Host (possibly a political commentator) (2:38)

Awesome. So you also need to subscribe to this show, Truth in the Barrel. Right. And rate and review us. Feedback is always appreciated on all of your podcast platforms. All right, so let's talk gerrymandering, because there's a lot going on in our country right now, especially in Texas, and I'm hearing a lot about both sides are to blame here. Before we start, though, gerrymandering. The term itself, just so you all know, was named after the Vice President of the United States in the early 1800s. His name was Elbridge Gerry, and he just happened to sign the bill that resulted in the law that allowed gerrymandering. So, you know, sorry for him. His name will always be part of this sort of bad thing that we think about. But what is gerrymandering anyway? Yeah.

Mallory Hagan (3:34)

So every 10 years, you know, the census is taken. They redraw the districts based on population movements around the state or around the country. So the Constitution states that the state legislature has to draw the districts, and every state does it differently. We could debate whether or not that's fair. Some states do have independent commissions, which I think many people would say is the best. Best method to move forward in a way that's objective. But, you know, who decides it really matters? You know, Ohio can have a 55 to 44 split and also have 10 out of 15 red districts. So I think it's something that people should really be paying attention to, especially when their state legislatures are working on redistricting. And Lord knows I'm no stranger to it here in Alabama.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (4:21)

Yeah. And this is why the down ballot races of House seats, state House seats, and state Senate seats are so important, because they have national implications, especially what's happening in Texas right now. So Donald Trump, once he's going into the midterms, and they're seeing that the Republicans are likely to lose the House because the American public is sort of fed up with what the Republicans are doing right now. And Donald Trump says, well, I want more red House seats. I'm, quote, entitled to them. I mean, that's what he said. So he told Texas and the governor of Texas, who is happy to kiss Trump's ass, to redistrict Texas. So the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, is bringing the legislature in Texas back into session in the middle of a decade. Okay. And that's what's so different about doing this now. It's not a matter of the legislature gerrymandering. That does happen. It happens, as you said, after the census, which is every 10 years. So it's sort of, this is way outside the normal process. It's unprecedented. And that's why all the uproar right now.

Mallory Hagan (5:41)

Well, I think the thing is it turns out, as you've done many episodes on that programs that are necessary for everyday Americans to survive, like Medicaid and snap cutting them, is not hugely popular, even in a quote unquote red state. And when you consider the issues with fema, post national disaster, post natural disaster and the budget cuts to education, the climate change issues, I mean, what's happening with Republicans right now is just not popular. And they know that he's looking to add five seats because he knows that he can't win any other way. And as has been stated by the many Democrats who are standing up against this around the country, it's the Republican playbook. If you can't win on policy, you just change the rules. You just change the rules over and over again. And that's why you pick your voters. Yeah, you pick your voters. And it's been stated that these maps that they're proposing for Texas are incredibly racist. And I think when you consider the history of this country, that's. No, it's no surprise. But it is an important element of it. That it's, it's not just taking away the voting power of Americans, it's silencing marginalized voices already. And that's an even bigger issue.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (7:01)

Yeah. And there's a time to redistrict. It's not now. It's not in the middle of the ten year plan that the Constitution lays out. And by the way, you know, Democrats are standing up to this, criticizing this all around the country. But Texas Democrats in the House and in the Texas Senate, they have actually not just talked about standing up to it. They left the state. They left the state is very controversial because if you don't have a quorum, if you don't go into the session and you don't have enough people, you can't call the legislature into session and then can't vote on the redistricting madness that the governor and Trump want done. So the governor has like called for their arrest. They're being welcomed by other states like Massachusetts, Illinois. And you know, the question that I have is, well, a couple of questions. One, where will this go? Okay, where does it end? And then two, I really want to talk about the both sides ism, because I'm hearing that you hear this constantly from Republicans. Well, Democrats, they gerrymander. So this is no different. We're just Taking it from the Democrats playbook. So before we get into that, where do you think this will all go?

Mallory Hagan (8:27)

Well, first of all, I just want to say that, you know, the governor calling for the arrest of state legislature, like the state legislature in general or legislators, is. Is absolutely out of anything I could have ever pictured. And I know that we say that on a daily basis, but when you really think about that, the governor is proposing that legislators come in to do something that they'll be forced to do because they're not in the majority. And instead of them coming, they're standing up for the people that they represent. And he's calling for them to be arrested. But those warrants only apply within state lines. So as long as they're not in the state of Texas, it's really for naught. But I think that that's. It's worth noting. I mean, I know we keep throwing around words like authoritarian and fascist, but I mean, this is that it's crazy.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (9:23)

And the other side has done this too. I mean, leaving the state in order to protest and basically say we're not even gonna come to a vote because it is so egregious. What you are trying to do is so outside the norm of the legislative process and so blatantly partisan and wrong that, you know, there have been, both sides been been able to do this in the past.

