Latest / Project 2028 / Signal Leak, Special Elections, Corey Booker, and more

Transcript

Signal Leak, Special Elections, Corey Booker, and more · Project 2028

0:09
Welcome to Project 2028. In today's episode,
0:12
we're going to be talking about a few different
0:13
things that have happened while we were on break.
0:15
One of the main things is the signal group chat
0:18
leak. We've all seen this across the internet,
0:22
but we're going to talk about it in a little
0:23
more detail. We're also going to be talking about
0:25
special elections, specifically when it comes
0:28
to voter ID laws and a couple other really fun
0:32
topics. So without further ado, let's dive right
0:35
in. Alright, so as you've probably seen in the
0:44
news, Signal Gate, the Signal Group Chat League,
0:48
the Group Chat League, whatever they call it,
0:51
you know, it's kind of been pervading the news.
0:53
It's on 24 hours a day. I was traveling and when
0:56
I was in the airport, there was nothing on for
0:58
six days except for the fact that this group
1:00
chat was leaked. So you know, it's kind of a
1:03
big deal. Some people might say that. And just
1:05
some context before we talk about kind of what
1:07
they said what happened. The Houthis, if you
1:11
don't know, are... an Iranian -backed terrorist
1:13
group. They've consistently and constantly tried
1:16
to disrupt trade in the Red Sea. The Biden administration
1:20
attempted to use aircraft, aircraft carriers,
1:24
miscellaneous stuff to kind of curb these attacks
1:26
through the Suez Canal and other bodies of water
1:30
near. And they've had less than minimal success
1:34
with that so far. It's been not great. they're
1:40
doing what they intended to, which is disrupting
1:42
trade and other stuff. Elle, do you want to talk
1:45
a bit about Jeffrey Goldberg? Yeah, so Jeffrey
1:48
Goldberg is the editor -in -chief of The Atlantic,
1:51
and he was added to the Signal Group chat, started
1:55
by Michael, or he was added by Michael Walls,
1:59
and basically he, on March 24th, like, at...
2:06
Published some of the messages he selected very
2:08
minimal messages kind of you know Letting the
2:12
US people know that this happened while also
2:14
keeping a lot of the conversation private and
2:19
He said he wasn't going to release these messages,
2:22
and I don't necessarily know exactly what...
2:24
I mean, here's the thing. He was added to conversation,
2:28
so obviously the law's a bit different. But if
2:30
the information was confidential, of which there's
2:33
a debate in this, and we'll talk about that later,
2:35
and he were to release the information knowingly,
2:37
knowing it was confidential, notwithstanding
2:41
the fact that he was added to the group chat,
2:43
I think at least I haven't seen... you know uh
2:48
it like a full legal interpretation on this but
2:50
I would say it would most definitely violate
2:52
if you just were to have released it not being
2:54
not like notwithstanding the fact that he was
2:57
added I think it would violate the espionage
2:59
act um you know so I think there's obviously
3:01
reservations and the Atlantic has a large legal
3:03
team to figure that out actually just remembered
3:06
so he released the rest of the messages pretty
3:08
much after the White House had put out a like
3:11
a statement basically saying that they like were
3:16
aware of the group chat kind of but like not
3:18
really it was kind of interesting statement and
3:20
it was basically them saying that nothing confidential
3:22
was leaked and so he put out the text messages
3:25
after that or more of the text messages kind
3:29
of to show what was actually being said and that
3:31
is now starting yes complete the picture yeah
3:35
Lechana, do you want to give us a background
3:36
on everyone else inside this group chat? I would
3:39
love to. So there were 19 members of the group
3:43
chat, and including the ones I'm about to name,
3:45
there was a CIA officer who's named the Atlantic
3:48
withheld. But can I just say something real quickly
3:51
on that CIA officer? Just sorry. Yeah. So what
3:54
John Ratcliffe said, even though they withheld
3:57
his name, because his name is not publicly available,
4:01
because he's obviously a CIA officer, he's not
4:03
an undercover agent though. They do like to hold
4:06
the names in the CIA, to not publish them to
4:10
the public, obviously agents, because they can
4:13
go overseas in the future. So they're basically
4:15
just keeping the fact, well, the Atlantic is
4:18
keeping that person confidential, but the CIA
4:20
likes to keep these people confidential just
4:21
to preserve future overseas spy craft or whatever
4:26
you want to call it. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah,
4:30
fairy James Bond. Okay, so starting with the
4:34
people in the group chat, we have Walker Barrett,
4:36
professional staff member for the House Armed
4:38
Service Committee Republicans. We have Secretary
4:42
of the Treasury Scott Bassett. Pardon me. Director
4:46
of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, Jeffrey
4:49
Goldberg, Editor -in -Chief of The Atlantic,
4:52
who Al just gave us background about, Secretary
4:54
of Defense, Pete Hegseth, Dan Katz, Chief of
4:58
Staff for the Secretary of the Treasury, Joe
5:00
Kent, Acting Chief of Staff for the Director
5:03
of National Intelligence and nominee for National
5:05
Counterterrorism Center Director, and then a
5:08
man named Jacob, whose identity is unknown. Brian
5:14
McCormick, Chief of Staff for the National Security
5:17
Council, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for
5:20
Policy, Stephen Miller, Mike Needham, Special
5:27
Advisor and Consultant on Foreign Policy Issues
5:30
for the Department of State. Director of the
5:33
Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe.
