The Jay Weber Podcast #0019 6-9-26

because it's a deep blue state. I hear them insisting that anyone who would questioned the results is just a sore loser, etc. But my friends, what just happened out there, with a candidate who was in distant third place strongly surging days after the polls closed, is not only questionable, it's statistically impossible. The more accurate take would be if you think this was a natural occurrence, if you think

this wasn't vote fraud. You're a fool. The Washington Times asked chat Gpt whether, in the history of this country's voting patterns, whether we'd ever seen something like this with a third place candidate who was never even in the race over the course of the campaign suddenly surging from out of nowhere to finish second. AI's answer was no, We've never seen it. Quote chat Gpt could not find one example in American history of a third place candidate

surging days after an election to overtake second place. Yet that's what we were seeing in the Los Angeles mayoral race, with Democratic socialist Nathia Rahman besting reality TV star Spencer Pratt. But that's just one result of this insane and impossible post election movement by Raman. The Times notes that for mail in ballots arriving before election day, Karen Bass, the Democrat who's currently the mayor, she received thirty eight percent

of that vote. The ballots that came in by mail before the election, Spencer Pratt received twenty eight percent of that vote, and Raman only received twenty So that was the voting pattern for weeks and weeks before the actual election day when it came to mail in ballots, which

the Democrats are supposed to use more heavily. Correct, So now we're supposed to believe that when it comes to the remaining uncounted mail in ballots, and very importantly, the ballots collected from the drop boxes, Suddenly all of Raman's supporters showed their strength. Suddenly, nearly every ballot opened after election day was for the third place finisher, whose campaign

had shown no life before that point, Bullplop. According to the California Counters, Ramen magically collected thirty seven percent of the ballots that arrived after the election day. So she's suddenly collecting four out of every ten ballots that are coming in, as Karen Bass is collecting three. So Raman collected even more ballots after election day than Karen Bass did.

And meanwhile, the most popular Republican candidate, Spencer Pratt, was suddenly only getting about one out of every six new votes, as the Washington Times correctly characterizes that. Just to be clear, mail in ballots arrived after June second drop for everyone except the person the Democrats needed to defeat, Spencer Pratt. Come on, they say, this is simply not mathematically or statistically realistic. Well, they're correct, and the Democrats and Lefties

vote in mail by larger numbers than Republicans. Yes, but that doesn't explain how or why a woman who was a complete afterthought throughout the entire election suddenly surged to second place and into the general election runoff. What does explain it cheating, a rigged game in which a system that can be easily manipulated with ballot stuffing was manipulated to ensure Pratt wouldn't be in the position to be

Karen Bass in the general election. Folks, the results of this race are so improbable that organized cheating is the best explanation for the results. It really is. In fact, one of the ballot drops late on election night, after the polls closed, Spencer Pratt received zero of the twenty four thousand votes that were added to the total. Again, AI estimates that the odds of that occurring are less

than one in trillions. It is statistically impossible that vote counters could says, twenty four thousand ballots in an election twenty four thousand and not come across a single vote for Spencer Pratt. And it's interesting that that was the first chunk of mail in ballots to be added to the total. It's almost as if someone at Central Planning knew the Democrats would need a boost. They'd need to boost Raman immediately while harming Pratt if they wanted to

ensure that he wouldn't appear on the final ballot. It's almost as if they had a bunch of votes for Raman and Bass ready to go, isn't it then get this? The Washington Times reports the most concentrated batches of mail in votes for Raman came from skid Row, where tens of thousands of homeless people live with no address or phone number to verify them, but they're still allowed to vote, and where ballot harvesting is legal. This is where third parties can collect and turn in the ballots on the

voter's behalf. Mostly they drop them into a drop box and they're supposed to drop them into the drop box before election day obviously, but if they're dropped into those drop boxes, they're not postmarked. Right. These ballots could have been created at any time, really and ended up at Central Counting. It's a very sloppy process. Moreover, the Washington Time says, in California, one of the nation's most powerful unions.

The Service Employees International Union engages in ballot harvesting and get out the vote efforts, and I didn't realize this. They even help count and tabulate the ballots afterward, which creates a clear conflict of interest. Other large Democrat institutions also do that. So a simple explanation for Rahman's rise is that whoever was harvesting the votes wasn't just collecting ballots but also controlling the votes. They either filled out the ballots for her, or they threw out the ballots

that they didn't like. And of course, none of this is likely to be proved because, as The Times notes, in May, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, signed a law that actually bans law enforcement and federal agencies from accessing their voter roles in California, or investigating polling places and election workers, or even verifying mail in ballots. This

system is designed for cheating. There is no other reason to pass a law that says you cannot look into our elections unless you're cheating, and you look at it and you see the But this is why Gavin Newsom could cryptically reassure reporters a few weeks ago that they have ways of ensuring two Republicans won't end up in the runoff elections. Remember that I'm convinced that this is

