Media Catch and Kill Scandal

The J Weber Podcast is presented by Creative Planning, helping clients simplify their journey to financial wellness one personalized plan at a time. The Jay Weber Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio Podcast s. Good day. This is the J Weber Podcast. Lots to talk about today, including clear election rigging in California, the ways in which the Trump FBI and the federal government have helped lower crime, and But let's start by being clear. The Democrats just stole an election out in California. I hear them insisting that anyone who would question the results is just a sore loser, etc. But my friends, what just happened out there with a candidate who was in distant third place strongly surging days after The more accurate take would be if you think this was a natural occurrence, if you think this wasn't vote fraud, you're a fool. The Washington Times asked Chat GPT whether in the history of this country's voting patterns, whether we'd ever seen something like this with a third place candidate who was never even in the race over the course of the campaign suddenly surging from out of nowhere to finish second. AI's answer was no. We've never seen it. Quote, Chat GPT could not find one example in American history of a third place candidate surging days after an election to overtake second place. Yet that's what we are seeing in the But that's just one result of this insane and impossible post election movement by Rahman. The Times notes that for mail in ballots arriving before election day, Karen Bass, the Democrat who's currently the mayor, she received thirty-eight percent of that vote. The ballots that came in by mail before the election. Spencer Pratt received twenty-eight percent of that vote , and Rahman only received twenty percent. So that was the voting pattern for weeks and weeks before the actual election day when it came to mail in ballots, which the Democrats are supposed to use more heavily, correct? So now we're supposed to believe that when it comes to the remaining uncounted mail in ballots, and very importantly, the ballots collected from the drop boxes, suddenly all of Rahman's supporters showed their strength. Suddenly nearly every ballot opened after election day was for the third place finisher whose campaign had shown no life before that point. Bullplop. According to the California counters, Raman magically collected thirty-seven percent of the ballots that arrived after the election day, so she sudden'lys collecting four out of every ten ballots that are coming in as Karen Bass is collecting three. So Raman collected even more ballots after election day than Karen Bass did. And meanwhile, the most popular Republican candidate, Spencer Pratt, was suddenly only getting about one out of every six new votes. As the Washington Times correctly characterizes that, just to be clear, mail and ballots that arrived after June 2nd dropped for everyone except They say this is simply not mathematically or statistically realistic. Well, they're correct. And the Democrats and lefties vote in mail by larger numbers than Republicans, yes , but that doesn't explain how or why a woman who was a complete afterthought throughout the entire election suddenly surged to second place and into the general election runoff. What does explain it? Cheating. A rigged game in which a system that can be easily manipulated with ballot stuffing was manipulated to ensure Pratt wouldn't be in the position to beat Karen Bass in the general election. Folks, the results of this race are so improbable that organized cheating is the best explanation for the results. It really is. In fact, one of the ballot drops late on election night after the polls closed, Spencer Pratt received zero of the twenty four thousand votes that were added to the total. Again, AI estimates that the odds of that occurring are less than one in trillions. It is statistically impossible that vote counters could process twenty four thousand ballots in an election, twenty four thousand, and not come across a single vote for Spencer Pratt. And it's interesting that that was the first chunk of mail in ballots to be added to the total. It's almost as if someone at Central Planning knew the Democrats would need a boost. They'd need to boost Rahman immediately while harming Pratt if they wanted to ensure that he wouldn't appear on the final ballot. It's almost as if they had a bunch of votes for Ramon and Bass ready to go, isn't it? Then get this. The Washington Times reports the most concentrated batches of mail in votes for Ramon came from Skiddle And where ballot harvesting is legal. This is where third parties can collect and turn in the ballots on the voters' behalf. Mostly they drop them into a drop box and they're supposed to drop them into the drop box before election day, obviously. But if they're dropped into those drop boxes, they're not postmarked, right? These ballots could have been created at any time really and ended up at Central County. It's a very sloppy process. Moreover, the Washington Times says in California, one of the nation's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union, engages in ballot harvesting and get out the vote efforts and I didn't realize this, they even help count and tabulate the ballots afterward, which creates a clear conflict of interest. Other large Democrat institutions also do that. So a simple explanation for Rahman's rise is that whoever was harvesting the votes wasn't just collecting ballots, but also controlling the votes. They either filled out the ballots for her or they threw out the ballots that they didn't like. And of course none of this is likely to be proved because as the Times notes, in May , Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, signed a law that actually bans law enforcement and federal agencies from accessing their voter rolls in California or investigating polling places and election workers or even verifying mail This system is designed for cheating. There is no other reason to pass a law that says you cannot look into our elections unless you're cheating. And you look at it and you see that this is why Gavin Newsom could cryptically reassure reporters a few weeks ago that they have ways of ensuring two Republicans won't end up in the runoff elections. Remember that? I'm convinced that this is what he was referring to. In California, Democrats have created a system in which those in control can ignore the will of the voting public and create the result they want in any given election now. So the only question now is will there be any genuine and lasting outrage over it? My guess is sadly, no . Have you heard about creative planning? This is the company that sponsors