Chaos at the DNC: Election Laws, Media Manipulation, and Legal Battles

What happens when the Democratic National Committee's convention schedule collides with Ohio's election laws? We uncover the chaos behind the DNC's scramble to nominate President Biden electronically ahead of their planned convention. This unprecedented move raises critical questions about the future of political conventions and stirs fears of urban protests in Chicago, driven by local discontent with the party's policies. We'll dissect the logistical mess and its broader implications on the political landscape.

Have you ever wondered how media manipulation can twist election narratives and shape public opinion? From the contentious history of election outcomes challenged by leaders across the spectrum, to the media's role in amplifying these disputes, our deep dive into this phenomenon will shed light on the biases that influence voter perceptions. We'll also break down the closing arguments in the ongoing Trump trial, capturing the diverse reactions from legal experts. This segment aims to unravel the complex web of politics, media, and public discourse.

Hunter Biden's legal troubles are far from over, and we question the timing of President Biden's visit to a key witness in Hunter's trial. Could this be a case of political interference? We explore the controversial gun charges against Hunter and the broader implications for the Biden administration. Additionally, we bring attention to the movement in Oregon to redraw state lines and the alarming trend of unsupervised teen parties at New Jersey shore towns. As a special note, I'm thrilled for Elsa's return next week, promising more dynamic and engaging discussions. This episode is packed with critical insights and thought-provoking analysis you won't want to miss.

Chapters

• 0:00 Democratic Party Convention Planning Issues
• 11:31 Manipulation of Media and Trump Trial
• 21:28 Trump Trial and Biden Response
• 27:01 Hunter Biden Trial and Political Interference
• 36:15 State Line Redrawing Movement in Oregon
• 41:52 Unsupervised Teen Parties at Shore
• 50:33 Elsa's Return Next Week

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hey folks, clay Novak here, author of the novel Keep Moving, keep Shooting and co-host of the Elsa Kurt Show. I am flying solo again, once again this week. Elsa is still visiting those grandbabies and I've got some great topics for you tonight and we'll get started right after this. Okay, folks, first couple things. We've got to knock out some important election stuff that's going on. Part of it, the DNC, is in a bit of a bind and they're making a course correction Now. The bind that they're in is that the state of Ohio requires candidates to be verified, validated, 90 days before the general election. The problem is is that the Democratic National Convention being held in Chicago this year by the way, 1968, last time it was in Chicago, my hometown, my home area didn't go so well. We're expecting a little bit of the same this year. The convention being held in Chicago is being held 75 days before the general election.

Speaker 1: 1:19

So Ohio and its legislature has notified multiple times the Democratic National Committee that President Biden, as it stands right now, is, if they wait until the convention to nominate him, he will not be on the Ohio ballot period. It doesn't matter, he will not be on the ballot. They've been warned. They've been warned in writing multiple times. So, um, yeah, they didn't plan well, they didn't look at a calendar, they didn't put key dates on a calendar, they didn't lay anything out before they planned the convention in Chicago. Now this is like a multi-year operation. They've been planning this convention, you know, probably for at least two or three years. I would imagine probably at least three years, not only location, but you know timing, etc, etc. But but they didn't. They didn't put important dates on the calendar and now they're kind of bound up. So Ohio's warned him. They've told him again and again in writing and via multiple mediums and have said Listen, the president won't be on the ballot, he won't be eligible to be elected out of the state of Ohio, can't get the electoral college votes for the state if he's not on the ballot. Now obviously there's the catch-all of a write-in. I have very little belief that a write-in campaign would work to get President Biden. Enough, you know, votes in the popular vote to get all the electoral votes for the state of Ohio. So what the Democrats, the party, has decided to do is on August 5th, which puts them 90 days prior to the election, they're going to do an electronic roll call, a video teleconference, basically state by state, to validate and verify and, truthfully, officially nominate President Biden as the candidate for the Democratic Party for president, so that they can get him on the ballot in Ohio. They're still having the convention 15 days later.

Speaker 1: 3:28

So this shows you the validity of these conventions. They mean absolutely nothing. Pomp and circumstance, it's all a show, it's an opportunity. If you watch these in the past, they're unbelievably boring. Truthfully, you'll get one or two good speakers in there. They go on for four days and it's the same thing over and over and over again. It's all the all-stars from each of the parties. And listen, they're both subject to this. Republicans, democrats. They have the same, you know, same kind of agenda. You know it's all red, white and blue and it all looks very pretty. And then they finally nominate their candidate. You know the state's all weighing in, state representation all weighing in, and then they'll officially go on the ballot.

Speaker 1: 4:12

The DNC, the convention in Chicago this year 2024, is going to be completely irrelevant, completely. They're going to hold it sounds like an electronic call, um. They're going to hold a, a. It sounds like an electronic call um a poll. A poll, essentially, on a video teleconference, with the state's weighing in to nominate president Biden as the candidate to make sure that he gets on the ballot in Ohio, and this is all happening on August 5th, 15 days before the convention and 90 days before the general election. So they do meet the requirement.