what he was referring to. In California, Democrats have created a system in which those in control can ignore the will of the voting public and create the result they want in any given election. Now, so the only question now is will there be any genuine and lasting outrage over it? My guess is, sadly no. Have you heard about Creative Planning. This is the company that sponsors this great podcast, and I have to give them a shout

out here. They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth management firms, offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management, estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management, all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every piece of your financial life. Visit Creative Planning dot com

to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot com. Your team, oh waits painful by Creative Planning and sec registered investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement of the firm serious question, what percentage of Americans knows that the Trump administration is building about five miles of border wall per day? Now do you even think two percent of Americans know this? Because aside from Byron York including that fact in a piece last week, I haven't

seen it reported anywhere. And I've noticed that this is a new technique or a new path that the members of the left wing media are taking in Trump's second term. They did this somewhat in term one, but they've made it a standard practice in term two. And it's the technique of simply ignoring the fact that the Democrat side of the aisle and those on the left are losing

on an issue. This is a great example of how Trump and Republicans have simply outlasted and out distanced the left's phony outrage on an issue, and outlasted and out distanced all of the left wing activists attempts to stop or block an action. This is to the point that the left is simply lost the argument and in this case has lost the battle folks on questions of both

immigration enforcement and building the southern border fence. The Democrats and their America Aiding activists have simply lost the argument, and so rather than continue to pitch fits on it and draw attention to the fact that they have lost that Trump and Republicans simply bested them on something, the Democrats and their accomplices who controlled the media have decided to go dark on the matter and not draw attention

to it. Shouldn't aoc or rasheta to lee be weeping at the border as Trump commits the terrible atrocity of erecting five more miles of border fence each day. After all, when Joe Biden allegedly won election in twenty twenty, both he and Chuck Schumer promised that America wasn't going to build quote one more effing foot of border fence. Well, here we are in twenty twenty six with Trump back in office, and the fence is being built to the

tune of five miles per day. And as they strongly suggested to listeners when Trump won reelection in twenty twenty four, we will have all of the border fence that our own border patrol agents say we need by the time Trump leaves office. This time, those who used to listen to my radio show will know that Trump's wall build bilding in term one was a herculean effort. First, Trump had to fight basically both parties in Congress to find

the funding. Then he had to fight years of bogus lawsuits and court actions the Democrats used to try to

stop the fence building. And as that was going on, he had to fight the permitting process and clear away the obstacles there, then actually start the bidding process and hire the contractors and organize the materials and the job sites, etc. And still Trump and his team managed to put up or replace about four hundred and fifty miles of border wall in term one, And so when he was running for a second term, one thing I was assuring my audience was, if Trump gets a second term, the border

wall will get done. No guessing, no conjecture. If Border Control says we still need about five hundred more miles of strategically placed border wall in order to make that border secure, Trump will get it built in term two, because at that point he had won all the lawsuits and could quickly ramp up the project again if he got back into office. Well, huzza, huzzah. He has according to Byron York stats, as no one's been w watching two hundred and twenty one miles of what was called

what's called primary smart wall are currently under construction. Contracts have been awarded and design is underway for an additional three hundred and seventy miles and another forty four miles of replacement walls under construction, plus one hundred and eighty three miles of secondary wall that provides backup security and

high traffic areas where there's already a primary wall. Yeah, on the first term, Trump's team put up about four hundred or four hundred and fifty miles of that high Ballard style wall, but it was an areas that already had some sort of fencing, crummy, substandard. They were taking down like six foot high centery fence in some areas, or simply a string of barbed wire sort of cow fence in other areas, and they were putting up this real Ballard style wall, but it was quote replacement fencing.

And so that's what allowed the Democrats to claim Trump wasn't really doing anything or fixing anything along the border. You know, two hundred miles of low center fence that anyone could have climbed over, came down and was replaced by a high wall, but unless you were paying attention, Democrats could still claim, well, nothing is really being done. Trump hasn't built a single new mile of border fence, they were always trying to claim, but in fact he was. Well.

Now virtually all of the old, low substandard fencing in the high traffic areas has been replaced with real wall and even double wall, and hundreds of miles of completely new wall is stretching off into the distances. Trump will get this done and it will be another lasting and real win for the American people. But will the left wing activists who masquerade as journalists report this to the American people or give Trump his due course? Not, so

they're intentionally ignoring the story. They don't want to report the win because they're propagandists for the Democrat Party and the Democrats themselves, I mean the Democrat office holders. They don't want to draw attention to their myriad failures and to admit the loss for their side on this. So this incredibly positive story is going largely unreported.

even be available for future installation. The Biden regime tried to do whatever they could to buy god end any talk of a wall, only to have then Trump win reelection in twenty twenty four largely on the immigration issue. Actually, after four years of Biden's regime flooding the country with foreigners, and it's now safe to say that by the time Donald Trump leaves office, any needed border wall would be completed and we the people will have won on that issue.

