← The Dan Bongino Show
The Dan Bongino Show
The Trump Admin Isn't Having This... | Episode 107
00:58:31
Tulsi Gabbard is going after sanctuary states and pulling clearances from Russiagate suspects. All the while, Ed Martin offers Letitia James an out of the investigation--if she resigns in disgrace.
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody. Welcome to this edition of Vince. It is so good to have you with us, as always. We're doing this on a Wednesday because it's Wednesday. It is great to see you here. We got a busy show for you today. We've got Tulsi Gabbard yanking a bunch of security clearances from Russiagate perpetrators. Long overdue. Why did it take nine years? I'm glad it's happening now. We have Letitia James being made an offer that she shouldn't have refused, but it appears she did, and so much more. Also rescissions. We were talking some time ago about cutting spending and about the White House's unique ability to do that. We're gonna talk about that today, all on this episode that's brought to you by Blackout Coffee, the official coffee of all of us here at Silverlock. You can go to blackoutcoffee.com, vince. Use the code Vince. That's V I, N, C, E. And you'll get 20% off your first order. Blackout coffee. Thank you. Yeah, no, we do have a very big show. And joining us today, the man whose name is too fun, not to say Hans Von Spakovsky, is gonna join us. One of the leading experts on elections in the country, and I've got a lot to talk to him about, including the President of the United States is saying let's get rid of mail in ballots entirely. Why are we doing the stupid mail in ballot thing? It's so vulnerable to fraud. Plus, as we speak, you know, we're on rumble.com, vince, right now, live. But coming up later this morning, within the next two hours, really. And by the time you hear this as a podcast, it may very well have taken place. The Texas State House is set to vote on redrawing the congressional districts. It's a big deal. They got all the Democrats to finally come limping back to the state. We'll dive into the details, what it all means and what the gerrymandering fights are ahead with our guest Hans. It's ahead on this edition of Vince. Great to have you with us. Man, oh, man. How does the American flag look, guys? You like that? Got the American flag back here. I'm glad we got the stars and stripes in here. That's making me happy. All right, big show ahead. Before we get there, we gotta thank our sponsors. After a packed day, there's nothing better than sinking into that bed that actually helps you recharge. And that's why I switched to a Helix mattress. Let me tell you, it's been a total upgrade to my sleep. No more tossing, no more turning, no more waking up sore or groggy. Just deep, comfortable sleep that helps me wake up feeling like myself again. Helix Sleep is an award winning mattress company that customizes your mattress your based on your unique sleep style side sleeper. They got you back pain, they got you run hot at night. What am I telling you? They got you, they've got options for all of it. You just take a quick quiz, they match you up with the right mattress and then it gets delivered right to your door. How simple is that? Seriously? Now, I didn't even realize how much better my sleep could be until I tried Helix. And then I turned to my wife and I was like, holy crap, did you just sleep better? And she said, yeah, yeah, holy crap, I did. I slept a lot better. I look forward to it every night. Here's the best part. Right now, Helix is an exclusive offer for you, my listeners, my viewers, 27% off site wide. Just go to helixsleep.com Vince Claim your discount of 27% off. Once again, helixsleep.com Vince Here we go. All right, let me start where much of this show has dwelled upon over the last few months, which is like, how can we cut a bunch of government spending? How can we get the government to stop wasting our money? We're well over $37 trillion in debt now. Can we stop that, please? That'd be really nice to do. And so President Trump came forward and he said, here's what I want to do. I'm going to cut $9 billion in spending using a special power I have called rescissions. And by now you probably know the details. But for those of you who are new to the program, let me just quickly go over them. There was a years ago, Congress passed something called the Impoundment Control act. And it was designed to try to prevent the President from saving you money. But it did give the President a toll to do some of that saving. And the way that it works is the President looks at how much the government's demanding that he spend and go. And he goes, I don't think we have to spend that money. I think I can save the American people some tax money here. So what I'll do is I'll just send a letter back to Congress and say, hey, can you cut this particular spending? We don't need to do it. And then Congress has 45 days to consider it. And if they vote in the affirmative to cut it, then it's cut, it's cut. And that's Actually, how President Trump got PBS, NPR, and USAID cut earlier this year, $9 billion in spending no longer happening thanks to the president's efforts. It's a great thing, but also it was like pulling teeth to get it done in the first place. It was very difficult to stop all of that spending. He asked Congress to do it, and everybody was dragging ass until he got to the point where they finally cut the spending. And it made it really clear to the White House that any further requests to cut spending are gonna be very difficult to do because Congress is not all that interested in cutting spending. So what are the options that the President has? Well, back in July, we talked to the head of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vogt. It was July 10th that was coming out of Independence Day. We were talking about how great our country is and how we can save some money. And I had Russ Vogt stop by the show, and I asked him how this could be done, how we could actually cut some spending. And so here it is, fellas. I believe this is Cut to. Here is Russ Vote talking about something called pocket rescissions. And this is an area this basically involves the President of the United States cutting spending without Congress being involved in any meaningful way at all. Take a look. Here's what Russ Vote had to say at the time. Pocket rescissions. Would you please tell this audience and tell me what is a pocket rescission? How does it work and why is it valuable?
- [05:47]
B
Pocket rescissions is a normal rescission that comes late in the fiscal year. And so when we send up a bill and ask Congress to rescind it, we have 45 days to hold the money. And so it can't go out the door. And this is a part of the Empowerment Control act that allows us, without congressional vote, to basically hold that money and ensure that it evaporates at the end of the fiscal year. And so we have a process in place that we are looking to use this tool later in the year. Obviously, we are taking it one step at a time with regard to the bill that's on the Hill. And if we can do more, we will do more with the votes of Congress. But this is a tool that the executive has, and we're strongly considering using it later in the year. In addition to the president also has the ability to impound money, and that is to just not spend it. And even using the tools of the Impoundment Control act, that was something that 200 years of presidents used that effectively. And if you look when they stopped using Impoundment because of the Impoundment Control act in the 1970s. That was the moment where fiscal irresponsibility began to reign in this town. Can I pause this?