5:36
Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. White House
5:39
Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles. United States Special
5:43
Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Wittkopf. National
5:46
Security Advisor, Mike Walts. Principal Deputy
5:50
National Security Advisor, Alex Wong. Yeah. And
5:53
Vice President, J .D. Bantz. Sorry, I'll talk
5:57
about Alex Wong later. Well. We might as well
6:00
just start kind of talking about what they said.
6:02
So Michael Waltz, the first text message in this
6:05
whole group chat exchange that was published.
6:07
Even before that, I would just like say the messages
6:09
are supposed to disappear after one week, which
6:11
is, you know... Well, I mean, that's the whole
6:13
thing. A stupid period of time. Well, I mean,
6:16
signal was made for privacy and, you know, government
6:19
communications are logged. They are put in the
6:21
National Archives and they're declassified if
6:23
they are classified. Usually after 25 years unless
6:26
they are still sensitive. So obviously all of
6:31
this conversation would have been logged. Now
6:32
there's nothing in this conversation that really
6:34
is super horrible if it were to be archived and
6:38
released 25 years later. Nothing's particularly
6:42
destructive to the Trump administration that
6:47
you would look on 25 years later and you would
6:49
see that as a big problem. But none of this would
6:54
have been logged. It would have gone away forever.
6:57
You know, nobody would know that this ever happened.
7:00
Um, but yeah. No, I can, I can read the first
7:03
one. I'm just going to read a kind of a, the
7:05
part that's actually matters. It says team establishing
7:07
a principles group for coordination on the Houthis,
7:09
particularly over the next 72 hours, which was
7:11
when they were going to strike. My deputy Alex
7:14
Wong, I'll talk about him in a second is pulling
7:16
together a tiger team for deputies, agency chief
7:18
of staff level stuff. Tiger team is just people
7:21
that they can correspond with their lower level,
7:23
but they're typically. the top of that lower
7:25
level so there would be the chiefs of staff and
7:28
other high up people within their respective
7:30
things so for Scott Besant example it would be
7:33
probably the chief of staff in the treasury or
7:36
his you know somebody close to him a secretary
7:38
or a deputy probably but quick victory lap on
7:43
Alex Wong he didn't do much here he might be
7:46
the next national security advisor but He's doing
7:52
his job here. I mean, he's compiling the list.
7:55
So, you know, I really liked Alex Vong when we
7:57
were talking about nominations. He was the former...
7:59
What was he? Deputy Assistant... Deputy Assistant
8:02
Secretary... North Korea. Yeah, he dealt with
8:06
North Korea. He was appointed by Trump, I think,
8:08
in 2017. But, you know, I really like him. I
8:12
like his policy. He's what I see as very intelligent,
8:16
especially on matters in CEDO. So that's kind
8:21
of where that lays out. You want to read the
8:22
second text? Yeah, and the conversation kind
8:26
of unfolded, you know, saying who the best communication
8:29
person is for each like member of this group
8:32
chat. Where do you want to go after here? You
8:36
know, they say they just keep kind of talking
8:38
about. I don't even know. Yeah, I mean, yeah,
8:42
well, they talk about a lot. And then OK. And
8:44
then JD Vance sends a text and it says, you know,
8:48
he's at it. event in michigan but he says team
8:52
i'm out for the day doing an economic event in
8:55
michigan but i think we are making a mistake
8:57
three percent of u .s trade runs through the
8:59
sewers sewers sorry forty percent of european
9:03
trade does there's a real risk that the public
9:06
doesn't understand this or why it's necessary
9:08
the strongest reason to do this as podis said
9:11
to send a message but i'm not sure the president
9:13
is aware how inconsistent this is with his message
9:16
on europe right now there is a further risk that
9:18
we see a moderate to severe spike on oil prices.
9:22
I'm willing to support the consensus of the team
9:25
and will keep these concerns to myself. But there
9:27
is a strong argument for delaying this a month,
9:30
doing the message messaging work on why this
9:33
matters, seeing where the economy is, et cetera.