Seventy to eighty percent of Americans have said forever that they want closed and controlled borders, and something like sixty five percent of Americans in twenty twenty two, in the midst of Biden's flood of illegals, supported the physical southern border wall. Yes, build a wall. Trump will absolutely make that happen in his second term. Fantastic, And no, that doesn't mean that the next Democrat president can't just throw open the gates at the border cross and let any

flood of illegals in any way. But it does mean that under any new pro illegal president, at least we won't have thousands and thousands of illegals crossing into the country along remote parts of the border and then just melting into the interior. It does mean that our national security agencies will have a far better handle on controlling

cartel operations moving forward. And it also does mean that any future president who wants to flood this country with foreigners and wants open borders will have to be honest about it and admit it. They will because the notion that this is just happening on its own will no longer be a valid one. Right, Any future president who wants to swamp the country with illegals will have to take intentional and overt steps to make it happen. You

know what I mean. That president will have to order that the gates along the southern border should be opened and agents should be made to stand back and let the illegals flow in, or that new president will have to take very intentional steps to try to recreate Joe Biden's open borders app and set up a system in which foreigners can fly into this nation's airports directly and then be allowed to flood into the interior illegally. Folks.

The border wall doesn't solve all the country's immigration problems, not by a long shot, but it does solve some of them, and it takes away the biggest way that illegals have been flowing into this country for the last two hundred years or more, simply walking across the US Mexican border. Moreover, the Biden era showed the nation the danger of a reckless and a moral border policy, meaning that the next president who wants to champion open borders

lawlessness isn't as likely to find supporters for it. Another significant win that the President and the Republicans are wrapping up on this week also isn't getting the attention it deserves.

In its mass deportation efforts. Well, Republicans hold both Houses of Congress, and so when they can get their members to cooperate, there's nothing Chuck Schumer or Hakim Jeffreys can do to stop them. And so the Democrats, who've been siding with the illegal aliens and have been working against the American people for years now on this question of

immigration enforcement, have just suffered another major loss. The continued financing of these government operations has just been finalized through twenty twenty nine, meaning the robust deportation effort's going to continue at least so long as Donald Trump is in office. That's why the passage of this reconciliation bill to fund

ICE and Border Patrol is so important. The Republicans in Congress just ensured that President Trump and his team have the money that they need to keep our borders secure and to continue the mass deportations right through the end of Trump's term. Big win. Moreover, as a former director of ICE noted, just the argument over this reconciliation bill

exposed where today's Democrats stand on borders and immigration. He says, quote, Democrats gave up the game on this thing with their list of demands, because when there were situations where the Republicans were willing to concede or give them some of the things they wanted, they rejected that in favor of just shutting down the agency. He says, Democrats don't care about ICE and ICE operations. They just want to stop ICE from doing what they're required to do, which is

to port illegal aliens. Yeah, that's a good point, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats could have engaged in responsible or reasonable arguments to put limits on ICE operations, etc. They could have argued for more reasonable things. Instead, they went all in on the open borders rhetoric and spent months insisting ICE agents where racist thugs and that agency should

be shut down. In fact, there was a great moment on Capitol Hill last week that the vast majority of Americans will never hear about Trump's new Homeland Security Director, Mark Wayne Mullen was appearing before a Senate panel, and just as they settled in to get the hearing started, Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut called ICE quote unconstitutional. He claimed that every day ICE agents are breaking the law and wasting billions of tax dollars. He said they're

making up the laws as they go. Well, none of that's true, of course, and having those sorts of intentional lines and misrepresentations coming out of an elected senator's mouth is really unconstable. So Secretary Mullen put his notes aside and just blasted the senator for four minutes straight. I have a few highlights here that every voting American should hear, and you should know that I edited some of this together from a larger chunk of audio from that Senate hearing.

the constitution. For you to throw my two hundred and seventy five thousand employees underneath DHS and with a broad stroke like that is reckless and irresponsible in your part. We're doing the job that Congress gave us the authority to do, and our men and women out there every single day is enforcing laws. If you don't like the laws, you can change them. We're not picking and choosing what's the laws we enforce. We're simply enforcing the law, period,

full stop. When you start looking at assaults on our officers, they're up by thirteen hundred percent. Sinna Murphy, is that what you want? I don't think it is. I really don't. But I understand the political theater. I understand wanting to get sound bites. And that was obvious because the whole time he was given your testimony, he wasn't looking at me. He's looking at a camera.

