Democrats' Election Scheme EXPOSED | Nick Freitas

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Democrats' Election Scheme EXPOSED | Nick Freitas

Keeping It Real: Conversations with Jillian Michaels
Date: July 26, 2026
Host: Jillian Michaels
Guest: Nick Freitas

---

Overview

In this episode, Jillian Michaels engages with Nick Freitas—a former Virginia State Delegate, U.S. Army Green Beret, and intelligence graduate—to dissect ongoing controversies and claims around U.S. election integrity, focusing on both his personal experience with alleged election mishaps and Donald Trump’s explosive assertions of widespread fraud. The episode scrutinizes legal loopholes, systemic vulnerabilities, media bias, foreign interference, and the ideological mechanisms shaping U.S. electoral outcomes. The tone is candid, skeptical, and passionate, with both host and guest critiquing both sides of the aisle while repeatedly emphasizing the urgent need for actionable reforms.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Nick Freitas’ 2020 Congressional Race & “Election Irregularities”

• Freitas recounts losing a tight race due to a "mislabeled thumb drive" in a heavily Democratic county that erased his lead, fueling suspicions about the system—even if nothing technically illegal occurred ([02:31 - 08:39]).

  “15,000 votes show up on this thing and my lead is erased and I lose by less than two points. …You could say that there was chain of custody issues, but technically they did nothing illegal. So how do you challenge it in court?”
  — Nick Freitas [02:31]

• Media bias: Freitas notes reporters were only interested in claims of Republican victimhood and would be more suspicious if roles were reversed:

  “But if I had won, oh, you would be banging down the door... But the Democrat won, so you’re not curious about any of it.”
  — Nick Freitas [06:20]

• Michaels and Freitas underscore that changes in election law (expanding mail ballots, drop boxes, no voter ID) have created legal but questionable practices that undermine voter confidence.

2. Voter Roll Errors & New Jersey Case

• Discussion of New Jersey’s discovery of over 6,600 non-citizens registered due to a “software error”—raising alarms about similar issues elsewhere ([08:39 - 12:40]).

  “They have a DMV number that tracks back to no federal database… All of this should be legal and creates massive gaps for fraud. …[T]hey try to make you look like a crazy conspiracy theorist…”
  — Jillian Michaels [08:39]

• Freitas suggests the Democratic governor admitted the problem out of necessity, not out of genuine concern for integrity.

3. China’s Alleged Access to Voter Data

• Trump claims China acquired up to 220 million U.S. voter files; Democrats counter that such data is public and there’s no proof of tampering ([12:40 - 19:43]).

  “Is China concerned about U.S. elections? 100%... Would they want access to data? Absolutely they would be.”
  — Nick Freitas [14:04]

• Freitas emphasizes the lack of meaningful action to clean voter rolls, especially in blue states, citing 278,000 ineligible voters found in just four cooperating red states.

4. NGOs, Legal Loopholes, and GOTV Efforts

• The pair discuss how left-leaning NGOs are funded by Democratic politicians and then mobilize votes, at times returning “legal” political benefits ([19:43 - 21:38]):

  “It’s not the organization donating it back to the candidate. …It’s members who take a salary … who now donate their own personal funds back.”
  — Nick Freitas [21:21]

5. The “Asymmetric Warfare” Strategy & Cultural Capture

• Freitas lays out the Marxist/Gramscian theory of infiltrating culture-shaping institutions (universities, media, arts) to shift public norms and voter behavior ([23:01 - 27:06]).

  “If you’re not the dominant culture… infiltrating and taking over the culturally shaping institutions within that society is the way to do it.”
  — Nick Freitas [23:40]

• Both agree the right underestimated the left’s long-term strategy.

6. Intelligence Agencies & Alleged Cover-Ups (“Deep State” Claims)

• Trump alleges a “deep state” cover-up regarding foreign interference and election risks.
• Freitas, with an intelligence background, argues postmodernist ethics and subjective morality in agencies lead to justification of information suppression if it serves a “greater good” ([29:48 - 34:10]):

  “If you have an educational apparatus that teaches students that there’s no such thing as objective morality or objective truth… you end up with an intelligence community that can justify just about anything…”
  — Nick Freitas [30:33]

7. Left-Wing Moral Certitude & Media Ecosystem

• The two reflect on how leftist pundits and activists can rationalize extreme behavior, influencing the mainstream ([34:00 - 39:29]):

  “They are proud of it because …people don’t follow cowardice. They follow confidence.”
  — Nick Freitas [37:09]

• They cite the left's support of controversial figures like Hasan Piker as evidence of shifting Overton windows.

8. Trump’s Actions: Overreach or Necessary Pushback?

• Michaels challenges Freitas about Trump’s firings and executive orders; Freitas differentiates legal, constitutional maneuvering from actual overreach, clarifies the role of the Election Assistance Commission ([41:15 - 44:33]).

  “Trump was basically saying: I agreed with the dissenting justices when this was first decided …we went through our constitutional process. He lost and there we go.”
  — Nick Freitas [46:14]

9. Foreign Threats: Cuba & Venezuela

• Briefly, they examine the seriousness of Cuban and Venezuelan influence efforts, ultimately concluding that while these states may try to meddle, their resources and impact are limited compared to the internal legal and cultural mechanisms already working ([49:24 - 55:40]):

  “I don’t believe that Cuba’s in some massive position to influence or threaten the United States. But they would be foolish if they weren’t attempting to push public opinion in their direction.”
  — Nick Freitas [51:04]

10. What’s To Be Done? The Path Forward

• Freitas urges focusing voter anger precisely: on specific lawmakers stalling reforms (like the SAVE Act) and on local activism ([57:44 - 61:57]):

  “When you blame everybody for the actions of a few, …you get horrible solutions because you don’t understand the true nature of the problem.”
  — Nick Freitas [58:40]

• He emphasizes taking control over personal values, education, and local voting choices as the most powerful recourse for ordinary citizens.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The biggest thing I think people need to understand is that when we say that there’s issues with respect to voter fraud…and the left comes back and says, well, there’s been very, very few cases…when you make it incredibly easy to cheat and difficult to catch it. You’re not going to catch it as much.”
  — Nick Freitas [07:17]
• “All of this should be legal and creates massive gaps for fraud. And yet because it’s legal, if you question it, Nick, they then do exactly what you said. They try to make you look like a crazy conspiracy theorist…”
  — Jillian Michaels [08:44]
• “Republicans should be careful because Republicans are...Now I’m seeing certain Republicans act as if the only way Democrats can win elections is through cheating. I don’t think that’s the case. I think there’s other things that Democrats have done that have actually given themselves an electoral advantage that is perfectly legal.”
  — Nick Freitas [17:37]
• “My wife has this saying that I absolutely love: Democrats quote the Constitution like atheists quote the Bible.”
  — Nick Freitas [44:33]
• “I don’t know what else to say. There’s two things that everybody has control over. You can control over how you vote, and you can control how you raise your own kids and what values you give them.”
  — Nick Freitas [61:15]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 02:31 — Freitas recounts 2020 race and election night irregularity
• 08:39 — New Jersey voter roll errors and legal loopholes
• 12:40 — Trump’s China claims and how states manage/access voter data
• 19:43 — Role of NGOs, Democrat strategy, and legal vs. ethical politicking
• 23:01 — Marxist/Gramscian cultural strategy in American institutions
• 29:48 — Intelligence community’s ethics and alleged “deep state” behavior
• 34:00 — Media/pundit ecosystem and moral justification of extreme actions
• 41:15 — Discussion about Trump’s handling of electoral bodies and executive orders
• 49:24 — Assessment of Cuba and Venezuela as threats to U.S. elections
• 57:44 — Freitas’ recommendations: understanding the legislative process and targeting local action