9:36
Yeah, I mean, we're going to talk about kind
9:38
of what P Hex has messaging why said later. But
9:41
when you look at it, he's right. And it does
9:44
kind of like, it would run straight in the face
9:46
of what Trump's been saying. Like, look. Obviously,
9:49
doing this in the Suez with the Houthis, it's
9:53
probably going to bail out Europe more than it's
9:54
going to bail out the United States. The United
9:57
States, right? We have been involved in the Suez
9:59
Canal fighting terrorism, even in the Middle
10:02
East and kind of the Red Sea area for forever
10:06
now, even if it doesn't benefit us. It's put
10:09
us in an incredible position to defend ourselves
10:11
there. But JD Vance is right in this, at least
10:15
I think. I'll ask you in a second. Look it presents
10:19
a confused narrative of we're pushing back on
10:21
Europeans and how much we're helping them and
10:23
how much they're contributing to their own domestic
10:26
and foreign security There's no point in reversing
10:30
that statement just to fix Something that the
10:32
Biden administration didn't do right? Yeah. No,
10:35
I agree. I actually I think um JD Vance is insanely
10:40
smart We obviously know he you know went to Yale
10:43
and all that jazz, but I think even like with
10:47
common sense things he has much better understanding
10:50
for how the public will perceive things and actually
10:52
seems to you know give a little bit of thought
10:54
and care to it um and I guess the like sad and
10:59
saddest part of that message to me was him basically
11:03
saying a whole like agree with the consensus
11:06
which obviously shows great teamwork but he kind
11:09
of said he wouldn't like bring up his concern
11:12
for this and I think you know especially when
11:14
you're the vice president you're Second and command
11:17
to the most powerful leader in the world Which
11:21
you know kind of debatable on that but you know
11:23
It's Disconcerting that he doesn't feel is his
11:28
opinion of the American people not liking this
11:33
decision to make this attack Is something he's
11:37
willing to just not really act upon and he sends
11:40
one message and then we'll say what Pete Hegseth
11:43
responded and then he immediately backed down
11:46
and was basically like okay great well that's
11:48
the thing I think I mean obviously I think the
11:50
consensus in the room or the single group chat
11:52
or whatever you want to call it was that they
11:54
should do this that was the whole point it was
11:56
created because they were doing this you know
11:59
but but he has a point and then A day later,
12:03
I think after a few text messages were exchanged
12:06
on something different He says I understand your
12:09
concerns and fully support. You're raising this
12:11
with the president Trump Important considerations
12:14
most of which are tough to know how they play
12:16
out. Obviously the economy Oil prices from Europe
12:20
are a big thing. He talked about that Ukraine
12:23
peace another big thing. It's a big thing with
12:26
you for European security and how much they're
12:27
paying for their security and then Gaza, which
12:30
obviously lays in the Middle East and kind of
12:33
roughly in that area, stuff, because actually,
12:36
I mean, one of the text messages, Michael Waltz,
12:39
I don't have the stuff in front of me, so I'm
12:40
just kind of spitballing. He said something about
12:43
how Israel was going to actually strike after
12:46
and how they have to replenish, and Israel did,
12:49
so it obviously connects a lot, and he was right,
12:53
it connects a lot to... You know how you look
12:56
at the situation in Gaza with Israel with their
12:59
weapons because they also have a bit a big investment
13:02
in Trying to you know at least minimize the effect
13:07
of the Houthis in the Red Sea in the Suez Canal
13:10
You know, but Pete Hegseth, he's a messaging
13:14
guy. He spent his whole time at Fox purely doing
13:17
messaging, right? That's what he's great at And
13:21
he says I think messaging can be tough no matter
13:23
what nobody knows who the Houthis are Obviously
13:26
this is present in America Houthis. I bet if
13:30
you put a public opinion poll Very little amount
13:33
of people know who the Houthis are and why we
13:37
shouldn't you know put resources a lot of our
13:39
resources in Europe and the Middle East against
13:44
them And two, you know, he says we need we should
13:48
stay focused on the Biden failed in our messaging,
13:50
which I think is receptive for a lot of people
13:52
because Arguably they did they didn't do much
13:55
against the Houthis even though they used a lot
13:57
of US resources and you know boats and other
14:01
things and to The fact that the Houthis are Iran
14:05
funded which obviously Iran's a bigger state
14:07
and if you talk about that in the US you could
14:09
get some more receptiveness People are more receptive
14:13
to anti -Iran -funded terrorists than they are
14:16
to anti -Houthis, even though they're the same
14:17
thing. The rest of this message is basically
14:20
him talking about why it doesn't make sense to
14:22
push back the attack, and then from that he said,
14:26
we could easily pause, and if we do, I will do
14:29
all we can to enforce 100 % OPSEC. I guess the
14:35
policy of open... C's I would assume. I don't
14:38
op sec. Wait, is it op sec? Operational security,
14:42
I think is what it is. Okay. And he said he welcomes
14:45
other thoughts and then Michael Wall's comments
14:47
about some like trade situations. And then JD
14:51
Vance responds to Pete and says, if you think
14:53
we should do it, so it is operational security.
14:55
Okay, good. If you think we should do it, let's
14:58
go. I just hate bailing your out again. Let's
15:00
just make sure our messaging is tight here. And
15:02
if there are things we can do upfront to minimize
15:05
risk to Saudi Saudi oil facilities, we should
15:08
do it. Because we are very reliant on Saudi oil
15:12
facilities. And we're trying to read what Pete
15:14
responded to that. So Pete Hegseth responded
15:17
to VP saying, I fully share your loathing of
15:21
European freeloading. It's pathetic. But Mike
15:24
is correct, we are the only ones on the planet
15:26
on our side of the ledger who can do this. Nobody
15:29
else is even close. Question is timing. I feel
15:32
like now is as good a time as any given POTUS
15:35
directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we
15:38
should go, but POTUS still retains 24 hours of
15:41
decision space. I think that shows all you need
15:46
to know. They pretty much decided. I think JD
15:48
Vance is now on board, albeit. Cautious I think
15:52
he's a bit skeptical. Yeah, um, I mean if you
15:56
think we should do it Let's go does not seem
15:58
like a very you know enthusiastic test. Yeah
16:01
He's also if you gotta remember I mean Trump's
16:04
the overall decision -maker, but this group is
16:06
a principles committee so they inform Trump He's
16:09
not the end -all BL in this group. Correct. He
16:11
is all it when it comes to national security
16:14
He's very close to what Pete Hegseth is because
16:17
he his whole job is not surrounding national
16:19
security It has a lot to do more with the people
16:21
in the White House in policy. Especially, you
16:25
know, in the Senate. But, you know, I would defer
16:30
most things to be Hexeth on this issue, just
16:32
seeing as he is, obviously, Secretary of Defense.
16:36
But I would say they kind of have the same stature
16:38
in the script chat. They're the two leaders almost.