Mallory Hagan (9:49)

I also just think it's really important at a time when so many of us who are not maga, even conservative people who used to consider themselves Republican, are calling on the Democrats to use the power that they do have to stand up against everything that's happening. And I know we'll cheers at them a little bit, but I just, I really want to commend them for using the power of the media and protest to really bring this to light. Because so much is happening and so much is getting lost in our media cycle about what's going on. And so I think them taking this opportunity to really make sure that every American knows what Donald Trump and Greg Abbott are up to is it was the right moment to take this, to take this measure, because it is wrong.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (10:38)

And while it is true in the past, both sides gerrymander, that does happen.

Mallory Hagan (10:46)

Not to the same degree.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (10:47)

Right. And that is where the difference is. So, you know, right now you're hearing folks say Democrats do this all the time. Look at my districts in Maryland, it's the most gerrymandered district in the country, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that Republicans benefit way more from gerrymandering around the country, certainly in recent years. So there's a lot of facts behind this. Okay. So I'm going to throw out a couple of them. Half the states in our country, the drawing process isn't fully controlled by one party or another. Maybe the state has a split legislative control. Maybe it's the courts, maybe they have independent redistricting commissions. But Republicans get more opportunities to gerrymander because they typically have more full control of the states that allow the legislatures to gerrymander. So it's Republicans that have full control over lots of those states. They have what's called a trifecta. They have the governor's mansion, they have both chambers in the state legislature. So they are able to redistrict in a much more partisan way when they have that control. So 2020 was brutal for Democrats. Republicans controlled the drawing of 177 districts. Democrats controlled the drawing of only 49. Yeah. And it is a fact that blue states are more likely to allow independent commissions. So this is why, you know, like, a lot of people criticize Democrats because a lot, a lot of Democrats are like, try to play fair. They, like, try to, like, hey, let's have an independent.

Mallory Hagan (12:41)

Let's do it the right way.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (12:42)

Whereas the red states are like, coming into, you know, coming in with a hammer and basically saying, gonna gerrymander the shit out of their states.

Mallory Hagan (12:52)

Yeah. The Brennan center found that out of 11, or there were 11 Republican drawn maps that had extreme partisan bias, and that was compared to 4 by Democrats. So, I mean, yeah, sure, both sides.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (13:08)

But more maps clearly have a bias toward Republicans than Democrat. Democrats across the country. And that is a fact. And so what you're seeing right now with Texas taking this unprecedented step in the middle of the decade, again, you're supposed to do this after the census, which is after every 10 years, which is at the end of the decade. So now you're seeing blue states like New York and California, their governor saying, I'm tired of this. I'm tired of playing fair. If Texas is going to do this, we're going to redistrict our states. So we're all sort of like in a race to the bottom right now.

Mallory Hagan (13:55)

Yeah. And I guess we could, we could debate the morals and ethics of that as well. Right. If somebody's doing the wrong thing, if we're meeting them there, then we're all doing the wrong thing. But I think what we've seen over the last decade is at some point we've got to meet them where they are, because they're a Couple of steps ahead, it seems, at all times. You know, Kathy Hochul came out, governor of New York this week and said, this is a war. This isn't even a battle anymore. This isn't one little blip in the long game. She was like, we've, we've got to. If they're going to, if they're not going to play by the rules, then neither are we.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (14:30)

Yeah.

Mallory Hagan (14:31)

And, you know, I think that same thing in California. Gavin Newsom has come out and said, we will use the full force of everything we've got in California. And California is the fourth largest economy. It's the most populous state in the union. You know, their California is the same size as 21 state populations combined. So he has been working with their state legislature to put in a trigger. So if Texas passes, then it will trigger California to redistrict. They will allow Californians to actually vote on the redistricting, which. Novel concept, but, yeah, I think places like New York and California, not only from an economic perspective, but just from a population perspective, are saying, don't, don't play a game that you, you might not be able to win when it comes to numbers.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (15:23)

Yeah. And I'm glad for that. Like, I feel like we're at a point where we have to bring in the big guns. I mean, we have to. We have to because we can't allow these, these Republicans to continue to do this over and over again. I mean, I would like there to be no gerrymandering. Of course, I think most Democrats would agree with me. I think probably most Americans would agree with me. But put a bill that bans partisan gerrymandering across the country on the floor right now. Democrats will vote for it. I think Democrats will vote for it. Republicans won't. Because they know that if gerrymandering goes away in the national sense, that the national maps become fair and they, they will lose the majority.

