In this episode of the California Underground Podcast, hosts Phil and Camille discuss various topics related to California politics, including Gavin Newsom's recent State of the State speech, the implications of new immigration laws, and Kamala Harris's recent book. They fact-check Newsom's claims, analyze the political landscape regarding diversity and representation, and critique the effectiveness of new legislation aimed at federal law enforcement. The conversation also touches on the political ambitions of both Newsom and Harris, highlighting the challenges they face in their respective roles.
Are you a Californian who feels isolated and alone in your political views in a deep blue state? Feel like you can’t talk about insane taxes, an overbearing government, and radical social experiments without getting a side eye? Then join us on the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast on all things California politics.
Original air date 9.23.25
*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.*
Check out our full site for more information about the show at www.californiaunderground.live
Join our Discord server https://discord.gg/Tzp8d5xw
Check out our sponsor for this episode, StopBox, by going to www.stopbox.com/californiaunderground to get 10% off your order
Follow California Underground on Social Media
Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground
X: https://twitter.com/CAUndergound
Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@californiaunderground?_t=8o6HWHcJ1CM&_r=1
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA
Read about our Privacy Policy: https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/privacy-policy/
00:00:00
California tries to pass a bill that would unmask ICE.
00:00:03
We're going to Fact Check Gavin's pre recorded 2 minute
00:00:07
long state of the state speech. And Kamal is back.
00:00:10
And this time she's trying to defend why she wasn't woke
00:00:13
enough to choose good old Pete. Buddha judges her VP, all that.
00:00:17
I'm more coming up on this episode of the California
00:00:19
Underground podcast starting right now.
00:00:37
What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning to another
00:00:39
episode of the California Underground podcast.
00:00:41
I'm your host Phil, the most trusted podcast for all things
00:00:44
California politics. We got a whole show tonight,
00:00:47
including California trying to have some law or some effect on
00:00:52
federal law enforcement. We'll talk about whether that
00:00:55
actually makes sense or whether it actually goes into effect.
00:00:57
Fact checking Newsome state of the state speech and Kamala is
00:01:01
back ring and talk about that all as well.
00:01:04
But first, if you haven't already, make sure you
00:01:05
subscribe, like share, view, review, follow all that stuff
00:01:09
helps with the algorithm. And as always with me, my trusty
00:01:12
Co host, the best, the fastest researcher in the West.
00:01:14
Camille. How are you doing, Camille?
00:01:17
I'm good, thank you. How are you?
00:01:19
I am good. We have a lot to get to tonight.
00:01:24
Three stories involving Newsome State of the state, which we had
00:01:28
been looking forward to for a while now because, well, he
00:01:34
hadn't done 1. And when was the last?
00:01:37
I can't even remember the last time he actually did one.
00:01:41
Do you remember the last time Gavin Newsom?
00:01:44
He did one last year but it was also pre recorded.
00:01:47
So he's a big fan of the pre recorded ones.
00:01:51
Because, well, I guess we're going to get into why, but we
00:01:54
all know that there's really, if he gets up in public and says it
00:01:58
in front of everybody, they're going to, you know, probably
00:02:00
question him like, hey, let's, let's talk about the truth about
00:02:03
what's happening in California. I can't even remember the last
00:02:07
one he did in person because OK, so if we go back last year was
00:02:12
pre recorded. He hadn't done that.
00:02:14
He hadn't done it live. Did he do it in person after
00:02:18
COVID? I can't even remember like when
00:02:20
they came out of COVID or we came out of covet.
00:02:23
I don't think so, like 22 or something maybe.
00:02:26
But I I'm actually blanking on the last time he stood in front
00:02:32
of. So if you don't know, state of
00:02:33
the State is like the State of the Union where the governor
00:02:37
gets up and he gets in front of the legislature, just like the
00:02:39
president gets in front of a joint, you know, session of the
00:02:44
Senate and the Congress or Senate in the House of
00:02:46
Representatives here, it's the Assembly in the Senate.
00:02:49
And he gives a state of the state.
00:02:50
He says, here's what's going on. Here's my state of the state.
00:02:53
I'm here proud to tell you all about it.
00:02:56
It wasn't always this way. Like this wasn't sort of new
00:02:59
phenomenon in like the last, I guess you could say century.
00:03:03
Mostly they would send a letter like the governor and the
00:03:05
president would send a letter. It wasn't always a state of the
00:03:08
Union or state of the State speech, but I can't remember the
00:03:13
last time that Gavin actually stood in front of the
00:03:15
legislature. And you know, good friend of the
00:03:17
show James Gallagher, we're going to get to he had a
00:03:19
rebuttal video about that. He's going to point that out.
00:03:23
But let's go ahead and watch this so everyone can buckle up.
00:03:30
Someone said I get hives with the thought sight or sound
00:03:32
event. Well, I apologize.
00:03:34
You're going to have to watch him for a full 2 minutes right
00:03:37
here. So I'm I do apologize.
00:03:39
It's not very long. It's a pre recorded video.
00:03:43
If there's anything could be that you see that you want to
00:03:45
stop at, you know we're going to be fact checking this short
00:03:48
little video and talk about afterwards and listen to James
00:03:51
Gallagher. But if there's anything you want
00:03:54
me to stop at and for the people in the chat, make sure you put
00:03:57
your comments and questions as well as we do watch them
00:04:00
throughout the show and see you guys chatting.
00:04:03
So let's check this out. Today, California celebrates its
00:04:10
175th anniversary as a member of the Union. 175 years of this
00:04:16
uniquely diverse and gifted state, a state that celebrates
00:04:20
freedom of thought, of innovation.
00:04:22
We drawn pioneers in thought, pioneers in industry, oddballs
00:04:27
and intellectuals, those who were given the capital and the
00:04:30
freedom to create new worlds out of nothing but imagination.
00:04:34
For the state that built Hollywood of the most
00:04:36
significant cultural force of the 20th century and again,
00:04:40
decades later, transformed the world with the Internet and
00:04:43
revolutionary technological advances, we have established
00:04:47
ourselves as giants. Giants in industry and
00:04:49
manufacturing, Forestry, farming, science, tech.
00:04:53
Farming was an interesting one because we had Kelly Cavallo and
00:04:59
Tate Bennett on a couple weeks ago.
00:05:02
They certainly aren't helping the farmers.
00:05:05
They're certainly trying to do their best to kill as much
00:05:07
agriculture as possible. Also, he said something about
00:05:10
there was freedom of thought in California, even though this is
00:05:15
the same state that is now trying to like, ban or punish
00:05:20
social media companies for having wrong think on their
00:05:23
platforms or like, knowingly, like there's a bill.
00:05:27
We're not going to get into it tonight, but someone on our team
00:05:30
alerted us of it and was like, are you serious?
00:05:32
Like they're trying to find social media.
00:05:34
So you can't think you're the right thoughts or the wrong
00:05:37
thoughts on social media because the social media companies will
00:05:40
get fined like $500. Yeah, I don't think it's freedom
00:05:46
of thought, that's for sure. You can't think the way you want
00:05:48
in California. As long as you think Gavin's
00:05:50
way, then it's absolutely fine. But otherwise.
00:05:53
Well, just don't think out loud. No, no, in fact, actually, I'm
00:05:58
sure this show would probably not be.
00:06:01
This is probably wrong thing. In Gavin Newsom's world, we're
00:06:03
not allowed to talk about this stuff.
00:06:05
Technology. Artificial intelligence in
00:06:08
biotech, quantum computing and education, all while reaffirming
00:06:13
our role as defenders of our values.
00:06:16
Today, as I present the State of the State letter to the
00:06:19
California Legislature, admittedly, we are in darker
00:06:23
times. Our country increasingly is at a
00:06:26
crossroads with the federal administration that threatens
00:06:28
the very foundation of our democracy.
00:06:31
But there's hope. There's reason to be optimistic
00:06:33
on this anniversary. So many people in California
00:06:36
are. The foundation of our democracy.
00:06:41
And this is the same guy who is pushing Prop 50 that will take
00:06:47
away the voice and disenfranchise voters of their
00:06:50
representatives because he wants to protect democracy.
00:06:56
Just so we're all clear, his plan to stop disenfranchisement
00:07:01
of the voters in Texas, even though Texas was ordered by
00:07:06
courts to do what they had to do, he is going to
00:07:09
disenfranchise Californians. I saw an article that, gosh,
00:07:13
what was it? It's Moac County or Mok Mok
00:07:17
County, I don't know if you saw this.