this great podcast, and I have to give them a shout out here. They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth management firms, offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management, estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management all in-house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every piece of your financial life. Visit Creative Planning dot com to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot com. Your team awaits. Paid for by Creative Planning and SEC registered investment advisor. The speaker's statements are not an endorsement of the firm. Serious question. What percentage of Americans knows that the Trump administration is building about five miles of border wall per day now? Do you even think two percent of Americans know this? Because aside from Byron York including that fact in a piece last week . I haven't seen it reported anywhere. And I've noticed that this is a new technique or a new path that the members of the left wing media are taking in Trump's second term. They did this somewhat in term one, but they've made it a standard practice in term two , and it's the technique of simply ignoring the fact that the Democrat side of the aisle and those on the left are losing on an issue. This is a great example of how Trump and Republicans have simply outlasted and outdistanced the left's phony outrage on an issue and out lasted and out distanced all of the left wing activists' attempts to stop or block an action. This is to the point that the left has simply lost the argument and in this case has lost the battle. Folks, on questions of both immigration enforcement and building the southern border fence, the Democrats and their America hating activists have simply lost the argument . And so rather than continue to pitch fits on it and draw attention to the fact that they have lost, that Trump and Republicans simply bested them on something, the Democrats and their accomplices who control the media have decided to go dark on the matter and not draw attention to it. Shouldn't AOC or Rashida Talib be weeping at the border as Trump commits the terrible atrocity of erecting five more miles of border fence each day? After all, when Joe Biden allegedly won election in twenty twenty, both he and Chuck Schumer promised that America wasn't going to build qu,ote , one more effing foot of border fence. Well, here we are in twenty twenty six with Trump back in office, and the fence is being built to the tune of five miles per day, and as I strongly suggested to listeners when Trump won re election in twenty twenty four. We will have all of the border fence that our own border patrol agents say we need by the time Trump leaves office this time. Was a Herculean effort. First, Trump had to fight basically both parties in Congress to find the funding. Then he had to fight years of bogus lawsuits and court actions the Democrats used to try to stop the fence building. And as that was going on, he had to fight the permitting process and clear away the obstacles there, then actually start the bidding process and hire the contractors and organize the materials and the job sites, etc. And still Trump and his team managed to put up or replace about four hundred and fifty miles of border water And so when he was running for a second term, one thing I was assuring my audience was if Trump gets a second term, the border wall will get done. I mean no guessing, no conjecture. If border control says we still need about five hundred more miles of strategically placed border wall in order to make that border secure, Trump will get it built in term two. Because at that point he had won all the lawsuits and could quickly ramp up the project again if he got back into office. Well huzzah huzzah he has. According to Byron York stats, as no one's been watching, two hundred and twenty one miles of what was called what's called primary smart wall are currently under construction. Contracts have been awarded and design is underway for an additional three hundred and seventy miles, and another forty-four miles of replacement wall is under construction, plus a hundred and eighty-three miles of secondary wall that provides backup security in high traffic areas where there's already a Yeah, in the first term, Trump's team put up about four hundred or four hundred and fifty miles of that high Bollard style wall, but it was in areas that already had some sort of fencing, crummy substandard. They were taking down like six foot high sentry fence in some areas, or simply a string of barbed wire sort of cow fence in other areas, and they were putting up this real Bollard style wall. But it was quote replacement fencing. And so that's what allowed the Democrats to claim Trump wasn't really doing anything or fixing anything along the border. But unless you were paying attention, Democrats could still claim well nothing is really being done. Trump hasn't built a single new mile of border fence they were always trying to claim. But in fact, he was. Well now virtually all of the old low substandard fencing in the high traffic areas has been replaced with real wall and even double wall, and hundreds of miles of completely new wall is stretching off into the distances. Trump will get this done and it will be another lasting and real win for the American people. But will the left wing activists who masquerade as journalists report this to the American people or give Trump his due? Of course not. So they're intentionally ignoring the story. They don't want to report the win because they're propagandists for the Democrat Party, and the Democrats themselves, I mean the Democ rat officeholders, they don't want to draw attention to their myriad failures and to admit the loss for their side on this. So this incredibly positive story is going largely unreported. But is there a better illustration of how elections have consequences? Trump promised a border wall in the twenty sixteen campaign. Then he won. He moved to keep that promise, only to have Joe Biden allegedly win office in twenty twenty and stop construction, and even go so far as to sell off surplus wall and supplies for pennies on the dollar to ensure that it wouldn't be sitting around or be available, couldn't even be available for future installation. The Biden regime tried to do whatever they could to buy God end any talk of a wall, only to have then Trump win reelection in twenty twenty four, largely on the immigration issue, actually, after four years of Biden's regime flooding the country with foreigners. And it's now safe to say that by the time Donald Trump leaves office, any needed border wall will be completed and we the people will have one on that issue. Seventy to eighty