Speaker 1: 4:45

Now, what is this going to do? And this is probably one of the things to watch what is this going to do to convention coverage? Very anticlimactic, very anticlimactic. Do they change the agenda is a good question. So, are they going to follow the same agenda that they've got planned? Are they going to make it look like it's every other Democratic? You know, the conventions of years past, elections past. Is it going to look like that? Are they still going to march out the delegates and all of those things, as they've done in the past, to nominate President Biden, even though he's already been, you know, declared the nomination for the party? I don't know. It's a good question. I think.

Speaker 1: 5:20

What really sucks, though, is that I have heard multiple times over the last few months that there is going to be quite a bit of, you know, urban protest in and around the convention site. You know, as the convention goes on, there are so many people in Chicago, in the city itself, who are upset with the party, their party, the party that they've been backing for years and years, decades and decades and decades that there was going to be protests. These are going to be Democrats. There's going to be Chicago hardcore Democrats. Keep in mind Chicago hasn't had a Republican mayor in over a hundred years. The city is as blue as blue gets, and they are. There's going to be some protesting.

Speaker 1: 6:03

There's some people that are pretty pissed, and a lot of it has to do with immigration and the fact that a number of the Democrats living in the voters, citizens living in the city of Chicago, feel like that the their leadership, their party leadership, their party has screwed them over, has taken away things from them that they need and have has given those things that you know to immigrants as they've been brought into the city. So I didn't expect that to get widespread coverage, except probably on Fox. As you would imagine. They'll be standing outside the convention center with microphones talking to all the people protesting. I'm sure get as much of that on as they can, but probably not any of the other mainstream media. So is that going to happen?

Speaker 1: 6:46

If the convention is as anticlimactic as it seems it's going to be one, do people not bother going? Is it going to be a hollow showing? Is it going to even look like it has in the past? And really are people going to turn out to voice their displeasure with the party as vehemently as they would have if this was the true nomination of President Biden as the candidate for the Democratic Party? I don't know, it will be interesting to watch, but I do believe that the entire convention is going to be very anticlimactic. I think you're going to see a lot of empty seats, a lot more than you would have in the past, and I think it just goes to show that there is a lot of lack of planning, a lot of lack of foresight, a lot of attention, lack of attention to detail in the Democratic Party as a whole, not just for this event. I mean, this is truthfully, it's like the biggest event for the party every four years, no questions asked, nothing bigger than the convention on a presidential election year. So for them to screw this up this bad, to really screw up the date, the planning of this as badly as they have to miss a mark this large, I think it tells you a lot about the party itself and how much disarray they're really in and how much lack of strategic planning or detailed planning is going on at all. And this is the leadership of the party, that they may not be the ones detailing or doing the detailed planning is going on at all, and this is the leadership of the party, that they may not be the ones detailing or doing the detailed planning, but they're certainly approving it Right. So, as the party leadership said yes to all of this, somebody somewhere along the way missed some pretty big details and it's and it's not turning out well. So that's something to watch as the election rolls up. But that's coming very, very quickly. August 5th is going to be this electronic roll call, this video teleconference by the Democratic Party to nominate President Biden officially. That's their official nomination, very anticlimactic for this presidential election. So a little tidbit, something to watch out of the Democrat as a party, out of the Democrats, as this thing rolls forward.

Speaker 1: 8:45

Now, at the same time, directly related to the election and really relating to the last one, two, three, four presidential elections, there's a new trend in the mainstream media as they're interviewing key Republican leaders. So I've seen this happen to Tim Scott. I've seen it happen to Marco Rubio Republican leaders, so I've seen this happen to Tim Scott, I've seen it happen to Marco Rubio and I've seen it happen to oh, who's the other one? At least three that I can think of off the top of my head. Oh, ted Cruz is the other one. So in interviews, the mainstream media is hitting these key Republican leaders with this very specific question and what they're saying is specific question. And what they're saying is will you agree right now to endorse the winner of the election in November, no matter what? Right? So the two keys to that are right now and no matter what. Now. Thankfully, at least those three that I've seen interviewed, or pieces of their interviews, have been smart enough to say no. No, I'm not, I'm not going to write off any possibility of voter fraud, election interference, you know illegal election procedures or processes by any given state, et cetera. So those three at least are smart enough to do that. Now, when they say no, it turns into a very, very different interview and a very different question.

Speaker 1: 10:06

So then it turns into you know, election denial. It turns into accusations of you know why not. Don't you believe in free and fair elections? You know, are you backing President Trump? Is this another, you know, attempt by the you know Trump administration or potential administration or Trump election committee to deny you know. Attempt by the you know Trump administration or potential administration or Trump election committee to deny you know the election results before they even come out. Well, in reality it's the same thing in reverse. It is the attempt by the mainstream media to get these key Republican leaders on video saying I endorse the leader, the winner of the election, no matter what, no matter the circumstances, and then they hold it over their head and then it's there for eternity. And then if there is any speculation of election interference or illegal election procedures or voter fraud or anything else, they can throw these out there. They can throw these interviews out and say hey, ted Cruz, or hey, marco Rubio, or hey, tim Scott, or hey, whoever. Throw these interviews out and say hey, ted Cruz, or hey, marco Rubio, or hey, tim Scott, or hey, whoever. You said back in May Remember it's May. You said back in May you would endorse or back or verify the election, no matter who won. And that's what they're trying to get these guys to do. They're trying to take that argument off the table months before the election even starts. Off the table months before the election even starts Now.