---

Actionable Takeaways

• Understand the legislative bottlenecks—identify which lawmakers are actually blocking reform and focus activism accordingly.
• Don’t conflate legal gymnastics with criminal fraud—the system is vulnerable more through loopholes than outright illegal activity.
• Stay skeptical but grounded—focus on provable, impactful issues instead of getting sidetracked by weaker conspiracy theories.
• Educate and engage locally—voter action and parenting are most effective at this level.
• Demand transparency—push for third-party audits of voter rolls and defend initiatives like the SAVE Act.

---

This detailed summary encapsulates the full scope and tone of the conversation, offering nuanced perspectives, direct quotes, and practical recommendations on one of America’s most divisive issues.

Transcript

[Nick Freitas]

50,000 votes show up on this thing and my lead is erased and I lose by less than two points. Now, the crazy part was, is that we're obviously looking at this going, wait a second. You mislabeled the thumb drive with 15,000 votes on it.

[Jillian Michaels]

President Trump is making explosive claims about the integrity of America's elections. That China stole hundreds of millions of voter records. Our intelligence officials are deliberately keeping that critical information from him. That Venezuela developed technology capable of manipulating voting machines and hundreds of thousands of non citizens remain on voter rolls. He also alleges decades of Cuban infiltration and warns that multiple foreign adversaries now possess the ability to compromise American election infrastructure. So what's supported by evidence, what remains allegations, and how vulnerable are our elections? Well, joining me is a gentleman who is uniquely qualified to break all of this down. Nick Freitas is here, and he's a former Virginia state delegate, U.S. army Green Beret, who served two combat tours in Iraq and a graduate in intelligence management. So, guys, if you're liking the show, please consider liking sharing, commenting and subscribing. Here we go. Keeping It Real. Keeping It Real. Keeping It Real. Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels. Are you.

[Nick Freitas]

I'm doing well, how are you doing?

[Jillian Michaels]

I'm doing good, boss. I gotta be honest, everything that's going on with Trump and election integrity and all of his claims and all of the counterclaims have thrown me for a bit of a loop. I'm having pretty hard time making sense of it. And of course, I was watching you make sense of it on your channel. And in the event that any people who watch my channel missed it, I was like, I need Nick to come on and break this down for everyone. And in particular, I did not know the story about how you lost your last one for office. I was furious all day long. So I kind of want to start with. With that, if it's okay if you could tell people that story, because it's the same story, Nick, that we keep hearing that's happening to Republican after Republican, especially now after Spencer Pratt. So let's talk a little bit about that. Can you walk us through what happened?

[Nick Freitas]

Sure. So in 2020, I ran for Congress against then congresswoman, now Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Abigail Spamberger. And we knew it was gonna be a tight race. The Virginia legislature that had recently been taken over by the Democrats, they held a special session where they drastically altered voter law in Virginia. So all kinds of expansions. They were trying to implement things like same day voter registration, which took a little Bit longer to come into place. But they instituted things like ballot drop off boxes, expansion of early voting, absentee stuff across the board, making it easier to vote, because after all, Covid was coming. It was all going to kill us. And so we needed to expand voter access. So we also understand that we're going to have to campaign a lot differently because, you know, Covid, you couldn't go out and campaign the way you typically could. But we did the full court press, we did a good job, and we met all of our objectives with respect to how many votes we thought we needed in order to win. And on election night, we had. On election night, we were winning, but we knew that there was a lot of early votes. In fact, I think in that election, over half the voting population voted before election day. So we knew there was more stuff coming in, but we were pretty confident with the numbers that we hit that we were going to be okay. And then the next morning, I'm still winning, right? They've counted early ballots, which, that was another thing that always blew my mind. Why does it take so dang long to count votes that have been in your possession for days and weeks before the actual election day? Why is it that the election night votes and get counted instantaneously, fairly quickly, but the ones that you've been sitting on for over, you know, for a couple of weeks, those are the ones that it takes forever to count. But as these come in, the lead narrows, which we anticipated. We knew it was going to be a race that was probably decided within a couple of points. But the thing that really just did it in for me was a mislabeled thumb drive in Henrico county, which was the bluest county in the 7th Congressional District at that time. 15,000 votes show up on this thing and my lead is erased and I lose by less than two points. Now, the crazy part was, is that we're obviously looking at this going, wait a second, you mislabeled the thumb drive with 15,000 votes on it, and oh, golly gee willikers, isn't it convenient that it was in the bluest county in the district? And now my leads evaporated and so we're trying to challenge it. The problem was, is they didn't actually do anything illegal. You could say that this is shady as hell. You could say that there should have been greater accountability. You could have said that there was chain of custody issues, but technically they did nothing illegal. So how do you challenge it in court? And the bottom line is I didn't have the money to do it at that point. President Trump, too, was also challenging other things in the 2020 election cycle. So most of the donors were rightfully either going to the Senate race in Georgia or they're going to Donald Trump. And I had a lot of people mad at me, like, you didn't fight hard enough. I'm like, well, sorry, sport, I'm not a billionaire, and I don't have enough money to fight this. And we're having difficulty finding out what the specific legal challenge would be, because a lot of Americans have this idea that, well, of course, if something suspicious like that happened, you'd be able to challenge it in court. Not if no law has been broken. And, you know, there's standing issues as well. So where this really came. Where this really came down to me is I'm going through all of this, and I remember this reporter comes up to me and she goes, you know, Nick, are you claiming that the election was stolen from you? And I remember looking at her and I said, you know, I've never once claimed that the election was stolen. I said, but can I ask you a question? If on election night, Abigail Spamberger had been ahead of me, and the next morning she'd been ahead of me, and the next afternoon she'd been ahead of me, and then all of a sudden, a mislabeled thumb drive showed up in the reddest county in the district with enough votes to get me over the top and help me win by less than 2 points, would you be curious about that? And she goes, yeah, I would be. I said, and yet you're not. You're not. Because the Democrat won. Because the Democrat won. You're not curious at all. In fact, the only question you want to ask me is, I'm claiming, is, am I claiming that the election was stolen? Because that would be irresponsible and a threat to our democracy. But if I had won, oh, you would be banging down the door of every registrar in the district. You'd be asking for all kinds of questions about chain of custody issues. How could we have allowed this to happen? This just diminishes the people's faith in our election cycle. But the Democrat won, so you're not curious about any of it. And the biggest thing I think people need to understand is that when we say that there's issues with respect to voter fraud, and the left comes back and says, well, there's been very, very few cases of people convicted of voter fraud, there's a couple of things they need to understand. One, when you make it incredibly easy to cheat and, and difficult to catch it. You're not going to catch it as much. The other thing is who's supposed to prosecute it? Because in the vast majority of these cases you're dealing with a Democrat Attorney General or a Democrat Commonwealth Attorney or Democrat District Attorney in other states. So who exactly is rushing out to investigate voter. Oh, I know who, because there was a case in North Carolina in 2018 where a Republican was doing an illegal ballot harvesting operation, which by the way, some of the stuff he was doing is perfectly legal in blue California, but it was illegal in North Carolina. Oh, and a Republican one. My gosh. You wanna talk about people that were absolutely adamant about convicting, trying and convicting voter fraud? They were on it. But when Democrats win, they don't investigate, they don't convict, they don't go after it. They continue to pass voter laws that make it really, really easy to cheat and difficult to catch. And that's where we're at. So this, this admission out of New Jersey was substantive for that reason because it not only shows, it not only shows how all the things that never happen actually do happen, but it also demonstrates how long it can happen before anybody catches it.