Mallory Hagan (16:14)

They have to. Because then they have to compete on policy.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (16:17)

Yeah.

Mallory Hagan (16:18)

And, yeah, they can't.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (16:19)

They can't just draw their voters out.

Mallory Hagan (16:22)

You know, I do want to say before we, before we wrap up on, on gerrymandering, I. There are many Texas lawmakers right now, particularly Democrats, who typically are not thrust into the national spotlight. There are a couple that we see here and there, but I want to really commend the Democratic lawmakers from the state of Texas who have found. I shouldn't say found themselves. This is obviously a conscious decision that they made, but I think that they've handled the press really well. They've gotten some really good sound bites out there. The messaging has been, you know, on par, and they've worked together, and it's very clear that they thought this through. And it was. It was really like, you know, it was purposeful. And I think that we should kudos them for that because it's hard. It's hard as, you know, it's hard to go from like, kind of being in your state bubble to suddenly your face is on everything in the national news, so.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (17:15)

Well, you know what? Cheers to them A little bit early, too, but. But here's the thing. These folks, that's good. We'll talk about that later on. But these folks are standing up not only for Texas, they're standing up for our country. And so, yeah, I totally agree with you.

Mallory Hagan (17:34)

Anyone who says, though, that they're abdicating their duties, I would just have them turn that energy to their lawmakers, their Republican congressmen, and say, then get your ass back to D.C. and vote to release the Epstein files.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (17:48)

Amen to that. All right. As if the month of August wasn't already hot enough, Trump has decided now would be a good time once again to raise the specter of nuclear war with Russia. Yeah, and the other thing about this, we'll get into this in a second, but I feel like the Republicans in general and Donald Trump for sure always want to change the subject from Epstein.

Mallory Hagan (18:16)

But I really don't.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (18:19)

Yeah, I really don't want them to throw to ratchet up nuclear saber rattling as one of those things. There's lots of ways to distract. You know, you could go after Rosie o', Donnell or you can, you know, was it Beyonce one week? You know, okay, I don't want to say all that's fine, but like the nuclear saber rattling, maybe let's not do that.

Mallory Hagan (18:42)

Maybe let's tell us what happened.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (18:44)

So a couple of weeks ago, this guy named Dmitry Medvedev, who used to be the Russian president before he was sort of ousted, he is now the deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. But he makes a lot of threats all the time. So we should kind of like, sort of not listen to him. It's not shocking that he makes these threats. Donald Trump decided to respond over the weekend by saying he's moving our nuclear submarines near Russia, which Fox News called clever. You know how Fox News gushes over everything that Donald Trump does, especially on a national security front? It's not very clever to have Trump tweeting out that he's moving nuclear submarines.

Mallory Hagan (19:37)

Near Russia, but also just pause Trump's not doing anything. Right. Like, our nuclear program is highly, highly classified on purpose.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (19:50)

Yeah, well, it's okay. So tweeting out that you're moving nuclear submarines as a threat is kind of dumb. Okay, first of all, all submarines that we have are nuclear. They're nuclear powered. So to say that you're, you're, you're moving nuclear submarines, like in all caps. Well, no shit. All of them are nuclear powered. Okay. We have some of them that have nuclear weapon capable ballistic missiles on them. Maybe that's what he meant. Nobody knows, because I don't think Donald Trump knows.

Mallory Hagan (20:26)

I was going to say he doesn't even know what he meant. The man was wandering around a rooftop this week.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (20:30)

Yeah, but also, nobody knows where our submarines are at by design. And those submarines that can launch ICBMs or Intercontinental Ballistic missiles that, you know, nuclear tip missiles, they can do that from pretty much anywhere in the world and hit Russia. So moving a sub closer to Russia doesn't really mean anything operationally. So. And you would never want to tell anyone where you're at, ever. So Trump's words are just dumb for anybody that knows this stuff.

Mallory Hagan (21:04)

Well, it seems to be a prerequisite.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (21:05)

Right.

Mallory Hagan (21:05)

We've got Hexeth and, and the signal chat. I mean, we're just.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (21:10)

Yeah.

