B (3:26)

We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community.

A (3:29)

Who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.

B (3:38)

This administration is pitting our uniformed military.

A (3:41)

And intelligence community professionals against American citizens like us.

B (3:46)

You all swore an oath to protect.

A (3:48)

And defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution. Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.

B (3:54)

Our laws are clear.

A (3:55)

You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the army or Navy, the Air Force.

B (4:14)

Your vigilance is critical.

A (4:16)

And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up. Don't give up the ship. What a bunch of treasonous jackasses. These people are out of control. You know what they're doing? They're just conspiracy theorizing. They're breathing life into this notion that Donald Trump is a tyrant, that. That he's abusing the Constitution, the. That he's attacking the American people. He's ordering the troops to do things that are beyond the pale. There's no such thing as happening. President Trump has restored the honor, integrity of the United States military. They're reaching recruitment goals that they haven't reached in years, and they're doing it quickly. The morale of the United States military is being restored all over the place. Led by the Secretary of War and the Commander in Chief, the American military is focused once again on lethality, on mission, on excellence, on esprit. De corps on actually achieving the things that the troops have volunteered to do for their country. These men and women are serving their country, and they do that with our gratitude, serving our country. And they're doing it for a president that they're proud to work for. These leftists are intentionally trying to sow disorder among the ranks of the troops. And it's really rich coming from these guys. They, they claim that, oh, you can, you can disobey a, an unlawful order. You don't have to do anything that's unconstitutional. Really? That's your position? That's a, that's a recent development. It sure seems like it. You remember when The Democrats kicked 8,000American troops out of the military for declining to get the COVID jab? You remember that? They did that. It took the Trump administration coming back into place to try and welcome them back. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense started inviting troops back who were kicked out by the Democrats for refusing the COVID jab. They said over the course of 500 days in 2021, nearly 8,000 active duty and reserve service members were involuntarily separated, ejected from military service for refusing to get the jab. Many others left voluntarily to avoid the vaccine mandate. Yeah, a lot did. In fact, at least 12,000 troops, at least 12,000 of them sought and were denied religious exemptions for the COVID jab. That's true. If you go back to the Associated Press, the Military Times carrying this back then. This is December of 2021. Troops find religious exemption for Covid vaccines unattainable. More than 12,000 military service members refusing the COVID vaccine are seeking religious exemptions, and they're having zero success.

B (7:23)

Zero.

A (7:25)

