Ruben Gallego Reacts to His Bestie’s Downfall

Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank. Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether you're a business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467. 5600 to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. So Anonymous No More. At least a few of Eric Swalwell's accusers have now come forward. One held a press conference in Beverly Hills. Another two did a sit down with CBS Morning News yesterday. Let's start with the most serious allegation. And this was the press conference. That was held at Beverly Hills, held in Beverly Hills. And is now the subject of an L.A. Sheriff's investigation. So Eric Swalwell being investigated by the Manhattan DA's office as well as by the L.A. Sheriff's office. Eric Swalwell accuser Lana Drews. She clearly was the individual who initially had remained anonymous, did the interview with CNN. and then came out of the shadows and into the light. Allegation. She's speaking now in California, Beverly Hills. Let's watch. In 2018, while I was living and working as a model in Beverly Hills, and I also owned a fashion software company. I had contact with Eric Swalwell on three separate occasions after meeting him socially. He offered me connections to further my software company. And I also had an interest in local politics. He invited me to two public events. I knew he was married at the time and that his wife was pregnant. He was my friend.

On the third occasion, I believe he drugged my drink. I only had one glass of wine. He, we were supposed to go to a political event, and he said he needed to get paperwork from his hotel room. I arrived at his hotel room. I was already incapacitated and I couldn't move my arms or my body. He raped me and he choked me. And while he was choking me, I lost consciousness. And I thought I died. I did not consent to any sexual activity, although I did not undergo a rape kit. At the time, I disclosed the assault to the people closest to me. I also recorded these events in my handwritten calendar, the assault, and its impact or later documented during my therapy sessions. at a sexual assault center. So there's Lana Drew's alleging rape. There were two other accusers I mentioned that came forward and did a sit down with CBS News, along with, and this is a bit different, along with a influencer of sorts, I guess. That's how she's being characterized. So the other accusers, the two women, were asked the question about whether or not coming forward and now seeing him have to withdraw from the governor's race, have to give up his congressional seat. Is that justice? So you'll hear from the three of them. Cheyenne Hunt is the so-called influencer? who I guess has been on point with respect to investigating and bringing forward these women. And obviously they were comfortable. Maybe this was a contingent on doing the interview. They were comfortable having her with them. She helped break the sex scandal. This is People Magazine. And the fact that you have an influence from People Magazine. you know, raises some concerns, but nonetheless, let's hear from the three of them. Cheyenne Hunt first, then the other two accusers. Anika Albrecht and Ali Samarko. The fact that he has now dropped out of the governor's race and resigned from Congress, is that justice in your view? No, it's just the beginning. It's just the very beginning. And I know personally that we're not walking away from this fight. For me, justice won't be until he can't ever harm a woman ever again.

And he has faced the consequences for the women that he has harmed. I think in regards to the governor's race, he never should have ran for governor to begin with, knowing the kind of history and receipts that are out there. So that's a non-starter. And then in terms of Congress, I think he absolutely should have resigned. I think we just prevented... another 30 to 40 years potentially of him harming people if he were to stay in Congress. So in that sense, I think we have served justice for his future victims. Wow. So this is a bit different. So for example, Ali Samarko, it turns out, I brought this to your attention on Monday, I think, that. This guy had posted that if Eric Swalwell said anything critical about his wife, he would immediately file a civil suit. And if he has anything to say, say it now, so forth. Because he clearly knew that his wife was one of the individuals who was going to come forward and make an allegation, which he has now done, Ali Samarko. She alleged that the initially communicated on X. Her communication was all began as a political exchange on X in 21 when she had around a thousand followers. I never thought, he truly never thought he would respond. I had like a thousand followers at the time, and he actually responded. She then alleged the exchanges escalated, claiming she received unsolicited nude messages from the congressman. CNN reported that it reviewed screenshots of dozens of messages. Many described as flirty, although none were sexually explicit in the material they analyzed. There was also this influencer says that at least 30 more women have shared stories of alleged misconduct by Eric Swalwell. But, you know, there's sending unwanted pictures and then there's rape. I mean, these are not in the same category. But I just reading this and then thinking about interacting with Congress, I think I've come up with a corollary to Godwin's law. You know, Godwin's law is the assertion that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler or Nazis approaches one, meaning approaches, you know, 100% will happen. So the longer, I would, the correlator would be as communication with a member of Congress grows longer, the probability you will get new pictures of that member of Congress. Approaches one. What do you think? 312 642-5600 is the alpha wealth group.com answer line to give us a call or text on the topic. We want to get to Ruben Gallego Legomai Gallego to the Arizona Senator and Bestie of Eric Swalwell because another front has opened here, not just with the accusers, but with the political fallout. Gallego seems a little shaky to me. I want to get to that. But first, I mean, just the backdrop here. So you heard those allegations, particularly the rape allegation. And then, you know, now all of these schmaltzy staged, you know, TikTok and Instagram videos that Eric Swalwell has been doing, both as member of Congress and even more particularly running for governor. They're all sort of in recirculation because otherwise, you know,

who was really paying attention. They're difficult to watch. Painful. This one might be the most. He and his wife strolling down the beach, walking around town, shooting the breeze, so in love. Did you think I'd run for governing? Absolutely not. Could you think I could be going? Didn't cross my mind. Appreciate that confident. What has surprised you the most that you're hearing from people? I would say just how proud everyone is in every part of the state to be Californian, like almost like you've got to be crazy to live anywhere else, but also how scared people are, like really scared. Yeah, I'm scared. But what I see across state is people are optimistic and there's a way for us to get through it. I think you just got my endorsement. You ready to do like a public endorsement? I don't think you need mine. You have Adam Schiff. Not anymore. So what do you think voters should know about me besides what they, you know, only seen on TV? Gee, there's a question. You're a really great dad. You're a really good husband. I think the kids and I... truly can count on you for anything. And if I gave you the choice, I'm not sure if you would choose to be governor of California or have the 49ers win the Super Bowl. 49ers. Governor. Definitely being governor of California. And making a place where when we retire, it's a place where our kids and everyone's kids can afford to live. You're going to be a great governor. Thanks.

I'm sorry you had to listen to that. I know that was difficult. Chris on the Dan Ryan. Hey, Dan, real quick. I know that he's retired, well, he's left Congress. I know that Congress has a slush fund for things like this, like rape and all the stuff that they pay people out with. Does he still get covered underneath this legal umbrella for his congressman, even though that this has happened during his tenure as a congressman? That's a good question. I mean, in terms of any sort of taxpayer-funded. back up for Eric Swalwell here? I don't think so. I also think he's going to have a difficult time using federal campaign funds for the expanse of what would be what I would project to be substantial legal costs. Text from 815, I agree Eric Swalwell is a creep, but if it's wrong now, why wasn't wrong in 2018? I'm referring to... Ms. Drews, who made the rape allegations saying that occurred some, you know, seven or eight years ago. Yeah. I mean, I know. The Swawa standard is, of course, we're supposed to believe the accusers, except when they accuse him. I got it. But, yes, it's difficult because he is such a detestable person. But I think you have to apply to the same standard. So I'm. in agreement that the accusers are due scrutiny as well. Joe in Naperville. Yeah, you know, typical Democrat playbook. I didn't like what they did it to Thomas. I didn't like what they did it, Tavanaugh. And even though I hate swallow, I really don't like this going on. You know, we're innocent until proven guilty. It's not his job to prove his innocence. It's all these other people's job to prove his guilt. And I really wish the meeting and everybody else would just, you know, keep your powder dry until after the trial and then dog pile on them. Thanks for the call, Joe. Although, you know, there's the criminal standard and then there's just the political standard. The political standard is, you know, did you come to the conclusion this guy's a creep? And there's ample evidence to support that. Did you come to the conclusion that he should no longer serve in Congress? Yeah, I mean, is this a hit job? Sure it is. But. So when it comes to, yeah, the presumption of innocence, you're talking about with respect to a criminal proceeding. In sort of a cultural or political sense, of course, there is no standard. But there should be norms, I think, to give people the – I don't know that I would necessarily swallow will as due the benefit of the doubt. But as I did say –

No one is beyond reproach. And you make serious allegations. Those deserve to be scrutinized, even if it's just with respect to somebody's reputation and not their freedom. There's only one radio show in Chicago talking about today's biggest stories and telling you what they really mean. That show is this one. Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, The Answer. Hey, business owners, is your business and money in good hands? Does your bank invest in your success? Hi, Mike Gallagher here, letting you know that when you need a relationship bank, signature bank makes commercial banking personal. I love these guys. Not only do they have expansive industry experience, a strong financial track record, but they're also highly capitalized for strategic growth. That's so important. That's why signature bank is my bank. They know what it means to grow a business by designing solutions that are right for you and only. you. These are real people. They're ready to help. So reach out to my friends at Signature Bank. Make the call today. 773-467-5630. Or visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. Bank. That's SignatureBank. Bank. Your business could be Signature Bank's next success story. Go online. SignatureBank. Bank, Equal Housing Lender, Signature Bank. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff here talking about the continued political fallout from the self-immolation of Eric Swalwell. It wasn't complete self-immolation. He had a lot of hell, but his underlying conduct is what did him in. and compromised him. At least he just compromised himself and his party this time and not the entire country, Fang Fang. You know how I know it was in part, at least in part of political hit job. Not just following the logic of the timing of this, but... I know it was because Nancy Pelosi said it wasn't. Some Republicans and others are saying that Democrats turned kind of a blind eye, that they knew what he was up to. No, that's not true. That is absolutely positive. It's true that they may say that, but it is absolutely not true. You had no idea. None whatsoever. None whatsoever. Nobody had any idea. I have none whatsoever. No, none whatsoever. And if you can't believe Nancy Pelosi, I mean. In 2024, Kari Lake ran against Ruben Gallego. And it was, there was some, there was also some issues surrounding Ruben Gallego when it came to him. It was different, to be sure. But I thought something that she said at this turning point rally in 24 was interesting. And it speaks to. what is known in political circles or even rumored in political circles about people. I've talked about this the last couple of days, too. It is implausible, strains the bounds of credulity to believe that no one had an inkling that Eric Swalwell behaved in the way that he is alleged to have behaved.