Mallory Hagan (21:11)

Telling everybody what we're doing.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (21:13)

Yeah, so. So Trump did this and I didn't do anything. I didn't say anything about it, you know, because I was like, okay, that's dumb. I know about that. But like, so what is it really? It's just saber rattling. So what is Russia going to do now? Russia comes back and says, well, we're not going to abide by the INF Treaty. Well, folks, the INF Treaty is called the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Basically, it's been dead for many years already, so it's kind of stupid to even say you're not abiding by it. Russia hasn't been abiding by it for decades. So it's kind of a nothing burger at this point. The INF Treaty, by the way, was something we instituted back in the Cold War. It was a good thing in my mind, back in the Cold War, because it got rid of an entire class of a certain type of nuclear missile that covered a certain range. So we wanted to get rid of missiles in Europe to at least reduce the numbers. So we came up with this treaty with the Soviet Union at the time to get rid of that class of nuclear missiles that would, could be launched into Europe, that sort of about 300 miles or so to a couple thousand miles. We still had the intercontinental missiles, so we never got rid of the big long ones, but we got rid of the sort of intermediate ones, and that was good. The problem, Mallory, was that Vladimir Putin violated that treaty a couple decades ago. And so the Trump administration, the first one, pulled out, pulled the United States out of the treaty. So we've been out of it for a while. So now Russia's saying that they're pulling out of it. I mean, I just don't think this is a big deal.

Mallory Hagan (23:02)

So it's a nothing burger, but you think it's more of a distraction. It's a tactic to try and divert.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (23:09)

Well, I think, first of all, I think that Donald Trump and perhaps many in his team don't understand nuclear weapons. And so my concern, I don't think it's a big deal that Russia is pulling out of this treaty. I do think it is a big deal about the saber rattling. I think it's a bad idea to be tweeting out shit about nuclear weapons just in general. My bomb's bigger than your bomb. That's not good. We are 80 years, Mallory, from the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that actually happened this week, 80 years ago. That is a big deal. Okay. We should never, ever be using nuclear weapons. And to sort of flippantly talk about these things, I think is a real problem. And I also think the bigger issue is that the only major arms control agreement, nuclear arms control agreement, that we have left in place with Moscow is the new START treaty, and that treaty expires next year. I do not believe the Trump team has the competence within the State Department, within their political appointees, that anybody that can work on this. And that, I believe, is a much bigger concern.

Mallory Hagan (24:42)

Yeah. And you've been sounding the alarm for a long time now about how a Donald Trump presidency is truly dangerous for international diplomacy, for our national security. And this is just yet another example. Right. He's unfit to be the commander in chief. He's unfit to lead our troops. And tweeting about nuclear bombs or being for no reason, for no reason is just yet another example of how unserious this man is.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (25:14)

Yeah. I mean, you don't respond to Medvedev. He's not Putin.

Mallory Hagan (25:19)

They all know Trump's playbook. They all know that all they have to do is just. Is just dangle. Yeah. Poke the bear a little bit, and he'll do exactly what they want him to.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (25:30)

Yeah. So anyway, we go from saber rattling to Subpoena waving as the House moves sort of on the Epstein case. Right.

Mallory Hagan (25:40)

What's going on with what's going on there at home in their districts.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (25:46)

What's our good friend Jamie Comer doing?

Mallory Hagan (25:49)

Oh, my gosh. Well, of course they did. Right? Of course they issued subpoenas right now. So he's always got to pull some out of his hat to get a headline. There are eight former attorneys general and FBI directors that have been subpoenaed because, you know, Trump refuses to release the info. We can go over this again and again and again, but if you're not guilty, just release the files and let us know. Yeah, there's definitely not a dead body in my backyard. Guys, don't look there, but if you do and there is a dead body. Here's the thing.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (26:24)

Jamie Comer is the master of, like, trying to build a headline like, don't look here, look at the Clintons. Look at the Clintons, you know, and.

Mallory Hagan (26:35)

It'S, like.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (26:37)

Predated the Epstein investigation. So, like, there's no there there. I mean, yeah, there.

Mallory Hagan (26:45)

You know what? We can say it again. And if there is something there, also hold them accountable. Hold everyone accountable. Well, that's the piece that I just don't think. I don't think Republicans are. Hold. Are grasping. You know, in the comment section of my videos on TikTok and Instagram, people are like, what about Biden and what about Clinton? And I'm like, what about him? Arrest them, too.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (27:10)

What do you mean?

Mallory Hagan (27:11)

If you're a child predator, if you've done something that's this egregious and wrong, then you're not going to catch me being like, well, don't. Don't arrest Joe Biden. What? Of course I think it's insane.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (27:23)

It's kind of ludicrous. So they're subpoenaing all these attorney generals and stuff. Interestingly, they're not subpoenaing the former U.S. attorney. His name is. And former Secretary of labor under Trump, one Alex Acosta. They're not subpoenaing him now. He was the guy who was as U.S. attorney in 2008 who gave the sweetheart deal to Jeffrey Epstein, who made this plea deal that gave Epstein immunity right, from federal prosecution. They did not subpoena him to ask him why or what that deal was all about, but they did subpoena all these other people. It just makes no sense. And, oh, by the way, on the president's stuff, oh, let's subpoena Obama and Clinton. And over the last 200 years, only four other presidents have received subpoenas for from congressional committees. Right. Only two of them have ever provided testimony. We couldn't even. The House couldn't even subpoena Trump for January 6th. So I don't think there's any presidents are going to come standing in front, sitting in front of Jamie Comer and testify here. Plus, John Roberts gave all the presidents immunity for anything they did in office.