00:07:19
They're super, super red. Like they're a state of, I call
00:07:22
them a state of Jefferson kind of county, like way up there.
00:07:25
N like we're talking like rodeos, Cowboys, ranchers, stuff
00:07:30
like that. Real like salt to the earth
00:07:32
people. And they've been red and they
00:07:34
voted for Trump in their county by like over 20 points.
00:07:38
They are now being merged partly with like Mendocino County.
00:07:46
So like their district went from super solidly red to leans blue
00:07:54
like overnight because of this Prop 50 like proposal.
00:07:58
So when we talk about democracy, Newsome, I can tell you, you
00:08:04
don't really believe in that. You believe in like
00:08:06
disenfranchising to get more Democrats in office.
00:08:09
And this whole farce about democracy is, is just laughable,
00:08:14
especially when it comes to Prop 50.
00:08:18
So somebody say, what do I do? We'll get to your comments in a
00:08:22
little bit. So we're just going to keep
00:08:24
watching this video. Asserting their moral authority
00:08:26
and raising their voices to stand up for the ideals this
00:08:30
country was built on. Our state was built on.
00:08:32
That's California. A state that embraces the new,
00:08:35
the unexpected, that dreams big and does even bigger.
00:08:39
A state that welcomed. OK, I put this in the show
00:08:42
notes. Maybe only baseball fans like
00:08:45
me. I'm sorry if you're listening to
00:08:46
this on audio only baseball fans and nerds like myself caught
00:08:51
what he just showed and that is a complete umm falsehood is he
00:08:57
had Jackie Robinson sliding into second.
00:09:01
Jackie Robinson who is a yes, famous baseball historic figure.
00:09:04
He was the first black man to play in baseball.
00:09:08
It was integration. It was a whole thing.
00:09:11
Jackie Robinson never played professional baseball in
00:09:15
California. He played for the Brooklyn
00:09:19
Dodgers, and then he retired before they became the Los
00:09:24
Angeles Dodgers. So I don't know who did the
00:09:27
video for Gavin Newsom, but he can't even get his, like,
00:09:30
historical baseball players right because Jackie Robinson
00:09:33
never played in California. He never played for the Los
00:09:35
Angeles Dodgers. So I just want to point that
00:09:38
out. Everyone here in California.
00:09:43
We celebrate our differences, what makes each person and each
00:09:46
community unique, but we unite around the values that bind us
00:09:51
together. We learn from our history,
00:09:54
facing the shameful, sometimes painful parts of our past to do
00:09:58
better today. We're successful not in spite of
00:10:01
who we are or what we believe in, but because of it.
00:10:04
We don't shy away from the truth or from a challenge.
00:10:07
We grow from it. We're the most diverse state in
00:10:11
the most diverse democracy in the world.
00:10:13
Our diversity of thought in it. They should spare the true
00:10:16
spirit of the West is. Diversity of thought, There it
00:10:19
is again. Made us the 4th largest economy
00:10:23
in the world by design and intention.
00:10:26
California will endure for another. 4th largest economy But
00:10:31
if you factor in purchasing power, meaning how much can
00:10:34
people actually afford in this 4th largest economy, we actually
00:10:38
tumble all the way down to 11th, right above Italy and Japan.
00:10:41
A. 175 years and beyond, there's no doubt about it.
00:10:46
We'll be brighter and more prosperous than ever because of
00:10:50
that indelible, intrepid Golden State spirit.
00:10:53
Happy 175th California. So diversity is very celebrated
00:11:00
by Gavin Newsom. However, that does not include
00:11:04
being in a different political party other than Democrat.
00:11:07
We celebrate you if you are a different race, if you are a
00:11:11
different sexual identity. But the second that you say that
00:11:15
you are right leading, then we actually want to silence your
00:11:18
voice. We want to silence your vote and
00:11:21
we want to make sure that you have no representation.
00:11:23
And we don't accept that kind of diversity here.
00:11:28
Yeah, it's it's diversity on his side.
00:11:30
So he likes to point out it's like diversity of thought and
00:11:33
diversity on his side because, you know, it's all about
00:11:36
checking the different boxes of identity politics.
00:11:39
But when it comes to actual diversity of thought, I don't
00:11:41
think he's talking about like if you're MAGA, if you voted for
00:11:46
Trump, I don't think they're talking about that.
00:11:48
Or if you're anywhere, you know, right of center, I don't think
00:11:50
he's talking about that type of diversity.
00:11:53
And he mentioned twice, he said diversity of thought in
00:11:56
California. I certainly don't get the
00:11:59
feeling that there's a huge amount of diversity of thought
00:12:01
in California. Now, I actually believe there's
00:12:03
a lot of people who do disagree with Gavin Newsom.
00:12:06
We wouldn't be doing this show if we didn't believe there are
00:12:08
people out there who just didn't buy into the, you know,
00:12:12
Democratic establishment, California Democratic
00:12:14
establishment statist idea. But I, I don't think they like
00:12:20
the idea of there actually being diversity of thought in
00:12:23
California. And, you know, if, if you're not
00:12:26
watching on video, there was, there was interplays of lots of,
00:12:30
you know, stock footage of California and homes and
00:12:33
American flags and stuff like that.
00:12:36
It looked, you know, except for the Jackie Robinson thing.
00:12:38
And then I also had to look up. I wonder if Einstein actually
00:12:40
did come to California. It turned out he did come to
00:12:43
California. He used to come to Pasadena for,
00:12:47
I think it's Caltech. He used to come and do a lot of
00:12:50
work there because a lot of innovation was there.
00:12:54
Now, just like the State of the Union, there is a rebuttal.
00:12:58
So if, you know, there's a Democratic president or
00:13:01
Republican president, they usually pick someone to do a
00:13:04
rebuttal. And this time it was James
00:13:07
Gallagher who did a rebuttal. And I think it actually ended up
00:13:11
being longer than the state of the state.
00:13:13
And not because he went like long winded, but because the
00:13:16
state of the state was literally 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
00:13:19
So let's hear what James Gallagher has to say.
00:13:23
Well, every year the governor is supposed to give a state of the
00:13:25
state speech to the legislature. But we just got word today that
00:13:29
instead of coming before us right up there at that podium
00:13:33
tomorrow, he's going to send the legislature a letter.
00:13:37
I guess he's too afraid to come and actually talk about what the
00:13:39
state of the state actually is like the fact that we're broke,
00:13:43
that we're running huge deficits, but we've just spent
00:13:47
money on US. New special election, $250
00:13:49
million, but he didn't have enough money to fully fund Prop
00:13:53
36 and keep you safe from criminals on our streets.
00:13:57
We have. We have a governor who refuses
00:13:59
to really do anything about homelessness.
00:14:01
The problem continues to get worse.
00:14:03
He announces of another special task force to, you know, clean
00:14:08
up encampments. But we've heard that before.
00:14:10
And yet the encampments are still there.
00:14:13
We see this governor who refuses to really do anything when it
00:14:16
comes to our affordability crisis, reducing any costs.
00:14:20
Have our utility costs gone down?
00:14:22
No. Have our gas prices gone down?
00:14:25
No. All of these things the governor
00:14:27
continues to ignore. Why?
00:14:29
Because he's running for president.
00:14:31
His ambitions are more than his ability to govern this state.
00:14:36
And here is another symbol of that, not showing up to talk
00:14:39
about what is actually going on in the state and how we can
00:14:42
actually come together to get things done.
00:14:44
No. He would much rather proceed,
00:14:46
you know, with this crazy idea to redistrict all of our
00:14:49
districts, take away our representation, and run for
00:14:52
president on a platform of fighting Donald Trump instead of
00:14:55
actually doing the work to govern his state.
00:14:58
Well, quite frankly, we've had enough.
00:15:00
And I think this legislature should finally stand up for
00:15:03
itself and say, no more governor, we actually need to
00:15:06
solve problems and we need someone who's actually going to
00:15:08
work for the best interests of Californians to stop the
00:15:12
insults, stop refusing to show up and actually do the work of
00:15:16
being a governor. Otherwise, get out and stop, you
00:15:19
know, wasting all of our time and the and most importantly,
00:15:22
stop making it worse for everyday Californians in the.
00:15:27
Well, I think said a pretty pretty straightforward.
00:15:32
You don't show up for your job, Gavin.
00:15:35
You don't do the basic things like do a state of the state.