[Jillian Michaels]

You literally have taken every single word out of my mouth. So I'm going to, I'm going to address all of it as far as I can remember, each one and back up at New Jersey so we can discuss what happened there for anybody who missed it. First of all, everything you're talk about that they did in Virginia, they have done in California. And it started in 2014 when we had a 48 hour window to certify votes. And then Democratic lawmakers, Democratic governors authored laws to change that. Democratic governors signed these laws into existence and essentially it's a 37 day window to certify a vote. And they've made it legal to have the drop off boxes like you talk about and to have no voter id. It's illegal to ask for voter ID and to register homeless people to vote without a Social Security number or a voter id and they have a DMV number that tracks back to no federal database. All of this should be legal and creates massive gaps for fraud. And yet because it's legal, if you question it, Nick, they then do exactly what you said. They try to make you look like a crazy conspiracy theorist, a MAGA lunatic. And for the longest time I've tried to be so careful about like, I don't know, you know, there's no proof. Oh, we gotta be care and then the Spencer Pratt thing happened. Yeah. And when I began to learn about what they had done to make all the things you're talking about legal. And then I heard about your story, and I was like, oh, my God, it's a playbook. And they're literally rolling it out in blue states where they have power across the country. So ending up. Now back to Mikey Sherrill in New Jersey. She's a Democrat, which is why I was so fricking flabbergasted that she talks about the fact that there were, let's say, I think, 6,600 people they found on. On their voter rolls that are undocumented. Before I became governor, a serious software error in New Jersey's motor vehicle system led to the improper voter registration of what we believe to be roughly 6,600 people in our state. When New Jerseyans applied for a driver's license or identification at the mvc, they were asked if they wanted to register to vote. In the case of this error, some individuals indicated that they weren't citizens and weren't eligible to vote, but the software registered them anyway. And if that sounds like a small number, you say two points. Two points is 2,000 votes, isn't it?

[Nick Freitas]

No, no, two points just. It depends on the percentage of people voting. So it varies. But there's plenty of races that are decided by far less than 6,600 votes.

[Jillian Michaels]

Yeah, Spencer Pratt, I think was less. There's right around 6,600 votes, I think, if not less, that she was able to poll ahead of him. So what in the world do you think made a Democratic governor say, this is a problem, and I'm gonna look into it? Is she a good person or she have her back against the wall?

[Nick Freitas]

Well, let's say the nicest interpretation of this is that, yep, she just believes in election integrity. It would be one of the only Democrats elected that I know that actually believes in that. But let's just go ahead and say that's the nice inversion. What's the not nice version? Well, the not nice version is somebody else had access to this data. There was absolutely no way that she was going to be able to bury it. And if she did bury it, then somebody else to report on it. And now all of a sudden, it's not just 6,600 voters or 6,600 people who are not eligible to vote were registered. Now, she also hid the fact that there were 6,600 voters that were on. There shouldn't have been. So I am inclined to believe that this is more of a cover your rear move than it is a genuine concern for election integrity.

[Jillian Michaels]

Got it. Okay, now that we've touched upon what's happening in some of these local elections, obviously the next conversation is Trump. So I have copious notes here, Nick, and we're going to start with his claim on China. So he claimed that 220 million voter files from across 18 states have been purchased or acquired somehow by China. We don't have evidence right now of how they did it. We don't have verification that it was 220 million. We don't know if they actually used this information. The Democrats argument back, and I don't say this by the way, to attack Democrats, I would hope at some point there would be a leftist that might come across this content and think through it a little bit and vice versa. I want Republicans to also appreciate what their Democrat friends and family members see so they don't think they've lost their mind. Cuz all they hear is this stuff from the other side that, you know, voter roll information is mostly public information and China denies everything and we found no votes altered. So starting on that one, what is your take on this? Is this a real threat or is it a nothing burger as CNN would have us believe here?

[Nick Freitas]