We look at it as a whole. But your reckless tone is getting people hurt and it's got to stop.

and the country about what the process is. If you don't like the laws of this nation, you need to go through the legislative process and change them. It gets back to how Schumer and Murphy and these Democrats in the US House and Senate have been comporting themselves over the last year or so on this issue. Ever since Trump ordered our ICE agents to start enforcing the nation's immigration laws again, the Democrats have been insisting to crack

down is wrong or illegal. They're insisting that it's the agents who are engaging in lawless business, insisting this is unconstitutional, thuggery, etc. They've been great at bomb throwing and rhetorical thuggery, but haven't made a single honest move to try to change the law or negotiate a less aggressive process with the president. Nothing. It's just been a bunch of hollow whining and constant attempts to put targets on the backs of our ice agents.

Mullin was right to say, basically, all lawmakers like Chris Murphy have done is in danger the lives of those who the federal government has hired to enforce our laws. You just heard Mullen say it. He said, when you throw out reckless terms and you start referring to our agents as being dangerous, unconstitutional, and lawless, that's why our agent's death threats are up by eight thousand percent, he said,

your political theater, that's what it causes. When you start looking at assaults on our officers, they're up by thirteen hundred percent. I've been a rather cynical and skeptical person for my entire life, which is what made me such a good reporter and show host. You question everything, be a critical thinker. But even so, I never would have predicted that the members of one of our two major political parties in America would be calling for open borders

and lawlessness, no prisons. They'd be supporting the spread of decay and chaos in this country. But that's what today's Democrat lawmakers and their activists are doing seemingly every day now in this country. Chris Murphy is going to accuse Ice agents of lawlessness. Come on, I mean, what a stooge. But back to my original point of how the Democrats and their activists left have simply lost on this issue

of border enforcement and mass deportations. I'd note that even the protests going on outside of that New Jersey ICE facility that the Left has been trying to get so much media attention to, even that has been mostly a regional story. Maybe they're getting big coverage in New Jersey and New York and their media outlets, but nationally, yeah, there's been some coverage, but not anything that's really grabbing the attention of the American people or getting voters excited.

It's almost as if the American people finally realize that all this hysteria about Ice and mistreatment of illegals is ginned up, because it is, and it has been from the very beginning the vast majority of the American people know that our government and its agents aren't going to mistreat fellow human beings. These illegals aren't being deprived of

food and water or mistreated physically. We all know that, if anything, our government agencies are going to be overly kind and overly generous and deferential to the people who we have in government custody. This isn't county lock up in a Southern sheriff's jail cell back in nineteen thirty.

This is people caught in this country illegally in twenty twenty six, who will be treated extremely well, far better than necessary, until they're deposited back in their country of origin or until a bleeding heart US judge says they can stay. And so by now, after more than a decade of the leftist hysteria and false accusations, when it comes to isis treatment of illegals, I don't think it

even registers with the American people. The leftists can organize protests, and they can fight and bite ICE agents if they want to, but their activities aren't moving the American people in any way anymore. I was going to say they aren't moving people in any significant way. But I think

we're even beyond that. These leftists make themselves look like lunatics with these riots and protests, and not only are they not winning the American people over to their cause, I don't think they're moving the American people at all anymore. This has been going on so long. I think that the vast majority of the American people are just rolling their eyes at it. Nearly all of us are rooting for the Ice, agents of anything. We know who's really

keeping the peace and protecting our communities. And we're happy to finally see many of our country's laws being enforced again, especially our immigration laws, and especially after decades and decades of non enforcement of those immigration laws. Last podcast, we talked briefly about the nation's crime rates being down. Researcher John Lott wanted to link it to the number of people who now carry concealed in America, and I dismissed that completely, given that nearly the same number of people

carried for protection during the Biden era. Right, it's not like Trump got back into office and suddenly one third of the country was arming themselves for a protection. Now, the reason overall crime is down is because some voters in our larger cities finally got fed up enough to demand better and vote out the Week on Crime Soros funded das that had been running their state DA's offices

and refusing to punish criminals. Also, it's because after years of Joe Biden era apathy in general lawlessness, President Trump and his administration did get back into office and made the lowering crime a priority. In general, the level of lawlessness or enforcement of the laws depends on local leadership. The question is are your mayor police chief and or sheriff interested in finding and prosecuting criminals or not? Are your local leaders making a safe community a priority or not?