percent of Americans have said forever that they want closed and controlled borders and something like sixty five percent of Americans in twenty twenty two in the midst of Biden's flood of illegals supported the physical southern border wall. Yes, build a wall. Trump will absolutely make that happen in his second term. Fantastic. And no, that doesn't mean that the next Democrat president can't just throw open the gates at the border cross and let a new flood of illegals in anyway. But it does mean that under any new pro illegal president, at least we won't have thousands and thousands of illegals crossing into the country along remote parts of the border and then just melting into the interior. It does mean that our national security agencies will have a far better handle on controlling cartel operations moving forward. And it also does mean that any future president who wants to flood this country with foreigners and wants open borders will have to be honest about it and admit it. They will because the notion that this is just happening on its own will no longer be a valid one, right? That president will have to order that the gates along the southern border should be opened and agents should be made to stand back and let the illegals flow in. Or that new president will have to take very intentional steps to try to recreate Joe Biden's open borders app and set up a system in which foreigners can fly into this nation's airports directly and then be allowed to flood into the interior illegally. Folks, the border wall doesn't solve all the country's immigration problems, not by a long shot, but it does solve some of them, and it takes away the biggest way that il legals have been flowing into this country for the last two hundred years or more, simply walking across the US Mexican border. Policy, meaning that the next president who wants to champion open borders lawlessness isn't as likely to find supporters for it. Another significant win that the president and the Republicans are wrapping up on this week also isn't getting the attention it deserves. Folks, the Republicans just ensured federal funding for ICE and border enforcement and funding continues for this deportation process through twenty twenty nine. This is another major loss for congressional Democrats whose leaders have been insisting for probably a year now that by God they will not allow these evil Republicans to continue funding ICE and its mass deportation efforts. Well, Republicans hold both houses of Congress, and so when they can get their members to cooperate, there's nothing Chuck Schumer or And so the Democrats who've been siding with the illegal aliens and have been working against the American people for years now on this question of immigration enforcement have just suffered another major loss. The continued financing of these government operations has just been finalized through twenty twenty nine, meaning the robust deportation effort's going to continue at least so long as Donald Trump is in office. That's why the passage of this reconciliation bill to fund ice and border patrol is so important. The Republicans in Congress just ensured that President Trump and his team have the money that they need to keep our borders secure and to continue the mass deportations right through the end of Trump's term. Big win. Moreover, as a former director of ICE noted, just the argument over this reconciliation bill exposed where today's Democrats stand on borders and immigration. He says, quote, Democrats gave up the game on this thing with their list of demands. ICE operations, they just want to stop ice from doing what they're required to do, which is deport illegal aliens. Yeah, that's a good point. Chuck Schumer and the Democrats could have engaged in responsible or reasonable arguments to put limits on ICE operations, etcetera. They could have argued for more reasonable things. Instead, they went all in on the open borders rhetoric and spent months insisting ICE agents were racist thugs and that agency should be shut down. In fact, there was a great moment on Capitol Hill last week that the V Trump's new homeland security director, Mark Wayne Mullen, was appearing before a Senate panel, and just as they settled in to get the hearing started, Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut called IC E, quote, unconstitutional. He claimed that every day ICE agents are breaking the law and wasting billions of tax dollars. He said they're making up the laws as they go. Well, none of that's true, of course, and having those sorts of intentional lies and misrepresentations coming out of an elected senator's mouth is really unconscionable. So Secretary Mullen put his notes aside and just blasted the Senator for four minutes straight. I have a few highlights here that every voting American should hear, and you should know that I edited some of this together from a larger chunk of audio from that Senate hearing. Uh I I you start saying we're breaking the law and you really start looking at it and we're enforcing the laws that Congress did pass . Uh that's reckless. When you start saying it's unconstitutional, what's unconstitutional that we're doing? We swore to uphold the Constitution just like you swore. And irresponsible on your part. We're doing the job that Congress gave us the authority to do. And our men and women out there every single day is enforcing the laws. If you don't like the laws, you can change them. We're not picking and choosing which laws we enforce . We're simply enforcing the law. Period. Full stop . When you start looking at assaults on our officers, they're up by thirteen hundred percent . Senator Murphy, is that what you want? I don't think it is. I really don't. But I understand the political theater. I understand wanting to get sound bites, and that was obvious because the whole time he was giving your testimony, he wasn't looking at me, he was looking at a camera. I get that. I get it. If you have bigger political uh ambitions, fine. Just say it. And it's our job to protect the homeland. And we do that every single day. Every day I walk into that office. I feel so blessed that President Trump g ave me this opportunity because I protect my backyard as hard as I protect your backyard. And I do it with pride. And every one of the employees, all 2 7 5,000 employees at DHS , they do it with pride too. And they don't separate a blue state from a red state. We look at it as a whole. But your reckless tone is getting people Democrats who've been elected to office that we are in fact a nation of laws, and in order for the Republic to survive and thrive, we need to follow those laws. Mullen to remind Murphy and the country about what the process is if you don't like