This is Kari Lake on Ruben Gallego, who's next up. This is Eric Swalwell's bestie. And no, that wasn't him on the bed in that video with Eric Swalwell and the prostitute. So he says. Kari Lake on Gallego. His ads leave out a whole lot of despicable treatment of women. His ads don't tell you that. about the time that he harassed and threatened a 20-year-old female intern, and when she complained about it, she was fired. His ads don't tell you about the fact that his fellow Democrats down at the state legislature gave him the nickname the troll because of how creepy and degrading he was with women. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. that everybody has a handle or is pushing a handle on everybody else because these political circles are, you know, Vipers pits. So Eric Swalwell in office for a decade and a half in California politics, you know, running, yeah, a fateful long-shot presidential campaign, but a presidential campaign nonetheless in media all the time doing his duty. to spread the left's adjut prop on CNN and MSNBC. And don't think that doesn't create envy among those in his caucus who also want to be celebrity politicians, who also want to climb the ladder, that he wouldn't have a target on his back internally, that people wouldn't have the drop on him internally. It's completely implausible. Ruben Gallego also, and this was part of the 2024 campaign, but in their infinite wisdom, the Arizona voters chose this drip. Wait till you hear him, but let's finish Kari Lake with Kari Lake here. His ads don't tell you, frankly, about the most unforgivable act against a woman. When he walked out on his pregnant wife, when she was nine months pregnant, days before she delivered their firstborn child, he served her papers, and he ran off to sleep with a D.C. lobbyist. That's despicable. Here is the aforesaid Ruben Gallego in terms of what he knew and when he knew it about his bestie. In the beginning, you said when you first heard these rumors a few weeks ago, that's when you called him. Then you said you've heard these rumors for years. So which one is it, Senator? So I heard rumors of him being flirty. And that wasn't an issue enough for you do not trust him to watch your kids or be close with him? Because, you know, you hear this. And then when you're close to somebody and you know, you know his wife. You see this. You know that, like, it maybe just isn't true. Have you asked him about it prior to the few weeks? I asked him about it a few weeks ago when it started coming up online. He was a victim, Ruben Gallego was. He was lied to by Eric Swalwell. He was duped. His friend living a double life. I have called you his best friend. You have never asked him about any of the rumors that have been swirling around democratic politics of his inappropriate behavior. I did. Look, we knew each other differently for what else. My family and his family.

were as close as it gets. Our kids were in baseball camp together. You know, we had dinner together as a family. It was entirely different, but I think what people understand. But when there was rumors going around a couple weeks ago, not of the folks in what I've been in the San Francisco Chronicle, I did ask him, and he lied to me. He knew that I just came off a very, very hard campaign for two years, where they lied about me and my family for two years. He manipulated me to have the same sentiment. that I was having back in day and used as an opportunity to move me to defend him. How did you not know about the allegations, though, considering you chaired his presidential campaign, wouldn't some of this have come up? Some of those allegations predated when he ran for office. Again. This man led a double life. He lied to us. He lied to his family, lied to his constituents. Some most powerful people in this country, you know, even before he ran, he was trusted with some, you know, positions that normally we would never think someone like this could do if they're leading that double life. And again, I was manipulated. I was lied to and everyone else was too. Anybody buying that? 312-4-2-5600, the alphawealthgroup.com answer line to give us a call or text. Anybody buying that? He was the chairman of his presidential campaign. Never heard any of this. I heard rumors just recently that he was sometimes a bit flirty. I'd like a little bit more color on that. What do you mean? Rumors? Flirty in what sense? What was the exact nature of those rumors? Something else that Gallego was asked that he tried to squirm around. He was really shaky. How about you release your communications with your bestie?

Would you release any text messages you had with Eric Swavo to prove your innocence here? Anybody, anybody that asks or anybody, any legal, you know, proceedings that need, we'll get whatever they want without a doubt. You release all your efforts. Yeah, any legal proceedings. The ethics interviews or if there's a subpoenas or anything outside, legal proceedings, anything else, if you get sued, we'll release everything without. Do you think that's a bit of an odd answer? I will comply with any subpoenas or ethics hearings. I don't think the ethics hearings will be necessary at this point. If you didn't have anything related to the topic, wouldn't you say, look, I've never communicated with him about these matters. So I don't believe I have anything that's germane to this because we've never discussed this. I've never seen any improper behavior. I've never challenged him because I didn't see any improper behavior. I had no idea what he was up to. Instead, I will comply with subpoenas that are from whatever law enforcement agency or authority that compels me. That's odd. And by the way, how good are friends were they? Well, let me ask you a question. Have you ever... ridden shirtless on a camel on the beach with your best friend on trips on vacations officially unofficially you've gone out presumably with the congressman you've never even witnessed him i don't know engaging in an affair no no how do you explain some of the photos the one line i know you addressed one but there is another one that should both of you without shirts and how do you address some of those compromising photos we were on a beach I think you were on the desert and on some camels. It was a beach and a camel. But it's a beach. Yeah. What? I wanted more on that, too. Was that one camel or two camels? 3-1-2, 642, 5600. You didn't see that one coming, huh? Ruben Gallego, and Eric Swalwell. frolicing either in the desert or on a beach on camels. That's how close they were. That's close. That is close. Jim in Crown Point, you're on Chicago's morning answer. The reporter asked him, was at one hump or two, and he said, I didn't see him have sex with anybody. Hi-yo. You know, he should have hired. George Stephanopoulos because the one woman that accused Clinton of rape, he successfully quashed that. Another thing, I think he'll end up at Harvard teaching for CNN. He's going to get his own show with Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Wiener. How about that recall? I mean, you know, and you can pick your favorite sexual deviant former member of Congress. Text from 219, would it be shocking if Gallego's metadata places him at the same hotel and time as the video was Eric Swalwell and the prostitute? I would not be shocked. I mean, like, if you can spend a day in the desert on a camel with your bestie.

We do everything together. Everything. I mean, look, there may be an open Senate seat in Arizona before this is all sudden done. I mean, we're not there yet by any stretch, but that guy is really, really shaky. I know. He's just been betrayed by his best friend, Dan, and that's all it is. Okay. Sure. George Naperville. Yeah, Dan, I wonder if Eric was just flirting with the idea of a portable housing in California and not taking it serious. Not assaulting the idea? Thanks for the call, George. Yeah. Can you imagine, text him to substance three. Can you imagine the questions his wife got for him? He reminds me of Tiger Woods' catty who didn't know anything. That's a good. I mean, look, you know, it's one thing that this whole like leading a double life. I mean, that can happen. It does happen. I mean, I've heard stories. There are people that I know who would do up to the things that I had no idea about and were surprised to find out. But it's a little bit different if it's just like somebody who's otherwise in, you know, private life doesn't have public profile and isn't in the sort of den of thieves that is politics. That's the difference here is that scrutiny, the nature of the environment you're in, which is, uh, an environment where, you know, sort of character assassination is the order of the day. So that's why, like, you know, you can't get away with the I didn't hear anything. I didn't see anything. I mean, it's, you know, it's, you know, it's tantamount to some, you know, lieutenant in the mob saying, I don't know anything about that. I don't know anything about that. I don't know anything about that. Who's, you know, who's that? What's that? I mean, it's about that credible, Gallego. So stay tuned. This, the travails for both Eric Swalwell and his bestie now, Senator Gallego, the good senator from Arizona, are far from over. Dan Proff, Chicago's morning answer. The stories you need to know to start your day. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560, the answer. Hey, business owners, is your business and money in good hands? Does your bank invest in your success? Hi, Mike Gallagher here, letting you know that when you need a relationship bank, signature bank makes commercial banking personal. I love these guys. Not only do they have expansive industry experience, a strong financial track record, but they're also highly capitalized for strategic growth. That's so important. That's why signature bank is my bank. They know what it means to grow a business by designing solutions that are right for you and only. you. These are real people. They're ready to help. So reach out to my friends at Signature Bank. Make the call today. 773-467-5630. Or visit them online at SignatureBank.Bank. Bank. That's SignatureBank. Bank. Your business could be Signature Bank's next success story. Go online. SignatureBank. Bank,