16:41
Yeah. I guess I would be a little interested
16:43
to know if... JD Vance after this decided to
16:48
mention his concerns to Trump obviously, you
16:51
know There are reasons why he didn't want to
16:56
proceed with this Attack on the like at the moment
17:01
they were doing it but him saying he would you
17:03
know hold his concerns off makes me wonder if
17:05
he brought them up at all I think he did because
17:07
there's an after these were published there was
17:09
a statement made by the Trump administration
17:10
that I'm not reading verbatim right now that
17:14
I think they said something like that Trump and
17:17
Vance were very close on foreign policy and that
17:19
they had talked and that they were Fully in accord
17:22
with how the administration is pushing us through
17:24
just to kind of show that they're not there's
17:26
no like nothing going on between them You know
17:29
well well you think or may not think L that there
17:32
is That's the press that they put out Do you
17:37
think there's a chance that that's not completely
17:39
accurate? And they're more saying that to seem
17:41
like no, no, no, he was involved. They completely
17:44
agree. Yes. It's the White House. They're speaking
17:46
to the correspondence of the White House. So
17:48
it's going to be published everywhere. If you
17:50
want a lie, you can lie. Yeah. I mean... Nobody's
17:54
going to fact check you. It's a private meeting
17:56
inside the Oval Office that determines this statement.
17:58
Yeah. I don't love the press secretary of this
18:03
administration. She's not even just because...
18:06
of what she said, but she's just very aggressive
18:08
with her tone and not the most friendly person.
18:10
I want Sean Spicer back. Um, yeah, any, literally
18:15
anyone, I don't know, I don't like her. Um, but
18:18
you know, she is very good at keeping her tone
18:20
very... aggressive. Yes. She's very in control.
18:25
Yes, she's very in control. Which is a good thing
18:27
as press secretary. Correct. And it makes it
18:29
very easy for her to lie and she has lied multiple
18:31
times and they have... fact -checked her on many
18:34
of things she said and so obviously no one else
18:36
really knows what was happening in here so no
18:38
one can really do any checking because no one
18:40
that was in the office at that time is going
18:43
to be like that's not what happened like that's
18:44
not Well, no, I mean, they would immediately
18:47
be fired, I would assume. You can't speak out
18:49
against that kind of stuff. But also, it doesn't
18:51
matter. They're president, vice president. Nobody
18:54
is getting fired from the firm vice president.
18:57
Trump, unless there was the biggest of arguments,
18:59
he would never even comment on it. Correct. But
19:03
I guess the concern there would be that the vice
19:07
president doesn't have enough guts or... Like
19:12
courage even like mention his opinion on something.
19:16
He's just kind of you know doing what a lot of
19:18
other Maga people have done and just kind of
19:22
agree with every single thing Trump has said
19:24
which isn't the best thing to be doing when you're
19:28
running a country Yes, I mean the vice president's
19:31
job is to to give more information and then agree
19:35
They tell the president what they think and then
19:38
if president agrees They say yes. If the president
19:40
doesn't agree, they say yes. They're a rubber
19:44
stamper. They don't have any actual formal power
19:48
when it comes to controlling the policy of the
19:51
executive branch, especially for stuff like this
19:54
that includes operational authority in a foreign
20:00
overseas territory, or sea. But just before we
20:05
end this, if anyone wants to say anything, Just
20:08
kind of on information storage. And that's this
20:10
has been a topic of much, you know, consideration,
20:13
classified information, top secret information,
20:16
sensitive compartment information. There's a
20:18
lot of different terms. Many, if not all of these
20:21
officials, probably, probably emitting the lower
20:23
level officials that you had no clue about when
20:26
Luchon read off names and maybe Besson, Besson
20:29
might have one. But the rest of them, most likely
20:34
and all likely has have already had a skiff.
20:36
which is a sensitive, compartmented information
20:38
facility, rooms built into their house. They
20:42
just conform with certain standards, regarding
20:45
telecommunications in and out of them, which
20:47
is zero. And audio and visual precautions, which
20:51
are also zero and zero. These rooms are super
20:54
secure. If you're outside, there's no way to
20:57
hear what's happening inside. If you have a phone,
20:59
you actually can't bring phones inside. I think
21:03
they've been known to sometimes hang them in
21:05
a building just to put them nowhere. That might
21:08
be a James Bond thing, I'm not sure. But they,
21:11
in Russia, during the Cold War, or in the USSR,
21:14
we had a ton of these in our embassies and stuff
21:17
because everything was tapped. So, you know,
21:20
these materials come from the United States within
21:22
their informed countries. Last thing though,
21:25
Pete Hegseth, who disseminated much of what could
21:28
be called sensitive information. has claimed
21:31
it was not classified by him. He is the sole
21:34
proprietor of the classification markings inside
21:37
the defense information apparatus. Declassification
21:43
is a bit different. He needs other people to
21:45
go along with him, though he starts the process.
21:47
But if he didn't classify him, he didn't classify
21:49
him. There's no classified information. I guess
21:52
yeah, are you know okay? Sorry two tiny little
21:56
final things just so we keep it super straight
21:58
here This strike did kill 53 people this included
22:02
children as well as well as you know, we've now
22:07
seen You know the Emoji usage was very interesting
22:14
and the kind of professionalism was not present
22:17
in scripture as they obviously thought it was
22:19
private, even still using emojis when talking
22:22
about people dying is a very interesting choice.