Speaker 1: 11:31

Keep in mind yes, president Trump said President Biden didn't win a free and fair election. He has said that multiple times. He's not going to deny that. Hillary Clinton said the same thing about President Trump. It was said about President Obama. It was said about President Bush. You know hanging chads in Florida against Al Gore. You know this is not a new thing, right, contrary to popular belief and contrary to what the media has been portraying for you know, at least the last three years, denying the results of election or at least complaining about illegal, immoral, unethical, you know, election procedures, voter fraud and those kinds of things. This is not new news. They're just making it a new news.

Speaker 1: 12:11

Trump thing. You know, to back the, the insurrectionists that you know. He's going to tear apart the country. He's going to overthrow democracy. He's going to, you know, martial law and all these other crazy things they're coming up with. He's going to come, you know martial law and all these other crazy things they're coming up with. They're trying to use that as a, you know, as a kind of a marker to say this is, this, is, this is Trump. It's all Trump, it's all Trump, but it's not all Trump. Again, hillary, secretary Clinton did the same thing, you know. The same thing was said about President Obama. The same thing was said about President Bush.

Speaker 1: 12:41

Denying the results of election and actually suing and bringing it into a court of law is not uncommon. This happens almost every presidential election in some form or fashion. Okay, al Gore sued over the results of Florida. Okay, it's not new news, that was 25 years ago, 24 years ago. This happens, okay, but what they're trying to do is get these key Republican leaders to say nope, right now, I endorse whoever wins, period. I know it's May, I know anything can happen, Doesn't matter, I'm endorsing anybody that that has declared the winner and they'll manipulate it. The mainstream media will manipulate it any way they choose in the future and anyway, that works out for them. You know, pending a President Biden victory highly doubtful at this point, but if it happens. And then you know, president Trump former President Trump, you know goes at it and denies the election results, etc. Etc. Those are the types of quotes that they're trying to get everybody. They'll try and get everybody on tape to say and then use it against them in the future and against the party itself.

Speaker 1: 13:47

So it's interesting that the media and it's interesting that it's happening multiple times on multiple different platforms and multiple different networks to multiple different leaders. Again, it tells you very, very quickly mainstream media is in cahoots across networks because they're asking the same questions by different interviewers on different networks to different Republican leaders. The question is are they asking Democrat leaders the same question? The answer is no. You're not seeing it, you won't see it. And if you do see the question asked, you're going to get the same answer out of them, a hundred percent.

Speaker 1: 14:22

There is no way that any politician now, any leader in either one of the parties, is going to say definitively in May yes, I endorse whoever it is that gets selected as president, sight unseen, no questions asked. Nobody's going to do that. No, no politician with any brains whatsoever is going to say that out loud. So it's interesting that they're trying to pull that card already to go down that road. But I just I don't see any of the current political leaders, any of them with any brains to commit to an answer like that would be stupid to do. You know, detrimental in the long run, probably even detrimental in the short run.

Speaker 1: 15:00

But they are trying and again it just shows that the media is in deep, trying to manipulate this, provide themselves ammo for the future as well, as you know, influence the election or at least influence the election by taking Because you'll see, probably in the very near future you will see those interviews and the answers by the Republican leadership, used against them as it stands. Used against them as it stands. Oh, they don't endorse free and fair elections. Oh, they don't endorse, you know, the winner, no matter who it is. Oh, they don't support democracy. It's a catch 22 for them, double-edged sword. No matter how they answer, they're screwed. But I think this was more about planning for the future and they'll probably exploit it in the near future and in the present and we'll all start to see that.

Speaker 1: 15:42

So, again, pay attention to what the media is doing in relation to the election. We're going to talk about that again in a minute. But definitely the media is involved and they're not sitting idly by providing us voters, the American citizenry, fair and unbalanced, unquestioned, non-editorialized information allowing us to make adult, grown-up decisions about who we're going to vote for. Both sides of the aisle, both sides of the media aisle, are manipulative. That's what they do. It doesn't matter which network you watch, nobody gets unbiased news anymore. It doesn't happen. Find some independent journalism and maybe you'll get some. But any of the MSM, I don't care what station it is, they're all biased. But this is the latest attempt by the liberal media to manipulate the election and future outcomes, you know, based on what current leadership is saying. Okay, today is Tuesday. As you guys know, we record on Tuesday, we drop on Thursday, so today is day one of closing arguments in the Trump trial.

Speaker 1: 16:43

A couple of interesting things came out of this. The prosecution has been going since you know it got turned over from the judge. Hey, prosecution, go ahead and start your closing arguments. They've been going all day. The last report was at 4 pm this afternoon. They were still going and I've watched a bunch of legal experts and their reaction in the courtroom to what is being said and the amount that is being said.