Equal Housing Lender, Signature Bank. Top of the morning, Dan Proff here on the Gallego matter asking about his best bestie, Eric Swalwell. Text from 630, why does he just say, I'm not a chick. I don't ask questions about his personal life. Yeah. It's not bad, but I don't think that's going to cut it, not in this arena. Not in the political arena. But it really is true. I mean, it's the... The cliche about you go play golf, spend four hours with somebody, and, you know, you come back and your wife or girlfriend ask, so, you know, how's Chris's wife doing? And your response is, he's married? How are his kids doing? He has kids? Is, where's Tommy going to college? I don't know. This and that. It really is. There's some truth to that, but I don't think Ruben Gallego is going to be able to pull that off. In a related story, I wanted to put this marker down because of Melania's press conference last week. Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, was asked about whether or not Congress should take up her call for a public hearing where victims, obscene victims can put their experiences on the record. He said this. I've been saying for the past year, which is the following, if there is a victim that has evidence against anybody. They should absolutely report it to the FBI, and we will take it seriously no matter what. And so her call to Congress to have witnesses come forward and testify is not inconsistent with what the Department of Justice. And President Trump, frankly, has been saying for many years. Todd Blanche also had this message, which is important for those who think there are still some files that are being hidden, scrolled away, that the administration won't release. Release all the files. Release all the files. Okay, well, that's been done, says Todd Blanche. The authority to go ahead and release more, do you not? And you have the authority to... Go to Congress, perhaps? No, we have released everything. So listen, we reviewed 6 million pieces of paper. What we released were anything associated with the Epstein file. So we are not sitting on a single piece of paper. Nothing. Nothing that should be released. If we find something else tomorrow, we'll release it. I don't anticipate we will. So the misguided assumption that there is more to be released is because we reviewed millions and millions of pages within the department, millions of which had nothing to do with Epstein. as if we looked at a document and said, you know, we're not going to release that. If we didn't release it, it's because it was not responsive to the law and therefore not part of the Epstein files. What we've done with Congress is we have, we, by law, we had to make certain redactions by law, including of victims and of PI information. But we said to Congress, any congressman can come in and spend as much time as they want looking at everything unredacted. And if you think we should be doing something, Congressman or Congresswoman, let us know and we will, we will. do it. There you go. So there you go, Thomas Massie and Rokane and others are trying to beat that drum. So take them up on the offer or take a hike. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer on AM 560. The answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proctor, Sean Davis from the Federalist. In 2019, during the peak hysteria of the Ukraine whistleblower impeachment hoax, I exclusively reported for the Federalist that the intelligence community inspector general secretly gutted internal whistleblower rules requiring firsthand evidence of wrongdoing. I had the whistleblower forms, the revisions, and the dates for all of it. And it conclusively approved all of it. that the IC gutted internal whistleblower rules to facilitate the predicate for the for impeachment 1.0 that's what he's talking about he goes on all hell broke loose after i published my report with deep state assets and their media licks spittles accusing me of lying of fabrication and of botching the facts i was 100% right and they all knew it How do we know this? Because the IG himself admitted under oath and testimony for Congress. And his staff, despite the fact of his testimony, lied about it for years, knowing that the proof of their conspiracy would be hidden within his classified testimony. For nearly seven years, I waited for the transcript of that testimony to be released. It finally happened. Tulsi Gabbard. And that testimony fully vindicates my original reporting and fully discredited everyone who falsely claimed it was inaccurate, including the staff of the IG, who deliberately peddled lies about what they did and how I caught them red-handed. Here's what he secretly admitted under oath, the IG. Quote, when it came to my attention from one of the media inquiries that we had a form that required individuals to have firsthand information before they could file a complaint, I did two things. I said, first of all, is that what our form says? And then the second thing, once they told me, yeah, that's what our form says. We need to change that. That's what IG Atkins had testified verbatim from the transcript. Continued verbatim. So the timing is unfortunate. It looks suspicious. I get that. What I should have done was I should have explained when we changed the form why we were changing it. That should have been more transparent about the reasons and the motivations for the change in the forms. Sean Davis now. So the ICIG, Intel Community Inspector General, gutted its own internal rules, eliminated its longstanding requirement of firsthand whistleblower knowledge, did so because of the anti-Trump complaint, fraudulently backdated its changes, and did it all in secret exactly as I reported in 2019, John Davis at the Federalist. And the admission by the IG himself that my reporting was accurately, that my reporting. was hidden from the public view until today. It was accurate that my reporting was hidden from public view. The Tulsi Gabbard. Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people putting political motivations over truth. And this, along with the politicization of the whistleblower process by a former CIA employee who is working hand in glove with Democrats in Congress, are egregious examples of the deep state playbook on how to weaponize the intelligence community. Deep state actors within the intel community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly elected president of the United States.

exposing these tactics and showing how they undermine the fabric of our Democrats, small D Democratic Republic, furthers the critical cause of transparency and accountability and will help prevent future abuse of power. Not to hear the Dems talk about it. Not to hear the Dems talk about it. The lawfare will continue unabated. In fact, it will be ramped up. We've heard from... Hakeem Jeffries? We've heard from J.B. Pritzker, and you'll hear for the next year and a half from all of the other neo-Marxist presidential aspirants. The reckoning that must come for Trump and his supporters. They're saying people need to be held accountable for this asserted illegality and this alleged injustice. That's what they're saying. It's fact-free, but... So is impeachment 1.0? 312, 642, 5600. To give us a call on the AlphaWealthgroup.com answer line. You can text us there as well. I know this is being treated as, you know, a shoulder shrug by the D.C. Press Corps for obvious reasons. But, and from our side, because you have shows like this and you have people like Sean Davis and other doing good reporting out there. That if you're paying attention, you knew about these things swirling around. And so you receive this in stride. It doesn't come to you as a big surprise. But it's still, number one, it's still nice to be proven right, as Sean Davis is enjoying right now. And he deserves to. But also, it does have implications for looking, particularly since FISA is up for renewal. And, you know, Section 702 is a point of controversy and something we discussed quite a bit during the Biden years because of its weaponization against Trump and Trump allies, campaign staffers. It's manipulation by people like James Comey, FBI.

So it's interesting to read. I mean, this shows putting country first, at least that's what he believes he's doing. People can have an honest disagreement about it. But Trump just announced that Republicans should pass a clean extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He posted. I was a victim of the worst and most illegal abuse of Fies in our nation's history by radical left lunatics, who lied to the FISA court to spy my 2016 presidential campaign in their attempt to rig the election in favor of crooked Hillary Clinton. The fact is, whether you like FISA or not, it's extremely important to our military. I've spoken to many generals about this and they consider it vital. Not one said, even tacitly, they can do without it, especially right now with our brilliant military operation in Iran. And he gives more color on this and a more expansive true social post talking about working with Mike Johnson, working with Jim Jordan and others to get a clean extension of FISA 702 through the House this week. I'm asking Republicans to unify and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean bill to the floor. We need to stick together when this bill comes before the House Rules Committee. to keep it clean. So he was right. I mean, he's right about how he and others were targeted. There's no question. That's been well documented. But the other implication here is the impeachment 1.0 wasn't just a fraud. It was a fraud and it wasn't just a fraud visited upon President Trump and others in Trump world. building off of the Russian collusion hoax. It was a fraud perpetrator in the country that beset the President of the United States and his administration and his policy agenda, you know, that the people voted for, for half of his first term. And there needs to be. A continued revisiting of this. Every time new information becomes available like this because of Tulsi Gabbard declassifying it. So that it is in people's mind, for example, were the Dems to get the House and the Senate in November? I know I'm not conceding it, but I'm just saying it's obviously plausible. Were that to happen and they go right back to their nefarious ways?

then there is a record here. And that will inform, hopefully, people's understanding with an eye towards 28 in the presidential election. I mean, that's what has to be done. It doesn't mean that people won't be willfully blind. It doesn't mean that people won't be blissfully ignorant. There's always going to be people in those camps. The question is, you know, how big are the camps? Trying to shrink them. And you have to continue to make the evidentiary case. You need to do that as relentlessly as the other side lies, including going back to the principal liars like Adam Schiff, revisiting Adam Schiff, having some institutional memory because Adam Schiff knew who the whistleblower was and lied about it as chairman of the House Intel Committee. Just to ask a clarifying question, do you anticipate when we might vote on the ability to have the whistleblower in front of us, something you... Of the 435 members of Congress, you are the only member who knows who that individual is, and your staff is the only staff of any member of Congress has had a chance to talk with that individual. We would like that opportunity. When might that happen in this proceeding today? First, as a gentleman knows, that's a false statement. I do not know the identity of the whistleblower, and I'm determined to make sure that identity is protected. No, that was a false statement. Catherine Harage reporting on this same transcript release. The whistleblower met with Democrats on House Intel Committee, then led by Adam Schiff, before reporting his allegations to the intelligence community inspector general. Before. He met with Democrats. You knew who he was. He met with them before. So Democrats are running interference, finding a whistleblower they can lean on to provide a basis for this gambit. And then the Inspector General for the intel community changes the rules as it pertains to whistleblowers to clear the path. Nice little one-two punch, isn't it? Then Congressman, now CIA Director John Ratcliffe, in October of 2019, nailed the timeline in a closed-door briefing with the IC watchdog Michael Atkinson. Trump-Zalinski called, the infamous call, was July 25th of 2019. The whistleblower complaint filed August 12th. What happened during those 18 days? John Ratcliffe. The whistleblower did not disclose to you that he or she had contact with the House Intelligence Committee. Atkinson, the answer to that is yes. The answer to that is yes. Atkinson, on the urgent disclosure form, I'll read it again, there's a question that the complaint has asked about who they have reported the violation to, and one of the boxes is the congressional intelligence committees. The complainant did not check that box. Did not check that box. So he lied. Is anybody telling the truth on that side? No, they're not. Roger and DeKalb.