22:25
You know, a fist, a fist, an American flag, a
22:28
fire, or the prayer hands, a muscle, and the
22:31
American flag. Children are not terrorists. No,
22:37
but the Houthis are a terrorist group. But children
22:40
are not terrorists. the not even one thought
22:43
of concern that they have killed people that
22:46
aren't terrorists is disconcerting. Did they
22:49
kill children? They killed children. Okay. They
22:51
didn't say how many children in the source I
22:54
was reading, but it did say they killed 53 people
22:56
and that included children. Using emojis to describe
23:01
killing children. Literally not even not even
23:04
any like kudos to all really great job. God bless
23:07
like great job to all invert and all Working
23:12
on this great work all powerful start like Yes,
23:17
this could be this can be seen as something that
23:20
was relatively good. Yes and accomplishment for
23:25
For the Trump administration. Yes. Thank you.
23:30
That's what I was looking for but But it's like
23:36
Infuriating it's literally children dying of
23:41
course There's zero there's zero thought about
23:43
like, you know, there was zero attempt to limit
23:46
while there probably was but obviously not in
23:48
these messages Yeah, there's high side communication,
23:50
which is classified which they did communicate
23:52
on this before and after during yes, but you
23:56
know, um, sorry, I mean those kids obviously
24:01
in 99 % of time didn't deserve to die unless
24:04
they were somehow part of the Houthis, which
24:07
I significantly doubt so, you know, it's It's
24:11
a bad thing, of course. They try to minimize
24:15
collateral damage in the defense department as
24:17
much as they can. And I think if you look at
24:24
it, it was a net positive. But every military
24:26
mission has mistakes. And it's hard to make a
24:32
perfect mission. But I think they did a good
24:33
job. And last thing, unless you want to talk,
24:36
Trump actually considered firing walls, not for
24:39
the leak. but for the fact that he had Goldberg's
24:41
name and number on his phone per Politico's reporting,
24:44
which I kind of find to be interesting. I mean,
24:48
if that's what Trump's worried about, it's just
24:51
kind of interesting. Remember, Goldberg is very
24:54
much not fond of Trump and to have him on his
24:56
phone is, you know, on Waltz's phone. It's kind
25:01
of a weird thing to think about why his number
25:03
is on his phone, but I don't know. Yeah. I just
25:08
had a couple like tiny tidbits So one was about
25:13
additional security breaches dare spiegel found
25:17
leaked contact details and passwords of officials
25:20
online and these are kind of things that were
25:22
revealed when people were digging more into this
25:25
group chat and then like were they in like just
25:28
like in the in the group chat I Just like a data
25:32
breach like a data breach would be if you've
25:34
went into a like Server or something and pulled
25:37
out the data. Is it that is it like the the phone
25:40
numbers of everybody on the group chat? Okay,
25:43
well, I have a serious people found leaked contact
25:46
details and passives of officials online Wired
25:50
reported that Walt's Venmo account was public
25:52
which exposes some of the White House connections
25:55
and the Wall Street Journal discovered that Hegseth
25:58
brought his wife to come to classified foreign
26:01
military meetings. And then I also just have
26:04
some quotes from President Trump with his reaction.
26:10
So he was initially unaware that the leak happened.
26:13
But when he defended walls, he called it just
26:15
something that can happen. And he criticized
26:18
the Atlantic and called Jeffrey Goldberg a sleazebag,
26:22
attacked Judge Boasberg and called him disgraceful
26:26
and biased. Remind me how Judge Postberg fits
26:30
into this. Um... Did I hear his name? I might
26:35
have heard his name. I feel like I heard his
26:36
name when I was reading about this. I honestly
26:38
don't know off the top of my head, but... I think
26:40
it might have to do with a different issue in
26:42
the Trump administration, I think. But, um, nevertheless,
26:46
obviously it shows you his approach to people
26:49
that don't agree with him. Um... You know. Um...
26:55
Does anybody know... What case both birds presiding
26:59
on but to kind of you know, just finish up The
27:04
fact that he could certifying waltz. It's kind
27:05
of interesting because a lot of people thought
27:07
that they were gonna fire him You know just because
27:10
of the fact that he had Well caused this big
27:14
mess not even the fact that he had it, but just
27:16
that he caused a mess Trump doesn't care about
27:18
the mess. He doesn't care about the fact That
27:21
didn't you know that he leaked all this or it
27:25
was leaked He just cares about the fact that
27:27
he has a name and phone so I think it's I think
27:29
it's obviously to have a sleazebags name in your
27:31
phone is a bad thing for Trump from Trump's point
27:33
of view Chief Judge James Bosberg is going to
27:38
oversee a lawsuit brought against several senior
27:40
national security officials after a reporter
27:42
was unintentionally Added to a signal group chat
27:45
where the planned bombing of Houthi targets any
27:47
men was discussed. I see. Does it say who the
27:49
plaintiff was? Just I just want to know just
27:52
like just But if you want to move on, special
27:57
elections. For sure. All right. Just before we
27:59
talk about Florida and then Wisconsin, we just
28:04
want to talk, I want to talk about how the tables
28:06
have kind of turned with low propensity voters.
28:09
These are voters who don't vote a lot. Democrats
28:13
used to have the low propensity voters. Republicans
28:15
used to have the voters that were more engaged.
28:19
They came to midterms. They came to special elections.
28:21
They came to consolidated elections. And that
28:24
was great. It's better to have low -preparency
28:26
voters than, or better to have high -preparency
28:28
voters than low -preparency voters. But it's
28:32
kind of turned. The Republicans aren't voting
28:34
as much as they used to in these midterm elections.