- [07:10]
A
Okay, that's paused, right, Justin, So we can come back to it. Good. All right, perfect. Here's what I want to say about that. I need people to understand here what's happening, because some of this can get wonky and technical, but these are really simple concepts. In the end, what Russ Vote is saying is when the Impoundment Control act was passed, the concept was, hey, we want to stop the president from saving the people money. We don't want that happening anymore. And Russ votes position on this and the lawyers in the Office of Management Budget is that is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional. When Congress appropriates money, what they're doing is saying, okay, we're going to give this tranche of money, taxpayer money, over to the executive branch to spend on these programs. Now, is it possible to achieve something under budget? Well, yes, it is, definitely. If you do something efficiently, you go and hire the right contractors, you get the thing done the right way, you can do something ahead of schedule and under budget. And President Trump has done that throughout his business career, and certainly he's trying to do that as much as possible inside of his political career. So if you had, say, a company and you were the chief executive of that company and there was a certain budget laid out to achieve something, and you were able to achieve it and save money for the company, thus benefiting the shareholders of that company, you have an obligation to do that. That's the best way to be a good steward of the money that's being allocated for that project. It's to do it the most responsible way, save as much money as possible and get the project done the right way. Probably President Trump wants to do all of that, but Congress is claiming that he is forbidden from saving you money, that if he can do something under budget, that he can't just send the money back. They've got to waste the money, thus making your life more miserable. Does that make any sense to you whatsoever? It shouldn't. It's senseless. The president should be able to save us money. And so Russ Vote is saying, yeah, you know what? I don't care what Congress alleges about this. I don't care that they say we're not allowed to impound money. If we feel like doing that, if we feel like saying we're gonna save taxpayers cash, we want to do it. That's Russ Votes saying that. And then you Want to take us to court? Perfect. Let's find out if it's constitutional. Let's take that all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. But saving the taxpayer money and doing things under budget should be rewarded, not condemned, not punished. You think the founders wanted the government to waste money? No. The intent of the founders was that the government be the best stewards possible of the people's will. So Russ vote clearly on the right track here. But this pocket rescissions concept, that's where I started. Basically you'll have and you'll hear Russ explain it a little further here you have 45 day window. 45 day window, the president submits a request to cut spending. It begins with 45 day clock. And at the conclusion of that clock, if Congress doesn't weigh in at all, if there's no answer whatsoever, traditionally, typically, then the spending kicks back in. But Russ Vote believes, and by the way, so does the Congress, that if you file these spending cuts within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, that's September 30th, so we're already inside the window. Then that spending evaporates, it disappears and it doesn't even matter if Congress gets involved. Here's a little bit more my conversation again with Russ vote July 10, when.
- [10:33]
B
They stopped using impoundment because of the impoundment Control act in the 1970s, that was the moment where fiscal irresponsibility began to reign in this town. And you lost the branch on branch tension to control spending. And it became kind of a caricatured view of what? Of congressionals power, the purse. No one disputes that they have the ability to set what an appropriation is. You can't go above that level. That is a hallmark congressional principle. But the notion that you had to spend at that level is totally anonymous to what the founding fathers would have said. And we're attempting to get back to an original understanding of what presidents enjoyed for many, many years.
- [11:22]
A
Okay. I want to, I want to explore that a little bit more in a moment. But once again on pocket rescissions, am I right to believe that August 18 is the date that that clock begins where you can file a pocket rescission? Yeah, about that.
- [11:35]
B
In the auctus is when you're up against your 45 day clock. And so we will be watching that date very carefully.
- [11:42]
A
And how big are your ambitions? How much? Can you give us a ballpark of how much money you think you could possibly cut?
- [11:50]
B
You know I don't want to do that at this juncture. Right now, we're obviously, when we were able to start this programmatic review of federal spending, we were in the middle of the fiscal year. And so this is not going to be the same amount as what we put forward in our congressional budget that we sent to the Hill for fiscal year 26, the next one coming up. But we do believe that we will have a very good story to tell if we're successful with all of these different maneuvers. And honestly, that's it's going to take all of these different tools. Each tool is different. Each funding amount is different. They're written differently. They expire at different times. And so I know it's a lot for the public to get a handle on, but I think the best thing to understand is that this administration is committed, this president is committed to using everything at his disposal to get a handle on the waste and abuse that's been going on for far too long.
- [12:47]
A
But I think it's safe to assume it'll be a lot more than $9 billion, right?
- [12:52]
B
I think you can assume that, yeah.