Hey, hey, Dan. So why would Democrats complain about that Democrats love this? Because look at how they've advanced their powers. You mentioned Schiff. And I think Elise Stefanik came from that cesspool. But most vials for those Vindemann brothers, those slimy cretons. One's already a congressman. The other one's wondering for Congress in Florida. It's like, those guys ever serve in theater or they were just desk jockeys? I thought they were just desk jockeys. But every time they show them, they have a chest full of medals. And I want to know what they stand for. Was it like filing the right paperwork? Because it's, I think those guys are, they should have been tried for treason in my opinion. But, hey. That's the Democratic Party. Lying is about power. It's about power for them. Thanks for the call, Roger. That's right. Text from 630 almost like a parallel version of the wrap-up smear. Totally. And you remember, I mean, the whistleblower was later identified by Real Clear Investigations as intelligence analyst Eric Chiramella. And what's happened to him?

What sinecure has he been provided? What NGO with billions in government funding is he heading up? You have to track that down. And the Inspector General, you know, changing the rules and concocting this story. But boy, the timing looks bad. I should have been more transparent. But, you know, I'm just a babe in the woods here. The Inspector General for the intelligence community, he's so naive. This intelligence analyst. who, if I'm recalling correctly, was friendly with Adam Schiff's staff, comes forward and no concern about political motivations, truthfulness, credibility. And it's particularly distressing because otherwise, you may remember the Inspector General Michael Atkinson, I mean, he did some decent work of... documenting the abuses in the FBI, for example, and the malfeasance of James Comey and others in the James Comey regime. But boy, oh boy, when you have the prospect that interested parties are going to take this and run with it to try to impeach a president. And he said, I don't, we don't need to kick the tires on this one. Really? We're just talking about comments that strain the bounds of crudulity. Ruben Gallego. Michael Atkinson. Adam Schiff. And you're right. When they're caught in lies, they just continue to lie. And for the most part, they aren't asked about those lies because they stay in their silos, their echo chambers. And they don't need to come out of their silos. We as a country don't make them. And certainly the D.C. Press Corps won't since they serve at their pleasure. The D.C. Press Corps serves at the pleasure of the politicians. And to some extent, vice versa, as Eric Swalwell found out. Craig and Mount Greenwood. Oh, thank you much for taking my call. There's an aspect to this that I think promotes it and basically incentivizes these people that continue to be the rotten deceptive liars there and they engage in all their garbage. And it's that damn fund that takes our tax money. It puts it into a big fund of millions and millions of dollars. These people can basically just operate like, just like whatever the hell they want, lying and scheming because they know they can protect themselves and use that money. There's something that's got to be able to be done where these people, when they do this stuff. They're personally responsible with their own funds. I mean, because that's why they're all a bunch of rat and snakes and liars and scheme bags because they're using our money to protect themselves. And they're exempt from this and exempt from that. And they can do whatever the hell they want. Thanks for the call, Craig. One other footnote here, you know, that Vindman, who rose to such celebrity and Congress.

Member of Congress now. That great hero because he was serving both his home country as well his motherland by testifying essentially against Trump in that impeachment proceeding. He's running for Senate in Florida now. Yeah, that's the thing that's really frustrating about all this is. You understand how essentially a government that's organized like the mob protects itself and protects those that it needs to protect for as long as it protects them, as long as they serve a useful purpose. But then when they have to actually go before the large republic. and there's no reckoning there either when everything is there for you to see or certainly it all comes together a certain point in time and you know to some extent the loftier places they find the more punishing the fall will be i certainly hope that that happens to vinman and i think florida is a pretty good place to make that happen Dan Proff, Chicago's Morning Answer. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer. An AM-560, The Answer. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM-560, The Answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Prop here. So the Senate is back in session. Hooray! What be the status of the Save Act, pray, tell. Well, Senate Majority John Thune, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is... Gosh, I think re-energized from the vacation. Take a listen. The junior Democrat from New York said this, and again, I quote, the ideas that we have in our wallets should be good enough to vote, end quote. Well, Mr. President, that is exactly what we offered. Licenses, state ID cards. Tribal IDs were all acceptable forms of ID in our proposal. The same kinds of ID that we have in our wallets right now. This president, multiple Democrat senators even acknowledge that their own states have voter ID requirements and that they work. The junior senator from Georgia came to the floor and said this, and I quote again, I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID. We have voter ID laws in my state. You should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. End quote. I couldn't have said it better myself. And the Democrat leader said, and I quote, our objection as Democrats is not to a photo ID, end quote.

Except as Democrats' recent vote demonstrates, that's not actually true. Before the vote, the Democrat leader spoke on the floor and made it clear that when he says he supports voter ID, he means that he supports voter ID as long as the ID requirements in question are essentially meaningless. And he's not the only one. To quote a recent news story, the junior senator from Colorado said, and I quote, he supports voter ID, but signal he will vote no when informed that the bill does not allow voters to use a utility bill to prove identity, end quote. He voted no because you can't show a utility bill as a form of ID. Ms. President, you can't make this stuff up. The senator from Colorado used to own a brewery in Denver. And I have to wonder whether you could show a utility bill to buy a beer there. I doubt it. But this is what Democrats think is good enough for our elections. And the senator, he's referring to, of course, as John Hickenlooper. That was a fun little anecdote. For more on this and other matters, please be joined again by Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Senator Johnson, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it. Good morning, Dan. Thanks for having me on. Great to have you, as always. So, I mean, it's nice to see John Thune taking the rhetorical lead there, but what is the latest, if there is any, as to any substantial movement, the movement necessary to move the SAVE Act? So that was an excellent speech. He's pointing out the grotesque hypocrisy of our Democrat colleagues. The problem is, is the mainstream media, the legacy media, they're not going to cover that speech. They're not going to put pressure on the Democrats. And the only way currently we can pass that in the Senate is if we get Democrat votes. And Democrats won't vote for it because voter integrity controls over our very process, making sure that only legitimate votes count that's existential to their game plan of turning this into one-party nation. That's why they flooded America with millions of illegal immigrants, put them in sanctuary season states, plus up the census count, plus up their numbers of Congress. Make sure that there is no voter integrity so those people can eventually vote if they're not voting now. So they won't vote for this. So the only way the State of America Act passes. is if we end the filibuster. And the division in the Republican conference right now are those of us who firmly believe that when Democrats run the table, they got the presidency, the Senate, and the House, they will end the filibuster. They told us they do that, right? They purge the two members of their party. They prevented from doing it last time. By the way, they did it last time to nationalize the elections. Yeah. To make sure that you have automatic registration, they have mail and voting. I mean, Katie bar at the door, I mean, there would be no control of our elections. So that's what they're going to do versus those in our conference, and we all realize it would be nice to maintain the filibuster when we're in the minority so we can block all this awful radical left legislation. But, you know, those that just do not believe Democrats will end the filibuster. I don't believe that. I think they will. And so we need to act first. We got about three years to try and save this country. But that's it. I mean, the only way to save America Act passes is if we end the filibuster.

So then, I mean, rather than thinking about this as putting pressure on Dems who are so beholden to the neo-Marxist base of the party, they couldn't move even if they wanted to with the exception of John Fetterman, then it really comes down to putting pressure on. Is it a handful of Republican senators? Is it double figures? I mean, our name is going to be named? I mean, if that's where this all turns, then pressure needs to be applied to those senators who are reluctant to take the step, right? So I don't know. We don't do whip count on this. I propose my Wall Street Journal column. Well, at a minimum, what we ought to do is take a vote on a rule change. Put the least Democrats on record. Do you want to end this billbuster when you're in the minority? That would be a 67-vote threshold. But trust me, my Republican colleagues are not happy that I'm calling for even that kind of vote. I'm sure. Much less a majority vote, which is nuking the filibuster. And by the way, we've done that time and time again. Harry Reid started the process. He nuked the filibuster to pack the D.C. court. We had to come back and we had to nuke the filibuster on Neil Gorsuch, because they weren't going to allow a Supreme Court justice to be confirmed. We had to do it just last year because they weren't going to confirm any of Trump's nominees. So we've already eliminated the filibuster on all nominees. You see both sides pushing the envelope on reconciliation. There's no way to stop that. That's a majority vote. And so we're starting to fund more and more things through reconciliation. We all thought that, well, you can't touch discretionary spending. No, we're doing all kinds of appropriation of discretionary spending through the reconciliation process. So there's not much left. that the filibuster even applies to. So I've been suggesting, let's just rip the Band-Aid off. The Senate is horribly broken. My colleagues say, oh, we can't break the Senate. No, the Senate is so broken right now. We are $39 trillion in debt. Since I've been there, we should have passed 180 appropriation bills on time before the start of the fiscal year they're funding. We've passed six. That's a 96.7% failure rate. We had a 42-day shutdown. We've got DHS still shut down. How much more broken can this place get? So, no, it will require. And again, what I hate about having to. put pressure on Republicans, we're really not the problem. It's the Democrats. I mean, their orders of magnitude worse. They're the ones destroying this country, but it is true. The only way we end the filibuster is we're going to have to pressure Republican senators who take the other view. And again, it's a legitimate view. I understand it. Okay, I'm going to hate it when we're in the minority, and Democrats are passing all this crap that literally puts this country on a path of destruction, but we're already on that path. And right now we're trying to save this country.