28:38
Many of Trump's voters just, they just turned
28:43
out for Trump. I mean, if you look at it, there
28:46
was much reporting on the fact that people in
28:48
swing states just voted for Trump and left their
28:50
ballots blank. There's what a law reporting after
28:54
the election said so you have a lot of conviction
28:56
with Trump But the Republican Party on the other
28:58
hand is struggling at least With these midterm
29:02
and special and consolidated elections that where
29:05
you know, this is the how the government's made
29:07
it's a local state and Congress the only thing
29:12
that the Republicans really are capitalizing
29:14
on is the You know the Trump mania among just
29:17
people who just don't vote usually so I would
29:20
say it's in kind of an impending problem We'll
29:22
see that in Florida and Wisconsin, but anything
29:24
on that No, I just think that's really you know
29:27
interesting and obviously we saw an influx in
29:31
sort of middle -aged voters in the past three
29:36
elections and obviously those were elections
29:40
Trump was running in and He you know we've had
29:46
a lot of discussion I guess not us three personally,
29:49
but the media yeah, um about Trump Wanting to
29:57
have a third term which is very interesting,
29:59
but you know that isn't really relevant Yes,
30:03
correct. Um, so it would be interesting to see
30:06
you know next election if it's going to be as
30:09
easy for People to kind of show up in for the
30:15
Republican candidate to get elected or if it's
30:19
gonna be you know a little more of a Show go
30:22
for them to get people to show up. Okay. Let's
30:24
move on. Yeah, okay. Um the once swing safe,
30:28
Florida I think we can officially say, you know
30:30
Well, we could say at 25 in 2024, but it's solid
30:34
red You know Democrats can win the back if something
30:37
crazy happened, but it's gonna stay red for the
30:40
time being But Democrats did tighten their races
30:43
compared to 2024. Is it OK if we talk about the
30:46
sixth district first? Go ahead. Or we can talk
30:48
about the first district. So we'll do sixth.
30:51
Michael Walts' district, former district. Many
30:54
in the GOP thought the race was going to be a
30:56
bit closer than it was. He won by 14 points.
31:00
Randy Fine, that's his name, won against Josh
31:04
Weill. But I might not be saying Josh Weill's
31:07
name frankly. I'm sorry if I. Omit a correct.
31:11
I wanna say it's wild. It looks like wild, but
31:14
I don't know. Either way, Josh Wild out raised
31:17
Randy Fine in this district, which the Democrats
31:19
were really focusing on, 10 to 1, which is, you
31:24
know, in a district that's voting for you 14
31:26
points, you shouldn't be being out raised 10
31:28
to 1. I think that's the fact that the Democrats
31:30
were focusing so much. The DNC chair, Ken Martin,
31:34
I think he came over last week is what I saw.
31:38
But yeah, I only thought No, I mean it was 32
31:42
points that Waltz won this by and Randy fine
31:46
only one by 14 albeit as I just said Democrats
31:49
may turn out more for these elections So this
31:52
may just be that but Trump can't run in the later
31:56
years. So You know, it's either will be a problem
32:00
at a minimum if this is continuing to happen
32:03
Because that's a lot of points that you're shedding
32:06
in the district that you should be You should
32:08
be really capitalizing on. I think that's a problem.
32:11
Now do I talk, yeah? So I was going to talk about
32:15
Matt Gaetz in the first district. The margin
32:19
of victory for Republican Jimmy Petronas was
32:22
nearly identical to what people predicted. And
32:25
thank you, Al. My mic is slipping. Democratic
32:30
candidate Gay Valmont has run twice and gained
32:33
nine percentage points in Florida's first district.
32:38
But Patronus faced criticism for living outside
32:42
the district before entering the race. Yeah,
32:45
I think that definitely hits on it. That's actually
32:48
exactly what I had in my 2 -4 points of notes.
32:50
I told you I read your notes and they're very
32:52
similar. That's kind of crazy. It was actually
32:54
word for word. But if you look at it, 14 points.
32:58
Obviously, Valmont ran twice. If you're running
33:01
twice in a matter of months and gaining nine,
33:04
almost 10 percentage points, Um, that's great.
33:08
That's great for Democrats in Florida. I mean,
33:11
we'll see in the midterms We'll see what happens,
33:14
but you know, that's that's an incredible amount
33:17
of points of people when you think about it It's
33:20
9 % of Florida's first district that voted this
33:22
election obviously less that flipped So obviously
33:27
I think it the point still was standing of earlier
33:30
is that the Democrats have these higher currency
33:33
voters now the educated semi -urban, like suburban,
33:38
semi -suburban voters that are turning out for
33:41
them more in these elections. Obviously Pensacola
33:44
in the sixth district. Yeah, Pensacola's in the
33:48
sixth, I think. Last thing, is that it is kind
33:51
of a military town. That's where Naval base is.
33:55
So, obviously you're getting more educated voters
33:57
coming from there. Yeah. Okay, so we're gonna
34:01
move to Wisconsin now. So the more progressive
34:03
judge won in a relatively comfortable fashion
34:06
that it wasn't a super Like competitive it was
34:10
competitive, but you know not really. Yeah. Thank
34:13
you Um, so nearly nine million dollars were spent
34:16
on this race the most for a judicial race ever
34:18
90 What did I say 900? You said 9. Oh 90. My
34:24
bad. No, you're I don't know Elon Musk pushed
34:27
over 20 million dollars into this race. He wrote
34:31
multiple multi -million dollar checks The Democrat
34:34
candidate spent more in total like overall though
34:38
and so one of the big issues that This race was
34:43
going to kind of help the side was voter ID loss.