- [12:54]
A
Okay, good. A lot more than $9 billion. The conclusion of that segment on pocket rescissions, I want to emphasize something to you that detail, what Russ Vote said there. It's gonna be a lot more than $9 billion as of this morning. I saw that there are news outlets like Politico who have no idea that Russ Vote is saying that or said that. In other words, you are more clued in than the D.C. political publications about how all of this is working right now and what's intended. Now, I'm noticing the rumble chat has pointed out, somebody in the rumble chat pointed out, well, it's August 20th, right. Of course, today's the 20th. Two days after the 18th. That was the day that we believed that this clock would start to run. No pocket rescissions have been filed by the White House yet. One of the obvious explanations, I think, for that is Congress isn't in session. They're not back yet. They're still on the August recess. They're still on vacation sometime they'll get back. They'll get back in September is the plan. And when they do, my fervent prayer and my urging to the White House is they stick to the schedule and they send over those pocket rescissions for much more than $9 billion. Now, we are this audience is really among the only people who've been talking about this issue. And part of that is because so many people just don't know what it is. They didn't know that the President could cut spending this way, but they can. They can. And let me share something with you right now. This is just out this morning from Politico. Take a look at this piece in Politico today. Headline fear of Trump Funding Wrench Escalates As Congress faces Shutdown Cliff. This is Politico reporting on this today. So it's just I was sharing the clips of Russ Vote last night on social media and I was planning on talking to you about this this morning. Nobody else in the press was even talking about rescissions last night. And suddenly Politico this morning is running. A piece came out around 4 o' clock this morning saying, guys, hold up. Pocket rescissions appear to be on the way. And they've got a big menacing photo of Russ Vote on the shot here. And here's what they say. President Trump's budget director has talked about attempting the ultimate override of Congress's funding prerogatives to during the 45 days, the final 45 days of the fiscal year. And that time is now six weeks are now left until October 1st. And lawmakers are staring down a government shutdown deadline alongside the threat of a pocket rescission. They say it's a controversial White House tactic and that lawmakers from both parties say it's illegal to do. Let me pause on that. Illegal. And one of the reasons that you're having members of Congress claiming you're not allowed to do this, you're not allowed to do this is because there was a report put out by the gao, the Government Accountability Office, that made such a claim that this whole sequence of events is illegal. In fact, at the beginning of August, the GAO put this out. By the way, Chad, is this too wonky for you? I really want the detail to be here for you. I want people to know what's going on. They put a piece out on August 6th of this month and they said, what is a pocket rescission and is it legal? And then the GAO comes along and they talk about, oh, you've heard of a pocket veto, but have you heard of a pocket rescission? And in this they answer their own question, is it legal? They say, no, a pocket rescission is illegal. This can't happen. Yeah, Nancy says, keep going, be sure and says, enjoying the details. Okay, good, good. I wanna make sure. And so basically the GAO comes along and says, no, no, no, you can't do this. You're not allowed to do this. So it is worth pausing for a moment and asking yourself, what the hell is the gao, what is the Government Accountability Office? What in particular? And what power do they have over the president's ability to save US money? And the answer to that is that the Government Accountability Office is known as an independent agency, an independent agency that works for the Congress. It makes assessments about what is going on in Congress and whether or not something is considered to be legal. And it's been around for some time. And the United States Government Accountability Office, they consider themselves independent and nonpartisan, but they're within the legislative branch. And their job is to audit, evaluate and investigate services for the United States Congress. So to basically be the errand boy for the Congress to give them answers. But the gao, you want to know more about who's behind all of this. I'm sure you do. Take a look at some of this. Let me pull up this story. This comes to us from FOX News. This is March of last year that you should see. March of last year. Let me drop that volume. And they had a piece here. Top agency staffer trying to block crucial Trump directive once managed the DEI team. And in the piece, they point out that the GAO's general counsel, that's the top lawyer at this agency, used to be the head of the DEI program at the gao. She was the managing director of Opportunity and Inclusiveness. Her name is Edda Emanueli Perez. So just to give you a sense, who are these people who are making these judgment calls that Trump isn't allowed to save US money? Well, the DEI lady is one of them that's worth knowing about. In addition to her, she's not the only one. The guy who's currently running the gao, the guy, the ultimate guy who's in charge of it, is known as the Comptroller General of the United States. That's the role that runs the gao. His name is Gene Dodaro. Gene Dodaro. And if you go to look at his Wikipedia page and his summary, where did he come from? He's been in the role for nearly 15 years. His term is 15 years long. It'll be the conclusion of this year. There's Gene Dodaro. You can kind of see his picture there in black and White in 1985. And it was 2008 when the previous comptroller left and President Bush had him placed there for a minute. He was made there for a little the guy for a little bit. And then Obama, it was Obama who nominated this dude to fill the role permanently. And he was confirmed when Obama was in office. So now 15 years later, they're claiming that President Trump isn't allowed to save you money. So we got an Obama guy and a DEI lady saying that it's illegal for Trump to save you money. And is it illegal? I guess that really is what matters. Is, is it illegal for the President to do this? And once again, on the answer to this, the answer to that is, no, it's not. In fact, Mark Paoletta, he's a great American. He's a lawyer inside of the Office of Management and Budget. He's done a rundown on this, and it's really good. And the summary is very simple. I won't read the whole X post to you from Mark Paoletta, but let me just give you the basics. The GAO