Because in general it's the cops and the judges at the local and the county levels that keep the peace or create a safe community. The federal government does have law enforcement agencies and duties, obviously, but they're geared toward national security or prosecuting federal crimes. That's why any given change of presidential administration doesn't normally have much of an impact on local crime rates. But as is the case

with just about everything else, Donald Trump is different. He ran for a second term on lowering the nations out of control murder and crime and so far, just fourteen months into that second term, we're genuinely seeing that's the case. Community to community, red state or blue state, crime is lower. That's because Donald Trump and his team came in with a plan to do whatever they could at the federal

level to reduce crime more locally. Since Washington d C is run by the Feds, it meant that Trump could literally take over the street enforcement of Washington d C. And he did with the National Guard. He was the National Guard in a few other select cities where mayors asked for help. But beyond that, there was a far more serious and organized effort by Trump and his Department of Justice to get federal agents into the high crime areas and offer to help out the locals where they could.

One major factor is, yeah, our ICE agents have literally taken tens of thousands of criminal illegals and gang members off of the streets of America and deported them. The Left would never admit it, but this has been a significant help to local law enforcement. Next week, the Department of Homeland Security said that they are still ICE is still running into and going after criminal illegals. They're still

collecting murderers, rapists, child molesters, burglars and deporting them. Sadly, the number of foreign thugs and scumbags that Obama and Biden's open borders allowed into this country was massive and immeasurable, and so far, even a year into President Trump's efforts to round up the worst of the worst, ICE is still routinely running into them and going out of their way to find them. But there's no doubt that ICE's activities have helped lower crime across the country and especially

in the larger cities. Also, though, listen to Cash Patel, Trump's FBI director. He's telling Fox News that just since he and Trump took over and reprioritized at the FBI, they've arrested nearly thirty five hundred child predators and traffickers.

the worst of the worst. And those stats, while those stats are meaningful, and those stats are truly historic, just think about the seventy two hundred kids that we found that got to go home. Just think about the thirty four hundred. Actually, when you take the numbers for this year, we're at thirty four hundred child predators and traffickers arrested. That's up ninety nine percent from the best year Biden

ever had. That means kids are being protected at levels that are simply on heard of, and that means this FBI.

at the top of the primary results. Remember this, for a period of time, two Republican candidates were outpolling the Democrat ones in the governor's race out there, and the way their jungle primary works is everyone runs on the same ballot without party affiliation, and whichever candidates end up being numbers one in two, they then have a runoff

in the general election. Well, when a reporter asked scummy Governor Gavin Newsom what it would mean if two Republicans ended up in the general election runoff, his response was basically, we have ways of ensuring that won't happen. He basically admitted that the Democrats, who've had an iron grip on California state government for decades, can manipulate the system and ignore the will of the voting public if they need to, but a Democrat will end up in control of the

governor's chair. That was basically what Newsom was saying, wink wink, not non, Well, I give you the California vote counting system. What of farce?

That's what I would say. The answer is to that question, the Democrats want to insist, no, no, no, it's because California receives so many mail in ballots, and because those mail in ballots are considered valid for a week after the election date. So what sort of crummy system is this? In short, it's one that is designed by cheaters so

they can cheat, isn't it. I don't see any way that you can claim this is an honest system or the fairest way to run an election if you're an honest person, And that leaves the truth Democrats who run the system want a system that they can manipulate and cheat. Meghan Kelly had Sean Davis of The Federalist on her podcast and he explained it perfectly. No one would create a system like this if they wanted people to have faith in the results.

vote drop box where it doesn't get postmarked. You just put your vote in there and they'll come and collect your votes and then they add them all together and then ah, you have all the votes you need. And what I find fascinating about this system is that in the first one, where you vote in person, we know when that vote was made when you put it in the mail. We know when it got put in the

mail because it gets postmarked. But there's this magical new third category of votes that don't really have a date. And California law, by the way, says if a ballot doesn't have a legible postmark, as long as you know they have a good faith reason to believe that it

was cast in time, they have to count it. And so in this magical new California system, which is like totally safe and secure and not at all like designed to be rigged, you get counts on election night, so that tells you, hey, this is how much votes this guy has. And then we have the system where there's no way to date a ballot and they're going to collect ballots for weeks and we're supposed to believe that that's somehow a credible, secure, like normal way to do elections.

There is only one reason to design an election in this way, and is to control the outcome. Like I'm sorry if that makes people mad to hear, but nobody would create a system like this if they wanted people to have faith in results. They created a system like this because they wanted to be able to engineer results.

