On this episode of the California Underground, we discuss what appears to be the real possibility of Eric Swalwell entering the race for California Governor. We also discuss a federal case involving parental notifications and transgenderism in California schools and how California was found to be hiding evidence. The DOJ has entered the fight against Prop 50, and Rob Bonta used campaign funds for legal fees in Oakland corruption case.
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 11.18.25
*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 the Members Only California Underground Telegram —> https://im.page/7c0306da
For more in depth California political news coverage, make sure to subscribe to our Substack at https://caunderground.substack.com
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/
00:00:01
Eric Swalwell running for governor of California.
00:00:05
Robonta spending a little bit too much money on legal fees
00:00:07
related to the corruption in Oakland and its mayor.
00:00:10
We have DOJ jumping into the Prop 50 fight.
00:00:15
There's so much to get to, including a federal case
00:00:18
regarding transgenderism and school parental notifications.
00:00:21
All that and more on this episode of The California
00:00:23
Underground, starting right now. What's going on everybody?
00:00:42
Thanks for tuning to another episode of the California
00:00:44
Undergrad. I'm your host, Phil.
00:00:45
Like I said, we have a ton of stuff to get to. 4 stories
00:00:48
tonight. Usually we try and cover as much
00:00:50
as possible, three at best, but we got so much stuff, so much
00:00:53
news that we have to get to. But before we get started, if
00:00:56
you haven't already, make sure you subscribe, like, share,
00:00:59
follow. All of that stuff helps with the
00:01:01
algorithm. And as always with me, my
00:01:04
trusted Co host, the best of fastest researcher in the West,
00:01:06
back from her illness. Good to see you again Camille,
00:01:10
how are you? Welcome back.
00:01:13
I'm good. Thank you.
00:01:14
Thank you. Gosh, tonight I feel so wonky,
00:01:17
if that's even the proper word, because quite literally, right
00:01:21
before we hopped on, there was an update to one of our stories.
00:01:23
An update is in within a minute. I'm hopping on.
00:01:28
So I apologize in advance of all of a sudden we're just, we just
00:01:33
lose it. We're not going to lose it.
00:01:34
We're. Just going to absolutely go,
00:01:35
Well, I'm good. We have a lot to get to tonight,
00:01:39
so let's just jump right into it.
00:01:42
Let me pull up this story. Hold on one second.
00:01:47
It looks like one of Trump's favorite foes to go after, Eric
00:01:54
Swalwell, is considering running for governor of California.
00:02:00
And it looks like it's imminent. There was a story in Politico
00:02:04
where they had put up a donation site.
00:02:07
I'm not going to read the whole story because this is basically
00:02:10
the story is that there was a donation site that was put up on
00:02:13
Sunday. And then they quickly took it
00:02:15
down. But people were like, whoa,
00:02:16
whoa, wait a second, what's that donation site?
00:02:18
And they picked up on it really quickly.
00:02:21
So the rumor is that he is about ready to jump in.
00:02:26
Now keep in mind, let's keep a track of the players who are in
00:02:29
who are not because it seems like it's constantly changing
00:02:31
all the time. So we have so far the big name
00:02:35
players on the Democratic side. We have Katie Porter still in.
00:02:38
Xavier Becerra is still in. Antonio Villaraigosa is still in
00:02:43
Tony Thurman. I don't know if you'd consider
00:02:45
him a big name. He's point like 2%.
00:02:47
Who cares? Betty Yee, is she in there as
00:02:51
well? The Lieutenant governor, she
00:02:54
dropped out because I she got literally no traction and no one
00:02:57
knows how to pronounce her name. And then in the Republican side,
00:03:02
we have the two big names, which are Steve Hilton and Chad
00:03:04
Bianco. Alex Padilla out.
00:03:08
He's not running. He said he's going to stay in
00:03:10
Senate. Kamala Harris, queen of cringe,
00:03:12
is out. She is not running.
00:03:14
So whoo, that's the whole list right now.
00:03:18
And there's also the rumored, in addition to Eric Swalwell, the
00:03:22
rumors are that Rick Caruso is also thinking about running and
00:03:26
maybe jumping in. There's also I saw this that Rob
00:03:31
Bonta might be going back on his claim that he is not planning on
00:03:36
running, so he may jump in. There is a lot to get to in this
00:03:42
story. First off, welcome to everybody
00:03:44
in the chat. Thanks for tuning in live
00:03:46
wherever you are. Let us know where you're tuning
00:03:48
in. Lovely seeing everybody in the
00:03:49
chat staying active. We got a lot of stuff to cover,
00:03:53
but Swalwell's having some trouble in DC before he runs for
00:03:58
governor. Let's get to that video real
00:04:02
quick and then I want to get your thoughts on both the story
00:04:05
and Eric Swalwell running for governor.
00:04:08
So let's watch this video real quick.
00:04:09
We're. Going to begin this hour with
00:04:11
another likely criminal investigation of a prominent
00:04:14
critic of President Trump. This time it's Democratic
00:04:17
Congressman Eric Swalwell of California.
00:04:19
He faces a Justice Department probe was announced on the very
00:04:22
same day that lawyers for two other Trump critics were back in
00:04:25
court arguing their criminal indictments should be dismissed.
00:04:29
Scott McFarlane is covering it all for us as he has for a while
00:04:32
now. Scott, good morning.
00:04:33
Hey, Tony, good morning. A Trump administration housing
00:04:35
official is making the same type of allegation against
00:04:38
Congressman Swalwell that the administration has made against
00:04:40
other political critics of the president questioning whether
00:04:44
the California Democrat engaged in fraud in securing a home
00:04:47
mortgage in Washington, DC. And they have formally asked the
00:04:51
Department of Justice to investigate it.
00:04:53
Swalwell, who served as an impeachment manager against
00:04:55
Trump in his first term, denied any wrongdoing.
00:04:58
And he blasted the accusations as politically motivated, saying
00:05:02
the only thing I'm surprised about is that it took him this
00:05:05
long to come after me. It's common for members of
00:05:08
Congress to have two homes. But what's not common and raises
00:05:11
the question of political targeting is for housing
00:05:13
officials to pull mortgage records and refer them for
00:05:17
federal investigation. A recommendation for a
00:05:19
prosecution does not mean Swalwell will be prosecuted.
00:05:23
But this is the same type of allegation the administration
00:05:26
has made against another impeachment manager, Batman,
00:05:29
Senator Adam Schiff of California, who's currently
00:05:32
under investigation, as well as New York attorney Chairman
00:05:34
Letitia James, who was charged last month and had previously
00:05:38
sued Trump for fraud. Both have denied any wrongdoing.
00:05:42
GAIL. Yeah, to be continued for sure.
00:05:44
So Scott, I know you were in the courthouse yesterday.
00:05:46
That's when the New York attorney general's defense
00:05:48
lawyers then asked the judge to throw out the case against her.
00:05:52
So where does that stand with both?
00:05:54
Yeah, Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comedy, both
00:05:57
of whom are facing federal charges, both of whom have
00:06:00
pleaded not guilty, argued to get their cases dismissed
00:06:03
Thursday. They say the prosecutor who
00:06:06
secured each of their indictments was not lawfully
00:06:08
appointed. That prosecutor is former White
00:06:11
House aide Lindsay Halligan. She was given the role after the
00:06:14
US attorney in Virginia declined to move ahead with the cases
00:06:17
against Comedy and James and was ousted.
00:06:20
The judge said she'll make a ruling on whether to dismiss
00:06:22
those cases by Thanksgiving. Well.
00:06:24
Thanksgiving is. All right, so.
00:06:30
That's a lot. It seems to be a common pattern
00:06:32
with a lot of these politicians. I'm sure a lot of politicians do
00:06:36
this claiming 1 is their primary residence and and the other.
00:06:39
Regardless, there seems to be a trend with like Adam Schiff,
00:06:43
Leticia James, ASIC, payback from Trump that like all the
00:06:48
people who vowed to go after him are now facing these mortgage
00:06:53
issues. I mean, if they did do something
00:06:55
wrong, then yes, the DOJ should look into it because it is a
00:06:58
federal issue. If you're claiming different
00:07:00
places and mortgage fraud and all that, there is a little bit
00:07:03
of a trend, but doesn't mean these people aren't necessarily
00:07:07
not sketchy. So he's already facing some
00:07:10
troubles. Doesn't mean indictment.
00:07:13
It means that he's being referred to the DOJ.
00:07:16
They're trying to get off on a technicality because of a
00:07:19
prosecutor wasn't properly admitted or something or
00:07:22
appointed like that. I don't know.
00:07:23
It's always a technicality. With that said, what are your
00:07:28
thoughts, One, on Eric Swalwell running for governor and two,
00:07:33
this mortgage fraud case? Do you think it's political
00:07:36
retribution or do you think all these politicians are just shady
00:07:40
as hell? That's a lot to get to that.
00:07:43
Was a lot of questions, but let's see.
00:07:45
OK, so I have read that he is a little more moderate than Katie
00:07:50
Porter. And so that kind of it kind of
00:07:54
scares me in the sense that it was looking like we might come
00:07:57
down to the top 2 being Bianco and Hilton.