Well, let's look at it from this standpoint. Is China concerned about U.S. elections? 100%. Who actually occupies the White House can have drastic effects on their economy, their regional aspirations, I mean, you name it, right? They can have significant effects. So are they sort of the people that would want access to data which they believe would allow them to either influence elections through, you know, farming things on social media or pushing money in a particular direction through surrogates or through direct manipulation of voter rolls or voter data. Yeah, I think all that is within the realm of personality possibility. That doesn't mean that they've actually done it. So I'm not accusing them of having doing more than what we actually have evidence of. But the idea that China, well, China denies it. Well, no kidding, right? Would try to be interested in possessing this capability. Absolutely they would be. Have they executed it effectively? I don't know. Right. There's been no claim that they have, but it's certainly something that we should be concerned about. As for this idea that there's no rule, there's no proof that anything has been altered or changed. Again, this is the part where I get into the question of when the Trump DOJ was asking states to hand over voted data in order to be able to find people that were on there illegally. Certain states complied and certain states didn't. The states that complied tend to be the ones that agree with Donald Trump that election integrity is important. They found, I think it was over 270,000 people that were on the voter rolls that were illegal. Right. So that's in states that are actually trying to stop it, in states that don't really care or benefit from it, they just chose not to cooperate. Are you telling me the people that don't want to cooperate with this, that have an absolute incentive to encourage illegals to come into the country to get registered to vote to participate in our elections, they actively argue that they should be allowed to participate in, at least at the local level. Are we now seeing that way beyond the realm of possibility that they would have done anything to manipulate that manipulate the voter rolls? And their answer is, well, where's your evidence? It's like, well, I don't know. The same people that don't want to participate in cleaning up the voter rolls are also the people that would be responsible for investigating this. So if you're going to tell me that the people that are responsible for finding the evidence have no interest in finding evidence, I'm just not going to use that as a loctite argument anymore. Now, if they want to invite an independent third party to come in and evaluate this in order to determine whether or not there's been manipulation, well, then that's something that would show a sign of good faith at the very least. But I don't think they have any interest in doing that. And again, here's the other thing I'll say on the other side of this. I also think Republicans should be careful because Republicans are. Now I'm seeing certain Republicans act as if the only way Democrats can win elections is through cheating. I don't think that's the case. I think there's other things that Democrats have done that have actually given themselves an electoral advantage that is perfectly legal. For instance, USAID was a perfect example of Democrats filtering money from your tax dollars to 501C3s to get out the vote efforts that were aligned with Democrats. So they selectively chose where to get out the vote. They selectively chose where they were going to register. Now, is that illegal? No. Is it a conflict of interest and unethical? Absolutely. And so we've seen a lot of cases where Democrats have done a good job infiltrating your public school system, your higher education system, your arts and entertainment, and they've used your tax dollars in order to facilitate this millions of dollars get shipped into these left leaning organizations that are 501c3s and NGOs and Lo and behold, the people that are actually getting this money are big time contributors to Democrat candidates. So there's something of a grift going on here. And all of that impacts our elections in a way that is not technically cheating. It's just unethical in my opinion. So let's not blame everything on fraud, but let's also, especially after la, the point where I had been skeptical for a long time, but I'd always been very cautious on any accusations I made because I'm a big like, where's your proof? But when I saw what happened in la, when I saw that those Democrat ballots, those mail in ballots didn't just come in for the Democrats, which I would have expected, but they came in for the Democrat that needed them the most in order to push the Republican off the ballot and everyone acted like, oh well, no, this just happens. Screw you. At this point, at this point you are asking me to suspend reality in a way that I am not willing to do anymore. And this is the part that I don't think Democrats have properly understood. The fact that they have worked so hard to create conditions where it is easy to cheat and the fact that they have created conditions where you have results like this in Los Angeles that everyone, everyone with half a brain can look at and say, yeah, that's pretty, that's pretty fishy. And the fact that Democrats have tried to gaslight all of us into believing that there's nothing to see here is causing more and more people in this country to say, I don't trust elections. And if Democrats think that they're going to live in a better world when half the country doesn't believe in our elections anymore, I've got news for them. And it won't be better for anybody to include them. So voter integrity is absolutely critical at this stage. I expect the United States Senate to do everything they can to pass the SAVE Act. I expect individual states to pass state level SAVE Acts, and I expect the DOJ to actually take the lead in prosecuting voter fraud because we cannot rely on local district attorneys or state attorney generals to do it in the very places where those people benefit from the fraud.

[Jillian Michaels]

I want to back up a few things that you said real quick. So you mentioned that the states that were cooperating found like 270. 278,000 is the exact number that my team put here for me. 278,000 people that are not meant to be on these voter rolls or on these voter rolls. That was four states only, Nick. Four states only. To just underline your point there, as for these NGOs that you talk about, I wanted to give a few examples. In California, there's an immigrant rights group called Chirla Newsom has given them millions of dollars in grant money, and then they turn around and they played a huge role in helping him fend off his recall campaign, while simultaneously in cities across California, in the local elections, they are putting it on the ballot to try to facilitate people who are in the country illegally their ability to vote in the local elections. It's exactly what you just described. And the same thing is happening in Mamdani's New York. And I haven't done homework beyond that. But as you're describing, I imagine it's going on in blue cities and blue states across the country. Can I just ask you, and I don't know if you would know, but how is this legal? How is it legal for a momdani, who or a Newsom, a mayor or a governor to give an NGO cash and then them to turn around and donate it back to that candidate? That's. How is that legal?

[Nick Freitas]

It's not the organization donating it back to the candidate? No, no, no. It's members that work for the organization who take a salary from the organization, who now donate their own personal funds back to the political candidates of their choice.

[Jillian Michaels]

Oh, my God. That's how they're doing it. Okay, I didn't understand that. Okay, okay, question number two. When you look at the ways that the Democrats. Honestly, Nick, have outplayed the Republicans, whether it's the media educating kids in universities harvesting ballots, like all of this stuff, they love to turn around and say, everything Trump's doing is illegal. And I'll get to that in a second. But they've made illegal actions legal. Why are they out gaming the GOP so effectively? And I have a tin hat theory, and I wanna run it past you. My theory is that the Democrats have been infiltrated by globalists like Soros, for example, by Marxists like Neville Roy Singham, for example, by Islamist Pax. And you've got this red, green, blue alliance. And they've managed to capture everything from Wikipedia, which launders the mainstream narrative now, to what kids are learning on college campuses, to changing laws to harvest ballots, to. Is that like full blown tin hat lunatic? And if it is, why are the Democrats so much better at this game than the Republicans are?

[Nick Freitas]

No, it's not tinfoil Hat at all. In fact, there was many people that wrote about this. They developed it as a strategy. It's not like they hid the ball. They might not have put it on the nightly news, but if you look back at people like Antonio Gramsci in Italy, he was one of the Marxists that said that, look, I love Karl Marx. I want to live in the world Karl Marx dreamed of. But the way the revolution that Carl Mike said would happen is not happening. And the reason why is because bourgeois culture, capitalist culture, is so strong. So we need to create Marxist culture. We need to create cultural. How do you do that? Well, you infiltrate culturally shaping institutions and you staff it with your people. And then one of the reasons why higher education and arts and entertainment is the best place to do it is because on one side, you're training the elites that are going to lead socially, economically, and politically within a country. And then the arts and entertainment side, you can back up whatever you're teaching in the universities by making it part of the general cultural understanding, the general narrative. So this has been a strategy that's been used for some time. The Soviets called it active measures when they were trying to do it and infiltrate into arts and entertainment and unions and things of that nature. And this has just kind of developed over time. But, no, it's a very reasonable strategy for people that are engaging in an asymmetric strategy. So if you're not the dominant culture, if you're not the dominant force within a society, but you wish to become that dominant force, well, then infiltrating into and taking over the culturally shaping institutions within that society is the way to do it. And so, yeah, we shouldn't be surprised when it seems like overnight there were certain narratives that were completely foreign to American culture 20 years ago that all of a sudden we were inundated with it. And then social media makes that exponentially easier to do. And if, I'll tell you right now, if Elon Musk could not bought Twitter, I think this would be far more accelerated than it is even right now. I think the DSA would be far longer or far ahead in what they're trying to do than they even are right now. And part of the reason, again, I think part of the reason why they've been so much more effective at it than we have is two things. One, we got used to thinking we were the dominant culture. And by that I mean a society that is generally Christian doesn't mean everybody is. But generally Christian, with respect to morality, generally believes in free market principles and private property. Rights and separation of powers. The government has a role to play, but it's supposed to be limited. It's not supposed to be micromanaging all of our education and healthcare and media, okay? They don't have that same commitment. They have a very, very different worldview. They see the government as the primary mechanism by which you solve the world's problems, that you achieve social justice and environmental justice and equity and everything else. And so for them, it was much more important to invest in these sort of institutions in order to achieve their outcomes. Whereas your typical person, that's not even necessarily a conservative, but just trying to, like, live their life, their primary focus is their family, their career, their kids, you know, their faith. They don't see the government as the primary mechanism to solve everything. They just kind of vote every 2, 4, and 6 years to do their civic duty, but they're busy doing their thing. But again, if your worldview is the west is evil, capitalism is exploitive, property rights are exploitive, that there's nothing but rampant environmental and social injustice, and this has to be cured by people like them having the power to do so well, then this is the strategy you use in order to accumulate the appropriate political, social and economic power to carry out your objectives. And it doesn't have to be like one or two people pulling the strings. You have to have an elite. And you have that in the form of your Herbert Marcus's, you have that in the form of your Saul Alinsky's, your Jean Paul Sarts, your Michael Foucault's. You then have to get those people influential within the right institutions. And then over a few generations, you have people that just think this is normal. And that's how you subtly change culture over time.