In fact, do you remember what happened? It was the chaplains themselves. The religious men who are in the military were being booted from the military, were being punished for claiming religious objections with the COVID jab. Nope. Got a religious exemption. Not going to do it. Their lives were made a living hell. So remind me again about this whole thing about, oh, you, you can refuse an unconstitutional order, you can refuse an unlawful order. How does exactly does that work out when Democrats are the ones who are administering unlawful unconstitutional orders? Not well for the troops. Not well at all. So they lie. They lie. That's all they have. They don't have a positive vision for the country. All they do is sow division and chaos. It's really unfortunate. Pete Hegseth is the Secretary of War. Thank goodness. He says what we're witnessing right now from these Democrats, stage four Trump derangement syndrome. Stephen Miller at the White House Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection, he says, and Joe Kent, the great Joe Kent says that theater kids are now encouraging an insurrection. That's for sure, a bunch of theater kids. But the stakes are very high. They can be ridiculous, preposterous human beings, which they are. But no question, the stakes are very high. And so that's, to me, one of the biggest stories of the last 24 hours is the Democrats are now openly engaging in this very seditious behavior, inciting insurrection against the United States by the very American troops who have sworn an oath to defend our Constitution, to defend our country. You cruel people. You cruel people. In the absence of a positive agenda for the country, they sow division and destruction. Really, really disgusting stuff. You know, the Democrats, they've, well, they've, they've just been an absolute disgrace this year. And that includes a lot of things that were happening yesterday as well, where they've been trying to, they've been claiming recently they had this, this recent revelation that they wanted to talk about the Jeffrey Epstein stuff. I let me remind you of why they're talking about the Epstein stuff at all. They don't have a positive vision for the country, which I've been saying. And they really want to distract you from the fact that they have made this country so much worse. Health care costs, as they were talking about during the government shutdown, are set to go up in the United States because of what Democrats have done to the American peoples because of Obamacare. And knowing that they own the consequences of their own cruelty, they've been looking to foment distractions from that cruelty. So that's why they've been raising the specter that, oh, we need to be transparent about Jeffrey Epstein. We need to tell the truth because people are going to find out how awful Donald Trump is. Now, I won't relitigate every reason. We know that Donald Trump has nothing to worry about because I've covered it at great length. But yesterday, here are the updates on this story. We got some big meaningful ones. Yesterday, almost the entire House of Representatives, almost for a 427 to 1 vote, voted to pass something called the Epstein Files Transparency act, the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And I think it's really important that we be clear about what this actually does and what it doesn't do. So what it is going to do, this is the, this is the effect of this thing is it requires the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, two within the next 30 days after the President signs it into law. And as we're doing this show to this morning, that that has not yet happened. But it could, it could. At any point, Pam Bondi would have 30 days to make all unclassified Department of Justice records related to Jeffrey Epstein, including from the FBI and various U.S. attorney's office, searchable, publicly posted and searchable online in a downloadable format. In other words, no binders, no, no paperwork distributed, no leaking to the press, nothing like that. She has to post everything to the Internet so that you and I can search through it and then figure out what's going on inside of these files. Got it. But there's an exception to this. And this, in case you're wondering, like, well, is everything going to be released? We finally going to just get everything dumped out so the public can look at it? The answer to that is no. The answer to that is no. And here's what I mean. The bill is going to allow Pam Bondi to withhold or redact any material that involves the following categories. So just bear with me here. Child sexual abuse material. Stands to reason anything showing children being sexually abused should not be made public. I think everybody agrees with that. Any, any, any physical abuse material. None of that. Anything related to death, the bill allows to be redacted. Death. Now, I don't know what deaths would be in play except for, well, Jeffrey Epstein. That would be a centerpiece of this, but apparently that information would be redacted. Presumably it just says death. That's the, that's the reference. Also personal information of alleged victims. And this is a big one. Ready. Any information that could compromise ongoing investigations, prosecutions, national security or foreign policy. Huh? Now, we just had Shaun Davis on the program earlier this week, and this is something that you and I have been talking about for some time. One of the centerpieces of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. This is some. That kind of lurks in the background is the extent to which Jeffrey Epstein was either a participant in operations by the intelligence community, and I say intelligence community broadly. It doesn't have to be the United States intelligence community community, the Israeli intelligence community, whatever intelligence community he may have been linked up with, or if he was gathering information that was being exploited by one of the intel communities. In other words, he had all this blackmail information on powerful people, and that intel communities were using it as a means to put the squeeze on people that they wanted to or had information about that they used in some sort of tactical way. And they don't want to disclose disinformation for fear they're giving up their leverage. That's one of the things that's lurking in the background to this. Well, because the reason so many people want transparency, the fundamental reason is justice. You don't want to see powerful people hurt children and get away with it. You want to see them held accountable for it. But you can't miss the intel, national security, foreign policy implications. Especially when the legislation itself establishes carve outs for national security and foreign policy and says that information does not have to be posted to the Internet. That's what the legislation says. So it sailed through the House yesterday, it's sailing through the Senate as they take a unanimous consent vote to just let the bill go right through. But Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House yesterday, I thought, had a very interesting statement on this subject. He is worried that classified intelligence could be revealed here. I want you to listen to Mike Johnson first and I'll tell you why this matters so much. Listen. Cut 12. Here's Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, talking about this yesterday. National security concerns. Okay? The discharge requires the Attorney General to release within 30 days, quote, classified information to the maximum extent possible. This ignores the principle that declassification should always rest and always has rested with the agency that originated the intelligence. Why? So that they can protect their critical sources and methods. It is incredibly dangerous to demand that officials or employees of the DOJ declassify materials that originated in other agencies and intelligence agencies. Any flags going up? Anybody? Any. Any. Does that catch your attention at all? It's very interesting what's happening. You need to understand something about Speaker Mike Johnson and the role that he plays. He is the speaker of the House, which means he's a part of something. The Gang of Eight in the Congress. The Gang of Eight are the eight officials in the United States Congress who are briefed on the most classified secrets of the United States government. Those include the speaker of the House, the Minority Leader in the House, that's Hakeem Jeffries, and then the Republican and Democrat leaders in the Senate, John Thune and Chuck Schumer. So those. That's four. And then the other four are the Republican leaders of the House and Senate Intel Committees. So there are eight members of Congress who are part of the Gang of Eight and they receive the most classified information. They receive briefings on the activities of the United States government. So Mike Johnson, when he's talking about classified information, presumably is speaking from a place of knowledge. In other words, I suspect that Speaker Johnson is aware of of the intel community implications of the Jeffrey Epstein files going Public. Now, he was expressing some, I don't know if you would say fear, trepidation, concern that information is about to go public that shouldn't. But he said, I think, I think the phrase he used to the maximum extent possible, this information will be declassified to the maximum extent possible. That's a qualifier. What that means is they're not releasing everything. And, and in fact, the bill itself goes out of its way to say that national security and foreign policy information needs to be protected from release. So, look, will there be information released? Well, no doubt there's got to go to release something. They're going to post something to the Internet that, that's what the Attorney General is going to do. But let's not overstate at any level just how fulsome the revelations are going to be here. Every question is not going to be answered by this. But just, just right up front, I, I can, I can instantly read this. And what Speaker Johnson is, is tipping his hand very heavily to is that classified intelligence is there's something worth keeping secret about Jeffrey Epstein that the United States government is going to continue to do so that, that, that's worth knowing about. And by the way, that may, if we're being honest, which we always are, may have been one of the animating principles behind President Trump's attitude around all of this, because President Trump has been one. He's just been saying the left is trying to orchestrate a hoax, which they are. But he also may be trying to protect some sort of national security information that he sees as valuable. That could be the case. I'm just again reading the tea leaves here. But, but as always, I just, I'll just tell you like it is. That's exactly what I'm, what I'm witnessing happening. Now. I mentioned to you that in the House there was a single no vote yesterday on, on the transparency. That no vote came from a congressman by the name of Clay Higgins, Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins. He voted no on this and he said it's a matter of principle. And I'm going to read this to you and you be the judge whether or not this is an adequate vote from, from Clay Higgins. But here's what he said. He said, I've been a principal no on this bill from the beginning. What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America. As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people, witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, et cetera. If enacted in its current form. This type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files released to a rabid media will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not by my vote, says Clay Higgins. The Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough investigation, has already released well over 60,000 pages of documents from the Epstein case. That effort will continue in a manner that provides all due protections for innocent Americans. If the Senate amends the bill to properly address privacy of victims and other Americans who are named but not criminally implicated, then I will vote for that bill when it comes back to the House. Let me, let me. Let me just say that judging your decision to be transparent or not transparent on the way that the media is going to handle it is a stupid thing to do. The media doesn't care what the truth is. The media are lying to this day about Donald Trump being implicated in the Epstein files. It doesn't. You could, you could have a. A perfect alibi for Donald Trump come out, that Donald Trump has never met Jeffrey Epstein or whatever. Just. You could put it. Even though that's not true, of course he has, but you could put that out there. The media is not going to do it. They're going to spin it into a lie anyway. I. Here's what I don't like about this statement from Higgins. He claims it's a principled vote against it, that he's just trying to protect innocent people. He doesn't want anybody to be wrongfully slandered or implicated here. I. What I'm tired of is the patronizing treatment of the American people. Stop treating everybody like they're complete idiots. Like they're gonna read a name and then instantly conclude there's a name. That guy's guilty of something. No, I think thinking sober Americans, of which there are a lot, will weigh all of this. They'll look at it and they'll go, okay, why is that person's name There's. Did he just meet Jeffrey Epstein? A receiving line? Is. Was he included? Copied on an email that Epstein was also copied on and didn't have a relationship with him. Whatever the circumstances are, we are tired of the concealment. We're tired of the deception. So what we're demanding is transparency so we can get this horse crap done and over with. So stop cooking up reasons why it all needs to be concealed and start treating Americans like the adults that they are, the adults who actually make decisions about who should be in power. And the better informed we are, the better decisions we can make. And in fact, speaking of the people who are in power right now and the Jeffrey Epstein connections. Everything I keep seeing about these Democrats, well, that suggests that they shouldn't be in power at all. Not just their policies, which are already abhorrent, but the fact that they were in bed with Jeffrey Epstein. I've got more on that in just a moment as more and more Democrats are being caught up in this transparency initiative. Good. This is what we want. Reveal them all in Jeffrey Epstein's disgusting web. This is all ahead on this edition Events. Also, Congressman Brandon Gill is coming up. We got a lot to discuss with him. But first, let me tell you about Beams Cyber sales now open for early access for you and it's their best offer of the year. Right now you can get up to 50% off with my Code Vince show. You can grab Dream beamstream or just $32.50. That's great because it breaks down to just a dollar and eight cents a night. For the best sleep of your Life, go to shopbeam.com VINshow Use the code VINshow and don't miss out. It's the lowest price that dream has ever been sold anywhere and it likely will sell out very quickly. Dream is made with ingredients. It's great. It's delicious. It's made with ingredients that your body actually needs to sleep. Reishi, magnesium, L theanine, apigenin, and yes, even melatonin. But it's dosed very intelligently. It's not like the drugstore garbage that'll knock you out and leave you groggy. Now is the time Beam is giving you the ultimate patriot discount. Go to shopbeam.com VinShow Use the code VIN SHOW. Get up to 50% off during Beam's cyber sale. You can grab Dream for just 32, 50. But here's the catch. Dream is only available at this price until it sells out. So seriously, think about it. How much are you going to pay for a truly great night of sleep? How about this? How about a dollar and eight cents a night with Beams Cyber price? Get it now go to shop beam.comvince show and try Beam today. Thank you, Beam. Great sponsor of this program. Great product. You know, these Democrats keep popping up in the Epstein files. They keep cop. Yeah, I am too. 35 minute goes. I'm so sick of hearing about this piece of shit Epstein. Yeah, me too. Me too. Which is why let's settle up on this. And these Democrats, they pretend like they care about this Epstein thing. But now that the Epstein files have actually been coming out, now that we're seeing the emails, guess who's popping up in them. Guess who's got some questions to answer? It's the Democrats, of course. It's always been Hakeem Jeffries. The leader of the Democrats in the House, was seeking cash from Jeffrey Epstein in 2013. Take a look at this cut to from yesterday. Colleagues coordination with Epstein.