You could have all sorts of people collecting unused ballots, filling them out the way they want the election to go, and then shoving dozens of them, hundreds of them at a time, into those ballot drop boxes. Then the process to count those ballots goes on for weeks in secretive locations with only occasional announcements of who's leading now or how many votes they have. Every poll before this primary day showed a Republican candidate named Steve Hilton leading the

race for governor. But after a week of behind the scenes counting, Wow, somehow, now Steve Hilton is running third in the election results.

to expect the results by the next day at the latest. Honestly, there's no reason, none, that we in America can't hold elections and have the results of those elections by the end of that day or the day after, depending on how many ballots were cast, etc. Even a presidential race in this country with about one hundred and fifty million people voting at a time, should be able to be concluded within twenty four hours, barring any extreme circumstance or

close vote. But certainly any state wide race should be tallied with we the people knowing the results of it within hours. And so any state that's doing it like California is doing it, is doing it wrong and or is intentionally cheating.

extremely easy. California's voters deserve better, and given how much California's policies influence the rest of the nation and influence the rest of US America's voters deserve better than to have states running intentionally effed up elections like this. I'd strongly suggest that California's sloppy system affects US all based on how influential the thirty million people in that state

and their radical nutty leaders affect national policy. The editors at Issues and Insights call this a laughably inept system of voting that California has, and they're right. Quote two full days after the polls closed, they say, just sixty percent of voters for governor in less than two thirds of the votes for La mayor were counted As a result. None of the Republicans running for governor or mayor even knows if he's going to qualify for the general election November.

Ballots are mailed to every eligible voter, twenty three million of them, and the state has permissive rules for returning them. Ballots will be counted if they're postmarked by election day and they arrive at an election office within seven days. These editors say, mailing out twenty three million ballots throws the door wide open to fraud. How many of those ballots get sent to the wrong address, to people who've died,

to people who've left the state? Yeah, and I would add how many of those ballots are then re used by someone else cheating the system, putting them in a dropbox as I suggested? These editors say, Judicial Watch claims that there are more than eight hundred thousand people on the CALIFORNI your voter registration roles who shouldn't be there yet, mail and ballots go out to each and every one

of them. Where do those ballots end up? They say? Worse, California also allows ballot harvesting, which lets third parties deliver a limitless number of mail in ballots another open invitation to fraud, and California voters are supposed to believe that.

Ballot counters then meticulously study every mail in ballot that arrives days after the election to make sure signatures match those on file, the postmarks are correct, etc. They ask why would Republicans an a state dominated by far left Democrats trust this system, especially when they watch their leads slowly evaporate as these late arriving ballots are counted by people who have a vested interest in keeping Republicans out

of office. These editors conclude, even if the system isn't rife with fraud, California voters deserve better than this, because the appearance of fraud is just as bad as actual existence of fraud. I agree with that completely, as ninety five percent of Americans probably would. There is nothing related to this California system that it seems reasonable, or rational or fair. Oh, and I wanted to be sure to

get to this next item too, at least briefly. We're now moving into the middle of June, and that means important Supreme Court decisions are going to start dropping like crazy. And let's hope that these drive the left crazy. The Court always closes out at spring term by releasing decisions through the end of June, and there are about a dozen important decisions to be handed down here over the next two or three weeks. Several of them will be

related to President Trump's illegal immigration crackdown. One will decide if he can roll back the so called humanitarian protection programs that past presidents have put into place. This is like Obama and Biden protecting say the Cubans or the Nicker roguins from deportation and insisting that they shouldn't be forced to return to their home countries due to some strife there. Can Trump end that protection and send them back is the question in front of the Court that'll

be decided. It's known as temporary protected status, and pro illegal advocates and presidents have been abusing that status for generations. Then there's the decision on birthright citizenship. We assume Trump's going to lose on this question, but I'm glad that he and his team are pushing the issue and setting

up the parameters for possible future actions or alterations. Trump and his team argued to the justices that actually, the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow anyone born on US soil citizenship. Trump himself told reporters the expects to lose this, But as I say, the first step in any modification or restriction to the fourteenth Amendment would start with a clear ruling on what it actually says and what it doesn't say. Another case to be decided deals with the president's authority

to fire federal officials and appointees. Trump fired and replaced a number of people at so called independent agencies, and the lefties took him to court over it. That question should be answered too, And in this instance, I'm thinking the justices will probably side with Trump because someone atop one of our three branches of government needs to have

the ultimate authority on people like this, don't they. Our constitution would suggest it's either the executive or a vote of Congress that would be able to replace this head of Independent Commission. Because the way our system is set up, any appointee would need to be answerable to someone, wouldn't they. It'll be interesting to see what the justices say on that. Oh and we were just talking about California's sloppy voting system, which allows for late ballots to be counted. A ruling

on a Mississippi case is expected. The RNC actually sued the state of Mississippi for counting ballots that came in up to a week late. If the Supreme Court says, hey, election day is the election deadline, as many as thirty states would have to change their election laws and count only the mail in ballots that were in their possession at the end of election day. I'm all in favor

of that change. Again, it simply reduces the chances of cheating, but it also reinforces the important notion that we have an election day and not some sort of election week or election season. It's important the American people know the results of any given election and know it quickly. Also, the Court is due to rule on a case related to whether transgenders can participate in women's and girls' sports.

