with Trump's former personal attorney. Now doj Deputy as
they say, it doesn't pass the smell test. Can we
tell the truth? But sure, let's deflect with federalizing Washington,
(02:48):
d C. Instead, Let's have the FBI and the National
Park Service and the National Guard helped patrol the streets
of the nation's capital. I'm not exaggerating that is actually
happening because supposedly DC crime is so out of control,
or or let me offer this as an alternative.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
It's the lowest that's been in thirty years, thirty years.
This is not arguable. In fact, I was in DC
thirty years ago. I know something about this. DC isn't
even in the top ten as far as worst crime
ridden cities. You don't have to take my word for it.
It's inarguable. I visit Washington, d C. Every year without fail.
(03:29):
I talk about DC constantly on this show. I know DC.
I went to college in DC. My sister went to
college in DC. Both my parents went to college in DC.
I still have relatives who live in DC. I still
have friends that I went to college with in DC.
I know Washington District of Columbia. I was there during
(03:52):
the crack epidemic when kids were killing each other over sneakers.
That really was happening while I was in I know
what DC was like when it was at its worst.
I was there a junior in college when then Mayor
Mary and Barry was caught in an FBI sting smoking.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Crack on video.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
I was there when Washington, d C was the murder
capital as well as the nation's capital. Washington, d C
today is nothing approaching what it was then, not even close.
But when everything is about politics, nothing matters.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I must say.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
It's rather strange that the President managed to call in
the National Guard for the purpose of protecting Washington DC
on Monday, but somehow couldn't do it on January sixth.
I'm just putting that out there because I thought it
was Nancy nevermind. I'm here to tell you the Speaker
of the House did not then and will not have
any role in summoning the National Guard.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
That was proven once again on Monday.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
The big picture is that calling in the National Guard
to do nothing here in LA was just a testing ground.
Now the Guard has been called in to do nothing
in Washington, d C, which is geographically the size of Irvine,
about sixty seven square miles.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
That's it. That's Irvine.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Presently, the FBI, the National Park Service, the Secret Service,
the Metro Police, the Capitol Police, and the National Guard
are all presently patrolling the sixty eight square miles of
what equates to Irvine, California. Have you ever wondered why
(05:37):
there's no crime per se in North Korea, or at
least to the best of our knowledge, there's no crime
because it's an authoritarian police state. Have you ever wondered
why there is no terrorism in North Korea?
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Same reason.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
What's not often discussed is how freedom and a police
state don't really work well together. What is going to
happen in DC is textbook police If you don't live
in DC, it won't matter to you. You get to
sit at home and point at the TV and say, yes,
that's what I voted for. I want less crime in America.
(06:11):
I want our nation's capital to not deal with so
much crime. The details just don't matter to you. If
you aren't familiar with DC, it won't resonate with you
because it's about politics. It's not about people. I'm not
against being tough on crime. I am, though, very much
against performative law enforcement. It's not sustainable and likely won't
(06:32):
be impactful long term. Something else people may not consider.
When you marshal all these federal resources for just Washington, DC,
they're not being utilized in their intended capacity.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It plays well on TV.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
I get the why, But when you start pulling FBI
agents and National Park Service agents and Secret Service and
Department of Treasury agents from their intended duties. Then other
things fall apart. Other things are left vulnerable. But let's
not kid ourselves about how either how dangerous DC is
(07:07):
in twenty twenty five or how federalizing DC law enforcement
is either necessary or warranted, because it's neither.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
This is theater.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
It's a traveling show which will leave d C after
two weeks or so and then onto Chicago or some
other democratically led urban center for the next performance.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
I know DC.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
This is not necessary for kay If I am six forty,
I know Kelly. Once upon a time there was such
(07:54):
a thing as the moral high ground. Once upon a
time there was this thing called shame. Those days are
long gone. It didn't happen overnight, it didn't happen relatively quickly,
but sure enough, as sure as I'm sitting here, it
has happened. Earlier in the show, I told you about
the two new public corruption charges against La City councilmen.
(08:17):
Current Price. He's facing maybe a half dozen felonies now,
I honestly don't know. I've lost count. But he's not
stepping down and stepping down used to be something irrespective
of whether you were found guilty or not guilty in
a court of law later on. Stepping down was, once
upon a time, an acknowledgment that you had respect for
(08:39):
the institution and your constituents. You knew that fighting off
felonies would get in the way of serving the people.