B (24:30)

Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein.

A (24:33)

To an event or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of their 2013 effort to, to build, to win a majority. So Hakeem Jeffries campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein.

B (24:47)

That's what we found in the last document Match. What a.

A (24:52)

What a typical, typical Democrat scandal. It's not shocking, but it is appalling that Hakeem Jeffries was seeking money from Jeffrey Epstein. This was in 2013. This would be all, let's see, five years, five years after he was already a registered sex offender. Hakeem Jeffries is like, can you give me cash, please? Mr. Epstein, here's the cringe email that was sent to, to, to Jeffrey Epstein. You know, hat in hand, can you give money to Hakeem Jeffries? And it's embarrassing. Our buddy Sean Farish shared this on. On X. I love this. Take a look at this email. It says it comes from a woman called Lisa Rossi. She's raising money. She's organizing for Hakeem Jeffries. And she says, dear Jeffrey, Jeffrey would be Jeffrey Epstein. We are thrilled to announce that we are working with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, one of the rising stars in the New York congressional delegation. He's a rising star, sometimes referred to as Brooklyn's Barack. He's Brooklyn's. Brooklyn's Barack. Oh, my God. He's a staunch supporter of Obama and a progressive voice for the people of New York City. So they're trying to set up a. They want to do a fundraising dinner. They want to have him give money to Hakeem Jeffries. They want to have him meet with Hakeem Jeffries. They're sucking up to this guy, the registered sex offender. That's Hakeem Jeffries. So in case you're wondering who's linked up with, with Jeffrey Epstein, well, it's Hakeem Jeffries. Here's Hakeem Jeffries. Here, look, cut three, 24 hours ago. Here's. Here's Hakeem Jeffries acting like this is a big problem for Republicans. And reporters straight up asked him, wasn't this a big problem for Democrats? Are you comfortable with whatever information is in the Epstein files if it involves or potentially implicates Democrats?

B (26:50)

Donald Trump appears to have chickened out on the Epstein scandal. He's caved. It's a complete and total surrender. Because as Democrats, we made clear from the very beginning.