And we got, for my standpoint, we got three years. We have three years to get this in place. Well, yeah, I mean, three years. And that assumes that things go reasonably well in November, which is not an assumption that one can make. You know, I was having this conversation yesterday about, oh, with, with. Benjamin Netanyahu Smith, former FEC Commissioner, and it's the Bradley Smith, excuse me, the Overton window is open now, you know, and it's actually something JD Vance said at Turning Point USA. uh confab that he attended yesterday in georgia i want to play for you because i think it um it builds to this larger conversation we're having about what the senate really is and what it isn't and what the prospects are for it to be something different than it is and he uh talked about the save act and the trajectory of it over the last several cycles from you know his time in the senate to now bp a lot of people want the save act i want the save act i've been fighting for the save act literally since day one of the administration And I've seen a lot of people saying, what the hell's the point of voting for these guys if, you know, you've got three Republicans joining with the Democrats to prevent the Save Act from passing, or I guess four Republicans. And here's my response to that. Yes, it is annoying to me that there are only 45 or 46 Republicans who will fight politically to get the Save Act passed. But you know what? Ten years ago, that number was 35. So the answer to frustration is engagement. Don't give up on this process, get more involved in this process, and demand more from people like me. That's how we take our country back. I just think it's important to say that. So, you know, the movement in a positive direction from, you know, Vans talking about 35 being in support of it when nobody was talking about. Certainly not with the volume they are now, including yourself, talking with the volume, I mean. And now you see some movement. And, you know, that's, you know, politicians respond to pressure. Most do. because they want to maintain their electoral viability. And so it seems to me that this notion that some Republican senators may be clinging to, that the Senate is some deliberative body where cooler heads prevail to do sensible things in a bipartisan fashion. I mean, that, it seems to me so by the boards. And the idea that that could be recovered and once again become something approximating the culture of the Senate seems so unlikely that. If it's saving the country's on the line, then it seems to me putting pressure on three or four Republican senators and calling them out and focusing the public's attention is a small price to pay for saving the country.

Again, I'm not sure it's only four. Now, if they actually had to vote, it may only be four, because there already is that public pressure to end the filibuster. Yeah, right. You know, I understand. We didn't have this coach of a vote until, I think, 1913 or 1917. We never had it. And it's been completely misused. The first 50 years, it was only used five times. So it's evolved into something that has totally shut down the Senate. And so when I say we have three years, we have three years to implement what we can pass in the next few months. Yeah, right. The clock is running out. Yeah. I fear that we're going to for sure move the House. We can lose the Senate. So we've got to pass this now. We've got to quit, you know, fiddling around here. We've got to do it. That's what I'll keep putting pressure on. I'm probably the one most publicly speaking out about getting the filibuster. Well, and it seems to me, you know, with some of the. Senate Republicans that are up for re-election in November that are in swing states, not only does it focus their attention, if you're like a Susan Collins, who's a more moderate member of the caucus, but it should focus the attention of even outgoing senators, like Thom Tillis, and others like Lisa Murkowski, who seem to be perhaps on the wrong side on this issue. Well, she's publicly been on the wrong side, so it's not like it's guesswork. It seems to me that, you know, you can make a political appealable to them. for caucus comedy and for, you know, the, and for the ability to do the sorts of things that she may want to do or she would want to join other Republicans in doing, that this is a necessary step to those other things that you would like to see happen, like your friends Susan Collins get reelected and your policy agenda have more of a chance to move to the president's desk and so forth, right? Well, let me tell you also the psychology working here. Let's face, when Kierston Cinema and Joe Manson stood up and voted no against their party, we all love that, right? They were heroes to us. Heroes are all conservatives. You know, a way to go. You stood up for the, you know, to buck your party. Now we've got senators, the Republican senators, that would view themselves as heroes like Kirsten Cinema and... Joe Manchin, so again, this is not a, and I'm not saying it's not a, it's not a legitimate view. I understand that it would be nice to be able to block awful radical left legislation when Democrats are in power. You have to just recognize reality is change. Democrats will end it. You can bemoan that fact, but it will be ended next time. And we better act now because we have important things do. When we do it, it's to save the country. When they do it, it's to turn America into one-party nation. Talk to Supreme Court, turn D.C. and Puerto Rico into state. That's what Democrats will do when they end this filibuster. We're going to try and create prosperity. We're going to try and preserve freedom if we end the filibuster. Completely different motives. I want to get your reaction to something we were just talking about with the... The release of that transcript from the testimony of the Inspector General for the intel community, essentially confirming that Adam Schiff lied about the whistleblower that was the predicate for impeachment 1.0. And the inspector general, you know, he claims, difficult to believe, innocently changed the standards for whistleblowers in order to...

fast track the impeachment 1.0. The reauthorization of FISA, Section 702. President Trump posting a true social, you know, I was a victim of it, but I talked to our military guys and they need it. They say it's essential. So I want a clean FISA reauthorization out of the House. I know in the Senate, some of colleagues that. You have good relationships with and are sort of simpatico intellectually and philosophically like Mike Lee still have a problem with Section 502. Where do you come down on this? We had Kash Patel and John Ratcliffe come in and talk to our colleagues and made the very convincing point that they probably made to President Trump, which is why he's in favor of real authorization. I wish we had time. I wish we were serious enough to try and. make some reforms this thing, but as always run out of time, got to reauthorize it. I think it'll probably be reauthorized because President Trump's asking for it. Let's face it, nobody's been more abused by this than President Trump. Yeah. If he sees the need for this and he has more information than anybody else, if he's saying we better reauthorize it, it's probably a pretty good idea we do that. And then seriously, take a look at what can we do to reform it, to put in greater controls when we have more time to do it. Rather than let the clock run out, and have to make the decision, reauthorize it at the 12th hour. Let's seriously take a little bit what we can do to make the reforms if it are necessary. Just a local question for you. You know, Wisconsin loses another Supreme Court race this time by a wider margin and with sort of less seeming lift than in previous elections of the recent past. What's going on with sort of the Republican ranks in Wisconsin? Are we starting, especially with the opportunity to take the governorship back in November? with Tiffany. Are we starting to lose some GOP momentum in the cheese state? Well, this is the third Supreme Court race we've lost, crucial races. We had one right after my re-election, 2022. The liberal candidate got 75% of my opponent's votes. The conservative candidate got 62% of mine. Fast forward to after the President Trump won, the once again, the liberal candidate got 75% of what Kamala Harris got, the conservative candidate got 62%. Identical result. We didn't turn out this time. The liberal candidate got something like 50-some percent of what Kamala Harris got. The conservative justice got 35 percent of what Donald Trump got. So it's just a turnout problem. I know people are, well, the party fair, if we don't have voters who understand how crucial.

the Supreme Court is in a state. If they don't understand how crucial it is to try and maintain the majority in the House and the Senate, you know, it's imperfect and trust me, I know how imperfect Republican elected officials are. But the other side is orders of magnitude worse. That's why I said, you know, when you've got to put pressure on Republican senators to, you know, and the filibuster. Yeah, we have to do that, but understand it's the Democrats are the problem. They're the reason we can't pass the Save America Act. They don't want to do it. So the Democrats are the problem. They are the ones that are putting forward policy passing laws of destroying this country. But, you know, the circular fighting squad, the intra-party fighting and the Republican Party just the spirits are at base and produces those kind of results. I don't know how to fix that, quite honestly. That's an individual voter decision. You care enough about this country to come out and understand how awesome Democrats are and get out there and vote so we defeat them. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican from Wisconsin, of course. Senator Johnson, thank you as always for your time. Appreciate it. Have a great day. And he joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com, Anseline. This is Chicago's morning answer. Your show keeps me alive during the week. There's nobody I'd rather listen to between 5 and 9 in the morning than you guys. On AM 560, the answer. To Ron Johnson's point about these neo-Marxists, they're leading a candidate for Senate in the state of Maine, Graham Platner, in his own words. And now for a dramatic reading of Graham Platner's Reddit comments. Holy f***. How about people just take some responsibility for themselves and not get so f***ed up? They wind up having sex with someone they don't mean to. Rape is a real thing. If you're so worried about it to buy Kevlar underwear, you think you might not get blacked out f*** up around people you aren't comfortable with. Why don't black people tip? I work as a bartender and always amazes me how solid this stereotype is. Living in white rural America, I'm afraid to tell you they actually are. I got older and became a communist. Still got the guns, though. I don't trust the fascist to act politely. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer. An AM 560, the answer. This is Chicago's morning answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proft here, building on the conversation we had in part with Ron Johnson and the point he made about just how crazed the neo-Marxists are. You know, the challenge for Republicans is to tell the truth about them while they lie about conservatives. And so that Graham Platner NRC hit that I played, I don't know how you call it a hit when it's just a dramatic reading of Graham Platner's own words is a good example of what Ron Johnson was referencing. And there's more to that.