00:08:00
And that would have been pretty exciting in my opinion.
00:08:04
So now he might be coveted. And it's like people are going
00:08:07
to probably get behind him. The Democrats at least would be
00:08:10
like, oh, good, we have someone because you know, they'll
00:08:12
support Katie Porter. If if someone else better
00:08:16
doesn't jump in, they'll they'll just stand by Katie Porter
00:08:19
regardless of mashed potatoes and her temper and all all that.
00:08:24
But so that yeah, him chipping in.
00:08:30
Like I said, he seems a little more moderate, but who knows?
00:08:33
Once they get these high positions, it's like, who knows
00:08:36
what they'll do? I don't know that much about
00:08:39
him. I know he was City Council in
00:08:42
that area and he's been in Congress for quite some time and
00:08:46
he was able to beat an incumbent who had been there for 40 years,
00:08:51
40 years, which we know we talked about two weeks ago.
00:08:55
These people term limits. Oh my gosh, like, no, you need
00:08:58
to retire. So I, I actually give him kudos
00:09:01
for that. Like yay for coming in and
00:09:03
ousting someone who's been there far too long.
00:09:06
It doesn't mean I stand by his policies or anything like that.
00:09:09
So that part, corrupt politicians, yeah, I'm of the
00:09:17
belief at this point there are pretty much 99% of them are
00:09:20
corrupt. Regardless of which side, right
00:09:22
or left, Same .2 sides is kind of my opinion.
00:09:27
You know, being involved in politics and getting to know
00:09:29
politicians. There's some that I still stand
00:09:32
by and applaud and love and support, and there's others that
00:09:34
I'm just so disenchanted by and things that I've seen.
00:09:39
I'm like, not even, it's not even anything crazy or heavy.
00:09:42
It's just that you see somebody get up and preach about
00:09:44
something and like, these are my goals.
00:09:47
These are my morals, These are my beliefs.
00:09:49
And then you see them act the opposite in person.
00:09:51
And it's just like, whatever, you're a liar.
00:09:54
Like, you know, and, and I've, I'm at a point where I'm so over
00:09:59
it. I'm sorry.
00:10:00
And it, maybe it's just today or this is week, like I'm just
00:10:02
like, even on social media, I don't want to get on social
00:10:04
media because I'm like, everybody is crazy.
00:10:06
Everybody's insane waking up in four years.
00:10:11
I don't, I don't know, that's kind of a lot.
00:10:12
And I'm not, I'm not like leaving politics.
00:10:16
I'm not leaving California. I'm, I'm not trying to be
00:10:19
negative, even though I'm being very negative.
00:10:21
I'm not trying to say don't, don't bother.
00:10:25
It's still important. Is Trump just kind of going
00:10:29
after people who went after him? Because I do question that I
00:10:35
don't we're going to get like people are going to so disagree
00:10:37
with me on saying that. But I would like to see is are
00:10:40
they checking out any Republicans?
00:10:42
Because again, these are normal people who enter politics and
00:10:45
somehow get rich while they're in Congress and then they can
00:10:48
afford the second residents in DC and it's not cheap,
00:10:52
especially our California representatives who California
00:10:56
is so not cheap. And so for them to have these
00:10:58
second residences, you're like, how are you able to even afford
00:11:01
your first one, let alone a second one in DC where it's very
00:11:05
expensive too. So are, are they doing it for
00:11:10
fraudulent reasons or are they are they doing it because they
00:11:13
aren't there? You know, they're working there
00:11:15
several months out of the year and they need to be able to
00:11:18
afford a place to live or they're going to have to stay in
00:11:21
hotels every night or like, you know, bunk with somebody else,
00:11:25
which I've heard a lot of them do.
00:11:29
I because we're only seeing Trump go after Democrats right
00:11:32
now. That's where I do have to
00:11:33
question, is it just like a retribution thing?
00:11:35
Because there's got to be, there's what, 435 House
00:11:41
representatives? And I feel like maybe they all
00:11:43
need to be checked into whoever owns the residence.
00:11:45
Maybe we need to start looking. I don't know.
00:11:48
Yeah, that was a lot. I'm sorry.
00:11:51
No, it, it is a lot to no pun intended swallow in just this
00:11:57
news story. I, I think he sees an opening
00:12:01
because of Katie Porter's disastrous collapse in the
00:12:07
polls. I think I talked about this last
00:12:09
week and how she's collapsed and Chad Bianco is now like in the
00:12:13
head like the polls of the 13%. And actually, I joke the one
00:12:17
politician who's winning is undecided because 43% of
00:12:19
Californians are completely undecided, which is reasonable
00:12:22
right now because we're so far out.
00:12:25
There's not many nerds outside of the people who are watching
00:12:28
the show and you and me who care about California politics enough
00:12:31
to worry about who's coming up next year.
00:12:34
Like next year's so far away from now.
00:12:36
A lot of like most normal Californians, like, I don't
00:12:39
know, I'll just wait until someone gets picked and then
00:12:41
I'll go with that person. So I think he sees that opening
00:12:46
of, oh, Katie Porter's collapsing.
00:12:48
She was supposed to be sort of the hand picked Democrat or the
00:12:52
Democrat du jour. And maybe he's coming in as the
00:12:56
moderate, which is terrifying to think that Swalwell's the
00:13:00
moderate. So it makes sense for him.
00:13:04
He doesn't have to vacate his position in the House if he runs
00:13:07
for governor. He can still keep doing it.
00:13:11
And, you know, that's a pretty good gig too.
00:13:14
But Eric Swalwell, if nothing else, the one thing I get from
00:13:18
Eric Swalwell is he thinks he's like this like, cool machisimo
00:13:22
kind of guy. Like, he thinks like he's cooler
00:13:24
than he really is. And he's like one of those
00:13:26
people that, like, they try to be too, like, they try too hard
00:13:30
to be cool. And it comes off as like,
00:13:31
really, really cringe. We used to do this, like, cringe
00:13:35
moment of the week. This moment probably could have
00:13:39
qualified for cringe Moment of the week.
00:13:42
I'm gonna play a little clip right now and I'm not sure what
00:13:45
the message of this is. If anybody in the chat wants to
00:13:48
let me know what he's trying to convey, by all means, but I am
00:13:52
flabbergasted. I have no idea what he's he's
00:13:54
trying to prove here. Now we've already checked in on
00:13:58
crazy Bernie Sanders, let's see how Eric Sawwell is travelling.
00:14:02
This is the man best known for dating a Chinese spy.
00:14:06
He just released this bizarre video.
00:14:09
See if you can understand what the Democrats what Eric is at
00:14:13
trying to achieve here. Hey congressman trying to help
00:14:21
you. What the fuck is up with Trump
00:14:23
always chickening out on tariffs?
00:14:41
Anything else? No, that's it.
00:14:49
Taco I, I don't get it. I, I honestly don't.
00:14:52
I mean, we follow a lot of politics.
00:14:54
I'm not sure what the Taco reference was.
00:15:00
I I don't. We're both just so
00:15:04
flabbergasted. We're like speechless as to like
00:15:06
what he was trying to prove there.
00:15:08
But again, this is like Eric Swalwell trying to be like super
00:15:10
cool and like with it. And the Democrats have had like
00:15:14
this really bad problem of they were the cool party.
00:15:19
I guess when it was like Barack Obama, they were like the cool
00:15:22
party. They kind of had a grip on
00:15:25
culture and stuff like that. And now it seems like they're
00:15:29
trying to catch up to trends. Remember when we did that one
00:15:33
video, It was a cringe moment of the week where I was like, all
00:15:37
these different people were doing it was some tick tock
00:15:41
trend and they had like all these people trying to do it and
00:15:43
it was like just really cringe because when you're catching up
00:15:47
to, Oh no, is that that representative with the blue
00:15:49
hair? She was trying to do it and she
00:15:51
was, she used like every Gen. Z term imaginable.
00:15:54
And you're like, cool. You killed it.
00:15:55
Like, you're not cool. And you just ruined it.
00:15:58
And you made all that really cringe.
00:15:59
I feel like that's like what Eric Swalwell is doing.
00:16:01
He just looks at a trend. He's like, oh, this would be
00:16:03
really funny if I did it. And in reality, it just looks so
00:16:06
like stupid and childish. What?
00:16:11
I mean, I know you watch that and you're kind of speechless.
00:16:14
Do you have any guess at what he was trying to convey with a
00:16:17
Taco? I was trying to figure out if it
00:16:19
like if the Taco part didn't matter, like it could have just
00:16:22
been any food and he was basically just like I don't care
00:16:25
about to lunch. I I don't know, though.
00:16:27
I mean it was really that's reaching.
00:16:31
I'm pulling up straws here. I paper straws.
00:16:34
Is it like we don't talk about it like Taco about it?
00:16:39
I don't. I do.
00:16:41
I do appreciate a pun. Well done.
00:16:42
Well done Phil, but. I don't, I just don't get it.