A (27:01)

All right, enough. Forget it. Forget it. No more from him. He's just like blaming Trump for all this. But the question was fantastic. It was like, hey, you worried at all that this is going to implicate Democrats? And it turns out, yeah, all the files are implicating Democrats, including Hakeem Jeffries. Including Hakeem Jeffries. These Democrats don't know what they do any. With any of this. Jasmine Crockett, you know her from Texas. She's an idiot. Jasmine Crockett is about as dumb as they come. Here's Jasmine Crockett yesterday. Cut 11. She says, you know who's really linked up with Jeffrey Epstein? Republicans. Republicans. Oh, really? Tell us more. Jasmine Crockett. Here she is. Watch, folks, who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein. As I had my team dig in very quickly. Mitt Romney, the NRCC, Lee Zeldin, George Bush win. Read, McCain, Palin, Rick Lazio. I just want to be clear. If this is the standard that we gonna make, just know we gonna expose it all and just know that the FEC filings, they are available for everybody to review. I think the standard we gonna make is we got to tell the truth. Jasmine Crockett. And the truth is they're not even the same. Jeffrey Epstein, you raging idiot. It's a different. These are different people she's talking about. In fact, she mentioned, just by way of example, she mentioned Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator. Lee Zeldin, great American. She said that he received funding from Jeffrey Epstein. Let's do the math here. Just ready for this. He received funding from Jeffrey Epstein in 2021. How could Jeffrey Epstein give money to Lee Zeldin in 2021 if he died in 2019? The Jeffrey Epstein that you and I are talking about did not give money to Lee Zeldin. He was given money by a different Jeffrey M. Epstein. Dr. Jeffrey M. Epstein, a New York neurosurgeon in 2021. It was a $2,800 donation. Jasmine Crockett is just too stupid. I don't even know how she walks across a room or breathes too stupid. Yet there she is, at least for now, a member of Congress. It is. It. The whole thing is so crazy. I've got a lot more to get to on on this story, including another idiot, Stacey Plaskett. We've got to talk about her. There was A vote in the United States Congress yesterday to attempt to censure her and kick her off the House Intelligence Committee for colluding, colluding with Jeffrey Epstein to hurt Trump. Yet the vote failed. Why did that vote fail? I'll look to. I'll tell you why. It's coming up on this edition. Events, a lot of important information today and to help you get your bearings on what the hell is even happening in Washington. I've got the details. It's all ahead. Congressman Brandon Gill, an actually good congressman from Texas is joining us next. We'll talk to him too. All right, but first, you already know the name Blackout Coffee. It's probably the official coffee of all of us here at Silverlock. There's a reason for that. It's bold, unapologetic America first coffee, roasted fresh right here in the United States. It's not grocery store junk. Blackout coffee delivers rich, high quality roasts that actually tastes like freedom. And now you can set it and you can forget it. With auto refill and recurring delivery, this means no more running out, no more watered down backups, just your favorite roast delivered fresh right on your schedule. Pick your favorite roast, how often you want it delivered. And not only do you get a discount, you also get double the rewards and free shipping right to your doorstep. Blackout coffee is delicious. I drink my coffee black so I can tell you. And the second I started drinking it, I realized this is phenomenal coffee. And now it's a part of my life every single day. It should be for you too. Here's what you do. Go to blackoutcoffee.com Vince. Use the code Vince. That's V I N C E to get 20 off. Whether you're into the bold, dark roasts, flavored coffee or even instant, blackout's got your back. Real coffee, no compromise. Blackout coffee.com Vince get yours now. Are thanks to Blackout Coffee, great sponsor of this program and our thanks also to MD Hearing. This is a really important, very important product. You ever feel like everything costs so much more than it should? Gas prices, grocery bills, inflation. Inflation has been brutal. Thanks, Biden. You know what I love about MD hearing? While everything else has been too high in terms of price, they cut their price in half. Maryland Hearing makes high quality, easy to use. Rechargeable hearing aids with exceptional sound quality personalized to your hearing profile. Their Neo rechargeable digital hearing aids are only $297 a pair. So that's over 90% less than clinic prices. The NEO actually fits right inside your ear. So Nobody's even going to know it's there. And now they've launched the Neo Xs, their smallest hearing aid ever. I gave my dad these hearing aids and for him the difference has been incredible. $297 for a pair this good. Unreal. Mdhearing has sold over 2 million hearing aids and offers a 45 day risk free trial. Get the high quality, affordable hearing aids you deserve with MD hearing. Go to shopmdhearing.com use the promo code, Vince. Get a pair of hearing AIDS for just 297 bucks. Plus they're adding a free extra charging case that's a $100 value just for listeners events. That's shopmdhearing.com use our promo code, Vince. Get a pair of hearing AIDS for just $297. It's a great, great arrangement. All right. Joining us right now from Texas, one of our favorites, Congressman Brandon Gill. And importantly, he's producer Jim's congressman. So this is why we like him so much. Congressman, great to have you with us back on the program, sir.

B (33:04)

Hey, thanks for having me.

A (33:06)

I don't even know what Congress is. Did you like go crazy going into that building every day? Because like, you know people. Yes, they vote for transparency on the Epstein stuff yesterday, which is great. Although as I started the show there's like a million exceptions to the disclosures. So we're not going to really, let's be honest, we're not going to learn a ton of new information as a result of that vote. And then, and then we can't even vote to censure Stacey Plaskett. I mean, how hard is it to just be a member of Congress and do the right thing?