00:15:37
You're too busy running around doing your presidential
00:15:40
campaigns and all that stuff and Prop 50 as part of that.
00:15:45
So I, I'm actually interested. I don't know if there's a good
00:15:48
thing or a bad thing. And the next governor who comes
00:15:50
along, if they actually are going to be obsessed with being
00:15:54
president as much as Gavin Newsom is, maybe they'll
00:15:59
actually do something like maybe they'll actually show up.
00:16:01
Now that could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on who
00:16:03
we get in office. If we get someone like Katie
00:16:06
Porter who actually shows up and wants to do stuff, we may be in
00:16:10
a lot of trouble. But he doesn't seem to want to
00:16:15
actually do the most basic things about to your point, you
00:16:19
said he he doesn't even want to show up and like actually talk
00:16:23
about the state of the state in the legislature.
00:16:25
Because that would mean he'd have to stand there for like at
00:16:28
least 1/2 an hour and actually listen or talk to the
00:16:31
legislature, even though most of them are very familiar or at
00:16:35
least friendly to him. Still showing up in public is
00:16:39
probably not what he wants to do right now.
00:16:41
And considering is this his last, this would be no, this
00:16:45
would be his second to last day of the state.
00:16:48
He has one more. So I wonder if he'll show up and
00:16:51
give some like grand state of the state next year in his final
00:16:54
year, or he's just going to like, mail it in quite literally
00:16:57
and figuratively, like mail in a letter and favorably like just
00:17:00
not caring, just mail it in. What are your thoughts?
00:17:07
I'm sure that next year he's going to, he's probably working
00:17:10
on something now to, you know, pat himself on the back for a
00:17:13
speech. Are we going to read the letter
00:17:17
The state of the state letter? We can.
00:17:20
Did you want me to? Is there anything particular you
00:17:24
wonder? Well, the last paragraph was
00:17:28
really telling, but I have a few notes.
00:17:32
Not a not a big deal, just a few notes.
00:17:36
Let me see if there's anything. I mean, he just didn't even
00:17:44
bring up, you know, the, the actual crisis is that
00:17:47
California, the challenges that we're facing, you know, the
00:17:51
budget deficits, which are huge, the homelessness crisis, which
00:17:54
he hasn't done anything, cost of living cost his forecast.
00:18:00
Oh, so a big thing about the letter, if, if you want to bring
00:18:03
it up at all, is that it's very focused on national issues.
00:18:06
And Trump, he doesn't say Trump, but he brings up the president 5
00:18:10
different times in this short letter.
00:18:14
Like it's maybe what, 810 paragraphs, but yet the
00:18:18
president is brought up five times as he just talks about
00:18:22
all, you know, we're fighting back.
00:18:23
We're fighting back. But it, it was nationally based.
00:18:26
It wasn't California-based and yes, of course national politics
00:18:32
leak into California, but California has its own politics.
00:18:36
Huge, huge. You know, again, we're like the
00:18:39
4th. You know, we even talked about
00:18:40
how we're the 4th largest, largest economy in the world.
00:18:43
Then we need to also address that we also are huge
00:18:46
politically and therefore we're going to have a lot of political
00:18:48
challenges. And you know, there's nothing
00:18:51
wrong with bringing up some good things we've done, but let's
00:18:54
talk about the challenges that we're facing and what needs to
00:18:56
be worked on in the next year or two years, three years.
00:18:59
You know, let's let's talk about that where we've fallen short.
00:19:02
No, he won't do that. I don't know if you want to read
00:19:06
any of it, but the last paragraph really bothered me the
00:19:09
just the beginning of it. OK, so.
00:19:13
It's more the timber, the last one, or like right here.
00:19:16
My last letter to you warned about the poisonous populism of
00:19:20
the right and the anxiety many people were feeling about the
00:19:22
state of this country, some of it grounded in real fear about
00:19:26
the national economy, but much of it stoked by misinformation
00:19:29
and bigotry. I just have to say I laughed at
00:19:36
this like first few words felt to me so like some Georgian era
00:19:43
soldier at battle, you know, sending a letter to his wife.
00:19:48
And like in my last letter, I warned you of this.
00:19:52
And and as this letter reaches you, I may not even be here
00:19:56
anymore. Dear Elizabeth, I hope this
00:19:58
finds you. Well like that's literally I
00:20:00
just read that and I was just like, Oh my God, get a grip
00:20:03
Newsome. Get a grip like.
00:20:06
See, we're all diverse and we accept all the diversity and the
00:20:10
diversity of thought. But no, not the poisonous right
00:20:14
populism like. Yeah, that is I.
00:20:17
Know that he's trying to say the all right, but so it's so
00:20:23
obnoxious. That is, that's a funny point.
00:20:26
I didn't pick up on that. But yeah, now I'm thinking it's
00:20:28
like a Ken Burns. Like, you can listen to the
00:20:30
violin in the background, like someone narrating, My dear
00:20:33
Elizabeth, I'm on the battle lines.
00:20:35
And I warned you about populism in the right and anxiety.
00:20:39
But now it's here. He goes out to say we are now
00:20:43
nine months into battle to protect the values we hold most
00:20:46
dear and to preserve the economic.
00:20:48
And now that I'm reading it with that in mind, it actually kind
00:20:51
of makes me laugh even more. To preserve the economic and
00:20:54
social foundation we built for California, we are facing a
00:20:58
federal administration built on incompetence and malicious
00:21:01
ignorance, one that seeks the death of independent thinking.
00:21:05
This is not the first time this state has endured darkness.
00:21:08
Each time we have created our own light and forged our own
00:21:11
path toward a better place, Just as we have before.
00:21:14
We will emerge stronger, smarter, and more unified next
00:21:18
year, when it is again my duty and privilege to report on the
00:21:21
state of the state one final time.
00:21:23
Although I'm not going to show up, maybe he'll show up.
00:21:25
He doesn't think it's that important to show up.
00:21:27
I know California will look brighter and more prosperous
00:21:30
than ever before. Because of the indelible,
00:21:33
audacious spirit that defines us.
00:21:35
Thank you, Gavin. Elizabeth, Elizabeth like fetch
00:21:39
me my smelling salts like. There's word from the front,
00:21:46
there's word from the front of the battles that they are
00:21:49
fighting this horrible administration, this federal,
00:21:51
they're fighting the Union, beating back the Union soldiers.
00:21:57
Yeah, there was like 3 paragraphs that you'd talked
00:21:59
about literally on the second page.
00:22:03
All three of these paragraphs right here are all about Trump
00:22:05
and, and what they did with the National Guard and stuff like
00:22:08
that. I thought this was actually
00:22:09
funny, not funny. But when he pointed this out, he
00:22:13
said talking about the National Guard and the US Marines
00:22:17
cowardly attempt to secure us into scare us into submission as
00:22:20
masked officers and immigrations agents snatch people off the
00:22:23
streets. We're going to get to the masked
00:22:24
agents in a second. They chased farm workers through
00:22:27
fields and Ventura County and arrested strawberry sellers in
00:22:31
the very Plaza in Los Angeles where Japanese Americans were
00:22:35
rounded up during World War 2. That's not funny.
00:22:43
OK, But like do we do we want to go back in history and talk
00:22:47
about who rounded up Japanese Americans during World War 2?
00:22:53
I don't think Trump was alive then, but it was certainly one
00:22:55
of your Democratic idols that was be Franklin Delano Roosevelt
00:22:59
rounded up Japanese Americans. But we're not going to talk
00:23:01
about FDR rounding up Japanese Americans.
00:23:05
He left that whole point out that it was the federal
00:23:07
government that rounded up Japanese Americans and because.
00:23:11
Well, because full letter is called the federal government.
00:23:15
So it you know, the evil federal government run by Trump, but
00:23:18
Trump had nothing to do. Again, and I said this before,
00:23:23
but it's so ridiculous to me that Gavin Newsom really has
00:23:27
this fight with Trump. I understand that Trump is the
00:23:30
current president and that he, you know, Governor Newsom needs
00:23:33
to work with him. But we also know that Newsom's
00:23:37
running a campaign right now to become president, and he will
00:23:40
not be running against Trump. And so I don't understand why
00:23:44
his plight is so like tearing Trump down when who knows who
00:23:52
he's going to be facing off against.
00:23:54
But like, just I, if I were Newsome and running for
00:23:59
president right now, I think I would just start talking about
00:24:01
things I would do differently or that I want to see happen.