Mallory Hagan (28:43)

So wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall of some of these folks? Like, I could just see, you know, someone handing Barack Obama a subpoena and him going, oh, my God, for sake. Or something.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (28:57)

But, you know, there's a couple of people that had some, Some really good points that I was listening to this week about the subpoenaining of the former presidents. Because you're not just going after the former presidents, you're also going after their staff. And there could be repercussions for that. These people, their names get back in the news. We have some violent, crazy people out there. This Epstein stuff, it's just a big tumbleweed of crap. And it comes down to this, and you said it perfectly, we're to the point where just release the information to the public. Public, you know, stop this. This underground. Oh, we're going to have hearings on the House Oversight Committee, but we're not going to open it to the public and we're going to subpoena all these people. Bullshit. Nobody trusts you.

Mallory Hagan (29:52)

You know, we were talking about distractions and diversions, and this entire time we've thought that all these other things were a distraction from Epstein. But now I'm starting to wonder, is Epstein a distraction from something much worse? Because, I mean, like I said, if you're not guilty, it's two plus two equals four. If you're not guilty, release the information, say, I didn't have anything to do with it. I haven't spoken to that man since, you know, 15 years or whatever it is that he said and let it go. And instead we're just, we're winding it up to make it even worse. And that makes me. Now I'm starting to wonder.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (30:26)

I know every week we're going to be talking about something, something different, you know, and also they moved right after they sent their lawyer down. Trump sent his lawyer down to talk with Maxwell. Yeah, she's now in a nicer prison.

Mallory Hagan (30:43)

I mean, and saying that she never witnessed him in any wrongdoing.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (30:50)

Everything's right in front of us, guys. Anyway, okay, it is time for me, I should say, to get A drink, because, please, there's so much going on. But I want to tell everybody what I'm drinking today because this is really cool. So you may or may not know that just in the last week, there was a plan that was released for three European countries, our NATO allies, our new NATO allies, one of them being Sweden. Thank you, Joe Biden. Sweden, Denmark and Norway are going to buy $500 million worth of weapons and get weapons they're going to buy from the United States, weapons and ammunition from the United States. So we're producing the ammunition and give it to Ukraine. That is awesome. Now, I wish we could, in the United States, could do that ourselves. I mean, we should be doing more for Ukraine. But thank you to Sweden, Denmark and Norway for stepping up. And so because of that, I am drinking what's called stoning rye whiskey. It's from Denmark and it's really good. It's created from rye grains from the west coast of Denmark. It's got kind of a peppery smell to it, and when you taste it, it's a little bit of, like, dark chocolate and espresso, and you can really taste the dark chocolate in there. It's. It's a bit. You know, wine enthusiasts, I was reading up on it before. Before I got it, wine enthusiasts called it a bit like a s' mores made on slices of rye bread. So it. It's actually quite good. And it's. It's kind of rare. So the way that it's made. It's made. What's in Denver would be able to explain it a little bit better, but it's. It's made by using floor malting, which is a rare, traditional method of malting grains, you know, close to the floor. So I don't know what that does for you, but it sure tastes good. And it's from Denmark. And I'm really excited because I thank them for. For what they're doing for Ukraine.

Mallory Hagan (33:14)

Yeah, absolutely. I don't have any thoughts on. On the drink itself. As people may remember, I am pregnant, but my best friend lives in Copenhagen and I love Denmark, so that feels serendipitous. Cheers.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (33:28)

That's awesome. You'll have to ask her if she or he knows about this. It's called staunton. Stoning. Sorry, Stoning. Rye whiskey.

Mallory Hagan (33:37)

Stunning rye whiskey.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (33:39)

Yeah. And this is part of this package that my husband got me for Christmas. It's like a whiskey of the world tasting where you get, like, 30 different whiskeys. And so that was. It's kind of cool today.

Mallory Hagan (33:50)

Anyway, I love it.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (33:52)

Yeah.

Mallory Hagan (33:52)

All right.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (33:53)

Okay. Savoring the taste is over. So it's time to line up some quick shots. Okay. The first one we got is tensions erupt at Republican Representative Mike Flood's Nebraska town hall. This guy. And maybe Doug can put in a clip of it.