Speaker 1: 17:08

And the prevailing theory on all of this is they are throwing so much garbage. One, they're rehashing everything that they went through in the trial. It has nothing to do with key points or solidifying their argument. It is literally throwing all the data back and all the information back at the jurors over again, which can be interpreted as condescending. It can be repetitive and the trends from the experts are, it's actually doing more harm than good. The jury is going to feel manipulated. They're going to feel, you know, like they're being talked to in a condescending fashion. It's going to get boring and it's going to get irritating. Not to mention it is not effective in, you know, reinforcing their argument. So, as they've been going on and on and on, they're really not helping themselves. So I don't know if prosecution's even going to, or defense is even going to get started today with their closing arguments. My guess is probably not. I would imagine, based on time of day, that the prosecution will probably rest or finish their closing arguments today. They will probably go to a recess and then potentially go on Thursday for the defense's closing arguments and then go into deliberation after that. So we'll see what happens.

Speaker 1: 18:33

But inside the courtroom it's not voting well for the prosecution. We all kind of knew this. Elsa and I have been talking about it for weeks. The goal is not necessarily to win. It is to keep President Trump off the campaign trail, to keep him off of social media as much as possible and to minimize his impact as the election draws near. And you know, have they been effective? Not really, because again he's been given a masterclass on opportunistic campaigning in and around the New York City, new Jersey area. He's done a couple of bang up, you know, drop by some bodegas, firehouses and some other things. He's also had some rallies New Jersey, the Bronx just late last week, which turned out to be awesome, huge, much bigger right in AOC's district, much bigger than anybody anticipated. So he really has continued to opportunistically campaign and do a great job of it.

Speaker 1: 19:23

So this other than eating time, general consensus on the Trump trial is it's not going well and it's not going to. You know, there's going to be no fruit that comes out of this that turns into any kind of conviction on President Trump. So wasted effort, probably, but maybe not Now. Another key indicator that it's not going well is that, for the first time now keep in mind the White House has said over and over again they have no part in this trial. None, no part in it. This is all about New York City. New York City decided to do this. It's not about the administration, it's not about the president.

Speaker 1: 20:01

However, today, today, the campaign for President Biden decided to hold a campaign event no-transcript right outside the courthouse of Manhattan where president Trump is being tried. They held a campaign event, um, and they brought out yes, I know it's two weeks in a row We've talked about Robert De Niro, uh, of all people to stand out there and run his mouth about president Trump and all this crazy stuff that he believes. Um, you know, the president Trump's going to destroy the, destroy the country and destroy the earth Actually, I think it's his newest one and for whatever reason maybe because it's New York, and they think, because the Nero's Italian, he's New Yorker, and blah, blah, blah blah that he's going to hold some sway with the people. What he walked into was a buzzsaw, because outside of the Manhattan courtroom is not a bunch of Biden supporters, it's not or a bunch of a bunch of anti-Trump people, it's a bunch of Trump supporters. And they got out there and he got behind the microphone and he got railed by everybody standing out there to the point where he got pulled off as he left the podium. He got into a verbal exchange with a number of Trump supporters screaming expletives at them.

Speaker 1: 21:28

Not professional at all, probably not what the campaign for President Biden wanted. You know, some F-bombs being thrown out there and he just looked as much or more like a fool as he has for the last three years. You know, people started criticizing his movies, started criticizing his acting career. Told him he's for the last three years? Um, you know, people started criticizing his movies. Uh, started criticizing his acting career. Told him he's a has-been? Um, he's washed up, he needs to go away, he needs to shut up. And his response was a bunch of expletives which he uses in his mafia movies. Uh, the characters that he plays all the time. I won't repeat them, but they all start with F? Um. So that again, the election. You know that.

Speaker 1: 22:05

Or the White House has decided, or has been saying over and over and over again that they have no part in this Trump trial. President Trump trial has nothing. It's all New York city, new York city's doing it. But the campaign decided today to hold an event outside of the Manhattan courtroom, outside of the Manhattan courtroom. My guess, my assessment of this is they know that the trial is not going to be successful. They know that as early as today it could have been end of closing arguments, a very, very brief, quick deliberation and an acquittal for President Trump, and they wanted to be there potentially and be prepared as he walked out of the courtroom, or at least to set the stage a little bit better when he does. I would expect something from the Biden campaign for every day the rest of this week where the trial is underway. I know they haven't been traditionally in session on Wednesday, so I don't know if they're in tomorrow or not. That's why I think they may wait till Thursday and then Friday. But I think you're going to start to see something from although today went pretty poorly, so maybe not, but you may see something from the Biden President Biden campaign outside of the courtroom until the end every day, and I think part of it is to pivot away or to counter that the end that they know is coming, which is that he's going to be acquitted and that he's going to come out looking like a hero and it's just going to garner more support. So they're going to try and beat that. Today they brought up January 6th and insurrection and some other garbage and again use their puppet, robert De Niro, to try and do that and it turned out very, very poorly. So keep an eye on that over the next couple of days, but we will see. My guess is, by the time we record next week so a week from today, next Tuesday, there will be a determination in the Trump trial. We will know the result and my guess is he's going to be acquitted no charges and it's over with. So we'll see what happens.

Speaker 1: 24:00

There is another trial that is getting ready to get started, uh, and that is the Hunter Biden gun charges trial. Um, so, uh, there was an attempt again to dismiss a motion to dismiss. Um, he has pled not guilty, by the way. All charges, um, but there was an attempt again to dismiss, hiding behind the second amendment of all things. Yes, the party of gun control is high attempted to hide the president's son behind the Second Amendment to keep him from probably being charged and convicted of these gun charges. Yes, appalling, the absolute audacity. Appalling, the absolute audacity.