00:24:05
I want to see change as opposed to like this constant battle
00:24:09
with Trump. It's just like work with Trump
00:24:11
and then battle the next person that you have to run against.
00:24:17
Kinsley made a funny comment about your Civil War story and
00:24:21
said the vapors, Elizabeth. Oh, no, not the darkness.
00:24:30
Now. Now I can't think about those
00:24:31
those last paragraphs as if it's Gavin Newsom fighting in the
00:24:34
front against. I just second, I started reading
00:24:39
those first few words. I just that was what entered my
00:24:41
head. I was like, is this a Jane
00:24:43
Austen novel? And this is.
00:24:47
It's very, very dramatic. It's overdramatic, that's for
00:24:49
sure for Gavin Newsom. But it's not surprising, that's
00:24:53
for sure for Gavin Newsom to be a little overdramatic.
00:24:56
But it's funny how his his letter is way longer than his
00:24:59
two-minute video. But I guess he couldn't be
00:25:02
bothered to show up. It wasn't really that important
00:25:04
for him to show up. All right.
00:25:07
But Gavin Newsom brought up talking about mass immigration
00:25:11
and law enforcement. California this week passed a
00:25:15
bill that is attempting to unmask ICE agents.
00:25:20
And a lot of people when they saw the title of this podcast,
00:25:24
were asking me when I posted it on on our socials, they're like,
00:25:28
can you do this? We'll get to that answer.
00:25:31
But I want to watch this video first as some people weigh in,
00:25:36
some legal scholars, they say weigh in.
00:25:39
This is from NBC LA. One of the laws is a first of
00:25:44
its kind. It prohibits federal agents from
00:25:47
wearing masks and hiding their identities from the public.
00:25:50
But the federal government already responding tonight
00:25:52
saying the state does not have the power to do this.
00:25:55
NBC 4's Tracy Leung joining us now.
00:25:57
She spoke to a legal expert about what comes next.
00:25:59
Tracy. Yeah, Jonathan and Kathy, the
00:26:02
legal expert tells me that the Department of Justice will most
00:26:05
likely challenge these laws in court and predicts lawsuits may
00:26:09
be filed against the state of California and the governor.
00:26:12
Within weeks, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a historic package
00:26:18
of bills to challenge President Donald Trump's immigration
00:26:21
crackdown, including a ban on masks for federal agent.
00:26:24
Oh yeah, it was written by Scott Weiner too.
00:26:26
So that gives you any idea of who wrote this?
00:26:31
Immigrants have rights and we have the right to stand up and
00:26:37
push back, and that's what we're doing here today.
00:26:40
This is in direct response to recent immigration enforcement
00:26:43
operations in LA, where federal agents wore masks while
00:26:46
detaining people. The first in the nation saying
00:26:50
enough ice unmask. What are you afraid of?
00:26:55
What are you afraid of? The other laws that were signed
00:26:59
today require federal agents. I'm.
00:27:01
Going to go out a limb and say they're afraid of a lot of these
00:27:05
like Karen's and busybodies and liberal white women who rush out
00:27:11
with their iPhones recording to people and then doxing them and
00:27:15
then, you know, crazy people finding these people and then
00:27:19
going to their houses and terrorizing their family.
00:27:21
I mean, that could just might be one thing, could be a
00:27:26
possibility, might be one reason why they don't want to show
00:27:30
their faces and just do their job.
00:27:33
Federal agents have rights, too. Yeah, they are people too, so.
00:27:39
It's to identify themselves with visible badges, limit
00:27:42
immigration enforcement agents from entering schools or health
00:27:45
facilities without warrants, and require schools to alert
00:27:48
students and families when immigration enforcement agents
00:27:51
are on campus. All of this legislative
00:27:54
resistance is to protect Angelenos from our own federal
00:28:01
government. That is profound because this
00:28:05
reflects a moment in history that we will all remember.
00:28:09
The acting US Attorney, Bill Assailey, immediately fired back
00:28:12
on X, saying in part, the state of California has no
00:28:16
jurisdiction over the federal government.
00:28:18
If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through
00:28:21
Congress. I've directed our federal
00:28:23
agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our
00:28:26
operations. Our agents will continue to
00:28:29
protect their identities. The states absolutely have power
00:28:32
to enforce generally applicable laws, but you can't do so if it
00:28:38
undermines the federal government's ability to carry
00:28:41
outlaws or policies. Loyola law professor Jessica
00:28:44
Levinson says this is a showdown between state power and federal
00:28:48
power and doesn't expect the fight to end anytime soon.
00:28:51
Governor Newsom knows that he could be sued and that
00:28:54
California could be sued. And that doesn't mean that these
00:28:59
laws either all or. Some of them will be struck down
00:29:02
in the courts. It means that there are genuine
00:29:04
legal questions here. All the laws signed today by
00:29:09
Governor Newsom went into effect immediately except for the law
00:29:12
banning Mass, which goes into effect January 1st.
00:29:15
But Jonathan and Kathy with potential lawsuits, Levinson
00:29:18
says they could be put on hold. Reporting Live in The Newsroom,
00:29:21
Tracy Leong, NBC. OK, no, no disrespect to that
00:29:27
law professor at Loyola. I know she tried to squeeze her
00:29:31
politics and personal feelings into that answer as much as
00:29:34
possible. Here's the simple answer.
00:29:37
Can they actually enforce it? No.
00:29:42
Article 6 clause to this Constitution, The laws in the
00:29:44
United States which shall be made and pursuance thereof, and
00:29:47
all trees made and which shall be made under the authority of
00:29:50
the United States shall be supreme law of the land.
00:29:52
And the judges in every state shall be bound there by anything
00:29:55
in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
00:29:58
notwithstanding. Basically meaning if there is a
00:30:03
law, a federal law that is on point about something and the
00:30:06
state tries to pass a law that is in conflict with that federal
00:30:11
law, then the federal law controls.
00:30:16
And especially in this because it's federal law enforcement.
00:30:19
So the state doesn't really have any say over federal law
00:30:22
enforcement. And how to, I mean, because
00:30:25
imagine, let's just play out this scenario here for this
00:30:28
Loyola professor. Imagine if every state in the
00:30:32
Union, all 50 states could start passing their own regulations
00:30:38
and their own rules and requirements on federal law
00:30:42
enforcement. Do you think federal law
00:30:43
enforcement would be able to get anything done with 50 different
00:30:50
sets of rules? No, because it has to be uniform
00:30:53
for the federal law enforcement to do what they have to do.
00:30:55
And there has to be 1 authority that tells them what to do.
00:30:58
So if 50 different states are saying, OK, here's a rule, you
00:31:01
can't wear a mask, and here's something else, you can't do
00:31:03
this, you can't do that. It would be literally impossible
00:31:07
for the federal law enforcement or federal government to enforce
00:31:10
their laws. So it would be ridiculous to
00:31:13
believe that this law would be held up.
00:31:17
Now, I can imagine there might be a 9th Circuit Supreme Court
00:31:21
or a Ninth Circuit justice who might try to hold this up.
00:31:24
But at the end of the day, it's just like, no, you're you're
00:31:29
supremacy clause. There's no jurisdiction.
00:31:32
I don't know if it's Scott Weiner just knows that this is a
00:31:35
dumb law, or he just does it and writes it anyway, knowing that
00:31:39
it's probably gonna get struck down in court.
00:31:41
That's not not the first time. I mean, I feel like every year
00:31:46
they pass a whole handful of laws that get struck down in
00:31:48
court anyway because they just want to do it.
00:31:52
They have a nice little press conference.
00:31:53
They get to pat themselves on the back like they did something
00:31:55
good. What are your thoughts on them
00:31:58
passing this law? Yes.
00:32:03
So when we first heard about this bill, you and I discussed
00:32:07
it and we were like, if this goes through, it's it's going to
00:32:10
be struck down. It has to be struck down because
00:32:11
it's unconstitutional. We know that the Constitution,
00:32:15
you know, is written for these purposes and that the state has
00:32:21
no jurisdiction over federal agents.
00:32:24
And so, yeah, we were like, yeah, that's definitely going to
00:32:27
be challenged. I can't imagine that it won't be
00:32:31
upheld. And I'm.
00:32:33
And you know that right there, right on screen laid out for us,
00:32:36
it says so in the Constitution. But I am being a nerd and have
00:32:42
been going through The Federalist Papers again.
00:32:44
And I made this little note. And I understand that, again,
00:32:48
this is already in the Constitution.