knew 40 years ago, 40 years ago that pocket rescissions is a real thing. They knew it. How do we know they knew it? Because GAO sent Congress a message and said, guys, there's a loophole in this law. The President can use something called a pocket rescission to cancel spending without Congress being involved. Congress, you need to change this. You need to fix this loophole or the President's gonna be able to cut spending on his own. So the GAO 40 years ago, warned Congress, fix this, or else the President's gonna have the power to save money. And Congress never changed it. They never fixed it. And so Mark Paoletta and the current Office of Management and Budget, they know. They know that this is legal and that this can be done. Here it is. In 1975, just after the ICA was enacted, that's the Impoundment Control Act, GAO released an opinion that it allows for pocket rescissions, calling it a major deficiency in the text, and recommended Congress amend the act to prevent pocket rescissions. So let me just. Again, I know we got wonky here, but I'm telling you right now, the President has this power. The White House wants to do it. As soon as Congress gets back, they're gonna send a massive tranche of cuts over to Congress, or at least they should. That's what they were planning on doing earlier this year. And the job that you and I have right now is to remind the White House that we desperately want this. We want them to do the thing that they were talking about earlier this year. And anyone who says it's illegal, anybody who's trying to get in the way of this thing, fine, take it to court. Prove it. But this President of the United States has done a lot of good for this country so far. And I wanna keep seeing him do good. I want him to cut this spending. We Good with that. Good. All right. Good. I'm glad. You know, I wanted to run through this. But I'll tell you what, I guarantee you this audience is better versed on this issue now than almost anyone in Washington. And I'd have it no other way. Let me thank the sponsors. More and more Americans are prioritizing their wellness here. They're getting back in shape. But studies prove that strength training does so much more to help burn fat than cardio alone. I've been working with Don and the team over at Jacked Up Fitness for a couple of months now. And let me tell you, these guys know what they're doing. They're all in one home gyms. They're already best in class. Trust me, I have one. But now they're all new. X series takes home fitness to the next level. The Power Rack Extreme Functional Trainer lets you do hundreds of exercises, basically everything that you would do at the gym, right from your spare room or your garage. You want more? Well, the Power Rack Pro X features a fully upgraded cable crossover system with articulating pulley arms, which is really amazing for unlimited width combos. You're going to hit every muscle group. And if you're new to all of this, don't worry. They've got a free Get Jacked up video program. You just press play and then you follow along. So no more excuses. Let's do this together. You're going to love Jacked up fitness. Go to getjackedup.com use the promo code Vince and save a huge 10%. It's big. Go to getjackedup dot com, promo code Vince. Save 10%. Jacked up fitness. Yeah, baby. Square Bobby. Thanks, Vince. With 10 exclamation points. Thank you for that. Yeah, that's the, that's the key. Yeah. Democrats are freaking out about this. They are so worried that Trump is going to cut spending, they're so panicked about it. In fact, there's a US Senator by the name of Jeff Merkley from Oregon and here's what he had to say about this. Take a look. Cut four. He's panicking in the last 24 hours.
- [24:04]
C
What the hell is a pocket rescission? Senator Jeff Merkley here. I thought I'd try to give an explanation. Trump administration wants to repeal funds that were allocated in a bipartisan way and.
- [24:16]
A
Return money to the people.
- [24:18]
C
That is, quite frankly, unconstitutional. Why do I say unconstitutional? Because Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress and then the President is supposed to execute that. The head of omb, his name is Russell Vogue says, no, I don't like that. I want to have a strongman presidency where the President decides what's spent. He says, well, here's what I'll do. I will pretend through most of the budget year that I'm going to spend the funds and then at the very end of the budget year, I will submit a request to repeal funding. It's called a rescission. And under existing law I have some 45 days in which I can pause the funding to get an answer from Congress. But oops, it was at the end of the budget year. Calendar ran out. So now he's effectively canceled funding without going through a formal process. And that's what a pocket rescission is. It's not the normal way of doing things. It's not acceptable.
- [25:08]
A
I hate that you're members of Congress.
- [25:10]
C
Both parties get together and make compromises to budget public funds in a way that will best support the needs of the American people. We don't always agree, but all of our constituents have a voice.
- [25:21]
A
This is insanity, you know, and he's right. The Congress does have the power of the purse and that's to allocate spending, but it doesn't mean the President has to waste money. So you're watching the panic already setting in and you and I are now well equipped to talk about this as this news cycle starts to really fire up in earnest again. We're one of the only places that's been talking about this with any depth. And now you know, and now, you know, let's move to some other issues. The President of the United States is trying to do some other things too. Did you see that he. This guy's really into the details. They're building the border wall. They're trying to. Thanks to the big beautiful law, we've got a lot more money now to build a huge multi layer border barrier as along all of the navigable portions of the border. And DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was down on the southern border yesterday. And as she was standing there, she pointed out that the guys were painting the wall black. Yes, right. Paint it black, baby. And she said that was being done at the orders of the President of the United States. Take a look at this.
- [26:26]
D
Now if you look at the structure that's behind me, it's tall, which makes it very, very difficult to climb. Almost impossible. It also goes deep into the ground which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, possible to dig under. And today we are also going to be painting it black. That is specifically at the Request of the President, who understands that in the hot temperatures down here, when something is painted black, it gets even warmer, and it will make it even harder for people to climb.
