← 10 Minute Drill
10 Minute Drill
Analyzing Virginia: Silver lining, legal fights; Ilhan’s missing millions; the SPLC Scandal
00:16:30
Loading summary
Transcript16 lines
- [00:00]
A
Breaking down the results from Virginia and if there's any silver linings to be found, we're going to talk about Ilhan Omar's great financial scandal, running into some problems with investment thingies, as she calls them, and the anti hate group funding hate groups. We're going to talk about the Southern Poverty Law center and their great scandal. All of that and so much more today on 10 Minute Drill. Everybody get up. Get up. The story of America is the story of an adventure.
- [00:29]
B
I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free.
- [00:41]
A
As we talked about yesterday, on Tuesday night, Virginia voters selected by a very, very narrow margin to go with the most extreme gerrymander in the country. However, within about 18 hours of that, a circuit court stepped in. This from Ken Cuccinelli, former Attorney General of Virginia update on referendum lawsuits. The Tazewell Circuit Court just ruled the referendum unconstitutional. The judge entered an injunction blocking certification of the election and denied a motion to stay pending appeal. A final order will be entered once drafted, and it will be immediately appealed. So what this means is the election hasn't been certified and the map can't go into effect. We're going to talk about some of these legal challenges in our next block. But before we get into that, there's also a very good chance the Virginia Supreme Court allows the maps to go forward. They're not a reliably conservative body by any means. And so right now we're going to talk about this as if the maps are going into effect. Now, this was a surprisingly close result. A lot of prognosticators put this at 5 to 10 points apart. It ended up being 2 to 3 points apart. One challenge that comes with a result like that is it leads to a lot of finger pointing. What could have been done differently? Could more money spent have changed the result? One thing I wanted to focus on today is there's actually a lot of very positive takeaways. Now there's no, you know, second place moral victory here. We lost. And this is terrible. These maps are insane and egregious. But there were very positive trends that could portend to positive things down the road. First, look at this overall map of the Commonwealth of Virginia and turnout. Now, as you look at that purple, you'll see those are the areas that voted no. And you'll look at the yellowish orange there and see that's the area that voted yes. There are just a few small areas that voted yes for this. Now, when Democrats look at a map like this, they'll say areas, regions, land doesn't vote, people do. But look at that total 1,486,000 voted no. 1,574,000 voted yes on this. That is two points apart. Now consider how egregious it is that those tiny areas in yellow have just changed the entire map for that entire commonwealth and taken the 10 to 1 majority. But let's also look at the regional breakdown of this. When you break this down by county type, major cities went no by a 1.7 margin. Northern Virginia suburbs were the giant jump, yes plus 37. But other cities and suburbs, no was a plus three advantage. And in rural, a plus 39 advantage. So outside of those Northern Virginia suburbs, this was a very, very clear no result. But let's also look at a comparison to the 2024 election and 2025 and how things have moved. Now, as you look at that map, those red arrows signify a shift in margin towards more Republican. So much of the Commonwealth of Virginia voted more Republican than they did in the 2024 presidential vote. This was a 3% over performance from a presidential election vote, and only those very few blue areas actually moved more Democratic. But the other thing I wanted to highlight here that I thought was incredibly interesting from a data standpoint is when you look at how these new proposed districts in this 10 to 1 map actually voted. When you break down how the people within each of these insane gerrymandered districts, including the lobster, voted, and it actually showed a lot of anger and frustration at the people carrying out this gerrymander. Take a look at that and you'll see the lobster only voted yes by 0.3%. The no side was actually able to win three of those districts instead of just one. Two of those blue districts were within five points. So when you look at that, that's six that Republicans actually competed in. Now, this was an all or nothing referendum, but it also shows you the fact that Democrats relied so heavily on Fairfax county to counterweight the entire rest of the. One problem with a gerrymander is you have to move your reliable votes from one district to another. And in doing that, you water down some of your own votes. We talked about the lobster and how they diluted their black vote to have more wealthy white Fairfax county vote. But the lobster was only a 0.3% win for the yes column. As you look at these, these can end up being what's called a dummy mander, a gerrymander that actually ends up helping the other side because of the way that you've drawn it out. Now consider again that it is this close in six different districts within the 11 in what's one of the worst political environments for Republicans right now that we will experience in a long time. This is not the political environment that we'll be facing in the midterms right now with concern over Iran, gas prices, all these other issues. It's a very tough time for Republicans normally to be able to win a lot of independent voters. If we have a more positive political environment at any point in the future, we are competing in six or more of these gerrymandered districts, which just goes to show that this was an incredibly stupid move from Democrats. But there are still major legal questions that could turn all this thing over. Now, as we said at the outset, a circuit court has currently stayed and blocked the map that was voted on Tuesday night. And so right now it is not in effect. But as we wait for the Virginia Supreme Court to give their ruling on it, which will essentially be a yes or no. And they're going to act quickly because this is determining what maps people are going to vote on this