the laws of this nation. You need to go through the legislative process and change them. It gets back to how Schumer and Murphy and these Democrats in the US House and Senate have been comporting themselves over the last year or so on this issue. Ever since Trump ordered our ICE agents to start enforcing the nation's immigration laws again, the Democrats have been insisting the crackdown is wrong or illegal. They're insisting that it's the agents who are engaging in law lessness, insisting this is unconstitutional thuggery, etc. They've been great at bomb throwing and rhetorical thuggery, but haven't made a single honest move to try to change the law or negotiate a less aggressive process with the president. Nothing. It's just been a bunch of hollow whining and constant attempts to put targets on the backs of our ICE agents. Mullen was right to say basically all lawmakers like Chris Murphy have done is in danger the lives of those who the federal government has hired to enforce are up by eight thousand percent. He said your political theater, that's what it causes. When you start looking at assaults on our officers, they're up by thirteen hundred percent . I've been a rather cynical and skeptical person for my entire life, which is what made me such a good reporter and show host. You question everything, be a critical thinker. But even so, I never would have predicted that the members of one of our two major political parties in America would be calling for open borders and lawlessness, no prisons, they'd be supporting the spread of decay and chaos in this country. But that's what today's Democrat lawmakers and their activists are doing seemingly every day now in this country. Chris Murphy is going to accuse ICE agents of lawlessness? Come on, I mean what a stooge. But back to my original point of how the Democrats and their activist left have simply lost on this issue of border enforcement and mass deportations. I'd note that even the protests going on outside of that New Jersey Ice facility that the left has been trying to get so much media attention to, even that has been mostly a regional story. Maybe they're getting big coverage in New Jersey and New York in their media outlets, but nationally, yeah, there's been some coverage, but not anything that's really grabbing the attention of the American people or getting voters excited. It's almost as if the American people finally realize that all this hysteria about ICE and mistreatment of illegals is ginned up because it is, and it has been from the very beginning. The vast majority of the American people know that our government and its agents aren't going to mistreat fellow human beings. These illegals aren't being deprived of food and water or mistreated physic ally. We all know that, if anything, our government agencies are going to be overly kind and overly generous and deferential to the people who we have in government custody. This isn't county lockup in a southern sheriff's jail system This is people caught in this country illegally in 2026 who will be treated extremely well, far better than necessary, until they're deposited back in their country of origin or until a bleeding heart U.S. judge says And so by now, after more than a decade of the leftist hysteria and false accusations, when it comes to ISIS treatment of illegals, I don't think it even registers with the American people. The leftists can organize protests and they can fight and bite ICE agents if they want to, but their activities aren't moving the American people in any way anymore. I was gonna say they aren't moving people in any significant way, but I think we're even beyond that. These leftists make themselves look like lunatics with these riots and protests, and not only are they not winning the American people over to their cause, I don't think they're moving the American people at all anymore. This has been going on so long and I think that the vast majority of the American people are just rolling their eyes at it. Nearly all of us are rooting for the ice agents, if anything. We know who's really keeping the peace and protecting our communities, and we're happy to finally see, many of our country's laws being enforced again, especially our immigration laws, and especially after decades and decades of non-enforcement of those immigration laws. WISN is proud to present the Jay Weber Podcast. Jay Weber draws from his 35-year career in radio news and commentary to craft an insightful look at the major stories and impactful issues from around Wisconsin, the nation, and the world. And after you've enjoyed the Jay Webber Podcast, we invite you to go to your radio or go online and listen to News Talk 11:30 WISN, Wisconsin's most listened to radio station . Last podcast we talked briefly about the nation's crime rates being down. Researcher John Lott wanted to link it to the number of people who now carry concealed in America, and I dismissed that completely, given that nearly the same number of people carried for protection during the Biden era, right? It's not like Trump got back into office and suddenly one third of the country was arming themselves for protection. Now the reason overall crime is down is because some voters in our larger cities finally got fed up enough to demand better and vote out the week on crime soros funded DAs that had been running their state DA's offices and refusing to punish criminals. Also, it's because after years of Joe Biden era apathy and general lawlessness, President Trump and his administration did get back into office and made lowering crime a priority. In general, the level of lawlessness or enforcement of the laws depends on local leadership. The question is are your mayor, police chief, and or sheriff interested in finding and prosecuting criminals or not? Are your local leaders making a safe community a priority or not? Because in general it's the cops and the judges at the local and the county levels that keep the peace or create a safe community. The federal government does have law enforcement agencies and duties, obviously, but they're geared toward national security or prosecuting federal crimes. That's why any given change of presidential administration doesn't normally have much of an impact on local crime rates. But as is the case with just about everything else, Donald Trump is different. He ran for a second term on lowering the nation's out of control murder and crime . And so far, just fourteen months into that second term, we're genuinely seeing that's the case, community to community, red state or blue state, crime is lower. That's because Donald Trump and his team came in with a plan to do whatever they could at the federal level to reduce crime more locally. Since