I mean, a trial in which you're facing decades in
prison will probably get in the way of any day
job as a civil servant. So stepping down was an
acknowledgment that you've embarrassed the office, you've embarrassed yourself, your constituents,
(09:01):
and you've betrayed all of that in representing them. You
have betrayed the public trust. That's separate from the issue
of innocence or guilt. People don't get charged with multiple
felonies out of nowhere, not then, not even now. In
the world pre Donald Trump, current price would have not
(09:23):
been able to survive this innocence or not. These days,
the playbook is known to everyone. Deny everything, attack the
prosecution as being a witch hunt, attack the media for
reporting the facts as they are, and call it all
fake news. But never ever admit fault, never ever resign
(09:43):
to be honest. That says more about us as voters
than the individual politicians. They do it because they know
they can get away with it, and we as voters
are only going to get in elected officials what we're
willing to put up with. You don't get incompetent clowns.
If you won't put up with incompetent clowns, you won't
(10:04):
get corrupt criminals. If we as a society made it
clear that we won't accept corrupt elected officials. And that's
very different than simply looking for corruption on the part
of the party you don't like. Put them in jail,
Put her in jail, lock her up, lock him up.
But you know, don't worry about our guy. There's no
(10:25):
moral high ground to be found if you only think
the other party has crooked in it.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Shame used to be a powerful deterrent.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Hypocrisy used to be an effective tool to demonstrate how
elected officials had fallen short. Former New York Governor Elliot
Spitzer remember him. He was shamed into his resignation over
his solicitation of hookers and the hypocrisy of having done
it while championing his quote unquote tough on crime prosecutor
(10:54):
persona I remember that is both. It was both the
shame and the hypocrisy. He resigned, he left it with
no choice. But that was then. Now you have people
like George Santos, who was as corrupt as they come,
and he had to be put out of Congress because.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
He was not leaving on his own.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
No amount of shame or claims of hypocrisy was going
to influence him. That's where we are today. Someone said
it best, and I have adopted it ever since. And
I wish I could remember who said it to me
so I could get full attribution, but I can't, so
I won't. But that person said, you can't shame the shameless,
meaning people who have no shame or don't feel shame,
(11:32):
are impervious to shame, meaning people who have no shame.
It doesn't influence their decisions. But it's just not the politician.
We as voters, we don't value shamer hypocrisy anymore. So
it's twofold. The result is that we get the politicians
that we have asked for. You can't support everything that
Donald Trump says and has done with impunity and also
(11:55):
point the finger at the other politicians and demand that
they resign. There is no moral high ground there. That
ship sailed back in twenty fifteen. It would be like
supporting the Democratic former Congressman Anthony Wiener, Remember him, the
guy who had multiple sexting scandals which included sexting a
minor and then demanding other elected officials to resign while
(12:17):
skipping over Anthony Wiener. The Wienner did finally resign, he
may be the last of his kind in that regard.
Here's the takeaway. We can't be surprised at the lacking
quality of our elected leaders. Be a local like Current Price,
a LA City council, or state level or federal level,
we can't be surprised at the lacking quality as long
(12:38):
as we do not require them to be decent people
at their foundation. We can't expect elected officials to not
engage in criminal behavior while in office if we don't
require that of all elected officials, regardless of party. The
DOJ which originally prosecuted Current Price is the same damn
DOJ which prosecuted Hunter Biden and the same damn DOJ
(13:01):
which prosecuted Donald Trump. But we want to pick and
choose which DOJ day is corrupt or being politically weaponized.
You can't have it both ways, because shame doesn't work
that way. Hypocrisy doesn't work that way. Either we want
honorable and ethical or we don't. If we don't demand it,
(13:22):
we won't get it. But we are seeing the consequences
of not having it. For KF, I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
I'm mo, Kelly. What's good for the goose is good
for the gander. Right, the tenth Amendment still matters. Right.
States rights are a good thing. Right, California is still
(13:51):
a state. Right.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
If any of that has changed, let me know, and
I'll just end the show right now, anyway, anyone, bueler okay,
judging by your silence, states' rights are still a good thing.