Telling the truth about them, getting the truth out about them in stark terms is most assuredly the challenge for Republicans. Text from Amish, Amish texture. I was interested in finding out more about the Nazi tattoo wearing communist Senate candidate Graham Platner. So I bought his campaign book, Maine Comf. Heyo! Very good. Amish? Yeah, Maine Comf by Grand Plantner. Senator John Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from Louisiana went on a similar riff, as you heard from Ron Johnson on Will Kane show. You know. With some more colorful rhetorical flourishes, as is his wand. The wing of the party that is in control that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani and Bernie are the leaders of, they hate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Zeus and Mr. Potato Head. No particular order. They hyperventilate on their yoga mats if you use the wrong pronoun. They think our kids ought to be able to change genders at recess. They have a unique solution to the crime problem. They have a way to get crime down. It's just don't prosecute anybody. I mean, the American people deserve to be governed by normal people. And these are not normal people. They're deeply weird. They're nauseously woke. They have the right to believe what they believe. But I have the right to my opinion, too, and I think their motherboard is fried, deep fried. Well, they're neo-Marxist revolutionaries is what they are. So, yeah, they're weird and all those things. But I think the central point here is, and John Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was getting to it, talking about their... distaste for America's founding principles and its founding fathers that carries forward to the present. That is central to it. You have to understand why people are doing the things they do. And since they won't be honest about why they're doing it, you have to be honest about them for them, really, for the public. You have to explain your why and their why when they're lying about their why. if you know what I mean. And pieces like the one Jason Riley penned in the Wall Street Journal are also helpful. Because this parade of erstwhile potus aspirants has gone largely uncovered by the DC Press Corps. And it's not because the person they're parading for is not part of that press court. That's the interesting thing. He's a properly minted MSNBC propagandist talking about Al Sharpton. Why wouldn't they want to profile wisdom?

emanating from the discussions Sharpton had with all of these presidential aspirants. Why wouldn't they? Too raw, too honest. It brings up too many uncomfortable issues that don't sit well with independence. So let's just keep that as siloed as possible. I mean, the pronouncements coming out of the National Action Network confab. As muted as if, you know, some American, some young American had been killed by an illegal immigrant. That's a level of press coverage. This is getting why. Jason Riley writing, has no one informed Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, that Sharpton has spent decades turning the vaunted civil rights movement of Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall into a racket. Did no one tell Vice President Kamala Harris, Representative Ro Khanna of California and Senator Ruben Gallego? There he is again, Lego My Gallego, of Arizona, that Mr. Sharpton has seldom missed an opportunity to attack law enforcement officers or stoke racial and ethnic divisions to line his pockets.

Al Sharpton doesn't represent the majority of black voters anymore, the views of the majority of black voters anymore. Didn't anybody know? You know, you got to play the Identitarian game. You got to countenance the racketeers, the race racketeers like Sharpton. And so they were there for these fun exchanges. So are you going to run again in 28? So, okay, you know, I tried to be subtle, but I just figured I'd go right now. Well, that's as subtle as Reverend Al Sharpton could ever be. Okay, all right, girl. We love you for many things, but not being subtle. Oh, there's the cackle. Listen, I might. I might. I'm thinking about it. Yeah. I'm thinking about it. One of the few rooms that statement would draw applause. The pandering. De rigour. But it's time passing them by. Mark Kelly. Boy. Arizona, Arizona senators, Ruben Gallego, Lego, my Gallego, and Mark Kelly. I mean, Mark Kelly, you know, astronaut and accomplished guy. Boy, what politics can turn people into, turn people of weak character, at least. Sorry to say, but when you make statements like this. When you're the commander, you get some say in who your other crew members are going to be. So the last thing I would want in a space shuttle crew would be seven white guy, U.S. Navy, test pilots like me. It would be a... The diversity of skill sets, one thing, but why do you have to bring race into it? Oh, because he's pandering before Al Sharpton. and the nitwits and grifters who find Al Sharpton to be legitimate. By the way, today's tax day, is Sharpton paid up yet? A bit of a tax cough law that Al Sharpton. That get worked out under the Biden administration? What's the latest on that? Mark Kelly. I mean, just no self-respect. Say something like that. Compare Mark Kelly to Victor Glover. This guy is outstanding. And I don't know if you saw it, but he received a hero's welcome on his trek back home to Houston, deservedly so. And this is what he had to say in his front yard to hundreds of people from his neighborhood that gathered round to welcome him back and celebrate his accomplishment. The accomplishment of the whole crew. Artemis too. Some of us have never met before. And you know whose fault that is? Ours. So let's choose to do this. Let's be this more. Let's be neighbors. I don't know if you heard me say it. But God told us to love him with all that we are and love our neighbors as ourselves. That's right. I love you. I love you. I love you. Yeah.

That's, you know, Victor Glover, who's a black gentleman. He made the point when he was asked about being the, what was it, the first black astronaut to orbit the moon. It's like, you know, he basically said, you know, I'm proud of to be, I'm proud of my heritage, but it's, you know, not central to the conversation, effectively. It was pitch perfect. He's been pitch perfect throughout this whole affair with all the scrutiny on these astronauts. But that's where most people are, is the point that Jason Riley's making. And I agree with him. Mark Kelly, Kamala Harris, J.B. Pritzker, they're playing a game that is really going out of style. Oh, yeah. J.B. Pritzker was there to pander, too, of course. We should be for raising the minimum wage in the United States. That's one of many issues. A second I'll just give you is, yeah, democracy underlying it all. But a really important issue is they're taking away our voting rights. They're taking away your voting rights. And we have got to fight like hell to preserve those rights. So many people lost their lives doing it. Jesse Jackson, so proud to be from the state that Jesse Jackson called home. And I can tell you that we needed him now more than ever. The loss of Jesse Jackson is, frankly, it's almost hard to believe we're living in a world. My whole life, Jesse Jackson, has been a beacon of fighting for voting rights and civil rights. And I must say, it is at this moment when all of us need to be civil rights activists, all of us. If we don't have a fair election in November, we won't have any more elections. Everybody has to show up and you have to show up with purpose. And I don't care if Donald Trump, he's going to try to call out ICE and CBP and scare people away from the polls, everybody, he's going to make it seem like you shouldn't vote. We need to go with purpose and push them out of the way, or at least tell them to get out of the way, and go in and vote. And all of us as governors need to protect your right to vote.

This is what you have to expose. What they don't want amplified, you amplify. Jason Riley, the divide between Sharpton's views, and Sharpton is just a catch-all for all of those parading before him, too, reading from the same script. The divide between Sharpton's views and those of rank and file black Americans is pronounced. Polling shows that black people in high crime neighborhoods want more policing, not less. In a Gallup survey released last year, two and three black respondents said police, quote, treat people like them fairly, unquote. The black white racial divide on policing has narrowed. What our ID laws enjoy broad black support. And a Supreme Court ruling in 2023 that banned affirmative action in college admissions was supported by a majority of all racial and ethnic groups, including blacks. Polling has long shown large majorities of black support vouchers and other school choice policies. In fact, the University of Houston study from 2023 found that, quote, black Democrats were more supportive of voucher proposals than either white Republicans or Latino Republicans, unquote, which suggests that on some issue, Sharpton is out of touch not only with fellow blacks, but also with fellow Democrats. And so is everybody on that stage. Or who has paraded on and off that stage, they are too. Democrat candidates seeking validation from civil rights activists to win over black voters are almost certainly wasting their time. 312642, 5600 is the Alpha Wealth Group.com answer line to give us a call or text. Another example of this. Ro Khanna, who is another inveterate panderer, saying all kinds of things that aren't true, talking about gas prices being higher under Trump than under Biden. And in California, they're not. We'll say anything. You know, phony bipartisanship to pick an issue like Epstein Files and get somebody like Thomas Massie who is not as politically savvy as he should be and you give the appearance that you're bipartisan, you're a solutionist. He's a hack. Just another hack. He's basically like Raja, Chris Maruthi. And I'm not talking about because they... share, I think it's a Rokane, Indian American, I think so. Not because they share an ethnic heritage, but just that same kind of pandering, presenting yourself as a middle-of-the-road solutionist when you're just a roll call vote for the radical left, putting on a happy face. He was on this podcast surrounded, that kind of thing, something like Ro Khanna would do. So he thinks he's very smart and very skilled. Great command of the issues. He's really none of those things. He's another tired platitudinous political hack. But he went on surrounded this podcast where you have a person that debates issues with a group of people that like on a five-minute clock, something like that, whatever.