Audience Member (34:11)

I want to ask, why does it seem like when you make your voting decisions, they're based on capital rather than the working class? Billionaires and corporations got their tax issues enshrined into law forever, but the working class gets a no tax on tips or overtime. That only applies to some of us. And now we wind up in a situation where we are funded by.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (34:32)

Richard. With all due respect, sir, the.

Audience Member (34:44)

The Republican Party now more than ever represents the heart and soul of the working class.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (34:54)

But this guy goes back to his district, which kudos actually for him for having a town hall, for doing the bare minimum.

Mallory Hagan (35:03)

Yeah, yeah.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (35:04)

Because most Republicans won't do it. We've got a ton of them in Kentucky that. Well, same town hall, Right. So this Republican rep was asked about cuts to Medicaid, and his response was, we don't have unlimited money.

Mallory Hagan (35:20)

Yeah. Can I, Can I read you the quote of this woman that's going viral of what she asked? She said, with 450 million FEMA dollars being reallocated to open alligator Alcatraz and 600 million taxpayer FEMA dollars being used to open more concentration camps and ice burning through $8.44 million a day, which, by the way, now they are for giving people student loans, for joining the ICE task force. But anyway, all of that to illegally detain people. She said, how much does it cost for fascism? How much do the taxpayers have to pay for a fascist country? And the clips of that are kind of insane.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (35:58)

So, yeah, well, and the thing is, is, you know, to say we don't have unlimited money. Okay? It's not that it's like what you choose to spend what you do have or what you could have. You chose to give all these billionaires tax breaks. You chose to give the billionaires more money. You chose to give them more money and you chose to take away from everyday Americans on their health care. That's what this is about. But at least, again, kudos to the Republican representative for at least showing up and kind of trying to explain it, because we've got reps here in Kentucky. Andy Barr, he's the Representative in the 6th congressional district in Kentucky. He just flat out lies. He just flat out says to constituents, oh, the bill doesn't cut Medicaid.

Mallory Hagan (37:01)

Well, Isn't that kind of what's happening here, too? He's saying it strengthens Medicaid. I mean, I guess it depends on your definition of strengthening Medicaid. Maybe to them, that's spending less money on people who. They don't.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (37:12)

Right. Yeah, right. He said it strengthens Medicaid. He said it strengthens.

Mallory Hagan (37:17)

That's also.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (37:18)

So we strengthen Medicaid by cutting it, I guess.

Mallory Hagan (37:22)

Yeah. I'll give it to him for showing up. But as I said, that's the bare minimum. My only hope is that hearing every single person in that room, that's your constituent say, you know, vote him out in front of his face, I would hope that that would move the needle. As we were talking about, to some of these Republicans standing up for their constituents, the people who elected them, it's just crazy. You know, Alabama's looking at closing. I think we have five hospitals right now that are literally on the brink with 20 more following because of these budget cuts. And I know that that's happening state by state. So, yeah, I hope more of these lawmakers spend August talking to people face to face and getting.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (38:01)

But, Mallory, didn't take me long to like, just. Just Google your state and Republican representative in your state with regards to this bill and how it affects Medicaid. And they're all. Pretty. Many of them are all pretty much lying. I mean, there's one it didn't take me long to find, Gary Palmer in Alabama. That's one of your reps there in Alabama who said Medicaid cuts will not cause people to lose their health insurance. Are you kidding me?

Mallory Hagan (38:32)

Thousand people here who lose their health insurance.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (38:36)

So it's crazy. All right, remember this, Mallory, when Donald Trump claimed that he would be the fertilization president and the father of ivf. Remember that?

Mallory Hagan (38:47)

I'm a woman in America. Of course I do remember.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (38:50)

Remember the campaign promise where. And this was backed up by a lot of Republican women, okay. Who championed Donald Trump saying this, that when he got into office, he would make sure that the government would either pay for IVF services or the government would issue rules requiring insurance companies to cover treatment for it. So here we are. We now find out that there's no plan to mandate coverage.

Mallory Hagan (39:20)

It was supposed to be released in May.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (39:23)

So no plan.

Mallory Hagan (39:25)

Yet another lie.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (39:26)

Yeah, you're kicking moms off of Medicaid. You're leaving kids with less food, you know, but no plan for ivf?

Mallory Hagan (39:37)

Well, I mean, consistently, they talk about the fact that they want more women to have more babies and everything. That they do says the exact opposite of that.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (39:46)

Yeah. It's crazy.

Mallory Hagan (39:48)

Yeah.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (39:49)

I wanted to get your take on something because you're in Alabama. Senator Katie Brittany from Alabama, she is championing this law that increased the child tax credit from 2000 to 2200, as if, like, that's super substantial.

Mallory Hagan (40:09)

200 bucks.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (40:10)

I mean, okay, great. But, like, seriously, when tariffs are driving the cost of everything up higher, losing your health insurance.