- [26:56]
A
I love how she said warmer. Like, it won't be scalding hot. You know, anybody who's. Who lives in a hot climate knows you leave some piece of black metal sitting outside, the last thing you want to do is touch that thing. You could cook an egg on it down there in the Texas heat, you're going to paint the wall black, and people think they're going to wrap their hands around it and shimmy up the wall to get to the United States. Good luck with that. You're grabbing the hot stove. And so the President really does. It really reminds me, I saw that clip and I thought to myself, the President is obsessed with the details. I mean, just imagine what the briefings are like with this guy. He's like, okay, I need an update on the wall. We're building it. A lot. A lot of progress being made. All right, what color is it? Color, sir? It's just metal. No, no, no. We painting it, sir. Do you want it painted? Yeah, what color do you want? I want black. I want that thing to be hot. And as a builder, he's accustomed to all of the thought processes here, but he's into the details all the way from the President of the United States down to the front lines where they're painting it black now. And it's increasing the quality and the security of the product. I love it. It's just. Honestly, it's unreal. It's unreal. And people in Texas in the chat saying it's still hot at night. Yeah. That black fence is gonna stay hot all the way into the evening hours. Still baking by the time you grab ahold of that thing. So the President's thinking through the details. He likes the small details. In fact, I've got another clip for you of the President testing the small details in the newly remodeled Rose Garden. Here's the President, cut five, testing the Rose Garden speakers, he says, ahead of a big, beautiful event that they want to hold at the Rose Garden. Take a look. He's blasting music at the Rose Garden. He's fist pumping Susie Wiles behind him. It's funny, I don't know what it is about. He's like a human meme machine. You ever notice that, like, every video of him, it just. It makes you crack up. You just watch him. Especially something like that where he's just. He's loving it. He's doing. He's picking the playlist for the sound system that they're testing out in the Rose Garden. They're forcing the reporters at the White House to watch him and capture videos of him. Really good. Really good stuff. That's our president. Love the guy. All right, coming up, there's some major, major news breaking out of speaking of Texas, breaking out of Texas today. We're watching as the congressional districts are being redrawn. If things go well, by the end of the day, the House will have voted to redrawn the districts in Texas. That's great news. And so Republicans are expecting to pick up a couple more seats ahead of the midterms there. And we'll also talk about the president's intention to try and get rid of mail in ballots across the country. He says that it's just too much fraud, too vulnerable to fraud, which is a position that up until recently Democrats also shared until they realized, well, maybe fraud helps us. And then they stopped saying it in public. More on that with Hans von Spakovsky in just a moment. Before we get there, though, I want to thank the great sponsors of this program, including American Financing. They're great. What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? That's right. Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and then you finally get a little bit of breathing room. This is all possible when you call American Financing today. If you're feeling stretched at all by everyday expenses, groceries, gas, bills piling up, you're not alone. Most Americans are putting these expenses on a credit card and there doesn't seem to be a way out. American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt. You need to call American Financing today before you get to the point where you can't make those payments. They're salary based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you, restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without those upfront fees. And their customers are saving an average of $800 a month. That's like a $10,000 raise. It's fast, it's simple, and it could save your budget this summer. Call now before it's too late. 888-879-6460. That's 888-879-6480americanfinancing.net Vince and MLS number 182334 and mlsconsumeraccess.org Our thanks to American Financing. Our thanks also to Birch Gold for being a continuous wonderful sponsor of this program. Could the continued divide between Trump and the Federal Reserve put the rest of us behind the curve. That's the question. So is the Fed gonna be able to take the right action at the moment we need, or are we gonna be looking at a potential economic slowdown? And what could all of this mean for your savings in particular? Well, you should consider diversifying. Consider diversifying with gold through Birchgold Group. For decades, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation, global uncertainty, and high inflation. And Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold. So if you have an IRA or an old 401k, you can convert it into a tax sheltered IRA in physical gold or just buy some gold to keep in your safe. But first, get educated. Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. Just text my name, Vince, to the number 989-898. Again, text Vince to 989-898. Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold. That way, if the Fed doesn't stay ahead of the curve for the country, you can stay ahead for yourself and for your family. Data and message rates apply. Thank you, Birchgold. Okay. All right, let's talk about what's happening right now in Texas. We've got the congressional districts being redrawn there, the Democrats finally slinking back to the state. For more on all of this, the great elections expert Hans von Spakowski is here. Senior legal fellow for the Heritage foundation and a good friend. Hans, as always, sir, nice to see you and good to have you with us today.
- [32:44]
E
Well, thanks for having me back, Vince.
- [32:46]
A
Okay, so we've got Texas. They're finally redrawing these lines. Tell us your thoughts on this day as those Texas Democrats finally showed back up to work.
- [32:58]
E
Well, I tell you, the governor of the state, the attorney general and the speaker of the House, boy, they, they really put up the pressure. They didn't just talk. They did everything from issue civil arrest warrants to start working a case against Beto o' Rourke for potential bribery because he was funding these folks out of state. So they really pushed them to come back, and it obviously worked. I tell you, the one big thing, Vince, that people need to understand that you won't see in any, almost any news stories about this. The, the GOP in Texas didn't just suddenly decide, oh, let's, let's do redistricting mid decade. They were forced to do this by the Justice Department and a court opinion that came out of the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year without getting into all the nutty details. In essence, the fifth Circuit, because of a ruling last year, said that in essence four of the districts, these were Democratic districts. They were drawn in 2021 at the urging of Democrats. And what was the predominant factor used by the legislature at the urging of Democrats to draw race? What they did is they combined racial groups, Hispanics and black voters to create districts that would vote Democrats. And Last year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said those, those kind of districts, those are unconstitutional racial gerry matters. They are not protected by the Voting Rights Act. So the Justice Department recently warned Texas, you need to fix these or you're gonna get sued. That has been lost in all the discussions about this.
- [34:54]
A
Yes, it has. No question at all. No, it's been totally lost. In fact, I don't think I've really seen it anywhere. You're the first I've heard really talk about it with any sincerity. So what were the Democrats hoping to do? Just wait until the next decade and then say, okay, we'll redraw them and then hope nobody notices that they're once again trying to rig the districts?
- [35:13]
E
Yeah, no, that, that's exactly what they were hoping. But by the way, look, another reason that Texas ought to do mid decade redistricting is that, remember the last time they did this was 2021. Well, Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the country. They've added over 2 million residents, if you could believe that since then. That means that the districts they drew back then are all distorted by because they didn't take into account all these added residents. So that's another good reason, a legitimate reason, actually a non political reason for them to be doing this.
- [35:53]
A
In fact, most of the districts, as I understand that they're drawing, they're creating as they do this process, will be majority minority districts anyway, right?
- [36:03]
E
Yeah, right. Majority minority districts, those are protected under the voting rights. That's where for example, black voters are a majority or Hispanic voters are major majority. But when they aren't enough to be a majority and you try to combine them in two or more groups, that's a political alliance, that's interracial voting.
- [36:24]
A
But what you're pointing to is there's a thing. The press doesn't wanna talk about this. They don't wanna admit what's happening here, which is that Hispanic voters in particular are moving to the right so quickly that Democrats are struggling to figure out how to stop Hispanic voters from voting for Republicans. They wanna diminish the value of those votes. So what you're saying, if I understand you Correctly. Is that Democrats were trying to draw districts that were partially Hispanic in order to water down the Hispanic vote and mostly black, potentially in an effort to try and rig the district to be a safe Democrat vote. Do I understand that correctly?