[Jillian Michaels]

That is so crazy. That's exactly what's happening. The best summer pieces are the ones that you end up wearing on repeat. They're comfortable, they're versatile, and somehow they're right for pretty much every occasion. Which is why I love quince. They make elevated essentials using premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, washable silk, without the traditional retail markup. And this summer, I found myself reaching for quints again and again. They're 100% European. Linen pieces are lightweight, they're comfortable, they're easy to style. So whether it's a casual day out with dinner or friends, their pants, their dresses, their tops, they always work. And they start at 32 bucks. And I love their 14 karat gold jewelry, which has become my go to finishing touch. You can do a delicate chain gold Hoops. It instantly elevates an outfit without ever feeling overdone. So make your wardrobe feel easier this summer. Go to quince.com Jillian for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I-N-C-E.com Jillian for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com Jillian okay, having said that, the writing was on the wall and one of Trump's claims is that our intelligence agencies knew this and covered it up. So let me go through my notes here so I don't mess any of this up. Trump is claiming there was a deep state cover up. Now my team is adamant. This is in all caps here. There are redactions on the documents that were declassified. So for everybody watching, this can limit the full picture that we are exposed to. The claim is that our intelligence agencies were deliberately hiding this information from the President. In particular, suppressing reports about China getting the voter information of 220 million Americans. There is a document that was declassified that said they were going to massage their President's Daily, the President's Daily Brief. So massage the briefing to the President about this. There is another document that was declassified that suggested they were running a shadow government. This is the FBI to prevent Trump from knowing what was going on with election integrity concerns. You have a frigging degree in this, Nick. This does seem pretty bad to me. That is my opinion. What is your take on this? This seems crazy to me. I personally, again, MSA personally, would love to see arrests over this. But I don't know what the law says or if this is normal or, you know, that's. Thoughts?

[Nick Freitas]

Well, that's the question. Is it criminal or is it just negligence? Because you can fire someone for this easily. But I don't know that you can prosecute someone for this. And that's only because I'm an attorney and I don't respect, I try not to overly speculate. But it's interesting you mentioned something because, yeah, my last job in the military was a Special Forces intelligence sergeant. And so I did all sorts of intel analysis along with our combat ops and everything else. And I remember when I was, when I was going through this intelligence management program in college and we had a professor ask us, he goes, what do you think is the biggest ethical issue facing the intelligence community? And everybody was doing papers on like rendition or enhanced interrogation, torture, things like that. And I remember I emailed him, I said, I want to do mine on postmodernism and he said, what do you mean by this? I said, I am absolutely convinced that if you have an educational apparatus that teaches students that there's no such thing as objective morality or objective truth, then eventually what you will end up is with an intelligence community that can justify just about anything, because, after all, it's not objective. There's not an objective standard of truth by which they have to judge their actions. There's simply outcomes that they've decided are moral, which they are obligated to achieve. So that creates the sort of conditions where somebody is looking at this information. Now, objectively, it's bad that China is doing this. Objectively, this is the sort of thing that you would want to let the President of the United States know. But then they've decided that the more moral decision is to keep this from the president. Why? Because he might utilize it to point out that we have some election integrity issues in this country at the very time that people are concerned about election integrity issues. And who could that benefit? Well, theoretically, it could benefit Donald Trump. And we can't have that happening, because regardless of what's true or not, if, in their mind, Donald Trump getting reelected is worse, well, then you bury the truth and you push a different narrative in order to achieve the end state that you believe is more just. And that's the sort of. I think that's the sort of mental reasoning, the most sort of moral reasoning that we see. Now, I want to say one other thing here, to be very, very careful. I always get skeptical when I hear like, our intelligence community is doing X. No people within our intelligence community are doing X. There are people that in Iraq and Afghanistan committed war crimes. It wasn't the United States army that committed war crimes. It was those individuals. And so I always want to differentiate between people that really are in the intelligence community, in the military, in law enforcement, whatever it is, that are diligently trying to do their job. But we also have to ask ourselves if you're the sort of person that has created this moral framework in your mind where achieving certain political outcomes is the most important thing, and however you got to do it, just do it. Do we really think that those people would not want to serve in this capacity? So we have to ask that question in order to understand why somebody would deliberately hide information like this from the president at a time when arguably it could have been very, very critical to things that were going on at the time. And I think it is a logical conclusion. I'm not saying it's the only conclusion, but It's a logical conclusion that certain members that had access to this information decided it was in the best interest of the country, which they were deciding for the rest of us in order to suppress this information and keep it from the President. And I would say I think that's a significant dereliction of duty. But it'll be up to the Department of Justice ultimately to determine whether or not a crime took place.

[Jillian Michaels]

That's so interesting. See, to me, I know this is luckily the opinion again, I put that out there as a caveat to cover your ass moment here, but to me it feels like treason. Who the f are you to decide what a democratically elected president gets to know? Who in the hell do you think you are? That is so deeply alarming.

[Nick Freitas]

But what if that president is a threat to democracy? What if that president.

[Jillian Michaels]

Who are they to determine that, though, Nick, is a way to determine that.

[Nick Freitas]

You and I. You and I work from a moral framework that says there's objective truth, there's objective morality. The process is important, and so therefore that process should be trusted even when it yields results that we might not like. But they're of a mindset that, no, this guy is objectively evil, right? These are. This is what I go through with. Whenever I talk about the left and the mentality that has really taken over leftist thought in America, I always go back to, it's not Charlie getting murdered. It's how I watched everyday average people react to Charlie getting murdered and the absolute elation I saw out of people. And then I'm supposed to simultaneously believe that the same people that cheered Charlie Kirk getting of everybody are way beyond fixing an election or skewing data or burying information that would be important to the American public because they've decided we are so bad, we are so evil, that whatever means necessary that they can get away with in order to ensure that people like us don't have power is an absolute moral imperative. Now, if you don't think they're capable of that kind of reasoning, I would go back and I would watch what they were putting on social media 20 minutes after Charlie Kirk got murdered, because I'm of the opinion that it is clearly within their moral framework and capability.