Speaker 1: 24:47

But the trial, if you're not tracking, the gun charges are interesting. So when you buy a firearm and I'm a firearm owner but when you buy a firearm and you fill out a questionnaire for your background check and one of the questions revolves around are you currently using or addicted to a controlled substance? If you check yes, you are not getting that gun. If you're trying to buy a gun and you're filling out the paperwork and you check yes to that, you're not getting that gun. So if you want the gun and you are addicted or using a controlled substance, you're going to mark no, which immediately means that you're a felon. As soon as you mark no, that's a lie and you're a felon. You have purchased that gun illegally by lying on the background paperwork that you submit, that you personally fill out and you submit, which is exactly what Hunter Biden did. And then once you possess the weapon, whatever it is, and you're a user of a controlled substance, you are also. It's another felony charge.

Speaker 1: 25:54

So he's got four charges, I think, all related to the purchase of this revolver that he bought, uh, that he bought, and uh, and there was a, there was a an attempt to, or there's a he pled not guilty and there is a uh, an attempt to request to dismiss all charges based on his second amendment, rights to protect himself and own a firearm. Unbelievable, unbelievable that the party who is looking to take away all, most or all private gun ownership and don't tell me they're not because they are all right. I I've never been a you know, the sky is falling kind of guy when it comes to gun ownership, but I will tell you that the mission of the Democratic Party is to eliminate private firearm ownership and they can lie as much as they want, but that is the end state and they'll do it incrementally. But for them right now to try and protect the president's son, or the president's son to have the audacity to hide behind the Second Amendment while he knows that he lied on the paperwork purchasing that firearm, is unbelievable. That is, it is the ballsiest move. I know the guy is just a shit human being, but but that's, that's the latest attempt. It's crazy to me.

Speaker 1: 27:01

Now here's the other kicker in this thing. It's crazy as all this is with with Hunter Biden and oh, by the way, the laptop, that wasn't his, that was his, that wasn't his, that was Russian, whatever. That's all going into evidence for this gun trial, by the way. So everything that we were told during the last election, where it was all fabricated, it was, you know, russian misinformation and and the laptop was a line up, that thing's going into evidence in this gun trial. Okay, so it wasn't a lie. It wasn't, none of it was. It's going into evidence and it's going to be used against Hunter Biden to convict him of these crimes. Um, so it wasn't a lie. Thank you again, fbi, uh, for screwing that up for all of us and impacting some voters in the last election. Good job. Election interference. Federal Bureau of Investigation you guys suck. That was horrible. Okay, but I digress.

Speaker 1: 27:52

So at the time of Hunter Biden owning this gun and when he disposed of it by the way, he disposed of this gun by throwing it in a dumpster he was having an affair, sleeping with, having an adult relationship with his dead brother's widow. Okay, the Biden family is like a soap opera, like an episode of Jerry Springer. So he was sleeping with his dead brother's widow. She potentially witnessed him, or did witness him, dispose of this revolver by throwing it in the dumpster, so she can attest to the fact that he owned it and possessed it as a felony narcotics addict and user. And she, just before this trial is getting ready to start, miraculously got a visit from the president. Now, he did go to visit her in and around Memorial Day.

Speaker 1: 29:01

I'm going to say one no matter what the lies have been, no matter what the president believes in his senile, very degraded mental capacity, his son did not die in combat or as a result of combat. He did not. Okay, was he a uniformed officer in the national guard? Yes, he was? Did he die while he was still in service? Yes, he did, At least as far as I remember. Is he in the category of those to be remembered on Memorial Day as killed in combat defending our nation? No, he is not. It's not derogatory, it's just fact. Okay, but president went and saw his former daughter-in-law, um, on Memorial day. In and around Memorial day, weekend could very easily be a, or a father-in-law visit related to Memorial day, related to the fact that his son was a uniformed service member and that his son has passed away Could be. I would be very, very interested in the amount of times and frequency and when President Biden has visited his former daughter-in-law.

Speaker 1: 30:17

The proximity to the beginning of this trial makes this entire thing suspect. Presidential influence on the election, presidential influence on her testimony? Whether it was a plea or a threat, my guess is. Behind closed doors the president looked her in the eye and told her to lie. I know that's a big accusation, but that's my assumption. Something nefarious happened behind closed doors. I don't think it was, you know, a loving visit. I don't believe that it was based purely on his son, the former army officer. I believe it has everything to do with the Hunter Biden case that is about to start. The timing is too, too close. It is not a coincidence. I don't generally believe in coincidences, so this isn't one of them.

Speaker 1: 31:07

I believe that the president is interfering with this election, or not election, with this court case of his son. I think he has since the beginning. Again, the laptop is almost proof positive. You know the president and probably even back further. President Obama has interfered with this. His influence in the FBI you know both of their influences in the FBI, even while President Trump was president, is well known. It's not a new thing and that's why the Hunter Biden laptop was noted.