00:32:50
But Federalist Paper number 78 argued exactly about this and
00:32:55
explain to the principles of this that state law cannot
00:32:59
overrule the Constitution. Let's see blah blah blah, the
00:33:05
principle of judicial review, which has the which, sorry,
00:33:09
holds the courts have the power to veto unconstitutional laws.
00:33:15
And like, if people would become a little more educated, can read
00:33:21
these papers and start to understand the Constitution,
00:33:25
they would understand this law could never really like, sure,
00:33:28
it's signed into law, but but it gets to be vetoed by the Supreme
00:33:33
Court. Like, I just don't see how it's
00:33:35
not to. So I just feel like this is
00:33:39
another one of exactly what you said.
00:33:40
It's just virtual signaling. They get to pat themselves on
00:33:43
the back. Look what we did, you know, And
00:33:45
Newsom, when he actually announces he's running for
00:33:48
president, he could talk about these.
00:33:49
You know, I was able to pass this and find this and I did
00:33:54
this and this. And like, it won't matter that
00:33:56
by the time he comes out with that, this will probably have
00:33:58
been vetoed. No one will talk about that.
00:34:01
And he'll just get the accolades of like, oh, I did this.
00:34:05
I protected. He he said in the press
00:34:08
conference, we're the first in the country to do something like
00:34:11
this. It's like, well, sure, it's easy
00:34:14
to be the first in the country to pass any sort of dumb law
00:34:17
that's not going to go into effect.
00:34:18
Like you could say what? We're the first in the country
00:34:21
to guarantee everyone's going to get a Unicorn delivered to their
00:34:24
house. We're the first in the country.
00:34:26
It's never going to happen. It doesn't do anything.
00:34:28
It's we're the first in the country to give everyone
00:34:30
$1. We passed it, but doesn't mean
00:34:33
it's going to happen. So it's one of the things where
00:34:36
they get to say it. And we, we've talked about this
00:34:39
before where Newsom is very good at kind of like these drive by
00:34:44
press conferences, these drive by political issues where it
00:34:48
looks great. It's a big splash in the news.
00:34:50
It's national news. I, I was watching on like
00:34:53
national news today. It was splashed all over the
00:34:55
place. But then you never hear about it
00:34:58
again. Like you hear you don't hear
00:35:00
about the end result so many in the comment made.
00:35:04
Someone in the chat made a really funny comment that said
00:35:06
the last time Democrats defied federal laws openly is when they
00:35:09
formed an army called the Confederate and it was all for
00:35:12
slave labour. Excellent point.
00:35:16
Our good friend Brett had a really funny comment and let me
00:35:19
see if I can find it. Sorry I have to go way back and
00:35:22
find it that. Is going off.
00:35:24
Thank you all. Chad here.
00:35:26
Yeah, Thank you, Chad. We love when you guys are here
00:35:28
and you're chatting it up, so let us know your thoughts and
00:35:32
comments and questions if you have any.
00:35:35
A good friend Brett said Gavin and his mask is ridiculous.
00:35:38
He would have had an easier time banning farts in church.
00:35:41
It was just a waste of time. I mean, I Brett, I appreciate a
00:35:45
good fart joke so I I'm not above that.
00:35:49
So it's pretty funny. We need a we need a name for you
00:35:53
guys. Like the chat come up, come up
00:35:55
with a name. What is the California
00:35:57
Underground channel chat? Oh, that's a good call.
00:36:00
Yeah. Come up with a nickname for
00:36:01
yourselves. So here's a copy of the actual
00:36:04
bill, Law enforcement. It's pretty short.
00:36:07
SB627. Who is this as the author was
00:36:11
Weiner, Eraguen and Perez. Obviously, Weiner always likes
00:36:16
to write these really outlandish bills.
00:36:19
I can't imagine getting paid, like, as much money as they do
00:36:22
to write this little bill. That doesn't seem like that's
00:36:24
going to take a long time to do that existing law makes a
00:36:29
misdemeanor to wear masks. False whiskers, are they?
00:36:35
Wearing fake beer. Your your guess is as good.
00:36:39
Is false whiskers supposed to be like a beard?
00:36:41
Like a fake beard? Like a mustache or something.
00:36:44
Yeah, that's the only thing I can come up with, but I don't
00:36:46
know, but perhaps that's what's happening.
00:36:49
Or any personal disguise as specified.
00:36:52
So like they can't even wear like those gag like glasses with
00:36:55
the big nose and the mustache, They couldn't wear those.
00:36:58
Can you imagine? Like all the could you imagine
00:37:00
if all the ice showed up with like big noses and the glasses
00:37:03
and the mustache? I mean, it wouldn't be as
00:37:07
terrorized. I just googled false whiskers
00:37:09
and it's what came up was like a bunch of just like facial piece.
00:37:15
I specify with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery,
00:37:19
recognition, or identification while committing a public
00:37:22
offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from
00:37:26
arrest or conviction for any public offense.
00:37:29
This bill would make it a crime for law enforcement officer to
00:37:32
wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with
00:37:35
the public in the performance of their duties, except the
00:37:37
specified. The bill would exempt an officer
00:37:40
engaged in undercover assignment from these provisions.
00:37:43
Well, if you're undercover, you're not usually wearing a
00:37:44
mask when you're undercover because you're trying to blend
00:37:48
in with everybody else. Unless unless you're trying to
00:37:51
blend in with other criminals who are wearing masks, the bill
00:37:54
would define law enforcement officer as an officer of the
00:37:56
local, state, or federal law enforcement agency, or any
00:37:59
person acting on behalf of local, state, or federal law
00:38:01
enforcement agency by creating a new crime.
00:38:03
This bill would impose a state mandated local program.
00:38:08
So I think it's kind of funny and hypocritical.
00:38:15
They didn't seem to have a problem with people wearing
00:38:17
masks during the Summer of Love when most of California was
00:38:22
being protested and burned down. And we could probably even just
00:38:25
go back as far as January of this year, January, February of
00:38:28
this year, when they were doing the protests in LA over these
00:38:31
ICE raids and how many people were wearing masks and stuff
00:38:34
like that. They didn't seem to really care
00:38:37
about that issue. And they didn't rush to make a
00:38:40
bill about that. But they did make a, they wrote
00:38:43
this bill about ICE agents and federal law enforcement.
00:38:47
But when it's people who are destroying our great cities here
00:38:50
in California, that's not an issue, though.
00:38:53
We're not going to enforce that. But this is the most important
00:38:55
thing is we got to make sure those ICE agents don't have
00:38:58
their masks on. Protesters, fine.
00:39:00
Protesters can go wear their masks and destroy everything and
00:39:03
light things on fire, but when it comes to ICE agents, those
00:39:07
are the people we got to crack down on.
00:39:12
So what what is their punishment if this is a crime?
00:39:15
Like what are we doing to them? Are we fining them?
00:39:19
Are we throwing them in jail for a few weeks?
00:39:22
Like do they have to do community service?
00:39:24
Seriously, what is what's the punishment for the crime?
00:39:28
I guess they're saying like a local program that they're going
00:39:30
to figure out, but I don't know what the crime is like.
00:39:36
Also how you're going, who's going to bring in like, I mean,
00:39:39
that's another question. We're playing this all out
00:39:41
because, you know, status like this don't like to actually
00:39:45
think about the consequences of their bill.
00:39:47
Or at least, you know, narcissist like Scott Weiner and
00:39:49
Newsom love to just do this because they love the accolades
00:39:53
and they don't think about the real world consequences.
00:39:55
Who's arresting these ICE agents?
00:39:57
Like who's actually going to go? And like, who's going to stop an
00:40:01
ICE agent and be like, I'm sorry, man, I gotta arrest you
00:40:04
because you're wearing a mask? Like is the LAPD going to go out
00:40:07
and arrest the ICE agents? Like is the sheriff going to go
00:40:10
out and arrest the ICE agents? I'm sure if you asked like Chad
00:40:12
Bianco, are you going to follow this and start arresting ICE
00:40:15
agents? He's probably going to tell you
00:40:17
hell no. They can laugh in your face.
00:40:19
Like who's arresting these federal law enforcement?
00:40:23
It just doesn't make sense like the the the rationality of this
00:40:28
when you play it out like a reasonable adult with like a
00:40:34
normal adult facility to rationalize through different
00:40:37
situations. You, you didn't think like who's
00:40:41
going to actually arrest these law enforcement?
00:40:44
They didn't think that out. There's doesn't seem like
00:40:49
there's any sort of problem or like there's any punishment.