[Jillian Michaels]

That is probably the best example you could give. I've started to call that out with regard to Hasan Piker, like you've got a guy who's celebrating Mao Zedong, who is the most prolific mass murderer in history, as far as I understand it. And instead of doing what you're saying, right, like some lunatic killed Charlie this is terrible. You know, we've got to come together, we've got to draw the line. This has gone too far. They celebrated it. And with Hasan Piker, instead of marginalizing this insanity, the vast majority of the left wing media is inviting this guy to speak at Ivy League campuses. He's a pundit on MSNBC or Ms. Now regularly. He's getting fluffed by the New York Times. He's campaigning alongside Democrat politicians. He's there with aoc, he's there with Bernie, he's there with El Said, he's there with Mamdani. And I'm just thinking, okay, if you cannot look at this guy and see that he's mentally ill and deranged, and not only do you just say, all right, you know, he's got a big audience, I'm too chicken, I'm just not gonna say anything. You then pander to him and try to capture his audience. It does bring me to the. If you're capable of that, I think voter fraud is a far less significant crime.

[Nick Freitas]

Oh, that's light.

[Jillian Michaels]

That's likely where you're going.

[Nick Freitas]

There's a. There's a quote that I Love by C.S. lewis, and he says, of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep. His cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. And when I look at these guys, and I look at the things that I think they have clearly demonstrated they're capable of, and Hasan Piker is a perfect example of this. Have you noticed that the things that they say we consider to be incredibly radical, and yet they put it out there very public. They're proud of it. They are proud of it because the bottom line is one of the things they have picked up on is people don't follow caution and they don't follow cowardice. They follow confidence. They follow courage. And you see this wing of the Democratic Party, the reason why nobody cares about some random Democrat from whatever northern Illinois, but the reason why you see people flocking to the AOCs, the Bernie Sanders, the Hasan Piker type within the media is because, say what you want, they are confident about what they believe. And the things that they offer, they don't do so in hushed tones. And now I'm Watching people within the Democratic Party that are saying, how could it have gotten to this direction? And I'm looking at them going, you courted this.

[Jillian Michaels]

I know.

[Nick Freitas]

This is not some aberration of your. This is not some aberration of your worldview. This is a logical outworking of the rhetoric you used. And what it is, is these people are the ones that believed you. So I think it's about time. Again, whenever we look at all this analysis, we should always look for facts and evidence. We should. But we should also understand that the ideology that we're dealing with is not the democratic party from 20 or 30 years ago. It's not, I want a slightly bigger welfare state and higher marginal tax rates. This is something very, very different. And what they are capable of morally justifying in order to achieve their end states is far more radical than I think we give it credit for.

[Jillian Michaels]

God, you're so right. I was just talking about that with something that Van Jones had said. Cause he's like, these are. Where did this come from? These are terrible ideas. And he, you know, went through all of his terrible ideas, and one was no police. And I was like, Buddy, that's a 2020 narrative. And when those of us were sounding the alarm bell about no police back then, you, Van in particular, called us all racists. So, like, I'm glad you're here. That's wonderful. I don't, you know, I certainly don't want to push you back in that direction, but let's just honest about how we got here. I totally agree with you. And maybe I myself was late to the party, and for everybody who saw it before me, you've been very gracious with me, and I apologize, you know, if I didn't see it. I really didn't prior to really 2019, which is why I don't want to chase those people off. Because the more people that are going to call out the crazy on the left, to me, all contributions are graciously accepted. Gee, will it? Okay, Nick, I want to push back on something a little bit here only because I'm guilty of it, and I want to know your take. So what I see happen, I'll give you a perfect example. Trump is like, we need voter ID. We need voter ID. We need voter id. 80% of the country, we need voter ID. People of all different colors, people of both genders, people from both parties. Yeah, I think we need voter id. Congress won't pass it. We already know why. The Democrat. We don't have the votes on the Republican side. Democrats you're racist and you're sexist. We're never gonna do it. Okay, fine, got it. But then Trump turns around and goes, okay, well, I'm gonna fire the independent committee who's supposed to oversee this. And I can't remember the friggin name of that committee.

[Nick Freitas]

Election Assistance Commission.

[Jillian Michaels]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he fires those guys, right?

[Nick Freitas]

So the election people are like, oh my gosh, he fired the election Commission. They're supposed to oversee the security of our elections. That's not what the Election Assistance Commission did. The Election Assistance Commission was a group of people that were responsible for handing out funds to organizations that would do get out the vote efforts, but they would also do things that would like work at the polls or work for registrars. So they tried to come up with various guidance on systems that you could use. They would try to come up with kind of vetted programs or standard operating procedures that you could use with respect to monitoring elections. The problem was that it's usually two Democrats, two Republicans. Well, I believe one of the Republicans stepped down and President Trump at that point was, well, we're not going to have an organization comprised of two Democrats essentially deciding where all this money is going to, because a lot of the money was going to, you guessed it, programs that were run out of universities. Now, do you think the universities were going out to gun shows in order to register voters? Yeah, probably not. So this idea that, not to mention the fact that a lot of the processes that were already in place, they're in place. You can go see what they are. It's not as if this Election Assistance Commission was going into every single registrar's office or trouble spot in order to make sure that they were properly following rules or properly following best practices. So again, to some degree, this is a little bit of a nothing burger. But again, it got elevated out like, oh, Donald Trump is trying to interfere in our elections by getting rid of this super duper important commission that nobody knew existed 27 minutes ago.

[Jillian Michaels]

Oh my God. Okay, See, because I did think like, oh, gosh, okay, if I'm a Democrat, then I'm going to feel like that's an overreach and then I'm going to call him a fascist. And, and we've seen, like, with birthright citizenship. Personally, I do not want Chinese nationals coming over here, dropping a kid, taking him back to Communist China, and then that kid can vote at 18 from overseas in our elections. I think it's a national security risk. Congress is supposed to fix it, though. They won't fix It. So then he tries to do it via executive order. It's a constitutional overreach as far as I understand it. Unless I'm getting this wrong. And then Democrats turn around, talk about that on cnn. And everybody I know on the is like, he's a fascist. And we're right back to the beginning. And while on one level I can go, okay, is he seemingly engaging unless, correct me if I'm wrong in constitutional overreach, yes, it seems like it. But that to me is a far less evil thing to be concerned about than the fact that the Democrats are blocking. Voter ID won't solve this problem. Have this, oh, you know, opacity, if that's not the word I'm looking for with regard to how our elections run. So then I'm choosing, right? I'm going, okay, well, I'm gonna compromise my values here because I think it's a lesser evil. Is that the same thing the Democrats are doing on a lesser level? I just wanna be intellectually honest, that's all.

[Nick Freitas]

So let's look at the 14th amendment. So the Democrats. First of all, my wife has this saying that I absolutely love. And she says Democrats quote the Constitution like atheists quote the Bible. It's not out of any, like, genuine love for the actual document. Right? It's not because they think it should be an authoritative force within our lives. The only reason why they quote it is to either call out what they perceive to be hypocrisy or because on some fundamental level, Democrats understand that the Constitution is a document which limits government power, which is why they refer to the Constitution when Republicans are in power and do everything they can to ignore it when they're in power. But let's just look at the 14th amendment. So section one of the 14th amendment is the part that actually covers the immigration side or the really the birthright citizenship side. And the whole debate was around this idea that we have freed slaves and we want them to be properly understood as U.S. citizens and voting members of the body politic. And so if you look at the nature of the debate, whether it was going on, you had different legislators that were essentially saying things like, well, of course, this doesn't mean that just anybody willy nilly born in the United States is a citizen. And yet what we operate off is the text of the text of the actual amendment. Now there was an early decision in the late 1800s about this, and that had been standing law ever since the late 1800s. And that was a split decision. It's not like if it was unanimous within the Supreme Court. In fact, I believe the two dissenting judges were like, this is ridiculous. This can't possibly confer birthright citizenship on anybody that just comes into the country. But the majority opinion disagreed with that. They thought it was, if you're born in the United States, you're born in the United States. So people will say things like, well, this has been standing law for over 100 years.