B (33:37)

Well, you know, Congress too often feels like it's, it's, it's high school drama. There's all kinds of different personalities, all kinds of different factions. They're always arguing with each other across both sides of the aisle. Republicans have their arguments, Democrats have theirs as well. You know, I was really disappointed obviously that we couldn't get that century resolution passed yesterday, last evening. You know, this is somebody who was Congresswoman Plaskett who was texting Jeffrey Epstein during a committee hearing. And this was after everybody knew who Jeffrey Epstein was, that he was in fact the most notorious pedophile in the entire country. And this is somebody who is very well known at that time. And we can't, I mean it is ridiculous that we can't get a vote like that passed. I mean, this is somebody who sits as a non voting delegate on The House Intel Committee. I mean, this is, this is dangerous stuff. So it was incredibly disappointing. I hope that, you know, you know, we can start to get our act together to be able to censure Democrats who deserve it. You know, we failed to censor vote about a month ago or maybe a couple months ago against Ilhan Omar, somebody who also has all kinds of problems. So this, this is stuff that we've got to get together.

A (34:52)

Yeah, for sure. But the reason why the vote failed, I mean, Republicans obviously have the majority in the House, so clearly they should be able to do this. But they didn't because of a couple things. You had three congressmen, three Republicans who voted against the censure. You had three Republicans who were voting present, and then you had four Republicans who didn't vote at all. Some of them had medical issues or family issues that kept them from being there. But it's, it's because of Republicans that, that she wasn't censured. That's the truth. I mean, Democrats obviously were in lockstep to try and protect her, but Republicans are the reason this happened. And, and, and I'm going to get into the details coming up in more detail here. But, but talk to me about, to the extent that you can about this, because it seems like Democrats are basically holding some sort of, sort of Damocles over Congressman Corey Mills. The belief is that, like, that they want to advance censure resolution to kick him off committees and punish him. And so Republicans in a trade keep allowing Democrats to get away with awful things to avoid consequences for Corey Mills. Is that what's happening here?

B (35:53)

Well, I, I've been told that, and I, I've heard that there was some sort of deal that was made. I don't know what that deal was or if that did in fact actually happen. I will say that that would be, that would be quite disgraceful if that is in ca. In fact, what happened here. You know, we've got to recognize that, you know, we're, we are the governing majority and we need to act like it. We need to govern like the American people gave us a majority and actually execute for the American people. And right now the American people agree with us that it is insane and disgraceful that a member of Congress would be texting Jeffrey Epstein. So I don't know what kind of deal was made here. That is something that happened without me and I think really anybody else in Congress, except for very few people knowing about it. But we've got to recognize that the American people gave us power. They gave Us, the majority. And they want us to govern like we have the majority. And if we can't get somebody censured who is texting the most notorious pedophile in the country, then who can we censure? I mean, this is something that, that was a just response to her doing that. That was a righteous response.

A (37:03)

Yeah.

B (37:04)

And this is something we, I mean, it is, it's really disappointing here.

A (37:07)

And it's not. People hear censure, and I think they glaze over because, like, they, they're tired of sternly worded letters like censure was, that it wasn't just a censure that she was scolded. She would also be kicked off the House Intelligence Committee. Right?

B (37:19)

That's exactly right. And remember, you'll hear some arguments being made occasionally that maybe we shouldn't be kicking people off their committees for things like this because it sets a bad precedent. Remember, it's the Democrats who set that precedent to begin with. They're the ones who kicked Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar off their committees just a couple years ago. So it's Democrats who have done that. And whenever they're in power, they govern like they're in the majority and they go after Republicans for incredibly unjust reasons. And here we have a black and white case. We've got to recognize that this does speak very ill of the House of Representatives. This makes the House, it tarnishes the House's image. And we've got to recognize that. And somebody who's doing this has no business being on any committee.

A (38:04)

Okay, so let me, let me ask you about a different topic. I. Time is of the essence here. And if your colleagues don't figure that out quickly, they're going to get their asses handed to them in the midterms. That's just true. That's just true. And it's insane. Judge Boasberg needs to be impeached. Judge Boasberg is completely out of control and signing off on spying on US Senators and lawmakers and everything else. Been a total unconstitutional thorn in the side of the Trump administration. You've been calling for his impeachment. When are we going to see the actual articles of impeachment move in the House?

B (38:36)

Well, listen, I introduced those articles of impeachment earlier, earlier this month. And the way this process works is you've got a, an investigation into Arctic Frost over on the Senate side in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's where we're getting this information about Judge Boasberg, by the way. We're getting this from whistleblowers because the FBI, prior to President Trump coming into office was trying to cover up everything they were doing and spying on senators, issuing frivolous subpoenas to basically every conservative organization under the sun, whether they had anything to do with January6, which is the, the sort of ostensible reason for this or not. But the, the process in the House is this. We've got to be able to build up the case in the House. I think we've already got the case here. Knowing that Judge Boseberg did sign off on these non disclosure orders, we believe it's about 20 of them including multiple sitting US senators. And by the way, the non disclosure order that he signed off on for Senator Cruz, I'll use him as an example, said that we need to hide, you need to hide cell carriers need to hide the fact that their day that Senator Cruz's data is being monitored. Because if they don't, Senator Cruz is going to destroy evidence, tamper with evidence and, and work with witnesses to try and hide whatever they're accusing him of. I mean that is an egregious violation of the separation of powers of Senator Cruz's and the other senators reasonable right to privacy. I mean this is wildly unconstitutional. But in the House, what we need to do is we need to have an investigation here. We need, I think there's a lot more about Judge Boasberg that's going to come out through these investigations, whether it's on the Senate side or on the House side and then we'll have impeachment proceedings. That's something I think we need to start now. I think we've got the evidence that we need that, that merits an investigation and impeachment proceedings. We need to get that started as soon as possible. Because you're right, the American people want justice. They see what's happened. They saw the Biden administration and Merrick Garland weaponize the Department of Justice against conservatives and Republicans. And they saw how ubiquitous and how massive this campaign against their political enemies was. And we need to hold them accountable.