00:16:45
Like, I don't remember what the Taco trend was, what that has to
00:16:48
do with Trump chickening out of answering questions.
00:16:51
What do you guys think? Give us your Give us your best
00:16:54
guesses. I think the chat's probably as
00:16:56
flabbergasted as we are about this.
00:17:00
I know, obviously we all know Eric Swalwell for his most
00:17:03
famous clip and we couldn't go a show.
00:17:07
Before the famous clip like is that the?
00:17:10
Maybe, maybe this was before. Maybe This is why he went viral
00:17:14
for all the wrong reasons. Can't do a show on Eric Swalwell
00:17:17
without showing this clip and I apologize for my childish humor
00:17:22
if I start laughing. The evidence is.
00:17:25
Uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars
00:17:28
to ask the Ukrainians to help him cheat an election and the
00:17:31
complaint. It gets me every.
00:17:38
It gets me every time. We're going to watch it one more
00:17:40
time. We're going to watch it one
00:17:41
more. Time uncontradicted that the
00:17:44
president used taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help
00:17:47
him cheat an election and the. I, I told you I'm a child.
00:17:52
Like farts are funny. And in this case, it's funnier
00:17:58
because there was Eric Swalwell and I did he, I guess he just
00:18:02
thought like no one was going to hear that on national TV with
00:18:07
Chris Matthews on Hardball. That was right after the State
00:18:11
of the Union. So Eric, Eric Swalwell, someone
00:18:16
in the chat said we don't need him.
00:18:19
Definitely don't need Swalwell stinking up California, no pun
00:18:23
intended. I would disagree.
00:18:25
Old Town Vallejo, who said that? I think you did intend that pun.
00:18:29
I think you absolutely meant to. So I'm gonna say, watching from
00:18:33
Alhambra, the Taco reference is for Trump always chickens out.
00:18:39
Oh, Trump always chickens out. Spells out to Taco.
00:18:45
That's way too much of a reference to that's too much.
00:18:49
Wow. Wow.
00:18:50
OK, Taco Bell. I didn't know.
00:18:52
That like I hadn't heard that, but.
00:18:56
Wow. Now I feel like I have seen
00:18:58
people bake Taco references in regards to Trump and so now I'm
00:19:01
going back through all this in my head like.
00:19:05
Oh wow see thank you. This is why we do this show
00:19:07
live, so the chat can help us out.
00:19:09
The entire show trajectory just changed.
00:19:12
Thank you. Thank you, Ben Foster, for in
00:19:15
the chat telling us what that means, someone said, full of hot
00:19:18
air. It's a perfect example of Eric
00:19:20
Swalwell, and if he runs for governor, he will be full of hot
00:19:23
air. So, any other final thoughts on
00:19:25
Eric Swalwell before we go to our next story?
00:19:29
I'm good. He played that video twice.
00:19:31
That was twice too much so. That was twice too many, all
00:19:35
right? Pretty stupid.
00:19:38
No, I would say it's twice as enough fart jokes are you're
00:19:41
gonna. Watch that several times after
00:19:43
the show. I will neither confirm nor deny
00:19:46
whether I watched that five times before we hopped on
00:19:49
tonight and laughed my ass off about it.
00:19:52
On to a more serious topic. There is a case going on down
00:19:57
here in San Diego in federal court regarding, uh, parental
00:20:02
notifications and parental rights.
00:20:03
So if you remember back with Chino Valley, Sonia Shah, she
00:20:06
was on the show discussing the whole fight over parental
00:20:10
notifications, transgenderism, whether someone changes their
00:20:14
pronouns. Do they have to alert the
00:20:15
parents? Do they not have to alert the
00:20:17
parents? There's a whole legal fight.
00:20:19
Long story short, this teacher. Mirabelli sued, saying you can't
00:20:25
force me to keep this a secret from people.
00:20:28
She got in touch with the Thomas Moore Society, which is the
00:20:32
lawyer society, which is a Catholic lawyer society.
00:20:35
Thomas Moore is the patron St. of law for those of you who do
00:20:39
not know. So for us lawyers, Thomas Moore
00:20:42
is a very important person. But the Thomas Moore Society and
00:20:45
Paul Jonah sued and they've been going back and forth.
00:20:48
This case has been going on for a while and just recently they
00:20:53
were brought in the state of California was reprimanded and
00:20:58
it looks like they're going to get sanctioned for hiding
00:21:00
evidence from the judge in the case.
00:21:04
Let me pull up this story right now.
00:21:08
Hold on. There's you guys have no idea
00:21:12
how many tabs I have open right now because the show is so jam
00:21:15
packed. All right, let's see this is
00:21:20
from Justin News Federal judge threatens to sanction California
00:21:23
for misleading him in gender secrecy case.
00:21:27
US District Court Judge Roger Benitez.
00:21:33
Benitez is also referred to as St.
00:21:35
Benitez down here because anything Second Amendment
00:21:37
related, he is always striking down any infringements on the
00:21:41
Second Amendment. Love Benitez.
00:21:42
Very, very cool. Judge ordered State Attorney
00:21:47
General Rob Bonta and the California Department of
00:21:48
Education to show cause and why they should not be sanctioned
00:21:52
for misleading Benitez so he would remove them from the suit
00:21:55
by teachers who allege their school district muzzled them and
00:21:58
parents of gender incongruent children.
00:22:01
The state defendant's motions to dismiss an opposition to the
00:22:04
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment claimed that the
00:22:07
California Department of Education had, quote, withdrawn
00:22:10
and conclusively replaced a FAQ page that contained the
00:22:14
challenge policies, which they claim was the only basis for
00:22:18
being named defendants, and thus made the case moot, Benitez
00:22:21
wrote. However, evidence demonstrates
00:22:23
that the CDE California Department of Education may have
00:22:26
merely moved the challenge content of the FAQ page to a new
00:22:29
required PRISM training module, as documented by plaintiff's
00:22:33
lawyers at the Thomas More Society, the judge said,
00:22:35
ordering state defendants to explain their behavior November
00:22:38
17th in court. So that's coming up or no?
00:22:41
It was last week coming up, right?
00:22:44
It already happened. What day is it?
00:22:46
I have no idea. Today's the I-10 quote.
00:22:49
From day one, officials from the local district all the way to
00:22:52
the governor's mansion have tried to deflect responsibility,
00:22:55
but have now been caught not only lying to California
00:22:57
taxpayers, but attempting to mislead the court to escape
00:23:00
accountability, Thomas Moore Society Executive Vice President
00:23:03
Peter Breen said in a statement. So basically the state of
00:23:10
California and Robonta, who we're going to get to in a
00:23:13
little bit, hid evidence and concealed a fact from this judge
00:23:21
to further prove why they should be removed from the case.
00:23:28
And now evidence came out that no, they didn't actually remove
00:23:32
the policy as requested. It's now in this PRISM training.
00:23:38
I know Amy Reichardt has been doing a good job.
00:23:39
She's been tweeting about this a lot or ex posting about this a
00:23:43
lot. How there is now like a
00:23:44
mandatory page when you go to public school.
00:23:47
Like they're requiring students to affirm or sign off on
00:23:52
transgenderism and like, accept the policies.
00:23:56
So they haven't fully gotten rid of this.
00:23:59
But the state of California basically told the judge, yes,
00:24:02
we've gotten rid of this, please let us out of this case.
00:24:05
And Judge Benitez is pissed. There is a clip describing why
00:24:11
they entered this lawsuit from the plaintiff and Paul Jonah.
00:24:14
I want to take a quick watch of that really quickly, gives
00:24:19
everyone a better idea of the plaintiff, just what's going on.
00:24:21
So we're going to watch that real quick.
00:24:24
Elizabeth, explain why because of your school district, you've
00:24:28
had to lie to parents. Well, a policy was rolled out to
00:24:36
all teachers and it required us to, when meeting and speaking
00:24:43
with parents, to withhold critical information about their
00:24:46
child's mental and emotional health and specifically refer to
00:24:51
that child by one set of names and pronouns in front of
00:24:56
parents. And then during the school day,
00:25:00
change to another name and another set of pronouns that
00:25:04
parents were unaware of. Right.
00:25:07
So basically I was teaching this child to live a double life.
00:25:13
Man, oh man, So explain. And you've had student, a
00:25:19
student or students in your class who this applies to.
00:25:22
How did that make things challenging for you?
00:25:27
Well, it was tricky. It was confusing.
00:25:31
A teacher is a very busy person, and in addition to my roster, I
00:25:37
was supposed to memorize names and various unique pronouns for
00:25:43
a number of students. This is becoming a fad,
00:25:47
especially with young girls, and empirical science has proven
00:25:51
that. So I had no less than 7 girls
00:25:55
that wanted different names than my roster, variety of
00:26:00
interesting pronouns like they or Zeer and so forth.
00:26:06
It's very difficult for me to remember that in a busy, hectic
00:26:12
moving environment. Right.
00:26:14
No kidding. And then I would imagine you
00:26:15
would get in trouble if you didn't use the right pronoun
00:26:18
that they wanted and it would just simply be by accident.