Washington, D.C. is run by the feds, it meant that Trump could literally take over the street enforcement of Washington, D.C., and he did with the National Guard. He used the National Guard in a few other select cities where mayors asked for help, but beyond that there was a far more serious and organized effort by Trump and his Department of Justice to get federal agents into the high crime areas and offered to help out the locals where they could . One major factor is yeah, our ICE agents have literally taken tens of thousands of criminal illegals and gang members off of the streets of America and deported them. The left would never admit it, but this has been a significant help to local law enforcement. And as of last week, the Department of Homeland Security said that they are still ICE is still running into and going after criminal illegals. They're still collecting murderers, rapists, child molesters, burglars, and deporting them. Sadly, the number of foreign thugs and scumbags that Obama and Biden's open borders allowed into this country was massive and immeasurable, and so was Lower crime across the country and especially in the larger cities. Also, though, listen to Cash Patel, Trump's FBI director. He's telling Fox News that just since he and Trump took over and reprioritized at the FBI, they've arrested nearly thirty And as we noticed and as we referenced in our introduction, the lowest homicide rate since the nineteen thirties, a lot of people didn't think that was possible. I also want to ask you about this. Children that you have rescued at the FBI. Let's pull this up. Two thousand nine hundred alleged abusers arrested. This is up by seventy percent and identified or located seven thousand children up by a hundred forty four percent. How did you do this? Well, Kayleigh, as you know uh so well and as you advocate so much for our youth, they're our most precious treasure. And we made it a priority to go after villains and the terrorists and gangbangers that are targeting our kids. And what we did was we utilized intelligence driven operations. We took fifteen hundred employees from the FBI in DC and put them in the field permanently, working with our state and local law enforcement partners, and we went after the worst of the worst. And those stats, while those stats are meaningful, and those stats are truly historic, just think about the 7,200 kids that we found that got to go home. Just think about the 3,400, actually, when you take the numbers for this year, we're at 3,400 child predators and traffickers arrested. That's up ninety-nine percent from the best year Biden ever had. That means kids are being protected at levels that are simply unheard of. And that means this FBI, here's another thing. We didn't just throw the physical work on the streets. We went to the cyber community and we dismantled three million pedophile accounts off the Tor network where these predators prey on our children and think they can hide from this FBI. They can't. We are going to the ends of the earth and the cyber realm to make sure our most precious commodity kids are safeguarded. And the numbers speak for themselves because the FBI are putting kids first. Down, which makes you wonder what was the Joe Biden FBI doing? I guess they really were trying to criminalize parents who didn't cave to the trans bullies in their schools and trying to prosecute the Catholic Church. Next topic The state of California's insane way of counting votes. I I told ya this is what Gavin Newsom meant when he said a few weeks ago that they had ways of ensuring the two Republicans wouldn't end up at the top of the primary results. Remember this? For a period of time, two Republican candidates were outpolling the Democrat ones in the governor's race out there. And the way their jungle primary works is everyone runs on the same ballot without party affiliation, and whichever candidates end up being numbers one and two , they then have a runoff in the general election. Well, when a reporter asked Scummy Governor Gavin Newsome what it would mean if two Republicans ended up in the general election runoff, his response was basically we have ways of ensuring that He basically admitted that the Democrats who have had an iron grip on California's state government for decades can manipulate the system and ignore the will of the voting public if they need to. But D aemocrat will end up in control of the governor's chair. That was basically what Newsome was saying, wink wink, nod nod . Well I give you the California vote counting system. What a farce this is. The primary election was held a week a go, and yet the people in charge still can't tell the voters who actually won the important races, especially for governor and mayor of LA. Why not? Well, because the Republican candidates in both of those races did really well , and it's going to take weeks to manipulate the results behind the scenes. That's what I would say the answer is to that question. The Democrats want to insist, no, no, no, it's because California receives so many mail-in ballots, and because those mail in ballots are considered valid for a week after the election date. So what sort of crummy system is this? In short, it's one that is designed by cheaters so they can cheat, isn't it? I don't see any way that you can claim this is an honest system or the fairest way to run an election if you're an honest person. And that leaves the truth. Democrats who run the system want a system that they can manipulate and cheat. Megan Kelly had Sean Davis of the Federalist on her podcast, and he explained it perfectly. No one would create a system like this if they wanted people to have faith in the results. Yeah, it's kind of a fascinating little system they've set up here where you you've got three ways to vote. You can go, you know, vote in a voting location, you know, pull the lever, push the button, whatever you want to do. You can vo vote by mail. So when you vote by mail, the post office gets your ballot and they postmark it. Or you can do this amazing new invention called the uh mi the vote drop box where it doesn't get postmarked. You just put your vote in there and they'll come and collect your votes and then they add 'em all together and then ta -da, you have all the votes you need. And what I find fascinating about this system is that in the first one where you vote in person, we know when that vote was was made. When you put it in the mail, we know when it got put in the mail, because it gets postmarked . But there's this magical new third category of votes that don't really have a date, and California law, by the way, says if uh if a ballot doesn't have a legible postmark, as long as you know they have a good faith reason to