States like California elect governors and they are the CEOs
of their states. In this representative democracy also called a
(14:16):
constitutional republic for you pedantic people out there. But governors
as CEOs, they run the state. Depending on the state constitution,
there are varying levels of powers and privileges that governors have.
Some things have to be run by the state legislature.
In other words, the state legislature has to vote on it.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Some you don't.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
That's why you have like a state referendum where people
like you and me get to go to the polls
and make a decision. Texas, under the guidance of Governor
Greg Abbott, is pursuing redistricting purely for the purpose of
partisan politics, purely, not for any other reason, just to
impact the balance of likely congressional representatives, per request of
(14:57):
the President direct request, No more, no no less. Let
me be clear, on its face, redistricting is not illegal
or unconstitutional. It can be both, depending on the resulting
maps and who if anyone is disenfranchised, But on its face,
it's not illegal or unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Texas is a red state.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
You all know that, and an Abbot redistricting for purely
partisan purposes is likely popular to the majority of those
read voters. But there's an important distinction to be made
letter versus spirit of the law. It does not violate
the letter of the law or in this case, the
state constitution. I'm not so sure it doesn't violate the
(15:41):
spirit of the law. What I mean by that is
it was never intended to redistrict from election to election
to election, or to super serve one party which happens
to be in power. A reasonable person I would like
to believe you're a reasonable person, you should be able
to see how that would be a disaster if this
were done after an every election, purely for the purpose
(16:02):
of maintaining power, purely for the purpose of partisan advantage.
I would argue that off year and partisan redistricting is
the exact opposite of what it is to have free
and fair elections, and it contradicts the spirit of the
law because redistricting ostensibly is about inclusion, not exclusion. Nonetheless,
(16:23):
there are plenty of people in and out of the
state of Texas who are just fine with jerrymandering the
state to benefit Republicans. But imagine a world, or in
this case of country, in which we were redistrict or
more accurately regerrymander after every election just for political gain,
not every ten years, not every five years, but after
(16:45):
every election to help impact the next one. Today Texas
is trying to redistrict midway between two censuses. Tomorrow could
be after every election. I mean, why not. There's clearly
nothing preventing it lecture of the law, and there's no
preventing every state from following suit letter of the law.
Then we have bedlam, we have chaos, we have anarchy,
(17:07):
because that's what happens after you ignore the spirit of
the law, and no election will be fair ever Again Tonight,
I started with a simple question, and I'm going to
finish with that exact same question. Are you fine with
redistricting any time and anywhere or just when it works
(17:27):
for you and your politics? Because if you're okay with
Texas deviating from the established norms and your force states' rights,
remember that, then you can't also be against Newsome doing
just about the exact same thing, or any other state
which might follow suit, and other states will You can
(17:49):
best believe that I use this analogy all the time.
You don't get to determine what happens in a fight,
especially after you throw the first punch. Someone may punch
you back, someone may kick you in the groin, someone
may grab a weapon, someone may have his friends jump
in to make the odds. Say it with me, unfair
redistricting in an off census cycle. Is that proverbial melee.
(18:14):
Texas has started this fight. They threw the first punch,
and since states' rights is still a thing according to you,
we don't get to say if other states respond, and
we don't get to say how they respond for k IF.
I am six forty, I'm MO Kelly
Lad with if you didn't know, there are some published reports, Mark,
I don't know if you've even seen this.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
You should be on the lookout for it.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
There's some published reports tonight that convicted sex trafficker Glaine
Maxwell has reportedly been cleared to leave prison on work release.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, I saw that.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
You heard that right, cleared to leave prison on work release.
This is after being granted a sweetheart prison reassignment to
some minimum security federal facility. Can we be just be honest,
you just why don't we skip to the end and
give Gelaane Maxwell for pardon because that's where all of
(00:54):
this is headed. But did you know that by law,
Maxwell is not eligible for minimum security detention because of
the nature of her conviction. You can't be a convicted
sex trafficker in the way that Maxwell is and get
minimum security.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yet here we are.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
She's not eligible for work release either, and yet say
it with me, here we are. I get how everybody
wants the truth to come out regarding Jeffrey Epstein. Well
maybe not everybody, but most bodies like me. I'm one
of these people. But I don't get how Congress passes
out subpoenas regarding Jeffrey Epstein when there's already an adjudicated
(01:34):
case to go by. Victims have testified in regard to
Gelan Maxwell, who was later convicted, there's really nothing to investigate,
per se.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Everyone's pretty much on record.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
And I don't get how Congress wants to speak to
Bill and Hillary Clinton more so than any of the
victims of Maxwell or Maxwell herself. And don't get me wrong,
Bill oh Clinton definitely can and should offer up testimony. Okay,
let's be clear on this, But so can Donald Trump.