Speaker 1: 31:38

As you know, russian misinformation, disinformation from the get-go, which now we know is real. We know that it's being entered into evidence. So it's not a stretch to believe that the president went and saw his former daughter-in-law, who is a key witness in the upcoming trial of his son, and to tell her to interfere with her testimony in some form or fashion. I highly highly doubt it was reassuring. Just tell the truth, just tell the truth. I also find it impossible to believe that the trial didn't come up at all in conversation. There's no way you got the two of them in a room a week or so before the trial or two weeks before the trial was supposed to start and it doesn't come up in conversation. I'll never believe that, in which case, opportunity by the president to influence what she was going to say, her testimony, et cetera which again is, is interference, interfering with a criminal court trial President or not doesn't matter.

Speaker 1: 32:38

He's overstepping his bounds, I think, as is the trend with his administration. Piss, poor advisers. He shouldn't have been anywhere near her with this trial coming up, daughter-in-law or not. He should have stayed away from her completely. No contact would have been the way to go, just to keep him and her and this entire court trial court case on the up and up. But of course that's not how the Bidens do business, especially not President Biden, especially not when it comes to Hunter. Everything about the two of them working together is criminal crooked. You can talk about China, you can talk about the Ukraine, you can talk about all kinds of things. Nothing those two do in cahoots is on the up and up. It's the big guy and he's still influencing everything that has to do with Hunter.

Speaker 1: 33:20

So I think it's entirely possible that you're going to see her get on the stand and have a completely different story than what has been anticipated. I think there will be a lot of, you know, potential perjury by her as she gets on the stand, or at least a watered down version of the truth. And they'll never, you know, I think probably a if the Department of Justice IG Inspector General, you know, I think probably a uh, if the department of justice IG inspector general, whatever internal affairs they have, um should be bringing in every secret service agent who is in and around that at the time and questioning them about what they heard um to, to see if there was any election interference. I know it won't happen, but it should happen. Department of justice needs to get involved with this. But it's the president and they work for him and they're they're a bunch of a bunch of sheep right now. So, um, nothing's going to be done, but I can tell you that it's been interfered with that. That's my gut feeling. I don't see any two ways about it. There's. There's no way that he did not get in the middle of that discussion with her in one in some form or fashion and tell her to either lie flat out or at least alter, water down her story when she gets called to the stand. It's just it's going to happen. So we'll see how it plays out. But those are the two. The Trump trial President Trump trial, which is not going well for the Democrats, and the Hunter Biden trial, which is trying to be influenced already by the Democrats before it gets started, are kind of the two bigs on the legal, you know, on the legal docket, as things are going right now. You know there's a couple of other things going on, I think probably the one that shocked me the most, although I've heard rumblings of it over the last couple of years.

Speaker 1: 34:56

But you know, the state of Oregon has a geographic and political divide that you can't deny. So Western Oregon, which includes Portland, is on the west side of the Cascade Mountains. They are very it's common knowledge, I mean super, super liberal. We've talked about some of their public policy here on the show and how ridiculous it really, how, how ridiculous it really is. On the East side of the cascade mountains in Eastern Oregon is a very, very different population, um, agricultural, um, very conservative, um, do not share views with the Western side of the mountains, um, and that side of the state is really, really getting sick of being overrun and having their values thrown out the window by the western side of the state, and it's because of the population difference. While you've got a lot of space on the east side of the mountains in that conservative red zone and a lot less space on the west side of the mountains, where Portland and a lot of liberalism is going on, the density of the population is in Portland. So when there is voting on specific topics and issues, the west side of the mountains win and the people on the east side of the mountains are getting sick of it.

Speaker 1: 36:15

And there is a movement, a legitimate movement, gaining momentum to redraw the state lines. That western or eastern part of Oregon wants to become part of Idaho. It more matches their values, you know, than the rest of their own state. They actually it's, this is almost, this is a secession of sorts. Right, redraw the lines, draw it at the mountains, however. They want to draw it, but they want to break away from, you know, what they see is a completely different culture and a completely different set of values, geographically very, very different. So they can be, their opinions can be of value and they can live in a place where they feel comfortable that their values and their culture is being honored.

Speaker 1: 36:58

So you know, this is not uncommon. I mean, I can tell you, you know, I grew up in Illinois. There's three very blue population centers in Illinois Chicago, springfield, where the capital is, and the outskirts of St Louis. Here in Pennsylvania, where I live now, same thing. You have three very liberal blue population centers Philadelphia, harrisburg, where the capital is, and Pittsburgh. In both of those states and you could say this about a lot of states right, new York, right, new York City is very blue. The rest of New York is not. Texas, austin, houston, parts of Dallas very blue, the rest of the state not so much.

Speaker 1: 37:38

Okay, so Oregon is not, you know, an isolated incident, um, but what you're seeing in these other States is you're seeing people, you know, who are fed up with being pushed by the wayside because they don't live in these super urban population centers and their values are being thrown out the window. Um, so what you're seeing now it's happening in California too. Right, there's a difference North and South, northern California is a lot more conservative than Southern California. Well, I think everywhere is pretty much more conservative than Southern California, but you've got a governor who doesn't pay attention to Northern California in California, governor Newsom, he worries about LA, san Francisco, san Diego doesn't care about anything else because that's where the votes are.