believe that it was cast in time, they have to count it. And so in this magical new California system, which is like totally safe and secure and not at all like designed to be rigged, you get counts on election night. So that tells you, hey, this this is how much uh votes this guy has. And then we have the system where there's no way to date a ballot and they're gonna collect ballots for weeks, and we're supposed to believe that's that's somehow a credible, secure , like normal way to do elections. There is only one reason to design an election in this way and it's to control the outcome. Like I'm sorry if that makes people mad to hear, but nobody would create a system like this if they wanted people Folks, the government of California mails out ballots to every citizen of voting age in that state. That means they mail out twenty three million ballots, even though not a single person requested them, and they know a huge number of people won't use them. So any California election starts, it starts with twenty three million blank ballots floating around in a split Now consider how Sean Davis just explained how the ballot drop boxes work. You could have all sorts of people collecting unused ballots, filling them out the way they wanted the election to go and then shoving dozens of them, hundreds of them at a time into those ballot drop boxes. Then the process to count those ballots goes on for weeks in secretive locations, with only occasional announcements of who's leading now or how many votes they have. Every poll before this primary day showed a Republican candidate named Steve Hilton leading the race for governor. But after a week of behind the scenes counting, wow, somehow, now Steve Hilton is running third in the election results. What a shock. The California Secretary of State keeps urging people to have patience, exercise patience. Folks, voters should not have to exercise patience after an election is held. They should be able to ex pect the results by the next day at the latest. Honestly, there's no reason, none, that we in America can't hold elections and have the results of those elections by the end of that day or the day after, depending on how many ballots we're conne But certainly any statewide race should be tallied with we the people knowing the results of it within hours. Cheating. Period. Forget this crap about how ballots need to be counted for up to a week or two after they come in. That should be illegal. I mean imagine with twenty three million blank ballots floating around California, how hard would it be to simply wait to see the initial results and then manufacture the number of votes you needed to have your side win later? The answer is that would be extremely easy. California's voters deserve better, and given how much California's policies influence the rest of the nation and influence the rest of us? America's voters deserve better than to have states running intentionally effed up elections like this. I'd strongly suggest that California's sloppy system affects us all based on The editors at Issues and Insights call this a laughably inept system of voting that California has. And they're right. Quote Two full days after the polls closed, they say just sixty percent of voters for governor and less than two thirds of the votes for LA mayor were counted. As a result, none of the Republicans running for governor or mayor even knows if he's going to qualify for the general election November. Ballots are mailed to every eligible voter, twenty three million of them, and the state has permissive rules for returning them. Ballots will be counted if they're postmarked by election day and they arrive at an election office within seven days. These editors say mailing out twenty three million ballots throws the door wide open to fraud. How many of those ballots get sent to the wrong address? To people who've died, to people who've left the state. Yeah, and I would add, how many of those ballots are then reused by someone else cheating the system? Putting them in a dropbox, as I suggested. These editors say Judicial Watch claims that there are more than eight hundred thousand people on the California voter registration Where do those ballots end up? They say worse, California also allows ballot harvesting, which lets third parties deliver a limitless number of mail and ball ots, another open invitation to fraud. And California voters are supposed to believe that ballot counters then meticulously study every mail and ballot that arrives days after the election to make sure signatures match those on file, the post marks are correct, etc. They ask why would Republicans in a state dominated by far left Democrats trust this system, especially when they watch their leads slowly evaporate as these late arriving ballots are counted by people who have a vested interest in keeping Republicans out of office. These editors conclude even if the system isn't rife with fraud, California voters deserve better than this, because the appearance of fraud is just as bad as actual existence of fraud I agree with that completely, as ninety five percent of Americans probably would. There is nothing related to this California system that seems reasonable or rational or fair. Oh, and I wanted to be sure to get to this next item too, at least brief ly. We're now moving into the middle of June, and that means important Supreme Court decisions are going to start dropping like crazy, and let's hope that these drive the left crazy. The court always closes out its spring term by releasing decisions through the end of June , and there are about a dozen important decisions to be handed down here over the next two or three weeks. Several of them will be related to President Trump's illegal immigration crackdown. One will decide if he can roll back the soall-edc humanitarian protection programs that past presidents have put into place. This is like Obama and Biden protecting, say, the Cubans or the Nicaraguans from deportation and insisting that they shouldn't be forced to return toed their home countries due to some strife there, can Trump end that protection and send them back is the question in front of the court. That'll be decided. It's known as temporary protected status, and pro illegal advocates and presidents have been abusing that status for generations. Then there's the decision on birthright citizenship. We assume Trump's going to lose on this question, but I'm glad that he and his team are pushing the issue and setting up the parameters for possible future actions or alterations. Trump and his team argued to the justices that actually the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow anyone born on U.S. soil citizenship. Trump himself told reporters