00:26:21
The governor's office did put out a statement.
00:26:23
It said federal law is clear that the governor is not a
00:26:27
proper party in this case and we will be moving to have the
00:26:31
governor dismissed in short order.
00:26:32
But it sounds like Paul, the judge ordered the the AG and the
00:26:37
governor in on this case as well, right?
00:26:40
The court, excuse me, The court ordered them to be named as
00:26:42
defendants. The the school district pointed
00:26:44
to the state and said the the state is the source of this
00:26:48
policy. And we've had the governor and
00:26:50
the attorney general sort of defying the court's order from a
00:26:54
distance, and now they're roped in directly under the court's
00:26:56
jurisdiction. And and Paul, ultimately you
00:26:59
guys are involved because this is a chance to once and for all
00:27:02
in this kind of. Policy right?
00:27:05
Absolutely. The court already issued A
00:27:06
groundbreaking preliminary injunction ruling last
00:27:09
September, essentially blocking the policy under the 1st
00:27:13
Amendment and also holding that it violates parents rights.
00:27:16
So I think the governor and the attorney general know exactly
00:27:20
what's at stake. This is for whatever reason,
00:27:22
this has been a top priority for the state of California and, you
00:27:25
know, enforcing these gender secrecy policies and, and this
00:27:28
and this case presents the best opportunity to sort of undo that
00:27:31
in California and throughout the country.
00:27:34
Well, Elizabeth, thank you very much for telling us about your
00:27:36
challenging circumstances. I don't, I don't think anybody
00:27:39
had. There's a lot going on here.
00:27:44
I'm trying, we're trying to like break it down for everybody who
00:27:47
doesn't really know the story, hasn't been following.
00:27:50
Paul Jonas is right in that because Chino Valley came up
00:27:54
with their parental notification.
00:27:59
If you remember back as 20/24/2023, I think, was this
00:28:03
whole fight about parental notification.
00:28:06
It seems like maybe it was so long ago the state basically
00:28:12
stepped in and being the Uber woke progressive warriors that
00:28:16
they are, we're so concerned about parental notifications and
00:28:20
making sure that they forced this basically on all schools.
00:28:26
And we talked about this extensively about how Sacramento
00:28:29
and their top down philosophy won't allow school boards of
00:28:33
duly elected school board members based on the
00:28:35
representatives, the people who live in those areas say, hey,
00:28:37
this, we don't want our school to do this.
00:28:40
All of a sudden the state came roaring in.
00:28:41
Gavin Newsom came in, Robonta came in, Tony Thurman came in.
00:28:44
They all were like, this is the policy.
00:28:46
So that's why the state of California sort of got involved
00:28:50
as defendants. I want to show this is from
00:28:53
Michael Knowles, obviously a fellow Catholic who's also
00:28:56
following the Thomas More Society.
00:28:57
He's talking about it. So it's getting a lot of play.
00:29:01
The six part training program PRISM, which has been disabled
00:29:04
collaborate with some of the worst LGBT organizations in the
00:29:08
country. The Trevor Project, known for
00:29:11
running adult child chat rooms with fetish content.
00:29:14
So here are the people who these are the groups that were in
00:29:18
favor of it. SDSU come on SDSU let's go
00:29:21
Aztecs, let's let's get our stuff together here.
00:29:24
It wouldn't be USD though, because they're a Catholic
00:29:27
organization. School staff must respect
00:29:29
students right to privacy and may not affirmatively disclose a
00:29:32
student's LGBTQ plus status to others without the students
00:29:36
permission. Have a right to privacy.
00:29:39
So Long story short, they're fighting this out in federal
00:29:45
court. The plaintiff there, Mirabelli,
00:29:48
the teacher, is saying this is a violation of her freedom of
00:29:51
speech, freedom of religion, also equal protection clause.
00:29:55
So it's in federal court. California lied.
00:29:58
They tried to say let us out of it.
00:29:59
They were hiding stuff. Rob Bonta and the attorney
00:30:01
general hid that from them. Judge Benitez is pissed.
00:30:05
But this is a case that definitely needs more attention.
00:30:08
With that, what are your thoughts on this entire lawsuit
00:30:11
and what the state is doing? I know I keep loading you with
00:30:14
like the big questions at the end to cover everything, but I
00:30:17
hate to take a. Break OK, go.
00:30:18
Like, you know, I had to read the article twice and then
00:30:23
literally put it into chat like, oh, croc, I put it into croc.
00:30:27
And I was like, please explain this to me because I was so
00:30:29
like, what is I didn't fully understand what's going on here.
00:30:32
And that video was actually really helpful.
00:30:33
And I just I have three daughters and that teacher, I've
00:30:39
tried to imagine her trying to keep everything straight of
00:30:42
like, OK, this is Ashley during or like not Ashley, but like if
00:30:48
it's a girl, so her her given name that her parents gave her
00:30:51
on her birth certificate, she's Ashley.
00:30:53
But now she wants to be Ashton and she, you know, is Xer or
00:30:59
whatever, like that's her pronouns.
00:31:02
And then all of a sudden she's supposed to so, you know, five
00:31:05
days a week, this is Ashton. And then she sits down with the
00:31:07
parents and slips up and it's like, well, Ashton, you know,
00:31:12
and then she could get in trouble for that with with my
00:31:16
three girls, Like even just today, I'm always saying the
00:31:19
wrong names. Like I was literally looking at
00:31:21
my daughter Addison, and I hollered for one of my other
00:31:24
daughters, but I hollered said, and she's like right there, like
00:31:29
right in front of me, you know, and I'm like for a kid, like I
00:31:33
do this every day because I have 3 girls that the names just slip
00:31:36
up. I can't imagine this teacher
00:31:38
with probably 3035 students. And then she said these seven,
00:31:41
you know, girls that are identifying as who does what
00:31:44
day-to-day. And then she's supposed to keep
00:31:46
it straight during the day and then sit down with the parents
00:31:48
and say something totally different.
00:31:51
How can you push that on someone?
00:31:52
And then because it's law and the week, whatever, you know,
00:31:57
those bills were passed and then all of a sudden the the school,
00:32:00
the state, anybody could go after her for messing up, which
00:32:03
I realize that's not exactly what happened.
00:32:05
I'm just saying how dare we put that pressure on these teachers
00:32:08
that that is so much and again, which we've extensively spoken
00:32:13
about, but how dare we hide these things from parents?
00:32:18
Yeah, I, I It seems pretty simple that teachers shouldn't
00:32:21
be hiding anything from parents and that if this is an issue,
00:32:26
parents should know about it. Like parents should have an idea
00:32:28
of what's going on with their kids.
00:32:29
It's weird and creepy to think that teachers know something
00:32:33
about children, especially in this context of, like, gender
00:32:40
and sexual identity. Like it just seems weird that
00:32:42
they know it and the parents don't know it.
00:32:47
This is a fight and as you get 2 years ago is probably start.
00:32:50
I think it started and it's still going on.
00:32:52
It's still a big fight. This lawsuit is still going on.
00:32:57
So it's being fought out here down in Southern District, right
00:33:01
here in San Diego. But California tried to be a
00:33:05
little sneaky about it, a little slippery about it and it is.
00:33:09
I don't teachers already do like enough as it is.
00:33:15
They have so much on their plate and then just adding on like,
00:33:18
oh, OK, now on top of that, you have to be like their their
00:33:21
secret keeper, like you have to keep these secrets from their
00:33:24
parents. I feel bad for the teachers.
00:33:27
I feel bad for teachers like this Mirabelli who they just
00:33:31
want to go in and teach. They want to help kids learn and
00:33:34
hopefully get on for a good education, get on with life.
00:33:38
And now they're being taught like you or trained or told you
00:33:41
have to do this is it's just mind boggling.
00:33:45
And California is just so odd about the fact that they're
00:33:48
forcing literally every school district in the entire state of
00:33:52
58 counties. Nope, you have to listen to
00:33:54
this. Every school district, you have
00:33:56
to do it this way. Even if your school board of
00:34:00
people that voted in that area in that school district voted
00:34:04
for these people and it's, you know, 100% conservative or
00:34:06
something. And they say, no, we don't want
00:34:09
this, we don't want to do this. California's forcing it down
00:34:12
your throat anyway. But that's Sacramento and their
00:34:14
top down philosophy is, is everything has to come from the
00:34:17
king himself up in Sacramento. You can't you, you dare can't
00:34:20
oppose the state on anything like this.
00:34:25
So we'll we'll see if there's any update on the sanctions and
00:34:30
whether California gets sanctioned pretty badly or
00:34:32
pretty harshly. I imagine Benitez is if he's
00:34:34
pissed, he's probably going to drop the hammer on the state.
00:34:37
He's definitely no friend of the state of California and Gavin
00:34:40
Newson and Rob Bonta. I think Gavin Newsom called him
00:34:44
out once and said he was like a Trump crazed even though he
00:34:49
wasn't appointed by Trump. That he was a Trump like a Trump
00:34:52
crazed judge who wants to see kids die because he's always
00:34:58
overturning a lot of Second Amendment stuff.