00:40:52
What's going to happen here? But again, it does make the news
00:40:58
and it does get you a nice little press conference.
00:41:00
But in the end, this is sort of just BS, like it doesn't go
00:41:05
anywhere. So right.
00:41:08
Regardless of anyone's opinion on if they should be wearing
00:41:10
masks or not, California has no jurisdiction over this.
00:41:13
They just, they don't. But here's, you know, the meme
00:41:17
with the guy that's like sweating.
00:41:18
And there's the two buttons. This is like, I almost want this
00:41:22
to kind of stick around for a while because we're talking
00:41:25
about like, oh, this new strain of COVID is coming back and it's
00:41:28
worse than 2020. And like, now I want that meme
00:41:33
would like ICE agents have to mask up or ICE agents can't wear
00:41:38
masks, you know? People have to mask up to
00:41:42
prevent COVID, or people have to unmask because they're ICE
00:41:45
agents. Yeah, that'd be a pretty funny
00:41:48
meme, someone in the chat said. Todd Schaefer said California
00:41:52
has no problem with men wearing makeup.
00:41:54
Why can't they look like Gene Simmons or Ace Freely from KISS?
00:41:58
That would even be funnier. What if ICE agents showed up and
00:42:00
they were all just wearing ICE or like KISS makeup?
00:42:04
Is that like you're not allowed to do that either?
00:42:07
I'm just thinking about, I'm just thinking of all the
00:42:10
hilarious costumes that ice can show up in to like really make
00:42:13
this absurd. I think the glasses and the big
00:42:15
fake nose with the mustache is really funny.
00:42:18
You know those the inflatable like dinosaurs that we've seen
00:42:22
and now I think they have like a dachshund.
00:42:24
Can you imagine a giant inflatable dachshund is out
00:42:27
there like chasing people now that they're see, now that's
00:42:30
also been debunked is the whole they're snatching people off the
00:42:33
streets and people are disappearing.
00:42:34
That has been debunked over and over and over again.
00:42:36
Like I went down the rabbit hole of this and there might be like
00:42:40
an instance, but there's these stories coming out of like the
00:42:44
82 year old man was, you know, locked up and taken away from
00:42:48
his family and like, and then it was like, no, he there's
00:42:51
actually no record of that man's existence.
00:42:54
And and then there was the stories of, you know, they went
00:42:57
into this elementary school graduation.
00:42:59
No, that also didn't happen. I know that there is the video
00:43:04
of the the strawberry fields but didn't we figure out there was
00:43:08
like child labor going on and none of us should be OK with
00:43:12
child labor? Wasn't it also an illegal
00:43:14
cannabis grower or something? Like they weren't supposed to be
00:43:16
growing cannabis, so there was a cannabis grow in child labor.
00:43:21
And yeah, and I think it was like trafficked labor.
00:43:24
So what we're not in favor of that.
00:43:27
If you're in favor of that, you that's a whole different issue.
00:43:31
But. Alyssa Oh, sorry, finish your
00:43:35
thought. Go ahead.
00:43:39
Sorry, no. Alyssa O in the chat does bring
00:43:41
out an interesting point. The problem with mass
00:43:43
unidentified ICE agents is the potential for criminals to
00:43:46
impersonate ICE agents and commit crimes.
00:43:49
However, the enforcement question is a solid inquiry.
00:43:51
I couldn't. Yeah, maybe that is a concern
00:43:55
that there are people who are acting in like, bad faith and
00:43:59
they're concealing themselves. But that also goes to the fact
00:44:04
that criminals who are wearing masks, whether they're
00:44:08
protesting or destroying property, they should also be
00:44:10
punished as well. So that shouldn't be.
00:44:13
But the enforcement is pretty interesting.
00:44:15
Someone all said, Rosemary said no law enforcement agent is
00:44:19
going to arrest the federal agent.
00:44:23
And then someone else had a really good.
00:44:24
Do they even have authority to do that?
00:44:26
I mean, you question would Bianco allow that?
00:44:28
But I don't even know if that is legal.
00:44:31
That's that's a question I have. I don't know.
00:44:34
I don't know. I I can't imagine LAPD can
00:44:37
arrest federal agents. I can't imagine.
00:44:40
I don't even know if sheriff's because I know sheriff's.
00:44:43
Like the way sheriff's departments are set up is that
00:44:46
they're like the only law enforcement that swear swear an
00:44:50
oath to the Constitution, not local city police.
00:44:54
I don't know this. If nothing else, these bring up
00:44:57
interesting questions that I probably have never thought of
00:45:00
until right now. Somebody said I could see Chad
00:45:03
Bianco wearing a fake nose and glasses just to screw with
00:45:06
Newsome. That's pretty funny.
00:45:08
OK, so a Sheriff's Department in California can arrest a federal
00:45:12
agent if that agent is committing a crime, how they're
00:45:19
going to be shut down So so that.
00:45:27
Yeah, I, I think it's just a, to really kind of wrap it up.
00:45:34
This law is stupid. And it's just, I'm sorry I don't
00:45:38
have a more eloquent way to say it, but this law is stupid.
00:45:41
It's literally just a vanity project for Scott Weiner and
00:45:44
Newsom. It's not going to go anywhere.
00:45:46
I imagine the federal government's going to sue almost
00:45:49
immediately and it's probably going to be an injunction
00:45:52
granted until they get to the bottom of this.
00:45:55
So it it again, it looks great. And Gavin Newsom can say he can.
00:46:00
I mean, it doesn't look great. They think it looks great.
00:46:02
I think you look stupid trying to pass a law that clearly not
00:46:05
one legal expert looked at and said you can't do this.
00:46:10
He got his moment to say that we're the first in the nation to
00:46:13
do so. And at the end of the day, we're
00:46:16
like, so it's stupid and it's not going to do anything.
00:46:19
So to answer everybody's question about this, this is all
00:46:23
more preening and and, you know, posturing for Gavin Newsom just
00:46:28
to kind of stand up to Trump and stuff like that.
00:46:32
Any other final thoughts before I get back to our get to our
00:46:35
last segment which is our queen of cringe who we just finally
00:46:38
who finally resurfaced after her book.
00:46:42
Yeah, one more thought. I believe that Scott Weiner's
00:46:44
next move will be to run for Congress and so he can stand up
00:46:47
and from Congress and be like, I passed to this, I got this, you
00:46:51
know, in California and now we need to pass the in the nation.
00:46:54
That's what. Well, I mean, at least he'd be
00:46:56
in the correct forum like like he'd be in the right forum.
00:47:03
So this is not the right forum. The state can't do anything.
00:47:07
So all right, but let's check out because I want.
00:47:12
I think this is kind of funny it.
00:47:15
Is funny. This last segment, this is
00:47:18
Kamala Harris. If you don't know she wrote a
00:47:19
book, for some reason, I doubt she actually wrote a book.
00:47:23
I feel like most of these people get ghost writers and somebody
00:47:26
else writes the book for them. It's called 107 Days.
00:47:30
And she's been going kind of like scorched earth on the
00:47:34
Democratic establishment. And yeah, she's leaving no
00:47:38
prisoner behind, except when Rachel Maddow asked her this all
00:47:43
important question about who she picked for vice president and
00:47:47
who she did not pick as vice president.
00:47:48
So let's. Real quick, I laughed because
00:47:51
you said she probably had a ghostwriter.
00:47:53
And I'm thinking maybe she didn't even read the book.
00:47:55
And so when she got this question, maybe she didn't even
00:47:58
realize it was in the book. And all of a sudden she's having
00:48:00
to try to explain something that is in a book she didn't write
00:48:02
and didn't read just a lot. You know, with Kamala Harris, I
00:48:08
wouldn't put it past her that that's absolutely possible that
00:48:11
she had someone ghostwrite it and she's like good enough.
00:48:16
So but now people are asking her all these questions and she has
00:48:19
to answer them. And she was like, damn it, who
00:48:21
wrote this book? Why didn't you tell me this
00:48:23
stuff was in here? All right, let's an actual tough
00:48:27
question from Rachel Maddow to Kamala Harris.
00:48:30
I guess you thought it was going to be a puff piece.
00:48:32
Let. Me ask you a politics question.
00:48:35
I mentioned an intro tonight that you say in the book really
00:48:39
bluntly that your personal first choice for your running mate
00:48:42
would have been Pete Buttigieg, and you praise him effusively.