Any ruling there is bound to lay the groundwork for I'm sure another round of court cases related to transgender

bathroom and locker room usage. So we have a very consequential few weeks coming here as it relates to the Supreme Court, and given that we have a genuine constitutionally minded court, the assumption is that a number of these decisions are going to infuriate today's Democrats and their activist left, resulting in another round of calls for court packing and left wing cheating in order to try to regain ideological control of the Court for the left. As it is.

For weeks now, scummy Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Hakim Jeffreys, and Jamie Raskin have been making noise about stealing back liberal control while pretending that they would be doing it out of fairness or for the good of the country. Both Jeffries and Schumer have been saying everything is on the table if Democrats retake control of the House and the Senate in fall. That's code for past legislation that changes the number of justices on the Court so that

liberals dominate the majority again is just cheating. The thing is, they would need to do that with a Democrat president in the White House, so he or she could appoint all the new liberal justices. Right, if they change the number of justices on the Court and they pass something in twenty twenty seven or twenty eight, it would be

Trump that would be stacking the Court with new members. Right, So this threat isn't as immediate as Schumer, Jeffreys and these Democrats are making it sound, but it is a threat they're making, and have no doubt. Please have zero doubt that the next time the Democrats find themselves fully in charge of Washington, DC, they will do whatever it takes to add members to the Supreme Court so they

can retake control of it. And they will, because forcing socialism onto America doesn't work unless they can a ignore the Constitution and b have a Supreme Court that lets them do it. You are listening to the Jweber podcast. There's something in political circles a term that they use when dealing with a scandal. It's called a catch and kill.

It is, in short, finding a reporter or a news outlet that your campaign is chumming with and intentionally intentionally leaking a scandal on your own candidate so that you

can manage and limit the fallout. You get it as in, we know Graham Platner has a big problem with being an abusive pig with women and cheating on his wife, So let's leak a small, narrow version of a sex scandal to the New York Times so that after a few days of controversy, we can claim that everything else that comes after it related to Platner being a pig

is old news. This allows the accomplice left wing media to claim that, oh, we've already covered that, we already told reporters Platner is a sexist pig, so there's no real reason to keep doting on it or keep reporting on it. Get it. This is the technique of catch and kill. Have an accomplice of years in the media, release the story, and that way you can manage it and manipulate it. The reporter or news outlet will just

love to have the exclusive right. They'll willingly go along with your spin and your parameters, etc. They'll allow you to massage and control the message and the story because they're getting the exclusive, and their help allows you to get out the scandal as framed by your team and very helpfully allows you another accomplished news outlets to ignore the follow up stories that come as a result. Get it.

If the story is Graham Platner abuses women, well, then the second, the fifth, and the tenth woman who steps forward to tell her story of abuse can be dismissed as yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone already knows Platner has that reputation. Let's move on. This is what The New York Times is being accused of doing when it comes to Graham Platner's history with women, and the evidence is

stacking up that this is in fact the case. Platner is, of course, the racist, sexist monster who's running for the US Senate in Maine against Susan Collins. And by the way, today is primary election Damy. Later today we should learn whether this nightmare of a human being, much less nightmare of a candidate, is going to officially be the Democrat

Party's nominee for this Senate seat in Maine. And given that nearly every big name Democrat has continued to defend the indefensible nature of Plattner's campaign, the assumption is that, yeah, he's going to win today. The current governor of Maine, At Mills, was also going to run for the seat,

but she suspended her campaign weeks ago. Well, her name is still on the ballot, and so there's at least a chance that Maine's Democrat voters will do the right thing and at the very least shift their support over to Mills check the box for her instead today, But it's not likely to turn out that way. After watching politics and election days for forty years, I can tell you that last minute schemes like that never work, so

I'll be shocked if it does today. But several days into this latest scandal related to Platner's abuse of women, there is no doubt, no doubt that The New York Times didn't come across this story. Honestly, they didn't drop a bombshell here that they themselves discovered and decided to report on. It's clear that the Times reporter and editors were instead participating in one of these catch and kill schemes.

That's evident because now we know the woman that the Times chose to make the focus of their story is saying that they left out the most outrageous and damaging parts of her story. The Times generically recounted the stories of three women who have stepped up to say that Platner is a disgusting pig who victimizes women, in cheats on his wife, etc. But they mostly focused on one woman because she now claims she didn't want her name to be known, didn't want to go public in any

major way. In fact, she says she was reluctant to even talk to The New York Times, but she did because the reporter suite talked her into telling her story to help other women, and then the newspaper refused to tell the real story she discovered. The most significant and damaging parts of her story were simply left out of the article when it came out. Gee, it's almost as if the New York Times editors were trying to minimize