Mallory Hagan (40:19)

Here's my take. That doesn't even cover the stroller and the car seat that I need to take this baby that I'm about to have home from the hospital. $2,200 barely covers the cost of the basic.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (40:34)

It's not even 22, Mallory. It's not 2200. It's just up 200. So the tax credit was already 2000.

Mallory Hagan (40:41)

Right.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (40:41)

But it went from 2000 to 2200. Republicans are saying, look, we gave you 200 bucks.

Mallory Hagan (40:50)

You know what? I'd rather have Universal pre K and, you know, childcare, all those things. But, I mean, I guess thanks for. Yeah, I know, thanks. The extra 200 that you're advocating for. But it really, you know, doesn't do too much.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (41:06)

Yeah. And then there is the firing of the head of the Bureau and Labor Statistics last weekend for doing her job. Right. Her name is Erica McEntarfer. Maybe I'm saying that wrong. I don't know. But she was the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, and she basically corrected the report that came out, which apparently is not abnormal. You figure out the preliminary numbers and then you go back and correct them. And the report basically said that we didn't have hardly any job growth. You know, the initial report says that we came out and said that we had 144,000 jobs in May, but we actually only added 19,000. And the initial reports came out and said that we had 147,000 jobs in America added in June. But then she corrected that report to say, well, that was actually only 14,000. Which is the truth. Right? Yeah, but it's the truth. Right. And that's what they're doing. They're putting out facts. And it shows slowing job gains, probably because of rising inflation, because of the tariffs. And so what does Trump do? Fires her. Fires her.

Mallory Hagan (42:40)

I mean, it's just. We've talked about this actually, the last time I was on, I think just this. This growing desire to ensure that the everyday American does not trust most, if all, any institutions. No facts. Right. They don't trust the government, they don't trust the media. And how can they, you know, but.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (42:59)

The whole world, the whole world's not gonna trust going forward the numbers coming out of our government. We certainly don't trust the Secretary of Health and Human Services right now. It's just, I mean, you look bad news, you just shoot the messenger. That, that is, that is what, you know, like Stalin does. Yeah. I mean, this is what these regimes do.

Mallory Hagan (43:25)

And then we just keep going back to what's it going to take? What is it going to take for the average person who's a follower of Trump to just go, now, wait a minute. Facts.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (43:38)

I mean, I just feel like you just have to keep talking about actual facts. I know that's. But nobody has the right answer. But mine is we just keep talking facts and people can feel it. Right. Go to the grocery store, see what the price of eggs is. Go to the gas station. You can see that Donald Trump's lying his ass off when it comes to gas prices. I mean, that's what we just got to keep doing. In the meantime, the anti science agenda is real. Trump has now ordered NASA to destroy satellites that were collecting data on climate change. Can you believe that? We're like actually just destroying the satellites?

Mallory Hagan (44:20)

Yes, I can believe it in the same breath. Different subject matter, but same on science. We've got RFK Jr. Defunding vaccinations and information this week as well. So this administration has tried at every turn again to ensure that Americans don't trust our systems and our government, our experts, all of the above. And destroying these satellites in the name of no longer talking about climate change is just another example.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (44:51)

I mean, and of course, Republicans allowing this, cheering this on these satellites.

Mallory Hagan (44:56)

What about a waste of government funds?

Host (possibly a political commentator) (44:59)

Yeah, well, these satellites have been used by oil and gas companies, they're used by farmers because they provide detailed information on the distribution of carbon dioxide and how it affects crop health. And so it's all looking at how human activity is affecting greenhouse gas emissions. It's talking about forecasting severe weather and climate disasters. Boy, we don't need any of that forecasting. I mean, seriously, we're going and destroying this stuff. This is just, this is just crazy.

Mallory Hagan (45:34)

And for what, though? To me, that's the part that I don't understand. It's already in use. It's not like we're spending money to development. Of course, it's, we spend money to operate and gather the data. But still, I mean, what, where is the harm in moving forward with.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (45:49)

Yeah, so you're talking, you're talking facts. They don't want facts. So these satellites are actually giving us the factual data and we don't, we don't want that. We'd rather just look the other way. I want to also bring up one last quick shot. We go into Cheers, which is something that, that I just read this morning about the. There is a, A, a Senate leader, a, a state senate leader, Republican in Utah, who changed the consent law in that state because a relative of his faced rape charges, relative of his I guess had heard this, had sexual relations or sex with a 13 year old. And so the.