00:48:46
You say he would have been an ideal partner if I were a
00:48:48
straight man, and you say effectively that demographically
00:48:53
it was. It was too much to ask of the
00:48:55
American people to ask them to elect you with him as your
00:48:59
running mate. I wonder if his reaction to that
00:49:02
since this part of the book has come out, if you've had any
00:49:05
reflection on that. Or I guess, I guess I'd ask you
00:49:11
to just elaborate on that a little bit.
00:49:12
It's hard to hear with you running.
00:49:16
As you know, you're the first woman elected vice president.
00:49:18
You're a black woman and a South Asian woman elected to that high
00:49:22
office, very nearly elected president to say that he
00:49:25
couldn't be on the ticket effectively.
00:49:29
I'm sorry, what alternative reality are you living in that
00:49:33
she was nearly elected president?
00:49:36
She lost every single swing state and she lost the popular
00:49:41
vote to a Republican for the first time in over 20 years.
00:49:45
That is not nearly winning the election.
00:49:48
It was a very much lopsided. I don't think you can say you
00:49:52
nearly won when you lost every single swing state.
00:49:57
But when you're on MSNBC or some people like to call it MSDNCI
00:50:03
guess you can say she nearly won.
00:50:05
She was that close. She only had, you know, if she
00:50:08
only had won seven more swing states, she would have won.
00:50:13
Really. Because he was gay?
00:50:14
It's hard to. Hear no, no, no, that's not what
00:50:16
I said that that's that he couldn't be on the ticket
00:50:19
because he is gay. My point in as I write in the
00:50:23
book, is that I was clear that in 107 days, in one of the most
00:50:33
hotly contested elections for president of United States,
00:50:36
against someone like Donald Trump who knows no floor, to be
00:50:42
a black woman running for president of United States and
00:50:46
as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man.
00:50:52
With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad.
00:50:56
But I, I also realized it would be a real risk no matter how,
00:51:03
you know, I've been an advocate and an ally of, of the LGBT
00:51:08
community my entire life. So it wasn't about, it wasn't
00:51:11
about. Yeah, right.
00:51:12
So it wasn't about any, any prejudice on my part, but that
00:51:16
we had such a short, we had such a short period of time and the
00:51:22
stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal,
00:51:28
phenomenal public servant. So phenomenal.
00:51:33
It's so amazing. He did not deserve to be vice
00:51:37
president. I'm still waiting for her excuse
00:51:41
as to why she couldn't put him on there.
00:51:45
And I think America is and would be ready for that.
00:51:52
But at when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go,
00:51:58
you know, and, and maybe I was being too cautious, you know,
00:52:02
I'll let our friends, we should all talk about that.
00:52:05
Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made.
00:52:09
And I'm and I, as with everything else in the book, I'm
00:52:12
being very candid about that, with a great deal of sadness
00:52:17
about also the fact that it might have been a risk.
00:52:23
Will you consider running in 2028?
00:52:25
That's not my focus right now. I know that's not my focus at
00:52:28
all. I know it really isn't.
00:52:30
You know I'm. Just going to yeah.
00:52:32
Well, will let me. I know you're not considering it
00:52:35
now, but are you? Are you saying when you decide
00:52:37
you said you're not going to run for governor of California?
00:52:39
Correct. Thank God.
00:52:42
Were you saying you are never going to run for anything ever
00:52:45
again or were you just saying I'm not going to run for that
00:52:47
office right now? That was the decision before me
00:52:50
and I made the decision not to run for governor of California.
00:52:52
By the way, there are a lot of great candidates running and,
00:52:56
and I love my state and we want somebody to definitely follow in
00:53:00
the footsteps of Gavin in terms of standing up and understanding
00:53:05
the power that California has to, to stand up to what we're
00:53:09
saying in DC. As politic as you are being in
00:53:12
those remarks, you are beautifully impolitic in this
00:53:17
book in a way that makes it honest and as I said, candid,
00:53:24
fun to read, and I think really important.
00:53:26
I think it is blunt and true, and I commend you for writing it
00:53:31
and for being willing to go out there and defend it and talk
00:53:33
about it in these blunt terms at a time we need some real
00:53:35
straight talk. Thank you.
00:53:37
Thank you for. Thank you.
00:53:42
SO she did not pick Pete Buttigieg because because why?
00:53:51
I didn't really catch why she didn't pick Pete Buttigieg
00:53:53
because is it because he was because they America was not
00:53:58
ready for a woman of color and gay man on the same ticket?
00:54:03
Like, was that too much diversity?
00:54:05
Remember, we're all, you know, Californians, according to Gavin
00:54:07
Newsom, we're all very proud of our diversity and our diversity
00:54:10
of thought. But that was too much.
00:54:12
That would have been too much diversity on a presidential
00:54:14
ticket. So from what I'm reading between
00:54:17
the lines is that Pete would have been a liability for her
00:54:22
running in 107 days. And they just, they couldn't,
00:54:26
they couldn't get around. It was just a liability to have
00:54:29
her and Pete Buttigieg on the ticket, which is an admission
00:54:33
that when it came to being progressive and standing up for
00:54:38
her values or trying to get as much power as possible for her,
00:54:45
it was about getting as much power as possible.
00:54:47
She threw her progressive values right out the window and said,
00:54:51
screw that. I want to be president, Pete,
00:54:53
see you later. You can be secretary of
00:54:55
transportation or something when I get to be president.
00:54:58
But you're you. You can't be on the ticket.
00:55:01
It's too much diversity. What did you what what was your
00:55:04
impression of like what her answer was, if you think there
00:55:07
even was an answer because I was trying to find whether she had
00:55:10
an answer or not. Yes.
00:55:13
So this is obviously all speculation since she did not
00:55:15
have an official answer to that. But this is where when we play
00:55:19
identity politics, which I feel like everyone does, but the
00:55:24
Democrats seem to do it more than Republicans, That's, you
00:55:26
know, our diversity is what defines us.
00:55:30
This is where it's a problem. They're so focused on the color
00:55:34
of someone's skin and someone's sexual identity that then they
00:55:37
end up hurting themselves when it comes to something like this.
00:55:41
Now, you and I just talked about this earlier.
00:55:43
Like, I think we both agree Pete may have actually won her the
00:55:47
presidency. He probably would have been a
00:55:49
more inspirational choice than Tim Walz.
00:55:52
But so this is where it's just like, you know, what, if we
00:55:56
weren't so focused on the color of 1's skin and what someone
00:55:58
does in the bedroom, maybe we could have a real shot at like,
00:56:03
what have they actually done and what can they bring to the table
00:56:07
for our country? And let's vote according to
00:56:09
that. But she played the whole, oh,
00:56:15
you know, it might be too risky. Maybe I was too cautious.
00:56:17
But I also feel like because her whole thing is, I am a black
00:56:21
woman. I'm the first black woman to do
00:56:23
this. And I'm also, you know, a black
00:56:26
Asian woman. It was almost like talking
00:56:30
points would be about, Oh my gosh, like the is, is this the
00:56:34
first openly gay? Like if it had been Pete, would
00:56:36
he have been the first openly gay vice presidential pick?
00:56:39
Because if that's the case, then I feel like she couldn't have
00:56:42
handled her not being in the spotlight.
00:56:45
I think that it would have been she hers would have been like
00:56:49
kind of put aside and it would have become the first openly gay
00:56:52
vice presidential pick. And everyone would have like the
00:56:56
news would have been around. That would have been all the
00:56:58
headlines. And it wouldn't have been like,
00:57:00
sure, they would have said and a woman, but they would have
00:57:02
really focused on Pete and his sexual identity versus her and
00:57:07
be especially, especially because she we know she
00:57:11
literally had nothing to run on except, you know, what are you
00:57:16
going to do about the economy? Well, abortions, you know, what
00:57:19
are you going to do about abortions?
00:57:21
And that was the the only thing that she would say and come up
00:57:25
with. And so Can you imagine if there
00:57:27
was something more interesting than her going on, which would
00:57:29
have been Pete and he would have taken over the headlines?
00:57:33
My opinion, I don't know if she's smart enough to figure
00:57:36
that out, but I feel like she wanted to make sure that she
00:57:40
was, you know, the headline. But also I wanted her to just
00:57:46
like a better political answer would have been to just own her
00:57:49
decision. And yeah, we, we were pressed
00:57:52
for time, but I felt like Tim and his accomplishments was the
00:57:56
better choice. him and I have had a relationship.