I mean, you don't get to be one of Epstein's
(02:10):
former best friends for years and not be on the
list at least to offer a few words. Where'd you go,
where'd you hang out? Did you see anything?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Did you know?
Speaker 1 (02:24):
You know, former best friends, that's what you're supposed to do. Instead,
we get the Geelane Maxwell gift giving season after meeting
privately with Trump's former personal attorney. Now doj Deputy as
they say, it doesn't pass the smell test. Can we
tell the truth? But sure, let's deflect with federalizing Washington,
(02:48):
d C. Instead, Let's have the FBI and the National
Park Service and the National Guard helped patrol the streets
of the nation's capital. I'm not exaggerating that is actually
happening because supposedly DC crime is so out of control,
or or let me offer this as an alternative.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
It's the lowest that's been in thirty years, thirty years.
This is not arguable. In fact, I was in DC
thirty years ago. I know something about this. DC isn't
even in the top ten as far as worst crime
ridden cities. You don't have to take my word for it.
It's inarguable. I visit Washington, d C. Every year without fail.
(03:29):
I talk about DC constantly on this show. I know DC.
I went to college in DC. My sister went to
college in DC. Both my parents went to college in DC.
I still have relatives who live in DC. I still
have friends that I went to college with in DC.
I know Washington District of Columbia. I was there during
(03:52):
the crack epidemic when kids were killing each other over sneakers.
That really was happening while I was in I know
what DC was like when it was at its worst.
I was there a junior in college when then Mayor
Mary and Barry was caught in an FBI sting smoking.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
Crack on video.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
I was there when Washington, d C was the murder
capital as well as the nation's capital. Washington, d C
today is nothing approaching what it was then, not even close.
But when everything is about politics, nothing matters.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
I must say.
Speaker 1 (04:31):
It's rather strange that the President managed to call in
the National Guard for the purpose of protecting Washington DC
on Monday, but somehow couldn't do it on January sixth.
I'm just putting that out there because I thought it
was Nancy nevermind. I'm here to tell you the Speaker
of the House did not then and will not have
any role in summoning the National Guard.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
That was proven once again on Monday.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
The big picture is that calling in the National Guard
to do nothing here in LA was just a testing ground.
Now the Guard has been called in to do nothing
in Washington, d C, which is geographically the size of Irvine,
about sixty seven square miles.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
That's it. That's Irvine.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
Presently, the FBI, the National Park Service, the Secret Service,
the Metro Police, the Capitol Police, and the National Guard
are all presently patrolling the sixty eight square miles of
what equates to Irvine, California. Have you ever wondered why
(05:37):
there's no crime per se in North Korea, or at
least to the best of our knowledge, there's no crime
because it's an authoritarian police state. Have you ever wondered
why there is no terrorism in North Korea?
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Same reason.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
What's not often discussed is how freedom and a police
state don't really work well together. What is going to
happen in DC is textbook police If you don't live
in DC, it won't matter to you. You get to
sit at home and point at the TV and say, yes,
that's what I voted for. I want less crime in America.
(06:11):
I want our nation's capital to not deal with so
much crime. The details just don't matter to you. If
you aren't familiar with DC, it won't resonate with you
because it's about politics. It's not about people. I'm not
against being tough on crime. I am, though, very much
against performative law enforcement. It's not sustainable and likely won't
(06:32):
be impactful long term. Something else people may not consider.