00:35:01
Basically anything Second Amendment goes to Judge Benitez
00:35:05
people. If there's what was the last one
00:35:08
that's SB crap now I can't remember.
00:35:11
The thing is SB-9 or something the the 1:00 where they're
00:35:13
trying to overturn like carrying conceal magazine capacity,
00:35:19
assault rifles, all that stuff they're trying to like overturn
00:35:23
or take away from people. It always goes to Judge Benitez
00:35:25
and he always overturns it because that's just who he is.
00:35:29
He's a badass like that. Any final?
00:35:33
Yes. So because the the point of that
00:35:37
this particular lawsuit, what we're discussing is that the
00:35:42
state of California maybe went and hid something as as the
00:35:47
defense of trying to get Bonta and who else was it off off to
00:35:52
drop them from the suit. If you have to go and hide
00:35:55
stuff, maybe your policy isn't a good idea.
00:35:59
I mean, really sorry, that's not like a really like deep thought,
00:36:03
but just to wrap up with that specific lawsuit was about or
00:36:07
the specific topic was about is that they're literally they're
00:36:10
hiding the stuff to try to get somebody dropped as a defendant.
00:36:14
And it's like you only just made yourself look far more guilty.
00:36:18
This is creepy. This is weird.
00:36:20
Yeah, yeah. If you're so loud and proud
00:36:23
about it and you, you want to force it on everybody, why are
00:36:25
you hiding it and trying to pretend like it's not happening?
00:36:28
They they both are like they're trying to play both sides of it
00:36:32
where they're like, Oh, we're very loud and proud and we stand
00:36:34
up for transgenders and LGBTQ plus I whatever, the whole
00:36:38
spectrum of the rainbow. And then when it comes down to
00:36:41
like, oh, you're in court. Oh, no, no, we're just going to
00:36:42
hide it and like shovel it off to something else.
00:36:45
And no, it's not really happening.
00:36:46
I don't know what you're talking about.
00:36:47
This is all just false. Like this is just fake news.
00:36:49
This isn't really happening. Now.
00:36:52
It's AI think it's a good point that they're both proud of it,
00:36:57
but they're also hiding it. And we're going to, you know,
00:37:00
the lawsuit still is a while to go.
00:37:02
But it is interesting that California tried to pull these
00:37:04
shenanigans and these shady tactics to get out of the
00:37:07
lawsuit, even though we all know California is behind this.
00:37:10
And you know, Sacramento is definitely behind this in the
00:37:13
California Department of Education, which I know you're
00:37:18
you're a homeschool mom, just the case for private school and
00:37:21
homeschooling. You don't have to worry about
00:37:22
this crap when you send your kids to private school and
00:37:25
homeschool and all that stuff. All right, next story.
00:37:30
This is probably one of the more.
00:37:33
This is the continuing saga of Prop 50.
00:37:38
I read this whole complaint because I'm a nerd like this.
00:37:42
I read it last night and made my highlights.
00:37:44
I'm not going to bore everybody with the entirety of what is
00:37:48
going on here. If you don't know the back
00:37:51
story, basically the day after Prop 51 in a landslide, the
00:37:56
California GOP filed a federal lawsuit saying that these
00:38:01
districts are unconstitutional, they're gerrymandered.
00:38:05
I haven't read their complaint, but the DOJ stepped in just a
00:38:10
couple days ago. So now you got the federal
00:38:12
government and the whole weight of the Department of Justice is
00:38:15
stepping in. The Civil Rights Division is
00:38:17
stepping and going. We also believe that this is a
00:38:20
huge violation of several things in the Constitution.
00:38:24
I read their complaint and I, I'm usually try to give it to
00:38:28
you guys. Well, I, I always, we always
00:38:31
like to give it to you honestly. So if it's like a stinker of a
00:38:34
complaint, I'm like, this sucks. Like there's nothing to this.
00:38:38
I would absolutely tell you. But this actually has good
00:38:42
arguments. And I read it and I was like,
00:38:45
OK, I think this actually does have some teeth that California
00:38:50
went a little too far. All right, I'm going to show a
00:38:54
little bit of it for you. If you have any questions,
00:38:56
anybody in the chat have any questions generally about
00:38:59
anything we've talked about or in general, let us know in the
00:39:02
chat or about what I'm about to discuss.
00:39:05
Camille as well. I know you always like to ask
00:39:07
questions. So if you have questions like
00:39:09
can you explain this again, let me know.
00:39:11
All right, so this is the official complaint.
00:39:15
This is from the introduction. It said basically their whole
00:39:19
basis is that racial gerrymandering is
00:39:22
unconstitutional. Unconstitutional.
00:39:24
So we'll start there. Racial gerrymandering is holy
00:39:30
and right out in the open. Unconstitutional.
00:39:33
You can't do racial gerrymandering.
00:39:36
Now, the Democrats, who all of them are thick as thieves, Paul
00:39:40
Mitchell, who we've brought up on this show, he's married to
00:39:43
Jody Hicks, who is the head of the Planned Parenthood political
00:39:46
action committee, gives you any idea of where they lean.
00:39:49
Paul Mitchell redrew the maps and he got a little too
00:39:55
braggadocious about how he's going to do it.
00:39:57
I guess he didn't think this was going to come back to bite him
00:39:59
in the ass. So the complaint opens up about
00:40:03
how it wasn't about partisanship, but about race.
00:40:06
This is, quote, the first thing that map drawer Paul Mitchell
00:40:09
did in drawing the new map. The number one thing that he
00:40:12
first started talking about was to create a new majority
00:40:15
minority Latino district. And legislators focused not on
00:40:19
the purported vote dilution of Democrats elsewhere in the
00:40:22
country, but on the supposed dilution of the voting power of
00:40:25
racial groups in other states. They feared that a Latino voice
00:40:29
in Texas is worth 1/3 of their representation as a white voice,
00:40:33
that Texas would slide back to the days of Black Codes and Jim
00:40:38
Crow. I mean, that's a little out
00:40:42
there. That's a little extreme to say
00:40:44
that. And that Texas legislators would
00:40:46
silence the voices of Latino voters.
00:40:49
Proposition 50 would serve as a shield against racist maps they
00:40:53
told each other, so that minorities in California could
00:40:55
stand up and be counted. The end result is a map that
00:40:58
manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering the
00:41:00
voting power of Hispanic Californians.
00:41:02
Because of their race. They go on to talk about
00:41:06
although parts and gerrymanders lie, quote, beyond the reach of
00:41:09
the federal courts, racial gerrymanders are
00:41:13
unconstitutional. States generally may not use
00:41:16
race as a predominant criterion in achieving partisan goals.
00:41:21
And then it goes on to talk about when this happens, when
00:41:24
they find racial gerrymandering, it has to pass what in federal
00:41:29
law is called the strict scrutiny standard and the strict
00:41:35
scrutiny. So when judges approach a case,
00:41:39
there's different standards of does the law, is the law
00:41:42
unconstitutional or not? There's different levels to
00:41:44
determine. The strict scrutiny test is the
00:41:48
hardest test to pass. It is almost impossible to pass
00:41:54
because it is a compelling state interest.
00:41:56
And the compelling state interest is always national
00:41:59
security. Basically, we're under attack.
00:42:03
We need to preserve the country. This is why we have to kind of
00:42:07
infringe on your constitutional rights.
00:42:10
I don't think Prop 50 meets that burden of we're doing this for
00:42:15
national security or compelling state interest.
00:42:17
So already the strict scrutiny standard already puts California
00:42:20
at a disadvantage. It goes on to say when a state
00:42:23
assigns voters on the basis of race, it engages in the
00:42:26
offensive and demeaning assumption that voters of a
00:42:30
particular race, because of their race, think alike, share
00:42:34
the same political interests and will prefer the same candidates
00:42:36
at the polls. I've said this before.
00:42:41
We both said this before, something about Democrats and
00:42:45
leftists, they went so hard on everything is race based.
00:42:51
Everything has to be based on minorities and race based.
00:42:54
They've, they've now seen everybody as blocks of different
00:42:59
races and colors and they don't see people as individuals.
00:43:04
And they now just think like, well, you're Hispanic, so you
00:43:08
vote with Democrats. No, I know there are plenty of
00:43:13
Hispanics who voted for Trump. They're a Republican that are
00:43:16
very conservative. So to assume based on race that
00:43:20
you are a monolith who believes one thing over the other, call
00:43:26
me crazy, but I find that's really racist to do so.
00:43:30
But Democrats do it. They just seem to think if
00:43:32
you're part of a certain race, you're going to vote with us.
00:43:38
You agree that you think that's racist to think that just
00:43:41
because you're a certain race you you're going to vote for one
00:43:43
party or the other? Absolutely is racist to define
00:43:50
anybody because they are something, therefore they are
00:43:52
this. That's racist.
00:43:55
I mean, it's almost like they forgot, like what Martin Luther
00:43:57
King said, not the color of your skin, but the was it your
00:44:01
content of your character, not the color of your skin.