00:58:00
I don't mean like an inappropriate relationship, but
00:58:02
like, you know, oh, we've been friends and we've like worked
00:58:05
together on this. And like, I really, you know,
00:58:08
respect him. Whatever.
00:58:09
I respect what he's done with XY and Z.
00:58:12
And I felt like he was the better running mate for this
00:58:14
time. Like just to own that you chose
00:58:17
Tim would. You don't have to beat up Pete
00:58:21
about it. I have to put this up on the
00:58:25
screen because this was too funny not to, the iceman says
00:58:29
Look, I like Doritos, just like you now Vote for me was the
00:58:34
extent of her campaign. We went out.
00:58:38
We did go over that video and how cringe that was with her
00:58:42
going out Doritos. There's some other really good
00:58:47
comments. Someone said my Doritos.
00:58:49
I just love my Doritos. Look, I'm just like you.
00:58:52
I'm just like all you other peasants.
00:58:54
I like Doritos, which you couldn't say.
00:58:58
Somebody said I could hear the gears in her brain jamming up
00:59:01
with that question. Yeah, it's it's there's no good
00:59:07
way to there's no good way to answer this.
00:59:10
Like why she didn't pick Buttigieg.
00:59:12
I think she, probably, her ghost writer, probably thought this
00:59:16
was a good story to put in there as like, oh, here's my thought
00:59:19
process of how I ended up with Tim Waltz and blah, blah, blah.
00:59:22
And and it ended up blowing up in her face.
00:59:25
Because now it just looks like you didn't pick him because he
00:59:29
was gay and he was a liability. Or to your point, which could
00:59:32
completely be, it could be he's a liability.
00:59:35
She's so vain that she thought I didn't want Pete's identity and
00:59:41
the whole thing of him being the first openly gay vice president
00:59:44
overshadowing me. That's definitely I think all of
00:59:47
these things could be true. I think they always say, like
00:59:51
the running mantra for presidents is that you pick vice
00:59:54
presidents who are Dumber than you because you don't want a
00:59:56
vice president who's going to like outshine you.
00:59:59
And that, I don't know, I feel like that kind of goes.
01:00:02
That's pretty, pretty true statement.
01:00:03
I feel like a lot of vice presidents you can always
01:00:06
remember, like here's, here's a fun game to play.
01:00:10
You can always remember who lost in presidential elections.
01:00:16
Try and name the vice presidential person they were
01:00:19
running with. Like who was the vice
01:00:22
presidential candidate who ran with Hillary Clinton?
01:00:24
I'm going to put that out to the chat to see if anyone figured
01:00:27
out and how quick people can figure out who it was.
01:00:29
And you can't Google, just remember off the top of your
01:00:31
head, who did Hillary Clinton run with?
01:00:35
Like who was John McCain's? When John McCain ran against
01:00:41
John McCain's presidential run against Barack Obama, who did he
01:00:46
run with? I think actually everyone could
01:00:48
remember who John McCain. Is everyone can remember that
01:00:50
one? Because that was, that was just,
01:00:54
I mean. That one, well, yeah, I mean,
01:00:56
she, she became a cultural icon. She came out.
01:01:01
She. Was pretty and it all went
01:01:03
downhill. Mitt Romney, can you?
01:01:09
No. See, it's tough to remember who
01:01:14
your vice presidential candidate was, who of the loser, because
01:01:18
it's like the loser already gets relegated to the dustbin of
01:01:21
history, but then the vice presidential loser also gets
01:01:25
relegated to the dustbin of history.
01:01:27
So either way, this was kind of really bad on her part.
01:01:31
I mean, she's done in politics. I know she's trying to dance
01:01:35
around the topic and not give a final answer of, like, whether
01:01:37
she's going to run in 2028. Like, that's not my focus right
01:01:40
now. Well, what is your focus?
01:01:42
You're sitting on the couch. I'm just hanging out.
01:01:46
She's got to read her books. I mean, between now and her next
01:01:48
interview, she should probably read her book because it doesn't
01:01:50
sound like she knows what's in it.
01:01:52
She's been shot. GPT for the Cliff notes.
01:01:56
Someone actually said that JPT wrote this book.
01:02:00
Someone else said this book is proudly sponsored by Franzia
01:02:03
Wine. Guys are killing it tonight.
01:02:06
I love the chat, you guys. I'm, I'm literally reading the
01:02:09
chat while we're doing this show and I'm just laughing.
01:02:12
It's, it's so funny. So no one's answered the
01:02:16
question yet. Who ran with Hillary Clinton and
01:02:19
lost? So no one's answered.
01:02:22
No one's listening and answering my question.
01:02:24
I don't even know. I can't.
01:02:25
I can't remember. Like I said, John McCain was an
01:02:27
easy one just because. Everyone remembers John McCain's
01:02:31
because it was Sarah Palin. Everyone remembers that Mitt
01:02:33
Romney was Paul Ryan. Trying to think trying to think
01:02:38
of other ones going way back, here's 1 John Kerry.
01:02:44
Who was John Kerry's running mate?
01:02:47
That was all gore, right? No.
01:02:50
Nope. He ran on his own.
01:02:56
I don't know flip flops. I'm just kidding.
01:03:01
It was John Edwards. Oh, do you, did you write this
01:03:08
all down or do you just have this memorized because you're
01:03:10
like really nerdy? I'm just really nerdy and I
01:03:12
remember this stuff, someone said.
01:03:15
Satan. No, not Satan of who is a
01:03:19
campaign manager. Who is Al Gore when he faced
01:03:23
George W Bush in 2000? Joe Leibowitz, I think, right,
01:03:38
it was from Pennsylvania, who's a senator from Pennsylvania
01:03:40
because he was seen as like a moderate.
01:03:42
So they were trying to seems. So not memorable, you're right.
01:03:47
Yeah, well, that's that's the whole theory is that you don't
01:03:49
pick a vice president who's more like impressive than you are or
01:03:53
smarter than you. Although, you know, if you ask
01:03:56
my wife, I think she thinks JD Vance is way more impressive
01:04:00
point. To ask you that question.
01:04:03
Yeah, JD Vance seems to be so far of at least the females I
01:04:07
know in my life, they all think JD Vance is more impressive than
01:04:11
Donald Trump's. So maybe he picked that on
01:04:15
purpose to continue his legacy. Who knows?
01:04:17
But anyway, moral of the story, Kamala Harris, she was gone for
01:04:21
several months and and she came back and she still can't answer
01:04:25
a question that's even on MSNBC. She can't answer a simple
01:04:29
question. So, all right, any final
01:04:33
thoughts on Kamala Harris or anything else we talked about?
01:04:35
Thank you everyone in the chat killing it.
01:04:39
Oh, I didn't answer the question.
01:04:41
Who, who was Hillary Clinton's running mate?
01:04:45
It was Tim Kaine like when you say to.
01:04:51
Him like I remember that, but but I wouldn't have.
01:04:55
I would have had to look it up. There's a funny SNL skit, one of
01:04:59
the rare SNL skits. It was like John Mulvaney and
01:05:03
they were like making fun of how liberal are you or how woke are
01:05:08
you on a game show? And they had Tim Kaine come out
01:05:12
and they were like, if you're so liberal and you look, who is
01:05:17
this running mate? They came out and someone said
01:05:20
Tim Waltz. And they're like, no, I, I just
01:05:24
ran with Hillary Clinton. I'm a senator.
01:05:27
And we're like, oh, I'm sorry, man.
01:05:30
But yeah, anyway, all right, that's our show for today.
01:05:34
Thank you, everyone for tuning in.
01:05:35
As always. It's great to see everyone.
01:05:37
We're back live on Tuesday, back to our normal schedule.
01:05:41
As always. It's great when you people come
01:05:43
in and chat and keep it going during the live show.
01:05:47
If you haven't already, make sure you like share, subscribe,
01:05:50
review all of that stuff, especially here on YouTube.
01:05:52
That helps, helps us with the algorithm, helps more people
01:05:56
find us. And the best way that you can
01:05:58
support the show that is 100% free and great way to help us
01:06:03
and get more people to follow us is just go share this with
01:06:06
somebody. Tell them you should check this
01:06:07
out. You know, if there's another
01:06:08
Californian out there, you know, who's kind of disillusioned with
01:06:11
what's going on in California and you want someone to be like,
01:06:14
hey, go check out this show. I think you'll enjoy it.
01:06:18
That's the best way you can help us.
01:06:19
That is 100% free. And with that, we'll see on the
01:06:22
next one later.