When you marshal all these federal resources for just Washington, DC,
they're not being utilized in their intended capacity.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
It plays well on TV.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
I get the why, But when you start pulling FBI
agents and National Park Service agents and Secret Service and
Department of Treasury agents from their intended duties. Then other
things fall apart. Other things are left vulnerable. But let's
not kid ourselves about how either how dangerous DC is
(07:07):
in twenty twenty five or how federalizing DC law enforcement
is either necessary or warranted, because it's neither.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
This is theater.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
It's a traveling show which will leave d C after
two weeks or so and then onto Chicago or some
other democratically led urban center for the next performance.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
I know DC.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
This is not necessary for kay If I am six forty,
I know Kelly. Once upon a time there was such
(07:54):
a thing as the moral high ground. Once upon a
time there was this thing called shame. Those days are
long gone. It didn't happen overnight, it didn't happen relatively quickly,
but sure enough, as sure as I'm sitting here, it
has happened. Earlier in the show, I told you about
the two new public corruption charges against La City councilmen.
(08:17):
Current Price. He's facing maybe a half dozen felonies now,
I honestly don't know. I've lost count. But he's not
stepping down and stepping down used to be something irrespective
of whether you were found guilty or not guilty in
a court of law later on. Stepping down was, once
upon a time, an acknowledgment that you had respect for
(08:39):
the institution and your constituents. You knew that fighting off
felonies would get in the way of serving the people.
I mean, a trial in which you're facing decades in
prison will probably get in the way of any day
job as a civil servant. So stepping down was an
acknowledgment that you've embarrassed the office, you've embarrassed yourself, your constituents,
(09:01):
and you've betrayed all of that in representing them. You
have betrayed the public trust. That's separate from the issue
of innocence or guilt. People don't get charged with multiple
felonies out of nowhere, not then, not even now. In
the world pre Donald Trump, current price would have not
(09:23):
been able to survive this innocence or not. These days,
the playbook is known to everyone. Deny everything, attack the
prosecution as being a witch hunt, attack the media for
reporting the facts as they are, and call it all
fake news. But never ever admit fault, never ever resign
(09:43):
to be honest. That says more about us as voters
than the individual politicians. They do it because they know
they can get away with it, and we as voters
are only going to get in elected officials what we're
willing to put up with. You don't get incompetent clowns.
If you won't put up with incompetent clowns, you won't
(10:04):
get corrupt criminals. If we as a society made it
clear that we won't accept corrupt elected officials. And that's
very different than simply looking for corruption on the part
of the party you don't like. Put them in jail,
Put her in jail, lock her up, lock him up.
But you know, don't worry about our guy. There's no
(10:25):
moral high ground to be found if you only think
the other party has crooked in it.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Shame used to be a powerful deterrent.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Hypocrisy used to be an effective tool to demonstrate how
elected officials had fallen short. Former New York Governor Elliot
Spitzer remember him. He was shamed into his resignation over
his solicitation of hookers and the hypocrisy of having done
it while championing his quote unquote tough on crime prosecutor
(10:54):
persona I remember that is both. It was both the
shame and the hypocrisy. He resigned, he left it with
no choice. But that was then. Now you have people
like George Santos, who was as corrupt as they come,
and he had to be put out of Congress because.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
He was not leaving on his own.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
No amount of shame or claims of hypocrisy was going
to influence him. That's where we are today. Someone said
it best, and I have adopted it ever since. And
I wish I could remember who said it to me
so I could get full attribution, but I can't, so
I won't. But that person said, you can't shame the shameless,
meaning people who have no shame or don't feel shame,
(11:32):
are impervious to shame, meaning people who have no shame.
It doesn't influence their decisions. But it's just not the politician.
We as voters, we don't value shamer hypocrisy anymore. So
it's twofold. The result is that we get the politicians
that we have asked for. You can't support everything that
Donald Trump says and has done with impunity and also
(11:55):
point the finger at the other politicians and demand that
they resign. There is no moral high ground there. That
ship sailed back in twenty fifteen. It would be like
supporting the Democratic former Congressman Anthony Wiener, Remember him, the
guy who had multiple sexting scandals which included sexting a
minor and then demanding other elected officials to resign while
(12:17):
skipping over Anthony Wiener. The Wienner did finally resign, he
may be the last of his kind in that regard.