00:44:05
And then it goes on to say Latino communities are not
00:44:07
uniform constituency. They differ significantly across
00:44:10
urban, suburban and rural regions in terms of
00:44:13
socioeconomic status, citizenship rates, linguistic
00:44:16
backgrounds and political participation.
00:44:19
Just talking about how you can't look at a race as one thing and
00:44:25
then it goes on to talk about. So their argument could be that
00:44:31
Hispanics don't have enough of a say in California, when in
00:44:36
reality, I think they did. They put in the number.
00:44:38
It was like 30, for example. I'm trying to see what it was.
00:44:45
It's something like as a plurality, Hispanics actually
00:44:49
make up the largest voting bloc in California.
00:44:52
So out of all the minorities you have, you know, white voters,
00:44:57
Hispanic voters, Asian voters, black voters, a plurality is
00:45:01
actually Hispanic. So actually, the plurality, the
00:45:03
largest ethnic group in California, Hispanics.
00:45:07
So to say we need to create more because Hispanics are not heard
00:45:11
is kind of a ridiculous statement because they are the
00:45:14
largest ethnic group in California, at least for voting
00:45:19
purposes. And then they go on to talk
00:45:21
about how several Hispanic politicians have beaten white
00:45:27
candidates. So obviously that's not an
00:45:29
issue. Alex Padilla beat Mark Mauser,
00:45:33
Xavier Becerra beats Stephen Bailey, and then Ricardo Lara
00:45:38
beat Steve Poizner. So if your argument is Hispanics
00:45:42
don't have enough representation and we need to amplify their
00:45:45
voice, well, that doesn't make any sense because a lot of these
00:45:48
big statewide offices are being won by Hispanics.
00:45:54
And then I go to sign to say this is just more stuff.
00:45:59
This is more of what Paul Mitchell said.
00:46:02
The professed purpose for the new map was to negate the five
00:46:05
Republican seats drawn by Texas, adding up to five Democrat
00:46:08
seats. And we're going to get into some
00:46:09
breaking news about Texas in a second and the US House of
00:46:13
Representatives. However, in a presentation
00:46:15
regarding the draft maps, Paul Mitchell stated the number one
00:46:18
thing that he first started thinking about was drawing a
00:46:22
replacement Latino majority minority district in the middle
00:46:25
of Los Angeles. So already Paul Mitchell, who
00:46:27
redrew the maps, is openly admitting that he's drawing
00:46:30
these maps based on race. And here's a cute little tweet
00:46:35
being a little bit too presumptuous.
00:46:37
If you're keeping track at home, here's some clappy emoji.
00:46:39
Proposed Prop 50 will further increase Latino voting power,
00:46:44
likely increase Asian American voting power.
00:46:47
Yes. Question.
00:46:51
Question to the person in the front.
00:46:56
You had a question. Well, you keep cutting out and I
00:46:59
don't know if that's happening for the audience as well.
00:47:02
No, I'm sorry. Is anybody losing me in the
00:47:05
chat? But did you have a question or
00:47:07
are you just letting me know that I'm cutting out?
00:47:09
I just you, you've been, I'm letting you know you're cutting
00:47:12
out. I don't have a question yet.
00:47:14
I may probably have 1000. Sorry, I don't.
00:47:16
I don't know if that's happening for everyone else.
00:47:18
OK, if anyone in the chat is let me know that if I'm cutting in
00:47:23
or out. So as I was saying this tweet by
00:47:26
Paul Mitchell, if you're keeping track at home, here's all the
00:47:29
things they said, increased Latino voting power, Asian
00:47:32
American voting power, Latino influence district, but
00:47:36
otherwise replicates the status quo.
00:47:38
So basically he's admitting this wasn't a one off comment where
00:47:42
he said we're going to do this because of increasing Latino
00:47:44
representation. He's literally bragging about it
00:47:47
on X that he's redrawing the maps based on racial
00:47:51
districting. So to end the in, what's that
00:47:56
he? Said.
00:47:58
Oops, oops. Yeah, probably probably.
00:48:00
Don't brag about that online, Mr. Mitchell.
00:48:05
So then at the end of the day, this is what they are alleging
00:48:08
that is a violation because it's racial gerrymandering.
00:48:11
Declare Prop. 50 was adopted for the purpose of denying or
00:48:14
abridging the rights to vote on account of race or color in
00:48:16
violation of Section 2, which we've talked about all these
00:48:20
stories tonight. And if I sound like I'm out of
00:48:23
breath is because there's like 4 layers deep of all these
00:48:25
stories. Like this is like the
00:48:27
continuation of a lot of stories going on.
00:48:31
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is now up in front of the
00:48:35
Supreme Court for them to decide whether that's unconstitutional
00:48:39
and whether that's going to be struck down South.
00:48:41
We may have a whole new issue if the Supreme Court strikes that
00:48:45
down regarding racial gerrymandering and majority
00:48:49
minority districts. So whoo with that?
00:48:55
I didn't even read all that and I I feel the same.
00:48:57
Like, take a deep breath. It's a lot.
00:49:01
I hope I got through it, not too fast, but enough that people
00:49:05
understand. And my personal opinion is,
00:49:08
yeah, if you have the guy who's drawing the maps out there
00:49:12
saying it's going to be racial gerrymandering, we're doing this
00:49:15
based on race, and that's unconstitutional, that's not a
00:49:21
good look for how these maps were drawn.
00:49:24
And the federal court may step in and go, yeah, you kind of
00:49:27
went a little too hard into the racial gerrymandering area, and
00:49:31
you can't do this. So I'll let you say your
00:49:36
thoughts because I need to take a sip of water now.
00:49:39
Yeah, I don't have, I don't have a lot of thoughts on this or I
00:49:44
suppose I do. I just, it is a lot like you
00:49:46
said. And because we know there's this
00:49:48
the Supreme Court case, there's this case.
00:49:51
And then if these things do come to pass, then what?
00:49:57
What does happen for California? And and of course we've got the
00:50:00
next breaking news that you're going to break into, which is
00:50:03
just even more on top of this chaos already.
00:50:06
We're just, you know, California is like drowning and we're we're
00:50:10
that throwing babies to California to save while they're
00:50:13
drowning. And so it's like, yeah, I know
00:50:17
I'll let you get into the next part of this because I know
00:50:19
we're we're covering a lot so. We're covering a lot.
00:50:23
We still got one more story to hit.
00:50:26
All right, so this came out literally today breaking A panel
00:50:30
of federal judges has enjoined Texas from using its redrawn
00:50:33
congressional maps, ordering the state to use its 2021
00:50:36
boundaries. To which I replied, So based on
00:50:42
California Democrats logic, doesn't that mean we don't need
00:50:47
Prop 50 anymore? Because go in the Wayback
00:50:52
Machine, when Prop 50 was first written and 1st proposed, there
00:50:58
was language that they wouldn't go through with Prop 50 if
00:51:04
California or if Texas didn't go through with their
00:51:07
redistricting. That was the original language.
00:51:11
They took that out quietly because I guess they were like
00:51:15
hell, let's just go for it anyway.
00:51:17
Like we can, if we can get this, let's go for it.
00:51:21
This is the actual ballot language from Prop 50.
00:51:27
It says Section 4B in response to the congressional
00:51:31
redistricting in Texas in 2025 and notwithstanding, uh, any
00:51:35
other provision, blah, blah, blah, to redistrict.
00:51:40
So if this is in response to Texas and Texas is no longer
00:51:46
redistricting, I mean, wouldn't it make sense that you no longer
00:51:53
need Prop 50 because it's all evened out anyway?
00:51:57
Texas isn't gaining any more seats, but now you're gaining
00:52:01
more seats in California at the expense of voters and their
00:52:06
rights and all that. So what What say you California
00:52:10
Democrats now? I think they just, it's a power
00:52:13
grab for him. But it is interesting that
00:52:16
because Texas isn't doing its redistricting now, we're still
00:52:21
doing our redistricting, but the reason we were doing
00:52:24
redistricting is no longer an issue that's all over.
00:52:28
I, I don't know, it's so confusing and it's almost like
00:52:31
whiplash because it's like, why? What are we doing here?
00:52:35
Like now California is racially drawing these maps.
00:52:39
They're literally doing it just to get more power and to shove
00:52:43
more Democrats into the House. So now California is doing the
00:52:46
literal thing that they were accusing Texas of, which is
00:52:49
redistricting their maps to get more representatives into
00:52:53
Congress. Texas is no longer
00:52:55
redistricting. So now it's just California is
00:52:57
the only state that's doing this to change it all up and get more
00:53:01
people in. So they are now, I guess it's
00:53:03
like the what do they say in in the dark night?
00:53:07
You either live to be a hero or you you die a hero.
00:53:10
You live long enough to be a villain.
00:53:11
Right now, California is the villain because they've done
00:53:14
this long enough that they are now redistricting and adding
00:53:17
seats and cheating and all that stuff.
00:53:21
What are your thoughts? AM I still cutting out on your
00:53:30
end or did I lose you? I think I may have lost her.
00:53:37
But anyway, I'm going to keep talking.