he expects to lose this, but as I say, the first step in any mod ification or restriction to the fourteenth Amendment would start with a clear ruling on what it actually says and what it doesn't say. Another case to be decided deals with the president's authority to fire federal officials and appointees. Trump fired and re placed a number of people at so called independent agencies, and the lefties took him to court over it. That question should be answered too. And in this instance, I'm thinking the justices will probably side with Trump because someone attacked Our Constitution would suggest it's either the executive or a vote of Congress that would be able to replace this head of an independent commission, because the way our system is set up, any appointee would need to be answerable to someone, wouldn't they? It'll be interesting to see what the justices say on that. Oh, and we were just talking about California's sloppy voting system which allows for late ballots to be counted. A ruling on a Mississippi case is expected. The RNC actually sued the state of Mississippi for counting ballots that came in up to a week late. If the Supreme Court says, hey, election day is the election deadline , as many as thirty states would have to change their election laws and count only the mail and ballots that were in their possession at the end of election day. Again, it simply reduces the chances of cheating, but it also Also, the court is due to rule on a case related to whether transgenders can participate in women's and girls' sports. Any ruling there is bound to lay the groundwork for I'm sure another round of court cases related to transgender bathroom and lo cker room usage. So we have a very consequential few weeks coming here as it relates to the Supreme Court. And given that we have a genuine, constitutionally minded court, the assumption is that a number of these decisions are going to infuriate today'socrat Dems and their activist left, resulting in another round of calls for court packing and left wing cheating in order to try to regain ideological control of the court for the left. As it is for weeks now, scummy Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jamie Raskin have been making noise about stealing back liberal control while pretending that they would be doing it out of fairness or for the good of the country. Both Jeffreys and Schumer have been saying ever ything is on the table if Democrats retake control of the House and the Senate in fall. That's code for pass legislation that changes the number of justices on the court so that liberals dominate the majority again. It's just cheating. The thing is they would need to do that with a Democrat president in the White House so he or she could appoint all the new liberal justices, right? If they change the number of justices on the court and they pass something in twenty twenty seven or twenty-eight, it would be Trump that would be stacking the court with new members, right? So this threat isn't as immediate as Schumer, Jeffries, and these Democrats are making it sound, but it is a threat they're making. And have no doubt, please, have zero doubt that the next time the Democrats find themselves fully in charge of Washington DC, they will do whatever it takes to add members to the Supreme Court so they can retake control of it. And they will, because forcing socialism onto America doesn't work unless they can A, ignore the Constitution, and B, have a Supreme Court that lets them do it. News Talk 1130 WISN is proud to present the Ja Wyeb er Podcast. Jay Weber draws from his 35-year career in radio news and commentary to craft an insightful look at the major stories and impactful issues from around Wisconsin, the nation, and the world. And after you've enjoyed the Jay Webber Podcast, we invite you to go to your radio or go online and listen to News Talk 1130 WISN, Wisconsin's most listened to Radio station . You are listening to the Jayw ber Podcast. There's something in political circles, a term that they use when dealing with a scandal. It's called a catch and kill. It is, in short, finding a reporter or a news outlet that your campaign is chummy with, and intentionally, intentionally leaking a scandal on your own candidate so that you can manage and limit the fallout. You get it? As in, we know Graham Plattiner has a big problem with being an abusive pig with women and cheating on his wife. So let's leak a small narrow version of a sex scandal to the New York Times so that after a few days of controversy we can claim that everything else that comes after it related to Plat in beingum a pig is old news. This allows the accomplice left wing media to claim that oh we've already covered that. We already told reporters Platner's a sexist pig, so there's no real reason to keep doting on it or keep reporting on it. Get it? This is the technique of catch and kill. Have an accomplice of yours in the media release the story, and that way you can manage it and manipulate it. The reporter or news outlet will just love to have the exclusive, right? They'll willingly go along with your spin and your parameters, etc. They'll allow you to massage and control the message and the story because they're getting the exclusive, and their help allows you to get out the scandal as framed by your team , and very helpfully allows you and other accomplice news outlets to ignore the follow-up stories that come as a result. Get it? If the story is Graham Platiner abuses women, well then the second, the fifth, and the tenth woman who steps forward to tell her story of abuse can be dismissed as yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone already knows Platiner has that reputation. Let's move on. This is what the New York Times is being accused of doing when it comes to Graham Plattner's history with women, and the evidence is stacking up that this is in fact the case. Plattiner is, of course, the racist, sexist monster who's running for the U.S. Senate in Maine against Susan Collins, and by the way, today is primary election day. I mean later, today we should learn whether this nightmare of a human being, much less nightmare of a candidate, is going to officially be the Democrat Party's nominee for this Senate seat in Maine. And given that nearly every big name Democrat has continued to defend the indefensible nature of Plattner's campaign. The assumption is that yeah, he's gonna win today. The current governor of Maine, Janet Mills, was also going to run for the seat, but she suspended her campaign weeks ago. Well her name is still on the ballot, and so there's at least a chance that Maine's Democrat voters will do the right thing, and at the very least shift their support over to Mills, check the