Here's the takeaway. We can't be surprised at the lacking
quality of our elected leaders. Be a local like Current Price,
a LA City council, or state level or federal level,
we can't be surprised at the lacking quality as long
(12:38):
as we do not require them to be decent people
at their foundation. We can't expect elected officials to not
engage in criminal behavior while in office if we don't
require that of all elected officials, regardless of party. The
DOJ which originally prosecuted Current Price is the same damn
DOJ which prosecuted Hunter Biden and the same damn DOJ
(13:01):
which prosecuted Donald Trump. But we want to pick and
choose which DOJ day is corrupt or being politically weaponized.
You can't have it both ways, because shame doesn't work
that way. Hypocrisy doesn't work that way. Either we want
honorable and ethical or we don't. If we don't demand it,
(13:22):
we won't get it. But we are seeing the consequences
of not having it. For KF, I am six forty.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
I'm mo, Kelly. What's good for the goose is good
for the gander. Right, the tenth Amendment still matters. Right.
States rights are a good thing. Right, California is still
(13:51):
a state. Right.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
If any of that has changed, let me know, and
I'll just end the show right now, anyway, anyone, bueler okay,
judging by your silence, states' rights are still a good thing.
States like California elect governors and they are the CEOs
of their states. In this representative democracy also called a
(14:16):
constitutional republic for you pedantic people out there. But governors
as CEOs, they run the state. Depending on the state constitution,
there are varying levels of powers and privileges that governors have.
Some things have to be run by the state legislature.
In other words, the state legislature has to vote on it.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Some you don't.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
That's why you have like a state referendum where people
like you and me get to go to the polls
and make a decision. Texas, under the guidance of Governor
Greg Abbott, is pursuing redistricting purely for the purpose of
partisan politics, purely, not for any other reason, just to
impact the balance of likely congressional representatives, per request of
(14:57):
the President direct request, No more, no no less. Let
me be clear, on its face, redistricting is not illegal
or unconstitutional. It can be both, depending on the resulting
maps and who if anyone is disenfranchised, But on its face,
it's not illegal or unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
Texas is a red state.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
You all know that, and an Abbot redistricting for purely
partisan purposes is likely popular to the majority of those
read voters. But there's an important distinction to be made
letter versus spirit of the law. It does not violate
the letter of the law or in this case, the
state constitution. I'm not so sure it doesn't violate the
(15:41):
spirit of the law. What I mean by that is
it was never intended to redistrict from election to election
to election, or to super serve one party which happens
to be in power. A reasonable person I would like
to believe you're a reasonable person, you should be able
to see how that would be a disaster if this
were done after an every election, purely for the purpose
(16:02):
of maintaining power, purely for the purpose of partisan advantage.
I would argue that off year and partisan redistricting is
the exact opposite of what it is to have free
and fair elections, and it contradicts the spirit of the
law because redistricting ostensibly is about inclusion, not exclusion. Nonetheless,
(16:23):
there are plenty of people in and out of the
state of Texas who are just fine with jerrymandering the
state to benefit Republicans. But imagine a world, or in
this case of country, in which we were redistrict or
more accurately regerrymander after every election just for political gain,
not every ten years, not every five years, but after
(16:45):
every election to help impact the next one. Today Texas
is trying to redistrict midway between two censuses. Tomorrow could
be after every election. I mean, why not. There's clearly
nothing preventing it lecture of the law, and there's no
preventing every state from following suit letter of the law.
Then we have bedlam, we have chaos, we have anarchy,
(17:07):
because that's what happens after you ignore the spirit of
the law, and no election will be fair ever Again Tonight,
I started with a simple question, and I'm going to
finish with that exact same question. Are you fine with
redistricting any time and anywhere or just when it works
(17:27):
for you and your politics? Because if you're okay with
Texas deviating from the established norms and your force states' rights,
remember that, then you can't also be against Newsome doing
just about the exact same thing, or any other state
which might follow suit, and other states will You can
(17:49):
best believe that I use this analogy all the time.
You don't get to determine what happens in a fight,
especially after you throw the first punch. Someone may punch
you back, someone may kick you in the groin, someone
may grab a weapon, someone may have his friends jump
in to make the odds. Say it with me, unfair
redistricting in an off census cycle. Is that proverbial melee.
(18:14):
Texas has started this fight. They threw the first punch,
and since states' rights is still a thing according to you,
we don't get to say if other states respond, and
we don't get to say how they respond for k IF.
I am six forty, I'm MO Kelly
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.