November, here are some of the legal challenges that we expect. Those complaints come in two buckets. There's the statutory issues and the process issues. Now, the statutory issues mainly focus on the ballot question. Virginia law requires a neutral explanation and ballot question language that shall not include arguments and that restores fairness line in the original ballot question is an explicit argument. But the other lane here that people expect, including former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, expect to likely have even more success is the process points, because as a lot of people pointed out, it is bizar that you can have a 51% majority simply change the Constitution. And there are a number of steps along the way in the law that normally protect against such a flippant change to the Constitution that Virginia Democrats violated in a number of ways. We'll highlight them quickly. The passage was invalid for the legislature to have considered a constitutional amendment on redistricting. It would have required a two thirds vote. That didn't happen. There's a timing issue that you're not supposed to be able to rush this process. There's supposed to be an election that falls in between the first reading and second reading. Another timing issue is that the law requires 90 days between passage in the General assembly before it's submitted to voters. That didn't happen. Now, the last process point there's actually my favorite because it talks about the shape and drawing of these districts. The law requires every district be composed of contiguous and compact territory. Now look at the freaking lobster. Now, does that look compact and contiguous to you? I think that it's a very clear violation of what's in the text of the law. And right now, the Virginia Supreme Court has major serious questions to answer. We'll see if they take it up. A county judge has already ruled against the number of these points for the Democrats, which means there is a chance that we see this go a little bit further. But even if this map is allowed to stand, one thing that I just want to make very clear is Republicans still have a path to compete in a number of these seats. And a number of Republicans like myself want to make it their life's purpose to ensure the Democrats regret drawing this ridiculous lobster district. It has been a very busy few days in the discussion about Iran. Late on Tuesday, President Trump announced that peace talks were off. Based on the fact that the government of Iran is seriously fractured. Not expectedly so. And upon the request of Field Marshal Aseem Munir and Prime Minister Shabazz Sharif of Pakistan, we've been asked to hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. So President Trump extended the cease fire in Iran until Sunday. There's still some discussion. President Trump has said we could have peace talks resume as soon as late Thursday or Friday. However, right now, it appears the sides are still very far apart and Iran has not really made any effort to show good faith that they want to get together. Yesterday, there were three ships that reported being attacked in the Strait of Hormuz. So President Trump continues to try and navigate this friction between the irgc, the Iranian civilian leadership, and the fact that Pakistan is trying to bring everyone together. But at this moment, there are a lot more questions than answers about what's going on in the region. Meanwhile, President Trump continues to try and increase pressure by bringing more and more military assets into the region and reserving the right to continue attacks if he needs to if this continues to fall apart. Meanwhile, he maintains his blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This is an interesting one. The Southern Poverty Law center has been charged with fraud. CNBC DOJ charges Southern Poverty Law center with fraud over secret funding of extremist groups. Here is Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche describing exactly what happened here.
- [09:28]
C
According to the charges in the indictment, the SPLC is a non profit entity that purports to fight white supremacy and racial hatred by reporting on extremist groups and conducting research to inform law Enforcement groups with the goal of dismantling these groups. As the indictment describes. The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.
- [10:00]
A
So what these DOJ charges describe and what a grand jury has found is that the Southern Poverty Law center, with its storied history of fighting the KKK and other racist groups 50 years ago, has become a essentially fraudulent enterprise, funding white supremacist groups so that they can then rally against them. One of the most prominent examples was funding the leader of the famous infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville that led to one person being killed and was the pretext of Joe Biden's run for the presidency. He cited that. And now we find out the Southern Poverty Law center may have funded the leader of that. This again is the mother of all hoaxes. But for the Southern Poverty Law center, they've used these events to fundraise. After the events in Charlottesville, they raised millions of dollars from people like George and Amal Clooney, Tim Cook and others. Their receipts have gone sky high. And now we find that they have major offshore accounts in places like the Cayman Islands for a nonprofit that's intended to be focused on fighting racism. But they've also been pulled into a number of different scandals in the last few years, essentially doing Democrats bidding against groups that are working against Democrat interests. For example, a few years ago, you may remember they labeled groups like Parents Defending Education Now Defending Education as a hate group for informing parents and helping them sort of speak out against teachers unions and bad education policies. So Southern Poverty Law center now is just an arm of the Democratic Party. But it turns out like so much of the rest of the Democratic Party and their NGO supportive apparatus, they're also tied incredibly tightly to fraud. On Tuesday night, UCLA Law was hosting a representative from the Department of Homeland Security who was met with an insane shout down protest intended to silence him.