[Jillian Michaels]

Yes.

[Nick Freitas]

Well, yeah, in part. Now you have to ask the question, do you agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation? Because you know what was also standing law for a long time in this Dred Scott, until a different Supreme Court said, I don't agree with this, and they overturned the Dred Scott decision. So the president did not violate the Constitution. What the president said was, I don't believe that the 14th Amendment means that two people can come over here for birth, for basically birthright citizenship, tourism, and that they're automatically a citizen. I don't believe that's what the 14th Amendment conveys. And as a member of the government, I'm also responsible for faithfully interpreting the Constitution. And so I'm going to issue this executive order. Then it goes through the process of the Supreme Court reviewing it. Well, Donald Trump lost that case. Did he immediately go out and execute the executive order? No, it got rescinded. So this is not something where he violated the Constitution. Right? He had one interpretation, the Supreme Court had another interpretation, and Donald Trump relented to the Supreme Court's interpretation. And now he's looking for other mechanisms whereby he can enforce federal immigration law or he can get Congress to change it. The problem is, is the only way Congress can change the 14th amendment is through the constitutional process. So they have to have super majorities in Congress in order to get this passed, and then super majorities within the states to amend the Constitution to clarify that. Do you think the blue states are going to join in on that? You think they're going to ratify that through their state legislatures? Of course not. So there's no way you're going to change the 14th Amendment with the current makeup of both state legislatures and the House of Representatives in the United States Senate. So, again, Trump was basically saying, I agreed with the dissenting justices when this was first decided. I think that the reason why this hasn't come up again until now is because we didn't have a Democratic Party that was welcoming in tens of millions of illegal immigrants. We didn't have this elaborate process where people were. Chinese women were flying to Saipan, or, excuse me, flying to US territories in the South Pacific specifically to have children so their kids would be now U.S. citizens. Now those conditions don't change what the 14th Amendment says. But those conditions created the apparatus and the catalyst for Donald Trump to say, I don't think the justices got it right in the late 1800s. I think the dissenting justices got it right. So we went through our constitutional process. He lost and there we go. So I haven't surrendered any moral ground. I haven't surrendered any. You know, if Donald Trump responded to that by saying I'm now dissolving the Supreme Court and doing whatever I want, I would oppose Donald Trump if he tried to do that. But that's not what he did. He complied. So no, there's no moral equivalency or you're not abandoning your principles by saying I think that was improperly decided and I wanted the President to do an executive order in order to key another Supreme Court decision to review it.

[Jillian Michaels]

Not gonna lie, Nick, that makes me feel a heck of a lot better. Two more points I want to get to and I know you've got another appointment, so I'll try to keep it tight. Let's get to Cuba here first before Venezuela. So I believe it was Marco Rubio who said that Cuba has infiltrated the US government for the past 60 plus years. I'll be honest, I sort of thought Cuba was irrelevant, you know, for Cuba to be. I'm like really? I thought they'd been, you know, just this tiny little island that's a mess for decades now the claim is that they are running. Oh, sorry. There are 145 pro Cuban organizations that are under investigation. Again, I would totally get if it was like pro Iran, pro Japan or pro China. There are claims that the Cuban regime controls American far left activist ecosystems. I would think that that would have been like Islamist PACs. Okay. And then you've got.

[Nick Freitas]

It's not an either or a guy.

[Jillian Michaels]

Okay. Okay. So this has been like I thought these guys, long story short, I thought they were irrelevant. And the question now becomes like there was a spy that had infiltrated the government, this guy Victor Rosha, which is a proven case of deep long term penetration. I guess the real question here is Cuba threat. Right. Are Cuban organizations covertly operating in the US in a way that could impact our culture on obviously our elections?

[Nick Freitas]

I'm skeptical of that claim. It's not the. I don't think they would like to try. Right. Because again anybody that tries to, anybody that considers the United States an enemy has to engage in asymmetric warfare. And the reason why they have to is because they do not possess the military or economic power to force us to do anything we don't want to do. So how do you engage in asymmetric strategies in the United States? You influence the voting population. What's some of the best ways to influence the voting population? Activist organizations, universities, arts and entertainment. So was the Cuban government investing money in trying to influence American public opinion? Yeah, I'm sure they were. To the extent that it was effective, I don't know, I don't have the infer to say one way or another, but it would certainly be ridiculous that they weren't trying to do that. To the extent that they had like high level bureaucrats that were loyal to the Cuban government, I don't know to what extent that sort of infiltration happened. I don't think it would be such to where it would drastically impact US elections or US policy. But could it be somewhat effective for like limited objectives? Possibly. So I don't know. I don't believe that Cuba's in some massive position to influence or threaten the United States. But they would be foolish if they weren't attempting to push public opinion on their directions. And the way that they would try to do that would be through educational institutions, activist groups, and to some degree maybe the bureaucracy.

[Jillian Michaels]

Okay, moving on then to Venezuela. So 2004 to 2020, apparently the Maduro regime developed electronic voting systems to manipulate elections in their country. They wanted to insert false votes, they wanted to overwrite data, they wanted to defeat audits they could alter. Could being the key word. Up to one and a half million votes undetected. Here's the only thing is that. But we don't use these in America. Now I guess there's a claim that smartmatic voting machines has a connection to Sequoia Systems, which I guess is this system that Maduro created. But the CIA explicitly states Venezuela's methods couldn't work outside of Venezuela. And then we already had the Dominion voting machine debacle or they got almost a billion dollars from Fox for claims around the possibility of their machines being breached or creating election vulnerabilities. So I just worry that if this is unhinged, it makes us look a little unhinged if we hang our hat on this. Is this, why are we alluding to Venezuela here?

[Nick Freitas]

I don't know. To be perfectly honest, I don't know.

[Jillian Michaels]

Okay, okay.

[Nick Freitas]

This is one of those things were like a. Look, I'm a supporter of the Trump administration, but every once In a while, when he will talk about something, I'll be like, really? And it's okay. Okay. Yeah. I don't. I don't think everything. Look, did Maduro have an interest in manipulating elections within Venezuela? 100%. Right? 100%. The Democrats don't doubt that. Is there some connection to Maduro trying to manipulate those elections, to manipulating ours? I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Could they be trying to make the argument that this sort of thing routinely happens in countries where you have dictators and you have politicians that try to manipulate it? Like, for instance, could the Trump administration be making a larger argument that the machines that we talk about are not as secure as they're sometimes advertised? Sure. I do think sometimes you. You can have an argument that is technically true, but distracts because it's so easily, you know, debunked or it's. Or it's so. So you can say, oh, you know who. You know who was trying to influence elections? Maduro. Okay. Was he successful? I could have been like, okay, can we focus on the things that we all kind of, like, agree on? Like, these are kind of.