The details aren't important. And he had this exchange with a black female about border security. I don't think this black female was at the National Action Network confab to hear from J.B. Pritzker and Mark Kelly and Kamala Harris and Al Sharpton to Jason Riley's point. My frustration is as a regular everyday American citizen, I feel that I am more likely to be harmed by democratic policies such as open borders. I'm not for secure borders. Okay. So, but in your state, something like 4,600 or so illegal migrants that had criminal records were re-released from jail. So when we're talking about harming Americans, when we're talking about children potentially being harmed, when we're looking into child trafficking, we have to acknowledge that illegal migration is the biggest funnel for children. child trafficking. So when we're worried about Epstein with a couple of people and you guys turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of children being harmed by your policy, that's a problem. We have been for a secure border, but here's what I want the... No one in California can say that they're for secure border. Bing, bang, bong. Kevin in Austin, Texas, you're in Chicago's morning answer. Yeah, Democrats are better at the perpetual campaign. They're better at marketing, right? than Democrats are. I don't know that they're better at it. They're more relentless than we are, I would say. Well, relentless, consistent in 24-7, 365 days, you know, whereas Republicans, most of them are just focused on their job, raising their family. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The one thing I'm noticing. But you've got to get, I mean, the Republicans need to build an apparatus, even if it's just through local Republican parties to get together once a month. and just, you know, make it social and that level. Yeah. Thanks for the call, Kevin. It's something else. And Ron Johnson was getting it. It actually demonstrated it. You just challenge people. You hear what Senator Johnson said about, for example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court. If you can figure out that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court is an important body. as it relates to the quality of life in Wisconsin and the rule of law in Wisconsin, then you have a problem. What is wrong with you? You heard those participation, right? It's the percentage of a vote, of Trump vote that came out for the Supreme Court Justice Republican Supreme Court Justice candidate this time and the previous time, both times, where the Democrat got a greater percentage of the presidential vote significantly. than the Republican candidates. And this in part explains the problem Wisconsin has been having. You have to challenge people, too. All this like, oh, let's have an ice cream social. Let's have a coffee clutch. How about a little bit more in where you have influence of what the hell is wrong with you? What are you doing or not doing? I mean, did it. Don't people have friends and family they can speak to, frankly? Glenn and Orlando. Yeah, you know, at National Action Network, they're not activists, they're extremists.

You know, that's the way I look at. They're extremists. And people need to participate. Anyway, on a lighter side, I just want you to know I just changed my will so that I will not be allowed to vote Democrat after I die. Very good. Thanks for the call, Glenn. Dan Proff, Chicago's morning answer. Before you see it on TV, share it on Facebook, or read about it in the paper. Hear it here first. This is Chicago's Morning Answer. On AM 560, The Answer. Only the biggest stories. Only the biggest guests. And only the biggest opinions. This is AM 560, The Answer. Top of the morning, Dan Proff, here. It's tax days. Make sure you file your returns if you haven't already. President Trump got a visitor the other day at the White House talking about tax relief, celebrating tax relief, as enshrine to the BBB, the big beautiful bill. Sharon Simmons is a DoorDash driver and grandma from Arkansas. She drove all the way from Arkansas to deliver the president, you know, his favorite food from Mickey Dees. This does a little stage, does it? They're all your favorites. He's a good one. I'm doing a good job. Sorry. The reason for this is the fact that I heard you picked up an extra $11,000 that you didn't get because the tax bill was so big, the refund was the biggest you've ever had. Is that a correct thing? It definitely was. Yeah. I saved over $11,000 by not having to claim. Was that surprising to you? It was very surprising. Very surprising. Great, big, beautiful bill. No tax on tips given Grandma Simmons a 11K bump. Pretty good. She went on Fox and Friends to provide a little bit more of her backstory too. As they said, last year my husband, he was diagnosed with stage three cancer. And during that time, you know, I was able to take some time and taking to his appointments and, you know, be there with him. But, you know, as you know, going through treatment, even with insurance, you kind of break the bank. And, you know, we pretty much went through our savings. And so... When I found out about the no tax on tips, I was like, this is incredible because this, you know, it's not going to replace my life savings, but it's going to help certainly with future doctor's appointments and future things that, you know, we have going on. Sure. How much would, oh, go ahead. It just, it means a lot. Yeah, it's good.

and hopefully other people between refunds and better tank home pay are connecting the dots. And on the flip side, connecting the dots from what the Dems are doing too, like moderate Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, moderate in scare quotes, of course. And it's downright frightening. Abigail Spanberger. You know, one, tried to take credit for economic investment that took place under Glenn Youngkin. And two is rolling out all sorts of taxes. We talked about this and anti-growth policies. Talked about this not long after she was sworn in. A friend Steve Moore and his Unleash Prosperity Group just came out with a new spot on Abigail Spanberger's taxes. Who says the... Left is better at marketing. Bark, if you oppose the Abigail Spanberger taxes. Abigail Spanberger said she wants to make Virginia more affordable, but under her leadership, Virginia Democrats want to tax your dry cleaning. What? I'll lose customers if I have to raise prices. And you better not go on vacation because dog walkers are being taxed too. At least I can still take my bella to the groomers. Not without a tax on that. That's just the start. Virginia can't afford this. Mark, if you hate Abigail Spanberger's taxes. Paid for by unleash prosperity. You lose the dog lovers vote. You're in trouble. Isn't that saying Virginia's for dog lovers? Meanwhile, in the Senate, you've got Senator Spartacus, Cory Booker, and Maryland man's buddy, Chris Van Hollen, trying to one-up each other in increasing the top marginal rate. For more on this, pleased to be joined by the aforementioned Stephen Moore, economist, author of the Trump Academic Miracle and the plan to unleash prosperity again, co-authored with Art Laffer. Steve, thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Do we have Steve? Steve. Steve Moore, do we have him? Sorry, can you hear me now? There we go. There's Steve Moore. Sorry about that. You got to talk into the right, the other side of the phone. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, Rick. But they were playing our Spadberger ad. Yeah, I like that. And I know a lot of people in the Chicago area probably don't follow this at all. But this is how many times we've been to this movie before? So Abigail Spanberger ran, you know, we had an off-year election in the state of Virginia, you know, in 2000. 25. And so she ran as this kind of moderate, pro-business, centrist Democrat. And she won with a healthy margin. She streamed the Republican in that state. And then as soon as she got elected, she just sprinted as far as she could to the left with, you know, there's 28 new taxes. She wants to. to get rid of the right to work law in the state of Virginia. I mean, I could go on and on with these. You know what it sounds like, you know what it sounds like she wants to do? It sounds like she wants to run for president in 28 and she's getting to where a party is.

Yeah, so, but you're right, though, the thing that really, you know, when you lose the dog lovers, you lose votes. And so now her approval rating went from like 65%. I mean, when she was elected, she won the election last November. I mean, it was like she was the golden child of the Democratic Party. She was going to the Democrats presidential or vice presidential nominee. Her approval rating has gone from 65 to like 38% in three months because people hate paying all those taxes. Yeah, yeah, boy, the honeymoon's over, good. You know, but the grandma story, too, the grandma door dash driver. I mean, it says, well, it just says an anecdote. And so, and so this is, this is the hope, right, that once people start to actually feel and see the impact financially of the tax relief at the, you know, from the big, beautiful bill, that maybe some attitudes will change about the so-called affordability crisis. Well, I think that's exactly right. And by the way, today is April 15th, as you noted. So I hope everybody's got their taxes. Because, by the way, we keep getting creamed every year my wife and I for penalties and late penalties. And when you get the IRS auditing you. They'll just send you a note saying you owe $17,422. And they don't even tell you why. And so we spend all this money. And I'm not rich by any means. I'm not rich like you, Dan. Yeah, yeah, sure. And you know what my tax attorney said? You know, we went over all the tax return. He said, look, Steve, you're right. You paid the right amount. But he said, it's going to cost you so much to take this to court. Just pay the $17,000. That's how they take money from you. Just get it. You can't buy the IRS. No, I know. I mean, first of all, my tax attorney said that's not something you hear of a poor person say. I'm just saying, you know, in terms of your, you know, yeah, my tax attorney said. But here's, I'm still, I'm still waiting. I'm still, you know, I got my house got hit in Hurricane Ian. in Florida. I had gut rehab. And, you know, thanks to the efforts of the political leadership here and in D.C. from Florida, you know, we got this tax credit for expenditures, out-of-pocket expenditures to, you know, to do. So the IRS owes me like 60 grand. They voted to me for like two and a half years. I mean, just like, and I talked to my accountant, and he's like, yeah, you've got to be patient. I mean, I mean, you know, did you ever hear Keynes' observation in the long run? We're all dead. Can I, can I? I don't want to be part of my estate. I'd like to have it. Well, it is true. And the problem, of course, is when you're charged with tax evasion or not paying your taxes, if you take it to court, you are literally guilty until you prove yourself innocent. So the burden of proof is actually reversed in tax court. So, I mean, it's evil. But look, the good news is...