00:53:39
If I come back, let me know. So that's basically the lay of
00:53:44
the land right now is Texas is not redistricting, the DOJ is
00:53:49
fighting here in California federal lawsuit.
00:53:53
We'll see what happens. But I think it actually does
00:53:56
have a good shot with this racial gerrymandering and this
00:54:00
argument that is unconstitutional.
00:54:02
And if you have Paul Mitchell, who is openly admitting that it
00:54:07
is unconstitutional or that he's doing it on a racial basis, then
00:54:12
we'll see where it goes. And this could be an absolute
00:54:15
mess going forward into 2026, where we we have no idea what
00:54:22
districts are going to be in place and what districts aren't.
00:54:24
What if there's a preliminary injunction from the federal
00:54:26
court that says, OK, you can't put in these new maps and you
00:54:29
can't redistrict, and then all of a sudden this happened.
00:54:32
It's just going to be an absolute mess in 2026.
00:54:36
It looks like Camille froze. So we're going to keep plowing
00:54:39
along. If you're in the chat, let me
00:54:42
know how it's going. Looks like we just lost her.
00:54:44
So if you're in the chat, let me know your thoughts as well.
00:54:51
So I'm going to move on to the next story regarding this Rob
00:54:56
Bonta story. And Rob Bonta has been found to
00:55:00
have used $500 cash from his campaign funds for legal fees.
00:55:08
And let's pull this up real quick.
00:55:15
So this is he spent $500 cash from his own campaign funds
00:55:23
for a law firm called Wilson Sun, Sunny Goodrich and Rosati
00:55:29
PC Los Angeles. That's a professional
00:55:32
corporation up in Los Angeles. That's a lot of money,
00:55:37
supposedly. Supposedly someone said she's
00:55:42
froyo. So that's Camille.
00:55:45
Camille. Hopefully she's coming back
00:55:47
because we want to finish out the show strong and I want to
00:55:49
thank everyone for tuning in. Everyone, wherever you are,
00:55:52
Central Valley, Sacramento, Lai, see all you people in the chat.
00:55:55
That's awesome. Thank you everyone for tuning in
00:55:57
on this rainy night. So he was accused of spending
00:56:03
$500 from his campaign funds, which is true.
00:56:07
He he did do that for these attorneys.
00:56:09
Now we have to go back in time because there was a story with
00:56:14
the Oakland mayor who was accused and arrested actually of
00:56:18
corruption. That's why she was removed from
00:56:20
office. You have to step down for all
00:56:22
these issues with bribery and corruption and all of that.
00:56:26
And Rob Bonta is involved because he was connected to the
00:56:31
people who were. Hold on.
00:56:34
I think we're getting a call. Is this.
00:56:39
I thought we were going to call. Thought Camille was coming back
00:56:43
for a second. I, I, so trying to catch up and
00:56:47
catch my breath here. Wait, hold on.
00:56:51
I think we got Camille back. I think so.
00:56:56
Let's see if she comes back. Bay Area represent.
00:57:01
Bay Area is not representing in the right way right now.
00:57:03
I'm just going to say that right now it's with with Oakland.
00:57:06
It's what we're talking about South the Sheng Thao, who was
00:57:10
the mayor of Oakland, she was accused of corruption.
00:57:14
And there was a family, the Duong family, who is a
00:57:18
construction family. And they had done a lot of
00:57:20
bribery and corruption with public officials basically
00:57:23
giving them money to do stuff. Camille's back.
00:57:28
Hi, Camille. We were talking about Rob Bonta.
00:57:30
Now we moved on to the next story.
00:57:33
Can you still hear me? Are you there?
00:57:37
I'm here. I wasn't here.
00:57:39
I think, I think it was on your end.
00:57:41
Everybody in the chat said you were, you were frozen.
00:57:43
So. You could you could all see me
00:57:45
like looking switching my Internet.
00:57:47
Yes, I I think everyone someone said you were froyo.
00:57:50
So anyway we moved on to Rob Bonta's story.
00:57:53
I was talking about how this all stems from the Oakland mayor
00:57:55
Sheng Thao. Corruption, bribery, the Duong
00:57:58
family, they were bribing people.
00:58:00
Rob Bonta was in the middle of it because they gave Rob Bonta
00:58:04
$155 which he then had to return after he found out that
00:58:09
they were corrupt as hell. The Duong family has been like
00:58:12
around for a while and they finally got picked up by the
00:58:15
feds over this and now he spent $500 of his money.
00:58:20
Camille went and found this is the actual screenshot of his
00:58:24
spending to Wilson, Sanisi, Goodrich and Rosati.
00:58:28
I went to go look them up because I was like well what
00:58:32
does Wilson, Sanisi, Goodrich and Rosati do?
00:58:35
This is one of the things that they do.
00:58:37
They do a whole bunch of things, but one of the things they do is
00:58:39
white collar crime. Experienced defense counsel
00:58:43
litigators have experienced defending clients facing
00:58:45
numerous types of allegations, including fraud claims, price
00:58:48
fixing, bid rigging, and antitrust, corruption and
00:58:51
bribery charges. Interesting.
00:58:55
Corruption and bribery charges. That's the stuff that the the
00:58:59
Duong guys and Sheng Thao are likely going to jail for.
00:59:04
Consumer fraud, anti kickback and whistleblower statute
00:59:07
violations. Federal enforcement agency
00:59:09
experience. Wilson Sinisi's white collar
00:59:12
defense attorneys have represented clients before.
00:59:14
All federal enforcement agencies, including
00:59:16
DOJSECFTCCFTCI don't even know what that one is.
00:59:20
IRS and FINRA, as well as in conjunction with criminal probes
00:59:25
led by various state attorney generals.
00:59:27
It's funny, he is the attorney general.
00:59:31
So they have experience in white collar crime, defending people
00:59:35
against these allegations. So Rob Bonto was basically
00:59:39
saying when he they found out he spent all this money, they
00:59:42
questioned him on it and they said, well, why did you spend so
00:59:47
well? It was because I was
00:59:48
representing myself and I was making sure that I had proper
00:59:51
representation regarding everything that happened with
00:59:55
Oakland and this investigation and this indictment.
00:59:59
But. I don't know.
01:00:02
You hire, I guess it's rational to think you hire white collar
01:00:07
crime defense attorneys if you're swept up in a federal
01:00:11
investigation regarding corruption and bribery.
01:00:15
But it's a lot of money and he did have a lot.
01:00:18
Of money. He it's a lot of $500.
01:00:21
I mean, look, I'm just going to say as an attorney, you rack up
01:00:26
$500 of fees. That is a lot of money.
01:00:30
And this is not like, you know, you can rack up a lot, hundreds
01:00:35
of thousands of dollars. If you go to trial all the way
01:00:39
through trial, you can rack up 200, three, $100 in fees
01:00:42
because it costs a lot of money, $500 before anything has
01:00:47
actually happened is a ton of money.
01:00:51
Now, supposedly, he isn't. Technically accused, right?
01:00:54
They just brought him in for questioning.
01:00:57
Yes, he is not part of the right, which I guess is smart.
01:01:02
Like if you're being brought in by the feds, you want to to
01:01:05
lawyer up this. Would 500.
01:01:09
Dollars. Those are some expensive
01:01:10
attorneys. They better be the best damn
01:01:12
attorneys in the world if they are $500 worth.
01:01:18
Here was his excuse for spending has clarified it's spent nearly
01:01:24
500 so he can have legal counsel as authorities asked
01:01:27
them for information during a federal bribery investigations
01:01:31
campaign. Says the use of the funds is
01:01:34
absolutely proper. The story does not end there
01:01:38
though. Because you sent me something
01:01:40
quite literally like a couple minutes before.
01:01:46
I'm going to pull this up really quick because we're going to
01:01:50
have to screen share this. I didn't have a time to add this
01:01:52
as an element to the show. Yeah, I do.
01:01:55
It's literally while you're on the pre show live.
01:01:59
I was like, hey. You're like, hey, what, why
01:02:02
don't you add this to the show as well?
01:02:05
This are some Ashley Zavala who's been covering this story.
01:02:07
California AG Rob Bontes campaign faces more questions
01:02:10
after spending what appears to be a historic amount of money on
01:02:13
attorneys fees amid a federal investigation.
01:02:15
He was not a target of the investigation, but his campaign
01:02:18
appears to be struggling to fully explain.
01:02:22
And then she had another update like what was it right after?
01:02:27
So this was OK. So this was an hour ago.
01:02:29
That's why I said it's nine O 3 right now.
01:02:32
An hour ago. Like this just happened and this
01:02:36
is the top news. Is it corruption?
01:02:40
Is it wrong? I don't know.
01:02:44
The FP was it. FPPC has made no comment.
01:02:49
They haven't said whether it's wrong or not, whether it's a
01:02:52
violation of using his campaign funds, but it does beg the
01:02:57
question, what the hell are you spending $500 on for
01:03:03
campaign funds for legal fees? So it it's, it's very
01:03:10
questionable if anyone in the chat wants to let somebody said
01:03:13
$500 is life changing money. It certainly is life change
01:03:17
money. So he says if it looks like a
01:03:19
duck, walks like a duck, pays attorneys for duck
01:03:22
representation. Yes.