- [36:59]
E
That. That's right. And you can't use race as your primary factor in drawing boundary lines. Everyone should keep in mind, last year in the presidential election, for the first time, a majority of Hispanic voters in Texas voted for Donald Trump. In the past, Hispanics have been a very sure vote for Democrats, and they're losing that.
- [37:23]
A
Yeah, amazing. Okay, so can you give us your sense? I've seen a lot of debates about this. Like, at first, the media was just straight up accusing Texas of doing something that's never been done before. Oh, you're gerrymandering for partisan advantage. And then there started to be some voices that came out. They're like, wait a second. Think that's gerrymander? You should look at places like Illinois and Maryland. You start going down the list and you're like, man, Democrats have mangled up congressional districts like crazy all across this country. And in fact, last night I saw there was a clip of Chuck Todd and Scott Jennings going around where Chuck Todd was asserting, you want to see gerrymandered? You should see Florida. And Scott Jennings is like, are you serious? Florida, like, have you looked at Illinois? What do you make of this big conversation about gerrymandering and who's the most guilty of rigging the system?
- [38:13]
E
Democrats are absolute experts at it, and I'm just astonished that anyone would come out and start questioning this. Look, the word gerrymander comes from Elbridge Gerry. He was the governor of Massachusetts in 1812, and he was the first politician to approve a gerrymandered district that looked like a Sally Mander. Well, Massachusetts, which is a very blue state, has continued that Today they have nine congressional seats. And even though Republicans were about 35% of the statewide vote in the state, 00 of those seats are Republicans, they're all gerrymandered to represent Democrats. The same thing in Connecticut, New Mexico. I mean, you can go to Democratic state after Democratic state where Republicans don't even hold a single.
- [39:10]
A
And what's going on in Florida has nothing to do with rigged districts. It has everything to do with the electorate prefers Republicans. And in fact, that goes back to the Hispanic category of votes, especially Cubans. In South Florida, you're watching counties like Broward and Miami Dade heading in the direction of President Trump. And the Republicans and Democrats can't merely explain that away with the districts are rigged. No. The voters prefer Trump.
- [39:36]
E
No, that's right. Miami Dade county was one of the few areas in Florida that was a predominantly Democratic stronghold. Well, last year, a majority of the voters there voted for Trump. That tells you how things there have changed.
- [39:53]
A
Big time. Really big. Okay. And so if Texas succeeds today, which by the time people might hear this on the podcast, they may very well have done. We're recording it live, the hour, literally the hour before the Texas state Legislature set to meet on this issue. If they succeed today, Democrats are threatening to redraw maps as much as they possibly can. But I guess one of the ironies here is that they're looking to gerrymander states that are already gerrymandered into oblivion, aren't they, Hans?
- [40:19]
E
Yeah, and the problem is, you know, the biggest person threatening that, of course, is Governor Newsom of California. Well, he's got a problem. A number of years ago, they transferred the power to do redistricting from the state legislature to a supposedly independent redistricting commission. So Newsom, in order to get the districts redone, he's got to override that independent redistricting commission. The only way he can do that is to call a special election, and it's the voters of California who will decide whether to override that commission and accept the new map. And the problem he's got, Vince, is when you look at polling voters like these independent redistricting commissions, and it's not sure that he's gonna win in a special election, November, he may lose.
- [41:18]
A
So this is funny. This is not the first time we've seen something like that in California happen either. Right, Hans? Because there was. California has as a part of its constitution that racial prejudice is completely unlawful.
- [41:30]
E
Right.
- [41:31]
A
And there was a referendum a couple years ago to change that, to make it so that racial prejudice could be used in California, and the voters voted it down. They read the plain text of the ballot initiative, and they were like, no, I'm not for racial prejudice. They voted it down. So it is funny how this keeps on blowing up in the faces of the left every time they ask the voters to consider it.
- [41:50]
E
Yeah. No, I think the chances are actually very good that Newsom may actually lose this, which is that. What will that be, his third strike strike against him? Counting the L. A fires, the riots in L. A, that none of that's going to help his presidential campaign, which he clearly wants to pursue.
- [42:08]
A
Now, I was about to say, he's built up a big track record of being a loser, and then he wants to run for president. That's great. Yeah, good luck with that. Gavin Newsom. Okay, let me talk about the winner here, President Trump, who has posted to Truth Social that he'd like to make some changes to elections coming up. He indicated this past week that he's once again, he's very concerned about mail in ballots. He said mail in ballots are corrupt, and he'd like to lead a movement to see mail in balloting ended in the United States. I just want to get your reaction, Hans, to this. The media is already overreacting to it, suggesting that President Trump is trying to silence the voices of American voters. How do you view this?
- [42:47]
E
Look, it used to be until recently that the only time you could use an absentee ballot was if you had a real excuse for not being in town on election Day. You know, you were sick, you were out gonna be out of town today. That's a pretty tough standard to meet because, as you know, we don't just have one election day anymore. We have early votes voting in almost all of the states. Absentee ballots, unfortunately, are a source of. A source of fraud. They are the easiest way to cheat in an election. So I agree with the president. They ought to be as limited as possible. And like I said, these days with early voting, it's pretty hard to argue that you don't have the ability to go in and vote on, for example, in Virginia, 45 days of early voting prior to the election. You know, if you're permanently disabled, I can understand it. But for most Americans, that is just not an issue. And the fraud aspects of it are so serious that we should try to limit it as much as possible.
- [44:00]
A
What did Jimmy Carter think of mail in balloting, Hans?