Speaker 1: 38:23

Illinois is the same way. Illinois is the same way. Pennsylvania is the same way. New York's the same way. Texas worries about its major population centers. Georgia is the same way. Atlanta same thing, right. So In those states, what you're seeing is people migrating, texas being a little bit of an oddie because you got a lot of people migrating into Texas, but in other states you got people leaving Illinois in droves. California is shrinking in population has, I think, the last three years in a row, so they're losing more than they're gaining. Illinois, you know Illinois, new York massive moves out of New York started in COVID, has continued since. You know, I think Pennsylvania is holding pretty steady, but you're starting to see people move out of those states and into what you would classify as a red state or conservative state, a state that holds their same values, and then they feel like they're living in a place where they can live the way they want to live, without you know that the liberal policies that they don't agree with.

Speaker 1: 39:29

Um, this thing in Oregon is different, because you're not talking about people physically leaving the state. You're talking about people physically or uh, or, or physically changing the state, redrawing the lines? Um, I don't, I don't know about this, I don't know how this is going to work. I, I, I understand exactly what these people are feeling. I really do. Um, I, I will be very interested to see how far this goes, what kind of momentum it gains, if any at all, um, and and what happens?

Speaker 1: 40:05

Um, because I think if there's any success in this which I don't anticipate, but if there's any success in this at all, I think you're going to start to see things change in other places. I think you're going to start to see movements to break and redraw lines, and there's a lot of danger in that in our system lines, and there's a lot of danger in that in our, in our system, in our, the way our elections are held, our national elections are held, electoral college, some other things. There's a lot of danger in this because it's based on a lot of our systems are based on the status quo and when you upset the status quo things, you know they don't necessarily go the way that you anticipate. So I don't know how it's going to go. I don't anticipate that it will gain any momentum and that there'll be any success and that any state lines will be redrawn. But I think it's a great indicator of how tired people are getting conservative, rural, agricultural, salt of the earth, flyover state kind of people. You know how irritated they're getting about being essentially ignored because they don't live in a major metropolitan area. And that's really what's happening. You know there's a whole bunch of people in Illinois that are not happy with Governor Pritzker. They don't give a crap about Chicago or St Louis because they don't go there. It has no effect on their life but it does because those population centers they hold the votes and they're the ones that are determining policy at the state level and it's hurting them. So we'll see what happens in Oregon. I think it's an interesting, interesting modern political problem, but again, I don't anticipate much. But it's definitely something to pay attention to because if it does swing in any way, shape or form, you're going to start to see it gain momentum in a lot of places, which again has some dangers to it.

Speaker 1: 41:52

All right, this past weekend lastly, this past weekend was Memorial Day. I talked about it last week. You know, listen, some people want it to be somber, some want it to be a barbecue. It's great, whatever you want to do with it, especially if you've got a fallen veteran that's close to you and you want to celebrate that person, you do you. I have no problem with it. I know there's a lot of veterans out there, including Admiral Kirby from the White House, talking about how somber things are supposed to be. Whatever you do you and I think a lot of people did. However, I will tell you that there was a problem in New Jersey this past weekend, both in Ocean City and in Wildwood.

Speaker 1: 42:34

Now, for those of you not from this area, there's a couple of things about the shore, as they call it, the Jersey Shore. You guys have all seen the idiots from MTV that have been on MTV living a stupid lifestyle for, you know, 25 years. But you get a lot of kids from New Jersey, from Eastern PA, from New York, from even Maryland, that go and Delaware, that go to the shore on long weekends and specifically places like Ocean City and Wildwood. The problem is is there are a lot of parents who are from the area and did the same thing when they were in high school. There are things here that are interesting, very traditional around here, to have kids called senior week, so after the seniors graduate. The week after they graduate, groups of them will go for a week to lake houses and they'll go to the shore and they'll go on these little mini vacations. It's kind of their last hurrah right after they graduate high school.

Speaker 1: 43:38

But one of the things, one of those local traditions, is to go to the shore Memorial Day or for long weekends, and parents are okay with it. When I say parents are okay with it, I'm talking about sending 16, 17 year olds to the shore with no parents, you know, booking hotel rooms for them online, even going so far as sending an older sibling, or going down themselves and checking kids into hotels because they're not 18, handing them the keys and then turning on the driving home. That is not uncommon. And then you've got the kids, the local kids, the Jersey kids, who drive up for the day or they're staying at a friend's house or something like that or Airbnb, who are very unattended check-ins in most cases but you've got kids who are wandering around these, these shore towns, and turning them into a party. It's very spring breaky kind of feel to it, except for the fact that this weekend the violence and the crime in general and when I say crime. I'm talking about simple crime shoplifting, you know, petty theft, fights, public intoxication, but also violent crime, some stabbings, some beatings. I think there may have been a shooting, but in those two towns the mayors had to declare public emergency because and they said it it's teenagers.