the damage to Graham Platner. Huh see. For days and weeks before The New York Times ran this story, rumors had been circulating around the other major newsrooms that another Platiner scandal was coming of this sort. Democrat operatives were talking about this amongst themselves and even on social media. I mean, that's a good indication that this was all pre planned, or at the very least, some news outlet was going to run some sort of negative story. So this was a nudge to the New York Times to

break the story for the Platiner campaign. They could break it and then manage it on their own terms. Both sides of that equation would have known the accusations were legitimate. Two right. I mean, Platner himself hasn't denied any of the allegations related to him engaging in extramarital sexting or

being a pig to women. He hasn't denied that he posted racist and pro Nazi posts on social media in the past, etc. It's all evident and provable, So both sides of this equation would have known the accusations were true, and it looks more and more like the two sides then colluded to try to get the scandal out there in the least damaging way possible for the left. They could then pretend from here on out, this has already been reported, this has been examined. This is old news.

So yet another woman saying he's a pig. Big whoop, it's not newsworthy. This is what the New York Times clearly engaged in along with the Platiner campaign, because the credible investigations since seemed to prove. The New York Times had at least three women who were ready to level sexual assault allegations against Platner, not just that he talked like a pig or he treated them poorly, that he

actually assaulted or raped them. But those accusations somehow didn't make it to print, and the story that did pulled the worst of its punches. Come on, this isn't the New York Times and the left wing media breaking a story. It's them concocting a cover up. The New York Times reporter and the editors clearly engaged in a propagandist's cover up. Here. Lindsey Feifeld is the woman who the story was based on, and she now says, it's evident to me that I

was being set up all along the entire time. She says, they never really wanted to tell my story or hear the truth. That's obvious now in retrospect. Fifield says that the New York Times violated the trust of Platner's victims and shattered the trust that she placed in them with the most vulnerable story of her life. That is what they did, yes, all to help the Democrats somehow get a man who has clearly been revealed to be a piece of human garbage elected to the US Senate. It's shameful.

And if anyone in the audience still has ended question as to whether the folks at the New York Times are honest journalists. If you have any question as to whether the people in that newsroom are doing honest and fair journalism, I think you have your answer now. No. And they aren't even trying to. These are far left propagandists masquerading as journalists, and any way they can help

the left wing cause, they will. Heck, the people atop the New York Times are now basically revictimizing the survivors of domestic abuse in order to help the left retake control of Congress. That's pathetic. They are deliberately withholding more explosive stories and accusations of sexual assault against Graham Platner as a way to help out the Democrat party. That's shameful.

And folks, eight years after every Democrat in Congress and in all of Washington, d c. And on both coasts, eight years after they railed against Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice based on false stories about his youth, they were certain those stories just as qualified him, and they were made up. And only a few years after all of these same Democrats ran around looking for me two scalps to take to have nearly every single one

of them. Now those same Democrats endorsing and defending Graham Platner and excusing away the very real scandals being leveled against him. It's just too much. If this was a cartoon, this would be when my head explodes. For decades, some of us on the right have been insisting that this era's Democrats are nothing but nasty, immoral, gameplaying hypocrites. And here they are again proving us right, and in spectacular fashion.

After all, if they're still defending and protecting Graham Platner, after all that has come out about him, and after all that we know to be true, now, how are they anything other than the scummiest hypocrites and the most terrible people in leadership roles in America? How can Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders, or Chuck Schumer or ro Kanna or any of them who continue to endorse and defend

Graham Platner be taken seriously? Ever? Again, if I was a liberal or a woman, or I voted Democrat, I would be asking myself and my friends that question constantly. This week, Liz Warren and AOC were among the Democrats who insisted that you either believe the female accusers, or you're protecting abusers and rapists. Now they're doing exactly that, And I would stress now they are doing exactly that, even though there have been clear opportunities for them to

bail on Graham Platner. In fact, Warren AOC all of them would have more credibility if they simply admitted that, Okay, look the new information that has come out on Graham Platner as a deal breaker, I can no longer support this man. I withdraw my endorsement. If they did that, they'd actually have more credibility with the voters and with

the country at large. Nope, Today's Democrats are all about doing anything to win, anything to win, anything to win, that includes supporting a Nazi supporting woman abusing socialist, racist extremist. As one pundit put it on x that Senator Schumer prefers a Nazi sympathizer, racist, com munist, and misogynist like Graham Platner over all well respected senator who votes like a centrist Democrat, tells you how far left the Democrat

Party has moved. Yep. This is, after all, the race for Susan Collins's seat, and she's the most moderate and politically reasonable member of today's Senate. So it's not even like these Democrats are supporting Platner because his opponent is an even bigger monster. No, no, no, monsters don't get

much bigger than Graham Platner. They're supporting him against the Republican and the Senate who sides with Donald Trump the least and who causes the most amount of heartburn and disappointment for her own leadership team.