01:03:26
Somebody also said also look up what the family owns the most
01:03:29
water rights or this is from a different someone.
01:03:32
I was talking about another issue.
01:03:37
Sure seems like a lot of Democrats being caught with
01:03:40
crimes. I see we investigate them all or
01:03:43
say we investigate them all. Newsome Bass, Brandon Johnson,
01:03:48
Eric Swalwell, mortgage fraud. There's a lot going on.
01:03:52
So I will say this because he hasn't been indicted, it's not
01:03:58
the subject of investigation. The FPPC has said there's has no
01:04:03
comment. He says it's perfectly fine.
01:04:06
You can do that because you can hire attorneys related to your
01:04:10
campaign or anything like that. I I guess because he took money
01:04:14
for his campaign for attorney general and he was connected to
01:04:17
these individuals. I guess that's the loose
01:04:21
interpretation of that. But but, and I leave this other
01:04:28
as a big, but it's a lot of money and we, we kind of want to
01:04:33
know why. Why did you spend so much money
01:04:37
to hire attorneys in a case that you are not indicted in or
01:04:41
you're not the center of investigation?
01:04:43
Does it go deeper? Are you more worried about what
01:04:47
could possibly be coming down the Pike regarding what could
01:04:50
come out for you? I don't know.
01:04:53
The story literally just broke today.
01:04:55
So or was it today or yesterday? It was literally yesterday this
01:04:58
broke. It continues to change.
01:04:59
It continues to update like by the hour.
01:05:03
And on top of it, he is flip flopping on whether or not he's
01:05:09
going to run for governor. And I'm not sure this is a great
01:05:11
way to launch himself into the gubernatorial race with some
01:05:16
sketchy $500 payment to white collar crime defense
01:05:19
attorneys who with that said, wow, we covered a lot tonight.
01:05:27
So yes, everyone got a lot of value for this podcast.
01:05:31
I'm going to take a sip of water.
01:05:33
I'm going to let you Give your opinion on this because I've
01:05:38
been talking a lot. I've been rambling a lot.
01:05:39
Go ahead. Well, so these payments were way
01:05:43
back in February. They're all on the same date.
01:05:45
Like I think it was like February 3rd.
01:05:47
He made several payments that totaled the nearly 500K and
01:05:51
there hasn't been any new payments since.
01:05:54
So I feel like maybe nothing new has come to light.
01:05:57
They haven't called him back in for anything or he knew that
01:06:01
things were going to come up. And so he just kind of fronted
01:06:03
the 500K as like a lot of billable to be able to, yeah,
01:06:09
retainer hours because. So that's all interesting to me.
01:06:13
I really quickly want to go back because I dropped off.
01:06:15
I'm so sorry to the 50 story because I had a little bit of a
01:06:20
conspiracy theory that I wanted to put on my tinfoil hat for.
01:06:24
Dropping, dropping conspiracies. So when, you know, when the
01:06:29
language was quietly dropped about the, the language was
01:06:33
supposed to be if Texas does yada, yada, yada, then
01:06:36
California's going to yada, yada, yada.
01:06:37
And then they dropped that language and went forward with
01:06:39
it. I believe Newsom may have gotten
01:06:42
some insider info that they were going to, if Texas went through
01:06:47
with it, that there was going to be this lawsuit based on, you
01:06:50
know, XYZ reasons of, of why they're filing this lawsuit.
01:06:54
And so I think Newsom then quietly removed the language
01:06:59
knowing this would happen so that then if that if then Texas
01:07:02
passed their gerrymandering and then the lawsuit was filed, then
01:07:07
California Newsome could say, well, we left it up to the
01:07:12
people to vote and they voted. Just my little thought.
01:07:19
Yeah, it's certainly possible. I mean, they have their ear to
01:07:24
the ground. And he knew that this might have
01:07:26
been coming. There might have been a good
01:07:28
possibility. That's definitely not a radical
01:07:33
conspiracy theory to think that they this could have come down
01:07:36
the Pike and they weren't going to redistrict anyway and this
01:07:40
was just a huge power grab. So I I don't think that's a a
01:07:46
huge tinfoil hat. Maybe it's a tiny little tinfoil
01:07:48
hat, to put it mildly. Someone asked who's from a
01:07:54
dormant campaign account. These candidates with their
01:07:58
dormant campaign accounts are out of control.
01:08:03
Like last week it covered Xavier Becerra 250.
01:08:06
It was Daniel Williamson was funneling money from a dormant
01:08:10
campaign account to herself to her business for consulting fees
01:08:15
for AI. Think it was a 2030, like it's
01:08:19
not. It was a 2030 campaign fund or
01:08:22
something for his Xavier Becerra.
01:08:23
Then he went off to DC and now you have Rob Bonta is using a
01:08:28
dormant campaign fund to pay his legal fees.
01:08:31
We might need to get a little bit of campaign finance reform
01:08:34
of like what you can really use this money for, because I don't
01:08:37
think people give money to politicians for legal fees or
01:08:42
for personal business expenses or anything like that.
01:08:48
That's just me. I don't know if I were giving
01:08:50
money to a candidate, I don't want to look up and see that
01:08:53
they used $500 of it for legal fees and really expensive
01:08:57
lawyers. I mean, that's a ton of money.
01:09:01
That would be really disappointing.
01:09:03
Kimberly Klasik. Yeah, Kimberly Klasik, we've
01:09:06
talked about her before, other candidates who we will not
01:09:11
mention. So with that said, that's our
01:09:15
show. That's a lot of stuff we cover
01:09:17
tonight. Thank you to everyone in the
01:09:19
chat, wherever you are, staying dry, staying warm, hopefully
01:09:23
from the rain. We covered a lot.
01:09:28
I saw you. You have one more.
01:09:30
Yeah, it's. Going to say join Telegram
01:09:32
because we're trying to cover so much, right?
01:09:35
It's just getting crazy. And, and so we are sharing
01:09:38
different kind of random stories, like it's just, we
01:09:42
don't even have rhyme or reason. It's just like Phil and I both
01:09:44
just kind of like, you know, we, we checked the news constantly
01:09:48
and we're like, this is an interesting one.
01:09:50
Share your thoughts. So stuff that we wouldn't
01:09:53
necessarily be able to get to on the podcast.
01:09:55
That is a perfect segue. If you were wondering what this
01:09:59
little like thing, right? It's hard to do this little
01:10:02
thing right here. This QR code, you can scan it
01:10:05
with your phone and it will take you to join the Members Only
01:10:07
Telegram. We share a lot of stories, not
01:10:12
always California stories. We share a lot of California
01:10:14
stories. There's a lot of stories that
01:10:16
come out through the week that Camille and I have been sharing,
01:10:19
keeping you guys updated, like up-to-the-minute.
01:10:21
So stuff like literally comes out or breaks.
01:10:23
We're sharing it with you, giving our thoughts.
01:10:26
You can go in and comment, oh, what's up, Iceman?
01:10:31
How's it going? So we're posting there, go to
01:10:36
that QR code, it's $1.99 a month for the members only.
01:10:40
We're going to be having more benefits like members only
01:10:42
lives, discounts on merchandise, all of that stuff, more members
01:10:46
only perks. It's fun.
01:10:49
And like Camille said, there's stuff that we've posted like
01:10:53
it's not california-based, it's national politics.
01:10:55
If you want to hear us talk about national politics, our
01:10:57
thoughts on the Epstein files or Trump or I don't know, whatever
01:11:02
is going on, like it doesn't have to be california-based,
01:11:04
whatever we find interesting. We've just been posting and
01:11:08
sharing our thoughts. And if you want to keep in touch
01:11:10
all week long between episodes, you can check that out.
01:11:14
Also, I think I pinned the link if you're in YouTube in the
01:11:17
chat, like at the top, so you can click up there as well.
01:11:20
And that will take you to join and we'd love to see you over
01:11:23
there. So any other final thoughts
01:11:25
before we sign off for the night?
01:11:26
Nope. That was a lot so.
01:11:31
That was a lot. We covered a lot.
01:11:33
Hopefully everyone understood everything we were talking about
01:11:37
and everyone got something out of this.
01:11:38
And yeah, we'll be back next week, Tuesday before
01:11:42
Thanksgiving. We'll be back Tuesday at 8:00 PM
01:11:45
live and the best thing you can do to support the show that is
01:11:49
100% free, that helps the show out is you can make sure you
01:11:52
subscribe like share all that stuff helps with the algorithm
01:11:56
helps more people find us. Things have been going great on
01:11:58
YouTube. A lot of new people have been
01:12:00
finding us on YouTube, the show on YouTube's and great love
01:12:03
seeing all you people in the chat joining us every week.
01:12:06
That's also awesome. But the 100% freeway that you
01:12:10
can help with this show is share it with someone who you think
01:12:12
would get a lot of this for California politics and then
01:12:14
keeping the know and we will see you on the next one later.