- [11:47]
D
Today's speaker is brought to us by the UCLA chapter of the Federal Society.
- [11:56]
A
Now, as many people point out, there are protests on college campuses every day. Free speech in that sense is important and protected. But when protests shout down and try and silence a speaker, it becomes a much bigger problem. You may remember a few years ago, Stanford Law School had a very similar incident.
- [12:14]
D
So you've invited me to speak here and I'm being heckled non stop. And I'm just asking for an administrator to sign.
- [12:26]
A
Stanford Law School invited a conservative judge, Kyle Duncan, to speak there and he was shouted down and threatened. And in that case, one of the deans of Stanford Law School had actually helped lead the protest against this judge. This is a major problem. Here's Kerry Severino's take on it. Remember when Stanford students intentionally disrupted a speech by federal Judge Kyle Duncan and were supported by school administrators? Well, UCLA is playing the same game. At a Federalist Society event today. The speaker, DHS General Counsel Jimmy Percival, and FEDSOC leaders showed admirable restraint and poise as their event was repeatedly interrupted by cell phone pings, shouts, and students walking out. So much for the diversity of thought. The university says it values that tolerance doesn't extend to conservative legal arguments. It's hard to imagine these students will be committed to the rule of law and upholding judicial independence. That last point there is really important. These are law students close to graduating who will take on the law practice. Many of them will go into government, many of them will do different roles. But we're already seeing very clearly here, they don't respect the Constitution and free speech and the right to hear from people with different viewpoints. And what's unfortunate is the fact that if conservative law students had shouted down a left wing speaker, they would be blackballed forever. It would be difficult for them to find jobs for these guys. They'll likely find a very cushy gig at any one of Gavin Newsom's aligned left wing lunatic NGOs. For our can't Make it up segment today, we go to Ilhan Omar and her shady finances.
- [13:53]
E
What do they say? Well, correct me if I'm wrong. Cause they said you reported a net worth between 6 million and 30 million. And they said your 2023 disclosure was roughly 40,000. Between 40,000 and a quarter million.
- [14:04]
F
Yeah, but they're not. They're not net worth. They're like the asset things for the companies. And so I don't know what percentage of it my husband actually has investment in. Like, that's not. You know what I mean? It's not a full picture.
- [14:18]
A
We have talked before about the fact that reports showed that Ilhan Omar had made a whole lot of money, 20 to 30 million dollars. At the same time as fraudulent Minnesota companies were taking billions of dollars from the federal government. It looked pretty suspicious. Well, guess what. Omar ducks questions as scrutiny grows over filings that slashed her reported wealth by millions. A little bit more clarity comes from Americans for Public Trust. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar says a major accounting error is to blame for initially listing her assets as high as $30 million. In a congressional financial disclosure. The amended filing now claims Rep. Omar's assets sit between $18,004 and $95,000. Now that is a huge discrepancy. First, fire your accountant. Second, I had to fill out these disclosure forms when I worked in Congress and if I had gotten something this wrong, I'd probably be in jail. But if you're Ilhan Omar and the Democrats, fraud is what you come to expect. But Ilhan is not taking this sitting down. Here's one exchange she had with a reporter that I thought was absolutely bizarre.
- [15:22]
G
The last time I spoke to you, you said that I was stupid for asking you about your financial disclose her. But there's some discrepancies on there. Would you like to explain them? How did you make such a big mistake on my salute for asking me anything?
- [15:34]
A
Yikes. Or should I say, oh brother, I am.
- [15:38]
G
Yes. Well, what about the American people who are wondering how you made such a mistake? Explain to the American people what's the explanation? I have given them the explanation. Do you want to tell our viewers? Because they're. I don't want to tell you, Josh,
- [15:48]
A
you think Ilhan Omar has dodged questions about fraud before? I sure do. And she doesn't think you deserve an answer. And I think that's one of the most inflammatory parts of this. As you look at $9 billion in Somali fraud and the fact that this person is on video advocating for so many of those businesses that took fraudulent money. And now she's saying we don't deserve answers. What a freaking lunatic. Hopefully some Democrats will step out and say, hey, you better answer some of these questions or it's going to hurt all of us politically. That is all the time we have for today. Thank you so much for joining us on 10 Minute Drill. Please like subscribe, leave us a review, tell your friends and have a great weekend.