[Jillian Michaels]

Right.

[Nick Freitas]

These are the big things. And those other things might be interesting. And if something happens and we learn something later, great, that can be added to the pot. But sometimes, sometimes weak arguments destroy a better argument that is stronger. And so I tend to avoid those.

[Jillian Michaels]

Okay, that's. Yeah, I feel the exact same. And I couldn't understand. I'm like, why would you put this out there? Because it just gives them an opportunity to take shots at you and poke holes in the credibility of these bigger concerns. But, you know, you feel the same way, which makes me feel a lot better. Because if you feel that way, I certainly am justified in my position on it, I think. And having said that. Nick. Yeah, I'm sorry. Go, please go.

[Nick Freitas]

I think there's, like, again, I love to watch President Trump give briefs on certain things, right? Like the Shane Gillis does the best job, but they're like, he died like a dog. But Trump tends to be hyperbolic in his speech. And so sometimes he will talk about a particular threat where it's like, okay, it's not that it's not a threat. I just don't know that it rises to the level of mentioning it along these other threats. And what ends up happening is that if you're an opponent of the Trump administration, if you want to mitigate or if you want to minimize the nature of the threat, then what do you do? You Ignore all the strong arguments and you go to the weakest part of the argument and you spend all your time talking about that. And so there's times every once in a while with the administration where I'd be like, just don't mention things that you're not super sure of. Right. Stick to these other things, because that's a sufficient argument. And that's where I want them focusing their time not focusing on the weakest part of your argument. That's a lot easier to dismantle or cause confusion in the minds of the public.

[Jillian Michaels]

Sometimes I wish we could. We could just kind of like, get in there and help craft messaging. I realize how absurd that is. It's obviously, you know, a fantasy of mine that I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, wait, shh. You know that. That Diane Wiest movie where she's like, no, don't speak. No.

[Nick Freitas]

Shh.

[Jillian Michaels]

There's like, these moments that I just. No. Okay. Alrighty. Venezuela, here we come. Nick, is there anything I should have asked you about this that I didn't, that I missed?

[Nick Freitas]

I mean, the one thing would be, what can we actually do about it? Because I think a lot of Americans are so frustrated right now. And you look at the polling for the midterms, there's some Americans where their frustration is, I'm so mad about things not happening that my response is going to be to vote for the other side. And I want to look at them and I want to say, I completely understand the frustration with people that are not doing what you elected them to do. But if your response to that is to elect the people that are doing the bad things that you want corrected, that's probably not an appropriate response. That's probably not going to get you what you want. And the one thing that I would encourage people to do is, you know, we say things all the time like, Republicans aren't doing anything. The Senate's not doing anything. Congress is not doing anything. The administration is not doing anything. Anything. That's not true. The House of Representatives has passed the SAVE act three or four times. It's passed. It's passed the House. It is held up in the Senate. Why? Because of four members, four Republicans. It's not Rand Paul holding this up. It's not Mike Lee holding this up. It's not Ted Cruz holding this up. It's Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Right. It's Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. It's Thom Tillis in North Carolina. When you blame everybody for the actions of a few, then what ends up happening? Is you get horrible solutions because you don't understand the true nature of the problem. So what I would encourage people to do is instead of focusing your anger at all of Republicans or all of the Congress, you got four people, you got four people that we need to convince that the SAVE act is absolutely essential. And if you can do that, then we would theoretically have the votes to one. You're going to have to get rid of the filibuster because otherwise you need 60 if you don't get rid of the filibuster and then you're going to have to vote on the state. What's that?

[Jillian Michaels]

Well, because then they turn around. Well, my only concern about that is then I've seen the four Democrats that won't vote to do that. They're like, well, this gets weaponized us against ways you guys are going to have a meltdown about like they're going to find a way to put abortion bills into funding bills. And that's where I've been kind of like, well, I sort of get it.

[Nick Freitas]

You know, they're going to do that anyway. They tried to do it last time. And the only reason why, the only way the Democrats didn't get rid of the filibuster last time was because of two Democrats. It was mentioned in West Virginia and it was Kristen Sinema in Arizona. Guess where mentioned in Sinema are now? Not in the Senate.

[Jillian Michaels]

Gone.

[Nick Freitas]

Yeah, they're gone. And they're not getting replaced with people that have a real commitment to the traditions of the Senate. So really, look, I've always been a defender of the filibuster, but we've gotten to the point right now where if we, if we can't pass something like the SAVE act, we're going to be in real trouble. But what I, what I want, what I desperately want Americans to understand is if you're going to say you love your country, if you're going to say you love your Constitution, you really need to understand how the process works. And you can't satisfy yourself with just saying they all suck because they don't. Now, there's a lot of them that do. And those ones need your attention. I'm going to tell you right now, some of the worst legislators you have in Congress, some of the worst legislators you have in your state legislatures are in deep red districts. They are in deep red districts. They never get challenged. And all they do is they play footsie with the other side. They kill conservative legislation. All they care about are their budget amendments. All they care about is the money that they send back to their district, that's it. You start replacing those guys, and you will send the messages necessary in order to get what you want. And I know people are tired of hearing how they got to vote harder and they got to vote better, but I don't know what else to say. There's two things that everybody has control over. You can control over how you vote, and you can control how you raise your own kids and what values you give them. Unless, of course, you hand them over to liberal institutions to educate them for you. So I would just say as long as people can focus on those two things, focus on how you raise your family and how you inform and educate your kids, and then make sure that you vote wisely. And voting wisely doesn't just mean giving your vote away to a particular party. It means truly understanding where the hangups are on the policies that you want and applying the necessary pressure in order to affect the change you want to see.

[Jillian Michaels]

I cannot thank you enough for your time. You're absolutely brilliant. I'm so grateful. Where can everybody follow your podcast? Get your new book, which I bought from for my son, and he loves, by the way, but thank you. Tell everybody where they can get all things Nick Freitas. The book is magical, but okay, go tell him.

[Nick Freitas]

Well, yeah, the man book is available. Available anywhere. And that's just me kind of sharing stories of things that I've learned oftentimes the hard way from, you know, being a husband, being a father, being a soldier, an elected official, all that good stuff. And then you can find pretty much any of my content on Nick J. Freitas. Doesn't matter. It can be X, it can be YouTube, can be, you know, Instagram, Facebook, Nick J. Freitas. That'll get you there.

[Jillian Michaels]

Last thing I want to say about that is the Instagram is hilarious and you have millions of followers and every single clip you do goes viral. But you've got to subscribe to Nick's YouTube channel because that's where you're going to get all of this deep extrapolation of what you're seeing in the news and a breakdown in a way that somebody who's educated and has the experience. Experience can do, and you're not getting caught up in all the rhetoric and the bull and the propaganda and the nonsense. I very rarely swear, but I think it's the appropriate time. Thank you. I know you have another appointment. You're just magnificent. Thank you.

[Nick Freitas]

My. My honor. Thank you.

[Jillian Michaels]

Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please, like, comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future.