A (40:46)

You said you think more stuff's going to come out about Boosberg. Do you have reason to believe or do you know anything that hasn't been made public yet about him?

B (40:54)

Well, what we do know is the information that we're getting is coming from whistleblowers, which leads to the logical conclusion that there's probably a whole lot else that that hasn't come come forward yet. Remember a lot of this information, it's not like the FBI is handing us buckets of documents. And I think Cash Patel's been great. That's not a comment on him in any way. It's the fact that under the previous administration, the FBI went out of their way to hide what they were doing, to destroy documents, destroy evidence, to put them in burn bags and random hidden rooms at the FBI to, to try and hide all of this stuff. So I think that there is a lot more here. I would, I would guess, and we don't know this for sure, that Boberg probably signed off on other non disclosure orders for other conservative organizations, more than just that 20 that we know of for certain. And there could have been more, more involvement regarding other US Senators. We're just getting that information really in real time right now.

A (41:51)

Yes. And by the way, if Democrats were actually interested in protecting the institution, they'd be joining you right now and impeaching him for doing that very thing. Before we let you go, Congressman, I know you got a tight schedule today. Affordability is on the lips of the president this week. It's the American economy that matters a great deal. Again, if Republicans are going to win seats, they got to win by actually tackling the issues that matter to the American people. Is the House going to take up any serious effort to say, genuinely replace Obamacare, the disaster that has been our health care system as a result, or anything in the near term that you're aware of?

B (42:27)

Well, first of all, you're exactly right. Affordability should be our top focus right now. And that has to do with wages. Working class wages have been stagnant or declining for decades now in the United States. And you've also seen inflation under the Biden administration, which we have brought down and the President has brought down. But we've also got an out of out of control health care system which we are working on right now. And you see also housing, housing affordability is a major problem, particularly for younger Americans. You know, the average age of first time homebuyers right now is 40 years old. You know, home, home ownership used to be considered the, the gateway to the American dream. It was the ability for Americans to build up equity in an asset that they could then carry with them for the rest of their lives, eventually sell or whatever they're going to do with it. But it was a way to build up wealth and that is becoming more and more impossible for younger Americans as housing prices have gotten just out of control. So these are all things that we're working on. I think affordability has to be Congress's number one issue for the next year going into the midterms. You know, I think candidly that. That the midterms are going to be tough for Republicans if we don't tackle these issues head on. And that's what we're working on.

A (43:41)

All right, well, Congressman Gill, good luck. As you go about your business today. Please remind all those Republicans to find their testicular fortitude. That would be good. Congressman, good to have you with us today.

B (43:50)

Thanks for having me.

A (43:51)

All right, there he is. Congressman Brandon Gill. Always appreciate him. And, and our thanks. Not, not just for him coming on the program, but for him being producer Jim's congressman. That's really important. That's very important to me. Let's, let's see. I want to talk to you about what just happened yesterday with that ridiculous lady, Stacy Plaskett, you know, the woman who was colluding with Jeffrey Epstein. So they do bring this censor resolution forward. They bring a central resolution forward. And as I was talking about with Congressman Gill, the point of this thing was not only to issue an official reprimand of her, which is like, okay, whatever, whatever the value of that is, but it's also to boot her from a very important committee, the House intelligence Committee, which she shouldn't be on to begin with. Get rid of her from that, stop giving her access to intelligence, and punish this woman for what she did to our country. Colluding with a child sex rapist. How disgusting can you possibly be? So there was debate yesterday on the floor as these lawmakers are hashing it out of whether or not this should happen. And listen to Stacey Plaskett explain why she was letting Jeffrey Epstein write her questions for her. You ready for this cut for here's Plaskett. And I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at the time was my constituent, who was not public knowledge at that time that he was under female federal investigation, and who is sharing information with me. She's so full of shit. First of all, Jeffrey Epstein was a registered sex offender at the time he's sending you text messages in 2019. He was a registered sex offender for 11 years. At that point, he was already convicted. He's a child rapist. He's texting with you. He's writing your questions for you in a congressional hearing. Now, you heard what she just said. She said, well, he was a constituent. You know, she's the delegate from the US Virgin Islands, and he's got his little rape island there. So obviously he's a constituent. So that's what Plaskett presented. And it led me To a couple of really basic questions, including, do all of your constituents have your cell phone number? Do you. Let me chat? Do you have the direct cell phone number to your member of Congress?

B (46:14)

Do you.

A (46:15)

Like, right now, if you wanted to just text your member of Congress, that's. That's pretty good. That's good access. So all of her constituents have her cell phone number, and all of her constituents get to write her questions for her while she's sitting at a congressional hearing. Is that how it works? No chat? No. You don't have that? No. No, me neither. I don't have, like, my lawmaker's cell phone number. My. My member of Congress, I got a crappy Democrat anyway. But the point is, this guy's texting her. He's writing her questions for her. He's operating her like she's a marionette, a little puppet on his behalf. He gave her all thousands and thousands of dollars, $8,500 to Plasket. He controlled her. And she's pretending like this is totally normal. Totally normal. Jamie Raskin, Cosmo Kramer, the Democrat from Maryland, yesterday, he goes, what's wrong with taking a couple phone calls from your constituents? All of a sudden, now he doesn't. He's not raving about, oh, Jeffrey Epstein's a pedophile. Now it's. Now it's all about, like, oh, you can take phone calls from your constituents. Look at Jamie Raskin cut five in a ridiculous defense yesterday. Well, they want to give them another headline, which is that they've arraigned a democratic member for taking a phone call from her constituent Jeffrey Epstein in the middle of a hearing. And of course, I don't think there's any rule here against taking phone calls in a hearing. It's totally fine. You know, Epstein's allowed to write all the questions in Congress. There's no rules against that. There's like, you know, so what's the big deal? Why is everyone getting so hot and bothered about this? What. What are these excuses? These guys, they are so brazen. The lies are so brazen. The president said it well yesterday. He goes, you know these Democrats, Great moment yesterday. Because, you know, these Democrats, all they do is ruin everything. Everything they do. They just ruin everything the president says. But there's one thing they're great at. Lying. Lying. It's true. These Democrats, they could be literally stabbing you in the chest, and they're the same. Why are you stabbing me in the chest? I'm not stabbing you in the chest. Literally. Knife plunging in the chest cavity over and over and over again, there's lie. They just lie. Hakeem Jeffries got up to the microphone yesterday, the dial up Democrat, was it Brooklyn's Barack cut seven. Here he is saying, well, Stacy Plasket is a woman of great integrity. She was texting with a child rapist who was writing all of her questions. Here's Hakeem explaining it.