34:45
So Luchana is gonna talk about those Okay, so
34:50
I think the first question to answer is like
34:53
what are voter ID laws? So currently 36 states
34:56
have laws either requesting or requiring voters
34:59
to show some form of identification at the polls
35:02
and their remaining 14 states and Washington
35:05
DC use other methods to verify the identity of
35:08
the voters. Most frequently other identifying
35:10
information provided at the polling place such
35:12
as signature is checked against information on
35:15
file. So they don't require you to have a photo
35:18
ID when you go to vote. So people that don't
35:23
believe that there should be voter ID say that
35:27
voter fraud isn't as widespread of an issue and
35:31
in -person voter impersonation, which the law's
35:34
target is only present in 0 .00004 % of all ballots
35:41
cast. So it's a fairly small percentage. and
35:48
other forms of voter fraud, like absentee ballot
35:50
fraud, are also rare and not addressed by voter
35:53
ID laws. Between 2000 and 2020, only 193 criminal
36:01
convictions for mail -in voter fraud occurred
36:04
out of 250 million votes cast. So while it's
36:08
a fairly small number, it's still important to
36:10
have some form of... I don't think it should
36:14
be a number at all. I think it's important that
36:16
elections are honest. So that's kind of the argument
36:21
against voter ID, but the people that are in
36:24
favor of it say that it helps make elections
36:28
less fraudulent, increases the honesty, obviously,
36:33
and removes the chance of people impersonating
36:36
other people. So another... The thing that people
36:41
have brought up is that the voter ID laws have
36:45
a disproportionate impact on marginalized groups.
36:48
So for black and Latino voters, this is especially
36:51
prevalent, 25 % of black voters and 16 % of Latino
36:55
voters do not have an acceptable photo ID, which
37:00
would make it very hard for them to be able to
37:02
vote in states where they do require this photo
37:06
ID. 18 % of citizens over 65 lack government
37:11
-issued photo IDs. 15 % of low -income Americans
37:14
lack the necessary ID and financial or mobility
37:18
barriers like not being able to get there to
37:20
get the ID prevent them from obtaining one. Native
37:24
American and rural voters may lack birth certificates
37:28
or government issue IDs due to being worn on
37:30
reservations or isolated areas. for women who
37:35
changed their last names after marriage or divorce
37:37
may not have an updated ID that matches voter
37:40
roles and college students may only have a student
37:43
ID which is not accepted as valid voter identification.
37:47
So those are kind of the main reasons why people
37:51
would be for or against it. This is something
37:53
that came up for us to talk about because Wisconsin,
37:57
like Elle mentioned, is holding its elections.
37:59
And this was on the ballot there. They passed
38:03
a law requiring voter ID. But I'd be very curious
38:07
to hear what you guys think about this. Well,
38:11
just two things. First thing is actually part
38:13
of their constitution. It's been part of their
38:15
constitution for, I think it was 30 years. Basically
38:18
all it did, all this law that was just enshrined
38:20
it more. It's obviously a liberal -ish court,
38:24
if you want to say that. It makes it harder to
38:26
overturn this kind of law if they were to find
38:29
it violated, you know, either the state, other
38:33
parts of the state constitution or state law,
38:37
which is obviously what they rule on. On voter
38:41
ID, just quickly, obviously, the number should
38:45
be zero. And one of the key things is it just
38:48
increases faith if you voter ID. In Wisconsin,
38:51
You can get a free voter ID or any ID. It's like
38:56
a state issue. Government ID for free. They'll
38:59
mail it to you. They'll mail you a temporary
39:00
one to your house if you want. And then they'll
39:02
give you a real one later. I think you might
39:04
have to pick it up. But the temporary one works.
39:08
I think there is one call they're voting ID.
39:10
I might be wrong on that, though. Yeah, it's
39:13
really interesting. It's nice to hear that they
39:17
have that option to receive a free... Idea ID
39:22
you can use in situations like voting when there
39:25
have laws about it. So they're trying to keep
39:28
everyone active in politics and Wisconsin politics
39:34
I guess in general there have been a lot of kind
39:37
of discussions about other states doing this
39:39
and it become more of a federal Thing or I mean
39:43
states control elections mainly except when Trump
39:47
issues an executive order. Yeah, thanks But so
39:52
you know within the discussions they're obviously
39:55
trying to brought up how This is not really affecting
40:00
the your average white person, but it is affecting
40:04
other minority groups and you know The restriction
40:10
on who should and shouldn't be able to vote is
40:13
kind of interesting You know, I just read a thing.
40:18
I was looking up some other points just now.
40:21
And it was kind of talking about how when there
40:26
were the Jim Crow laws and you had to take it
40:28
in like an intelligence test and all that sort
40:30
of, you know, restrictions on trying to limit
40:33
the amount of people who could vote, this is
40:37
kind of obviously not comparable. Well, yes,
40:41
but the it's not it's not ID. It's not comparable
40:45
in Wisconsin You can get a free and in almost
40:48
every state is like under $50 to get a state
40:51
ID Is it's incredibly cheap their pieces of plastic?
40:55
I think the main I think the main issue with
40:58
this is when it comes to the information you
41:01
need to provide to receive this ID And so, you
41:05
know, that's obviously obviously it's not fully
41:08
comparable to any Jim Crow law. It's not, you
41:12
know, a race -driven policy. It's not anything
41:15
like that. But the idea of restricting who's
41:18
able to vote is something that is being a little
41:21
questioned with voter ID laws. Of course. I mean,
41:25
voter ID laws, there are different types, and
41:28
there are different extents to which they do
41:30
it, they being the states. They are widely supported,
41:35
relatively. 80 something percent of the country
41:39
supports them according to pew pew pew. I'm not
41:43
sure um pw whatever you want to say um But I
41:48
mean with something that with that wide support.