- [44:05]
E
Yeah, they didn't like them either. They also said, you know, Jimmy Carter, James Baker, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, you know, formed a commission on election reform. And not only did they recommend voter id, something that is just anathema to the left, but they also pointed out the problems with absentee ballots. Vince. That should be no surprise. You know, Jimmy Carter had to go to court the first time he ran for office for the state Senate in Georgia because he was cheated out of his election by the local political machine. He went to court and a judge basically declared him the winner after they uncovered all the fraud that had occurred in his election.
- [44:54]
A
Yeah, typical Democrat. He doesn't care about it until it happens to him. But that's. That is a good point. How does. How does mail in balloting in the United States compare to other countries around the world who conduct.
- [45:05]
E
Well, most countries, they don't allow it. All over Europe, you can't do it. And the reason is because they realize it's a problem. They do still have what they call postal ballots in England. But just a couple of years ago, a royal commission investigated and raised all kinds of questions about potential fraud going on with the use of those kinds of ballots in the United Kingdom too.
- [45:32]
A
Yeah. Okay. The last thing on elections that I wanna talk about with you today is something that I keep noticing, which is there are surveys that are done of people who are not yet registered to vote, but they are American citizens. Right. And among that group of people, one thing we've discovered over the last few elections is most of those guys are Trump voters. There's a lot of Trump voters out there. And so what we saw in the last election is that Democrats stopped talking about voter registration. For those of you who weren't paying attention to it, it's hilarious, actually. You didn't see the voter die. You didn't see people being pushed to register. You have to register same day voter registration register and then vote. Because Democrats started to are starting to panic behind the scenes that most of the unregistered Americans are actually Republican voters. Do you expect to see that play out in the way our politics discusses this issue in the years ahead?
- [46:25]
E
Well, it may be, but you know what's funny about this is, you know, you have issues like this come up and usually the political party who thinks that something is, for example, an advantage to them in the long run turns out not to be the advantage that, that they believe it is. So we'll just have to see what happens. Look, the left has been pushing same day registration for years because of the fact that it, it gave election officials absolutely no time to verify the accuracy of the information. And if you register and immediately vote, if they later find out that, oh, well, actually this person doesn't live in this state, it's too late to do anything about it. Which is why same day registration is actually not a good idea.
- [47:11]
A
Well, you know, look at Pennsylvania. They've got motor voter registration there in Pennsylvania. And so when people go to get their licenses, they also register to vote at the same time. The left was convinced that that was gonna be a big boon to them, and it blew up in the faces of the Democrats as Trump just won the state. And it was crystal clear among people like Scott Pressler who were trying to get people registered to vote in Pennsylvania. My goodness, the motor voter registration is helping Republicans right now, right?
- [47:38]
E
Yeah. That that was. Democrats originally thought it would always just help them.
- [47:43]
A
So it's amazing. It's so amazing. Well, I'm so glad you are so on top of the way elections are conducted, which is why we so frequently turn to you. Hans von Spikowski. Thank you for your time today, sir.
- [47:52]
E
Good to talk to you. Thanks for having me, Vince.
- [47:55]
A
There he is. Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage foundation, taking a close look at this. And we are gonna have the fights ahead about gerrymandering and how do these districts look, Texas and the Republicans there. Isn't it great to see Republicans with spines using the full assortment of tools at their disposal to actually achieve something? Nothing illegal about their behavior. Democrats will break the law. They'll become completely tyrannical. Nothing illegal about any of the behavior here by these Republicans. They're just following the law as it is written and to the max in order to get this done. And they were able to get these Democrats to come back. They've achieved a quorum. They're expected to vote today on redrawing those boundaries. Every state should be fighting like this. Republicans in every single state and certainly in the United States Congress should be fighting like this right now. It means a big deal. Now, here's one of the ways that Republicans have ensured that these Democrats are going to be there to vote today. Are there to vote today, is once the Democrats came back. They had the Democrats sign sworn statements that they would allow police officers, Texas troopers to follow them, to babysit them until this vote takes place. So the Democrats who fled the state and came back, they all left the state legislature, and they've had cops tracking them over the last few days. Now, there's one Texas Democrat congresswoman, Texas Democrat lawmaker in the House who refused to sign this document. Her name is Nicole Collier, and she's been staying. She's been living inside of the Texas state legislature for the last few days, making it into a big performance stunt. And she apparently just got a phone call from Kamala Harris, of all people, who's pretending like she's very interested in tracking all of this. Here is cut six. Kamala Harris calling the woman who refused to sign the permission slip saying that the cops could track her. So she's being locked in the building. Watch. In a moment in the history of our country where it is so lacking in those who should have it, and you really are in stage inspiring so many people. And I just want you to know that you are among those who history will reveal to have been heroes of this moment, Kamala would go on in that clip to say, you know when you feel like you're all alone because she's spending the night just sleeping by herself in the middle of the state legislature. When you feel like you're all alone, just know we're all there with you. No, you're not. You're not there at all. You're sipping box wine in your pool, sobbing to yourself that you weren't made president of the United States. You're not sitting there thinking about her at all right now. All you're doing is trying to use her to get. I don't know what. Whatever you're pursuing, you want to use her. Look at me. I'm so supportive. You're not thinking about her. You're not there. And there she is. And there she is. She's living through the consequences of her own actions. She's locked in the building because