B (48:51)

We believe in transparency. We believe in accountability. We believe in due process. That's the opposite of what is happening on the floor today. And let me be very clear about Stacy Plaskett. She's a woman of great intelligence and a woman of great integrity.

A (49:07)

They just lie.

B (49:08)

And she deserves better than what she's receiving from House Republican extremists. She deserves the opportunity to be heard.

A (49:19)

She deserves so much better.

B (49:21)

She deserves the ability to make her case, not to be prosecuted by petty foggers playing lawyer on the floor of the House of Representatives. Google that if you don't know what it means.

A (49:39)

Couple things. One, this is why people hate Congress. They hate Washington. These Democrats brazenly lie. She was texting with a child rapist writing her questions, and he stands up there and pretends that she's a woman of great integrity. He lies to your face and then he whips out his $10 word of the day, petty fogger. Now, how much you want to bet that somebody taught Hakeem Jeffries the word petty fogger like five minutes before he got up there? Have you ever heard him use the word pettifogger before? Which means an unscrupulous lawyer? Have you heard that? Has he ever wielded that before? No, no, he just. He just learned it. He thought it was a big day to share it. It's his big boy moment as he, as he lies to your face. Hakeem Jeffries, the guy who is fundraising from Jeffrey Epstein, his team was sending fundraising emails to Epstein to get money from him to get a meeting with him so that Brooklyn's Barack could become more powerful in the United States. Stacy Plaskett having her questions written by Jeffrey Epstein. You see what's happening. These Democrats, as you and I have been predicting, they're just stepping on rakes. This whole Epstein transparency push that they pretend that they care about, they don't care about, that. It's all scandal mongering. They just want to pretend like Donald Trump is guilty of something. That's all this is. But in the end, what keeps coming out, it's Democrats. It's Democrats who are guilty of the most villainous possible crimes imaginable. Or perfectly happy getting in bed with the demons and letting them write their questions in Congress and giving them money so that they can become more powerful. That's what's at work. So yesterday you would think it'd be a slam dunk case to censure and kick off of committee. Stacy Plaskett. And yet this is how that vote went. Check it out. Cut it. Watch votes coming in. 209 nays are 214, three voting present. The resolution is not adopted. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is.

B (51:51)

Laid on the table.

A (51:52)