41:50
They're only in 36 states. I think that's just
41:51
enough to get a Constitutional it's 38 30. Yeah,
41:56
um, that's just enough to get it 37. Yeah, so
41:59
that we Mean it's close. It's been in the Wisconsin
42:03
Constitution I think I personally think it's
42:06
fine that law that they passed didn't do much.
42:08
It was already in the Constitution Yeah Um, okay,
42:14
I guess we can move on to Cory Booker. So he
42:18
Broke a record for the longest Senate speech
42:21
surpassing John Thurmond's 24 -hour record. He
42:24
spoke Cory book Booker spoke for 20 five hours
42:30
and I think five minutes. So the speech was symbolic.
42:34
Booker is a person of color. He broke the record
42:36
set by Thurmond who opposed, who did his speech
42:41
about opposing civil rights legislation. So what
42:46
Booker talked about for his 25 hours, it wasn't
42:50
necessarily just him. You can kind of tap in
42:52
and out a little bit. Both are Illinois Senators
42:56
Tammy and Dick. Um, we're tapped in at some point.
43:00
So, you know, that's good for good for us. Yeah.
43:03
They basically just pose a question that is a
43:06
long, very long, um, them just talking. So it
43:11
just gives him a rest on it, but he still has
43:12
to stand up and he still can't receive anything
43:15
except for a water. Um, he spoke about, um, his.
43:20
opposition of Trump, his legislation, what his
43:24
administration is doing, and he is called for
43:26
United America. And Medicare. He was really digging
43:30
into Medicare. And yes. So, you know, it wasn't
43:35
a filibuster, anything of that nature, but it
43:40
was definitely, it was more symbolic and it was
43:42
more... The idea of this black man breaking the
43:47
record set by a racist Republican white man.
43:51
That's it. That's why you know, it's a good thing.
43:54
Yeah, I would I would I yes It's not necessarily
43:59
why he chose to do it, but it was definitely
44:01
one of the driving kind of factors there Lachana
44:05
anything you want to add there? No, I think it
44:07
was a very important moment and I think it's
44:13
Really an impressive thing that he was able to
44:15
make this speech. I can't even imagine talking
44:17
for 25 Yeah, no no breaks. I you can barely drink
44:21
water because you you're gonna have to go to
44:23
the bathroom So it's kind of hard. He's a senator
44:26
from where? New Jersey. I want to say Okay, I
44:30
think you're right. I think I swear I use New
44:32
Jersey. It might be don't don't take my word
44:34
on that I think it's New Jersey. Um if anybody
44:36
can backcheck me, please um But Eric Adams, yeah
44:42
You can go if you want. This is going to be our
44:45
last topic. We'll wrap it up for you here. New
44:48
Jersey. New Jersey, perfect. Who's the 38th mayor
44:50
of Newark? 100 points for Ryan. Eric Adams, the
44:55
judge ruled on his dismissal case today. So basically
44:59
it's kind of been a bit weird. So Justice Department
45:03
said we're going to drop charges. They were like,
45:06
mmm, I'm not sure if it's legal, which is what
45:08
the judge said. So he appointed another random
45:10
person, not the Justice Department or Eric Adams,
45:12
the two, like, proprietors to the case, the plaintiff
45:16
and the defendant. But a totally different person
45:18
to just argue in front of them that the case
45:20
should be kept. Kind of weird. Usually when the
45:24
federal government asks this as a case, it goes
45:27
away like that. Like, let's snap your fingers.
45:30
It's not close enough to my mic. But... They
45:34
they kind of saw it is maybe possibly a quid
45:37
pro quo, but it got dismissed today He will not
45:42
allow the charges to prop back as for it not
45:44
to be threatening Two American's to basically
45:47
the Trump administration just say go along with
45:49
us or we'll bring the charges back So I think
45:52
they were dismissed with prejudice is I think
45:54
how they must have done it Just to make sure
45:58
that the Justice Department and the Trump administration
46:00
doesn't have undue influence on Adams even though
46:04
He's gotten more conservative, let's just say,
46:06
quickly. He's running for mayor, but just lost
46:09
much of his base in support. There's a very funny
46:12
SNL skit about him. I invite you to go watch.
46:16
Excuse you. Sorry. And, you know, he has kind
46:20
of bent to the Trump administration's wind over
46:24
New York. He is now in very much support of the
46:28
deportations and obviously you're allowed to
46:31
resist. federal immigration law as a state because
46:36
you because of the 10th amendment because well
46:39
there's actually a whole case about New York
46:40
versus the United States but that's a whole different
46:43
thing that's about statutory authority sorry
46:46
I'm rambling. Anything else? No I think that
46:49
will take us to the outro. Thank you so much
46:58
for listening to this episode of Project 2028.
47:02
If you enjoyed our podcast, please tell your
47:04
friends about us. You can find us on Spotify,
47:07
Apple Podcasts, RSS, or wherever you get music
47:10
and podcasts. You can also Follow us on Instagram.
47:14
We are at project2028 .podcast. There we post
47:18
political updates in real time along with updates
47:21
about our episodes and when they will be released.
47:24
If you have any questions or topics you'd like
47:26
to discuss, you can email us at project2028 .pod
47:30
at gmail .com. We look forward to hearing what
47:33
you have to say. Thank you so much for listening
47:35
and have an amazing day.