she's the one who fled the state. And so the Texas legislature passed arrest warrants for her. And now she's saying, I don't want the cops following me around. Okay, good. You stay locked in this building then, until we're done with this. We'll have a quorum. We'll redraw these districts. We'll make it painful for you. And so she's doing that. Hilarious. I mean, I consider that a part of the punishment. Can you imagine? You're already in the midst of being imprisoned inside the Texas state legislature, and like, you think your punishment's bad now? Wait until Kamala Harris calls you. She gets the Kamala Harris phone call. And then Kamala spits out mindless platitudes over the course of. I spared you a lot of time. That was like three minutes of her just blabbering about nothing. Yeah. So there you go. This Birds of a feather, they flock together. They're doing their thing. Really, really amazing. Really, really amazing. Okay, some of the other stuff I wanted to hit with you today on what's going on in the world. Tulsi Gabbard has yanked security clearances from more of these Russiagate lunatics. Tulsi Gabbard has stripped 37 security clearances over Obama ordered intel report that launched Russiagay. That's the New York Post headline today on the subject. Dni Tulsi Gabbard has announced that security clearances have been pulled from 37. 37 current and former officials who abused public trust by politicizing and manipulating information, including several who were involved in a controversial President Obama ordered assessment of Russian influence in the 2016 election. The memo announced that more than three dozen intelligence professionals. Three dozen, including a former top aide to James Clapper, had either politicized or weaponized intelligence, failed to safeguard classified info or not followed tradecraft standards. The President has directed that, effective immediately, the security clearances of the following 37 individuals are revoked. Okay, so Tulsi Gabbard looking like. What's the hair? She looks like one of the X Men. Which X Men has the white streak of hair? Is that Jean Grey? Yeah. Jean Grey, baby. Oh, is it Rogue? Oh, I was wrong. Isaac nodded. Yes, it's Rogue. Okay, Guy has confirmed she looks like Rogue. Fellas, can I get a comparison shot somewhere on this? I need a Rogue. I bet you the Internet's already done it. Rogue and Tulsi Gabbard. Yeah, everyone's telling me Rogue. Although Storm is being mentioned here. I think it's Rogue. Anyway, that's Tulsi Gabbard. Their access to classified systems, facilities, materials and information is to be terminated forthwith. Any contracts or employment with the U.S. government by these 37 individuals is hereby terminated. Any contracts or employment is terminated. Any criminal credentials rather held by these individuals must be surrendered to the appropriate security officers. All right, so this is nine years after the 2016 hoax was manufactured. And, you know, do I wish it happened a lot sooner? Yes, I do. Am I glad it's happening at all? You bet I am. Thank you, Rogue. I appreciate you for doing that. She is one of the X Men. Can I see that? He said you have the comparison. Where's that at? Oh, okay. Well, that's a rogue cover. Yeah, yeah. Let me get here. There you go. Put my screen up. We've got the. For the rumble feed. Rumble.com. vince, you can see all of this? Oh, yeah. Oh, that's her. It's definitely her. What is Rogue's power? Is it mental? It's a psych. Like, she's like Professor X. What is it, gi? Whenever she touches another mutant, she steals their power. That's why she has to wear gloves. I kind of like that. Well, we gotta figure Tulsi Gabbard has a power. Whenever she detects somebody who's corrupt, she takes their power away from them, doesn't she? She strips them of their security clearances. Yeah, she's got the power. She absorbs their power. She's got the security clearance, and they don't. I love that. All right, there you go. There's Tulsa Gabbard as Rogue. Wonderful. She sucks the life out of people. Oh, Ishmael. Cord says she sucks the life out of people. Basically, she's a woman. That's rude. That is rude. We don't say that, not around here. Ishmael, let's be respectful of the women. I'm very respectful of Tulsi. I don't want her taking my power away. Okay, so that's the update there on Tulsi Gabbard. Thank you, Tulsi, for doing that. Speaking of accountability, I've got another great one for you. Ed Martin, who is constantly dressed up like Columbo. He's got his trench coat on. Speaking of people who look like characters, Ed Martin looks like Columbo and he dresses up in his trench coat. Here's Ed Martin. He's out in front of Letitia James, home in Brooklyn, dressed in his Columbo jacket. Yes, there's Ed Martin wearing his trench coat. And yes, it's the summer, but he's gotta wear the costume. I love it. So Ed Martin's been stalking Letitia James, which it really couldn't happen to a better woman. It's perfect for him to be going after her. And we just got some news from Ed Martin, well, about Ed Martin, that he sent a letter to Letitia James attorney Abby Lowell, who's a top Democrat attorney, and he said, look, we're investigating her for mortgage fraud right now. It's really clear. Like, obviously, we're going after these grand juries being empaneled. Everything is going crazy for Letitia James right now. But there is a way for us to resolve all of this. Ed Martin offered. Ed Martin said that it would be best for the Democrat, for the good of the state and the nation, to resign. And if she resigned from her job, Martin wrote, her resignation from office would give the people of New York and America more peace than proceeding. I would take this as an act of good faith. Now, think about what he's saying here. Ed Martin, who has been tasked by President Trump to be the head of the weaponization group at the FBI. Ed Martin, who has been tasked by Pam Bondi to go after Adam Schiff and Letitia James right now, basically sent a letter to James and said this. You want the heat to go away? You want this prosecution to go away? You want a good deal? I'll make you a good deal. You resign your job in disgrace, and I will make this go away. So here are your options. Resign in disgrace, or we are pursuing this prosecution against you. Now, there's a very strong part of me that really wants him to prosecute her. Either way, even if she resigned in disgrace. But that said, this is hilarious. And it doesn't look like she's going anywhere. So what's great is we get the best of both worlds. We get the Ed Martin dunk, and then we get the Ed Martin prosecution. So we have a lot to look forward to, as always. Great to have you with us today. We've got a great new Vince podcast coming up for you tomorrow, the Vince show, the big national radio show, a lot more to discuss. We'll do that today, 12 to 3 Eastern time. By then, we'll probably have the results out of Texas and so much more ahead. Great, as always, to talk to you, the best damn audience in media. I'll be back with you tomorrow right here on Vince.