box for her instead today. But it's not likely to turn out that way . After watching politics and election days for forty years, I can tell you that last minute schemes like that never work, so I'll be shocked if it does today. But several days into this latest scandal related to Platiner's abuse of women , there is no doubt, no doubt that the New York Times didn't come across this story honestly. They didn't drop a bombshell here that they themselves discovered and decided to report on. It's clear that the Times reporter and editors were in stead participating in one of these catch and kill schemes. That's evident because now we know the woman that the Times chose to make the focus of their story is saying that they left out the most outrageous and damaging parts of her story. The Times generically recounted the stories of three women who have stepped up to say that Platiner's a disgusting pig who victimizes women and cheats on his wife, etc. But they mostly focused on one woman because she now claims she didn't want her name to be known, didn't want to go public in any major way. In fact, she says she was reluctant to even talk the new to the New York Times, but she did because the reporter sweet talked her into telling her story to help other women Huh. See, for days and weeks before the New York Times ran this story, rumors had been circulating around the other major newsrooms that another Platinum scandal was coming of this sort . Democrat operatives were talking about this amongst themselves and even on social media. I mean that's a good indication that this was all pre planned, or at the very least, some news outlet was going to run some sort of negative story. So this was a nudge to the New York Times to break the story for the Plattner campaign. They could break it and then manage it on their own terms. Both sides of that equation would have known the accusations were legitimate, too, right? I mean Platner himself hasn't denied any of the allegations related to him engaging in the extramarital sexting or being a pig to women. He hasn't denied that he posted racist and pro Nazi posts on social media in the past, etc. It's all evident and provable. So both sides of this equation would have known the accusations were true. And it looks more and more like the two sides then colluded to try to get the scandal out there in the least damaging way possible for the left . They could then pretend from here on out this has already been reported, this has been examined, this is old news. So yet another woman saying he's a pig, big whoop. It's not newsworthy. This is what the New York Times clearly engaged in, along with the Plattner campaign, because the credible investigations since seemed to prove the New York Times had at least three women who were ready to level sexual assault allegations against Platner. Not just that he talked like a pig or he treated them poorly, that he actually assaulted or raped them, but those accusations somehow didn't make it to print, and the story that did pulled the worst of its punches? Come on. This isn't the New York Times and the left wing media breaking a story, it's them concocting a cover up. The New York Times reporter and the editors clearly engaged in a propagandist cover up here. Lindsay Feif eld is the woman who the story was based on and she not Violated the trust of Platiner's victims and shattered the trust that she placed in them with the most vulnerable story of her life. That is what they did, yes. All to help the Democrats somehow get a man who has clearly been revealed to be a piece of human garbage elected to the US Senate. It's shameful. And if anyone in the audience still has any question as to whether the folks at the New York Times are honest journalists, if you have any question as to whether the people in that newsroom are doing honest and fair journalism, I think you have your answer now. No, and they aren't even trying to. These are far left propagandists masquerading as journalists. And any way they can help the left wing cause, they will. Heck, the people atop the New York Times are now basically re victimizing the survivors of domestic abuse in order to help the left retake control of Congress. That's pathetic. They are deliberately withholding more explosive stories and accusations of sexual assault against Graham Platinum as a way to help out the Democrat Party. That's shameful. And folks, eight years after every Democrat in Congress and in all of Washington, DC and on both coasts, eight years after they railed against Brat Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice based on false stories about his youth, they were certain those stories just disqualified him, and they were made up. And only a few years after all of these same Democrats ran around looking for me to scal ps to take, to have nearly every single one of them now, those same Democrats, endorsing and defending Graham Platiner and excusing away the very real scandals being leveled against him, it's just too much. If this was a cartoon, this would be when my head explodes. For decades, some of us on the right have been insisting that this era's Democrats are nothing but nasty, immoral, game playing hypocrites, and here they are again proofing us right, and in spectacular fashion. After all, if they're still defending and protecting Graham Platiner after all that has come out about him and after all that we know to be true now, how are they anything other than the scummiest hypocrites and the most terrible people in leadership roles in America? How can Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders or Chuck Schumer or Roe Connor or any of them who continue to endorse and defend Graham Plat iner be taken seriously ever again. If I was a liberal or a woman or I voted Democrat, I would be asking myself and my friends that question constantly this week. Liz Warren and AOC were among the Democrat That you either believe the female accusers or you're protecting abusers and rapists. Now they're doing exactly that. And I would stress, now they are doing exactly that even though there have been clear opportunities for them to bail on Graham Platner, in fact, Warren, AOC, all of them, would have more credibility if they simply admitted that okay, look, the new information that has come out on Graham Platinum is a deal breaker, I can no longer support this man. I withdraw my endorsement. If they did that, they'd actually have more credibility with the voters and with the country at large. Nope. Today's Democrats are all about doing anything to win. Anything to win, anything to win. That includes supporting a Nazi supporting, woman abusing, socialist, racist, extremist . As one pundit put it on X, that Senator Schumer