Speaker 1: 45:02

These kids go there, and they go there unsupervised, right, and I'm talking, you know, probably, I know for a fact, 16, 17, 18 years old, but maybe even younger than that and probably even a little bit older than that, and they go there for these long weekends and they party, right, and they, you know, consume alcohol, underage and do all the things that you know, 30 years ago I was doing. Right, I'm not going to hide behind that and I'm not going to be a hypocrite, but times have changed. They're not the same, okay, and, and a lot of these parents who are letting these kids go were like me, right, they did those things when they were young, but that today is not then, uh, and times have changed. You know, if you were in public younger 30 years ago, right, um, and you ran your mouth and you were drunk and you did something stupid and somebody punched you in the face, right, that was kind of the end of it. Now you've got kids.

Speaker 1: 45:52

Kids are pulling guns and they're pulling knives or stabbing people and you know, there's no like I shouldn't say less violent way. There's very little of that, right, and fights are not like me against you. I said something, you said something. We grab ahold of each other, we pound the crap out of each other and our friends pull us apart and that's the end of it. Right, that doesn't happen. Now it turns into 50 kids beating the crap out of each other because everybody wants to join in. And oh, by the way, it's all coordinated by this right Kids who you know, group of three or four, five, six.

Speaker 1: 46:23

They go down to the shore together. They're having a good time, you know, now it's like you know, hey, we're down here, we're at this location. All of a sudden there's 60 kids there, a hundred kids or 200 kids there. It all goes out over social media, um, but the lack of supervision and the propensity for crime has went up so much, uh, just this past weekend, that these two cities were forced to declare a state of emergency. They shut things down, they shut businesses down, they closed things early because it had gotten so out of control.

Speaker 1: 46:56

So, listen, if you're a parent and I am listen, I've got a son in that age range keep careful eye on on what he's doing. I believe that he knows the difference between right and wrong. He's never given me a reason to doubt it, but I still reinforce that and I, and you know, try and reinforce with him to get himself out of situations, not to put himself into it. But if you're a parent and you're endorsing, you know, unsupervised trips for your underage kids to places like this and you're doing things like paying for an Airbnb for them, assuming that they're just going to sit by the lake and they're not going to get into trouble and they're just. They're. It's illegal. Folks Like, if your kids are under and this is why they have things like senior weeks after graduation is because these kids are 18, right. But if you're sending 17-year-olds to the shore and you're paying for them to stay in a hotel, that's illegal, right.

Speaker 1: 47:53

It's also, in my opinion, bad parenting. I'm not telling people how to parent, but that's bad parenting, right. You're asking for trouble? Okay. You're asking for your kid. You're giving them all the tools to end up hurt or in jail or worse right. You probably think it's harmless because when you were a kid, it was harmless. It's not harmless anymore, right?

Speaker 1: 48:16

And there's towns in Florida who literally would make an entire year's worth of income based on spring break, that have shut down spring break because of the level of violence and crime that has become the norm in the last four or five years. Come, based on spring break, that have shut down spring break because of the level of violence and crime that has increased. You know, that has become the norm in the last four or five years. They literally have said we're not doing spring break anymore. And this is this is what these kind of weekends are getting to, because we've got parents that are like, yeah, go ahead, have a good time. You know, blah, blah, blah. And again, this is not 30 years ago, it's not the same. You're putting your kids in harm's way.

Speaker 1: 48:50

So again, I'm not telling people how to parent their kids. I'm not. You know you're a parent, you have a responsibility to your children and you do what you can and you do what you think is best. But I'm telling you, from what I've seen and what I know being around kids of that age, if you're giving them those tools and you're sending them to places like that, especially underage and you're sending them unsupervised and just assuming that they're doing the right thing. You are setting them up for failure and I hope to God that it doesn't come knocking on your doorstep in the middle of the night with blue and red flashing lights. I really don't.

Speaker 1: 49:24

But we as parents and we as the adults in society need to let these kids know that this is not acceptable and we shouldn't tolerate it. It just shouldn't be the norm, and I know it is. I've seen it personally, unfortunately. I've seen it in my personal life and kind of in my daily you know, my daily things with interactions with kids is I know that these kids are doing exactly that. They're going down there unsupervised. I know that their parents are endorsing it, their parents are paying for it and you know the kids who don't get to go get ostracized because it's become that much of the norm.

Speaker 1: 49:59

I applaud those parents for getting their kids ostracized by not letting them go and be. You know, be put in these situations and participate in this stuff. Good for you, good for having some moral courage. Again, I'm not being a hypocrite because I was. I was as much of a wayward trouble you know, kind of get into trouble kind of kid, as a lot of teenagers were. But now it's not that, this is not 30 years ago and we got to do a reassessment. You know, as modern parents, and what are we, what we let our kids get exposed to and what we allow them to do, because I really hope for everybody's sake that it doesn't turn into tragedy that comes to your doorstep.

Speaker 1: 50:33

So not to end on a downer, but here's the upper right. Elsa's going to be back next week. So if you've gotten tired of listening to me run my mouth for the last couple of weeks, you know I love having Elsa. It's great. The two of us, the back and forth, I love it. It always makes for a better show and I know that. You know it probably gets tedious listening to me talk for an hour. So I'm happy to do it and happy to be here for everybody. But Elsa should be back next week and you know that always makes for a better show. So, as always for me, we will catch you next week. But again, as always for me, keep moving, keep shooting, we'll be right back you.