Mallory Hagan (46:38)

Don't tell me.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (46:39)

Yes, so, so he's changing the consent law. This is reported by the Newsweek and the Salt Lake City Tribune. And it had to do with somebody who was 18 and he's trying to change the law so that an 18 year old could be prosecuted like a 17 year old. So it wouldn't, wouldn't have the adult line there with regards to basically raping a 13 year old. And so that, that's where we're at. I mean this is what these guys spend their time doing. The party of family values. I'm just saying it's.

Mallory Hagan (47:19)

So we've got the Oklahoma, you know, school superintendent with pornography on his computer. We've got, you know, Bibb County, Alabama, we're looking at. It's just their inability to focus on the things that will make life for everyday Americans better and instead cover up, lie, cheat, steal whatever they can in order to limit their own accountability is.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (47:47)

I mean this, this, something like this would be front page news 10, 15 years ago and now it's just eh. We're so used to it.

Mallory Hagan (47:55)

I hadn't heard of that. That's, I know, that's, that's crazy.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (47:58)

Well, we here, as you know, Mallory at Truth in the Barrel, promise to never leave on a depressing note. So I want to take a moment to celebrate some actual good news. You have a cheers today. I have a cheers today. So let's start with yours.

Mallory Hagan (48:12)

All right, well mine as we touched on it earlier, but the Democrats are actually fighting back and as somebody who works in politics and political messaging, we've been calling on this for some time now. So I just want to cheers with my water to Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul, Governor Pritzker, James Tellarico, Jasmine Crockett, all of them for showing up and showing out and showing some spine over this past week. Cheers.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (48:38)

Cheers. All right. Now I have a bit of a obscure story, but I think it's a good one to talk about really quick that I'D like to cheers to. There is this runner in Texas, since we're all talking about Texas, who helped change a Texas law, an old law that was frankly, pretty bad. And she helped to redefine what consent means. She's a sexual assault survivor. She went to college at the University of Texas, was raped while in college, was sexually assaulted. And she has been an advocate to change this law for many years. She brought attention to the bad law by crawling 13 miles the night before the Austin Marathon, which she ran the next day. She's a runner. She has run 29 marathons in one year in order to bring attention to this issue. And what it stems back to is kind of in the weeds, how the law was written in Texas. But in Texas, prior to the change, her assaulter, which affected her, could not be prosecuted. Because Texas had this law that stated that if anyone was assaulted while they were inebriated, okay, it was only considered an assault if the perpetrator purposefully drugged the victim. So what that meant was that if you're in college, okay, and you became intoxicated because, you know your assaulter's buddy put something in your drink, then your assaulter could not be prosecuted. Or it also meant that it wasn't considered a sexual assault if the alleged victim had themselves gotten them. Gotten themselves too intoxicated to consent. And so she had heard so many stories how this affected other women and her advocacy over many years running these marathons. She decided to do the crawl because she thought that would bring even more attention to this. And I thought her Instagram post was really powerful where she basically explained why she was doing this 13 mile crawl. And she said, I'm on my hands and knees feeling the weight of all the stories I've heard, and I'm angry at the system and I don't know what else. And basically saying, I don't know what else to do, so I'm gonna do this. And her Instagram post said at the end, there was a quote I'm just quoting from. It says, there is strength in crawling, there is hope in standing tall, and there will be change. And I just think that's amazing. She got this law changed. Her name is Summer Willis. The change to the law is named after her. So cheers to her. Cheers for doing what she can. All right. Awesome. So that was a great show.

Mallory Hagan (52:06)

It was a great show. There's so much to talk about, which I guess is, you know, why Unfiltered exists, right?

Host (possibly a political commentator) (52:13)

That's right. I mean, that is. There's so much to talk about. And you can't have a guest do a deep dive all the time. You somehow have to talk about the here and now. And that's what unfiltered is about. So thank you for joining us. Please remember to, like, subscribe, rate, review, give us some comments, tell us what you want to hear in terms of topics, and we'll see you next week. And Mallory, thank you so much for co hosting this week.

Mallory Hagan (52:44)

This is awesome. Thanks for having me. Cheers.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (52:47)

All right, cheers.

Zigly Fiber Representative (52:55)

When the Moore family ditched cable Internet and switched to Zigly Fiber, they got so much more. Mr. Moore got more upload speed for next level gaming and live streaming to the masses. With reliable service, Mrs. Moore is no longer her family's IT guru, leaving her more time to stream games into overtime.

Mallory Hagan (53:10)

Let's go.

Zigly Fiber Representative (53:11)

And young Mason Moore got more done quickly uploading HD product demos and video conferencing. Without FreeSight, the numbers look good, Brad.

Host (possibly a political commentator) (53:18)

You're on mute.

Zigly Fiber Representative (53:19)

Switch from cable Internet to Zibli Fiber and get more of what you love for $65 less per month than cable at ziplyfiber. Com.