Cheers in the House for the woman who was colluding with a child rapist to attack Donald Trump. Cheers. As the measure is defeated. The measure is defeated. What? How did that even happen? How was the measure defeated yesterday? Well, the answer to that question lies in the fact that a number of Republicans just was just were involved in a scheme to sell out our country, to sell us out for accountability where we clearly needed it. Every single Democrat, they were already on the side of indecency. They voted to protect her for what she did. It's not even a close call. It's not like she can escape on some technicality. She didn't know the guy is a child rapist. He was a convicted sex offender at the time. She was texting. Yet Democrats all sided with her because they, not a single one of them could summon a conscience to condemn her. Meanwhile, Republicans helped. Republicans helped. I was talking with Congressman Brandon Gill about this. Here's the, here's the rundown of the vote in the, in the House yesterday among Republican members who voted with the Democrats. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Lance Gooden of Texas, David Joyce of Ohio all voted with the Democrats against the censure yesterday of Stacy Plaskett, Republican present votes. That is Republicans who are too cowardly to take a position. They just voted present in order to diminish the overall vote totals and give the Democrats a victory. Here included Andrew Garbarino of New York, J. Ober Nolte of California and Dan Muser of Pennsylvania. All of them, all six of them a part of a scheme to protect the Democrats. And it wasn't just those six. There's, there's four other lawmakers worth mentioning. Now not all of them have the same moral culpability here. And I'll explain why. Four Republicans did not vote at all. Did not vote at all. Among them were John Rutherford of Florida, Steve Womack of Arkansas. Then you had Michael Rowley of Ohio and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. Now, the reason I say they don't all have moral culpability here. Steve Womack in particular has a meaningful alibi. He was absent for all of the votes yesterday in the House because he's got a family member who has a serious medical issue and he disclosed that earlier in the day he was not present because of that. There are reasons that people wouldn't be present from time to time. Extenuating circumstances. That's Womack's excuse for yesterday. But Rutherford and Kelly, they both voted I to release the Epstein files earlier in the day they, they voted for that and then they just weren't present. They just decided not to vote in the censure battle. Mike Rolly of Ohio, I'm not sure what happened with him. He didn't participate in either vote yesterday. There may be a reason for that. His office hasn't disclosed it. But all in the end A meaningful number of Republicans joined Democrats in order to protect Plasket. Now, now why is that? Why would they go out of their way to defend Plasket? What are they, are they Jeffrey Epstein creatures? Is it about because they have a close relationship with Plasket? And what is the arrangement here? Well, we kind of have a sense of it. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna took to the floor of the House yesterday right after the vote tally came in. She was furious about this and she said House leadership, Republican leadership has some questions to answer. Cut 13 here. Listen to Anna Paulina Luna explain what happened, at least in part. For what purpose does a gentile from Florida seek recognition? I have a parliamentary inquiry. Gentle lady from Florida will state her inquiry. I was wondering if the speaker of the House of Representatives can explain why leadership on both sides, both Democrat and Republican are cutting back end deals to cover up public corruption in the House of Representatives for both Republican and Democrat members of Congress. Gentlelady has not stated a popular a proper parliamentary inquiry. Thank you very much. But I think the American people know what happened tonight. Oh, fascinating, fascinating. So Anna Paulina Luna says there are backroom deals being cut right now. Now that explain why Republicans just sided with Democrats to protect a woman who's colluding with a child rapist to attack Donald Trump. What are those backroom deals? Kat Kamac from Florida posting the following. She said tonight a handful of Republicans took a dive on a vote to strip Stacey Plaska of her position on House intelligence because of her ties to Epstein. They did it to protect a Republican who's facing his own ethics issues from a similar vote. The backroom deal shit is swampy, says congresswoman Kamek Wrong and always deserves to be called out. Yeah, Republican. They're protecting a Republican now. Who's the Republican? The Republican is Congressman Corey Mills of Florida. Congressman Corey Mills of Florida. Axios had a report on this yesterday in the lead up to the vote saying the Democrats were moving to kick Corey Mills off of the military committee. They responded to the Republican effort to censure Stacy Plaskett by reviving a censure measure against Corey Mills. Note something here. They keep doing this. This is the third time this year the Democrats have used the threat of a Corey Mills rebuke, or at least a public debate on the topic, to kill a Republican censure effort against one of their members. So far, the strategy keeps working. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clark first introduced the resolution against Mills in September after Republicans moved to censure Lamonica MacGyver, remember her from New Jersey? She was assaulting law enforcement, so they used it to stop a censure of her. Later that month, they did it again. When Republicans were moving to censure Ilhan Omar for her comments on Charlie Kirk's assassination. They stopped the censure of Ilhan Omar using a threat to Corey Mills as a means to do it. Republicans agreeing to a backroom deal again in order to prevent that censure. And yet again last night, we saw it. Now, Corey Mills has faced a number of the reason they say that he's got problems. He's got all sorts of ethical allegations alleged against him, including related to military awards and treatment of women. And the truth is, we don't know what the truth is about all of that. He hasn't been criminally charged or anything in any of those. But I'll tell you the truth about what I want. I want some freaking accountability. You can't have this sort of Damocles situation where Corey Mills and Accenture for him is constantly hanging over the Republican Party and then they don't do the job the American people sent them, the Congress to do. That's the way this works. So Democrats get to call the shot, cut shots with a hostage crisis. If Corey Mills did something wrong, he should be held accountable for it. He should be held accountable for it. And so you trying to duck it over and over. Republicans in Congress, leadership in Congress over and over is not going to result in something good. Just if he's got something ugly going on, deal with it. Because in the meantime, what keeps happening is Democrats are getting away with, at this point, literally colluding with child rapists. That's insanity. And it's why people hate Washington. You know, we just got. Tim Burchett reacted to all of this. Look at Tim Burchett's reaction. Cut 14. He stepped out yesterday from Congress. He's absolutely disgusted by what he's seeing going on. Watch this. I get disgusted about some things, but.

B (59:56)

This is one that's really, really bad. You've got some people, people on there who are chairman of committees and things like that. And that's the kind of people we put in leadership. It's bogus and it stinks. And first opportunity I get to speak to our leadership, I will give them.

A (60:18)

A piece of my mind and I.

B (60:19)

Doubt it will go anywhere. But they're the most sewer dwelling people.

A (60:26)

Some of these folks. Not all of them, but some of them are.

B (60:31)

It's just disgusting.

A (60:32)

It really is.

B (60:35)

Anyway, still, thank you all for sending me here.

A (60:38)

We got to keep fighting. We quit and we lose the whole deal.

B (60:43)

Remember Reagan said we're one generation away from losing our country. Folks were one boat series away from losing our country.

A (60:49)

We gotta wake up. God's given us incredible gift and we're just blowing. Won't be around for.

B (60:56)

Everybody says for their grandkids, dad come. It might not be around for your kids. Might not make it to the end of the year. Let's take our country back. Folks. Thank y' all for sharing me here.

A (61:09)

I hate this topic. I don't, I don't want to, I don't want to dwell on this. I don't want to be in this place. I don't want to be disheartened by their behavior. But I gotta say, if there's ever a time to tackle this, it's now. It is not. We should not wait until the midterms are upon us to deal with the mess that's inside of our own House. Republicans need to clean this up immediately if we want to see this party grow its margins. And this is, this is the army we've got to go to war with. So we're stuck with these guys. If we want to see these guys grow their margins so that the Trump agenda can actually be achieved, then we need to hit them over the head. We right now to get their asses in order. This can't happen anymore. This can't happen anymore. Break through this nonsense. Stop making corrupt deals with Democrats. Get to the agenda of the American people and fight, fight, fight for the rest of us. No more of this garbage. We're done with that shit. I've got a big radio show. I'm going to discuss more of that today on the VIN Show. You can get the VIN show dot com, that's where your local radio listings are. Or join me on rumble. Rumble.com Vince we do that show live on Rumble. Great chat. Appreciate everybody who joins me on the program there. As always, so great to be with you. I will be back with you tomorrow. You're the best audience anywhere. Stay in the fight. Up next here on Rumble, Steven Crowder. We're done with that.