that the average family will save about $2,500 a year this year in lower federal income taxes. And then the other thing we did in that bill, by the way, that doesn't get enough attention is we did, now this may seem a little esoteric, but we got, we did something called immediate expensing for businesses, allowing them when they build a plant or purchase equipment or, you know, a truck or some kind of hired assets. They get to write that off in the first year. And so that has caused a major capital investment boom in the United States. And that's, you know, capital investment is when businesses expand, that's how you get higher wages. That's how you get a strong economy. So that's another big feature of the big beautiful bill. And not one Democrat, not one Democrat in the entire state of Illinois, voted for that bill. No, they're in the Cory Booker and Chris Van Hollen camp of increasing taxes, both locally and nationally to the extent they can. And just a reminder, Dan, I just heard you say, sorry to interrupt, but you just said that they want to raise rates higher and higher. So what's their latest bid? I mean, right now we have a 38% highest rate. I heard some of them talk about it going up to 50 or 60%. I don't know what the latest. Cory Booker wants to go to 43. Chris Van Hollen wants to go to 49. Yeah, right. So that'll do a lot of good for the economy. I mean, then we'll have one of the highest tax rates in the world. We had the highest tax rate in the world on our businesses, and before Trump came into office, and he slashed us from the highest to the medium. But if you get a Cory Booker in or Chris Van Hollen, you're talking about rates that we haven't seen since the 1970s, the good old days. Well, and a reminder, too, you can remind them or I'll remind them your call that, you know, the rich paying their fair share. And you see this at the state level, too. We talked about it last week, the millionaire surcharge and all this stuff. And at the federal level, what percent of all taxes paid are paid by the top 1 percent, the top 10 percent, the top quarter? It's about. It's about 40% of all the income tax are paid by the top 1 or 2%. And by the way, the top 10% paid like 80% to 90%. 72%. And you're not going to believe this, Dan, because you have not gotten your hot line yet this morning because we were just sending it out. And I know a lot of your listeners get the hotline. And if you don't, just go to Unleash Prosperity.com and sign up. But you're not going to believe this. So you're sitting down, Dan. The Washington Post. Today, in their editorial page, has a lead editorial saying, oh, you know what, actually the rich do pay their fair share. The United States has the most progressive tax system. They actually told the truth. You know, people should Google that and look up this piece. I was stunned. I mean, I would expect that from, you know, my friends at the Wall Street Journal, but this was the Washington Post saying the Democrats are lying. The rich pay more of a share of taxes than any other country in the world.

Now, just sticking on affordability and the inflation issue, your buddy Kevin Hassett said the other day that once the hostilities in Iran come to a close, we could see inflation dip back down trending towards zero. You think we're going to see that sort of inflationary relief post-Iran conquest? Well, of course, when is post-Aran? Well, yeah. I mean, that's the big question. Is it going to be in three days, three weeks, three months? But look, I certainly do agree that when, and look, we will get a resolution. We will get the straight of hormones open and the oil will start flowing again. And when that happens, right now, I just checked. I just got off Maria Barbaroma show. And so they were flashing that the oil price is right now $92 a barrel. That's the global oil price. I believe that as soon as they get the straight open, which will come soon, we're talking about probably a oil price of about 70. And that means then that you're going to have, you're going to be paying. Well, I don't know what people are paying in the Chicago area, probably about $450 a gallon right now. But we could bring that down by, you know, well over a dollar or gallon when this gets settled. So I agree with Kevin Hassett that this is, I'm not going to reuse the word transitory. Yes, yeah, that's dangerous. Yeah, okay. Don't have fallen to the Jerome Powell trap. Yeah. Or the Janet Yellen trap. Yeah. But I take it's temporary. Can I use the word temporary? Yes. Fleeting. You can say fleeting. That's a good one. You know, one other thing, too. I know that we. There's not much interest inside the beltway when it comes to reducing spend. But at least, and this bears some amplification too, at least we are seeing a shrinkage in the federal government by headcount. That's a start. Yeah. Yeah. How about that? We reduced, we are slowly. slowly, drip by drip, draining the swamp. So we have about 300,000 fewer federal employees today than we did when Trump came into office in November of 2025, I mean, in January of 2025. That's a pretty big reduction. That's, you know, that's about a, see, there's about three. two to three million people were. So we've reduced the federal workforce by about 10, the 12 percent in a year and a half. That's pretty good. Now, I believe we could probably easily cut the federal workforce in half, and people wouldn't even notice it. But, you know, this is the first time we've seen a reduction in the federal workforce in a long, long time. Yeah, and you're saying that left is moaning about this. Oh, my God, you know. Of course. There was an article in the paper the other day, but oh, my God, you know, Trump is cutting the IRS enforcement. Now everybody's cheating on their taxes. I mean, right? These guys love the IRS. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know. I wish we needed to, we need to see somebody do something. There's somebody in this administration to do something by IRS. Well, how about Scott Bessent, right?

Well, they want an IRS in your house. You know, they want every household to be monitored and- Have a personal agent by them. Yeah. Well, it's not so long ago that we weren't talking about something like that with, you know, all expenditures above 600 bucks, right? Exactly. Not that long ago. And by the way, Trump, I mean, remember Biden added hundreds of thousands of new IRS agents because that was the way we were going to balance the budget. It is just like going through everyone's taxes. Yes. But here's the problem then on the budget. You know, they want to spend, and I haven't talked to you about this, I don't know what your position is, but they want to spend another $225 billion on the Pentagon, which, by the way, that's the most wasteful agency. And I'm for a strong defense, but the Pentagon is a big bureaucracy. There are 100,000 people who work there, and they don't want to pay for it. They don't want to pay for it. I mean, my feeling is, okay, if you want 200 billion, Mr. President, cut 200 billion for something else, but that's not the way government works. I hear you. I agree with you. You know, it's the perpetual lament of the free marketeer, the growth of Leviathan. Even when the personnel shrinks, the spend still increases. I hear you. Steve Moore, economist, author of the Trump economic miracle on the plan to unleash prosperity again, Steve, yes? Dan, what is the difference between a taxidermist and an IRS agent? What is the difference between a taxidermist and a IRS agent? I don't know. The taxidermist only takes your skin. Hi, oh, boy, Steve, Steve, with April 15th jokes. Very good. There you go. Steve, thanks as always, appreciate it. Steve, comedian slash economists, joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com answer line. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's morning answer. An AM 560, the answer. This is Chicago's Morning Answer with Dan Proft on AM 560. The answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. Boy, you know, there was a time when the D.C. Press Corps did excitedly and dutifully cover for one Eric Swalwell. That was when he was accused of having an illicit affair with a Chai Com honeypot named Fang Fang. Remember how that was dismissed out of hand. Speaker McCarthy seems to have singled you out. He says that he had a briefing as well as former Nancy Pelosi had the briefing from the FBI. And the FBI never came before this Congress to tell the leadership of this Congress that Eric Swalwell had a problem with the Chinese spy. Political vengeance seems to be the flavor of the day with the 118th Republican-led Congress. Kevin McCarthy, even in his press conference on Thursday, continues to say false claims about some members, including Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff. Team members. Oh, yeah, Eric Swalwell. Adam Schiff, too, just got exposed as having lied yet again this week, as we discussed earlier in the program, about knowing the identity of the whistleblower in the Ukraine case, which, of course, he did and said he didn't in committee, as chairman of the House Intel Committee. Talk about compromising national security. Nonetheless, that was a time when they would rally the defense of Eric Swalwell. That time has now since passed, obviously, but don't think that anything nefarious was afoot other than Eric Swalwell's own alleged conduct because everybody inside the Beltway all the way up to Nancy Pelosi, it also hails from California, don't you know? They know nothing about this. Some Republicans and others are saying that Democrats turned kind of a blind eye, that they knew what he was up to or what the allegations were. No, that's not true. That is absolutely positive. It's true that they may say that, but it is absolutely not true. You had no idea. None whatsoever. None whatsoever. I had none whatsoever. No idea, none whatsoever. Ruben Gallego, his bestie. They're such good friends that they have been seen frolicing on the beach, or maybe it was a desert, shirtless on camels like a couple of guys do when they're hanging out. He also didn't know anything, and he can't remember if he heard rumors years ago or just a couple of weeks ago about Eric Swalwell, being flirty. Just being flirty. I have called you his best friend. You have never asked him about any of the rumors that have been swirling around democratic politics of his inappropriate behavior. I did. Look, we knew each other differently for what else. My family and his family. were as close as it gets. Our kids were in baseball camp together. You know, we had dinner together as a family. It was entirely different, but I think what people understand. But when there was rumors going around a couple weeks ago, not of the folks in what I've been in the Sanvers School Chronicle, I did ask him, and he lied to me. He knew that I just came off a very, very hard campaign for two years, where they lied about me and my family for two years. He manipulated me to have the same sentiment.

that I was having back in day and used as an opportunity to move me to defend him. How did you not know about the allegations? So considering you chaired his presidential campaign, wouldn't some of this have come up? Some of those allegations predated when he ran for office. Again. This man led a double life. He lied to us. He lied to his family, like to his constituents. Some most powerful people in this country, you know, even before he ran, he was trusted with some, you know, positions that normally we would never think someone like this could do if they're leading that double life. And again, I was manipulated. I was lied to. And everyone else was too. Yeah, Ruben Gallego is a victim. He's a victim in all this. His best friend betrayed him. That's sad. And can you prove? Would you care prove that you didn't know anything? Could we see perhaps communications between you and your bestie? Would you release any text messages you had with Eric Swarval to prove your innocence here? Anybody that asks or anybody any legal proceedings that need, we'll get whatever they want without a doubt. You release all your efforts. Yeah, any legal proceedings. The ethics interviews or if there's a subpoenas or anything outside, legal proceedings, anything else. If you get sued, we'll release everything without. As I said earlier, that's sort of an odd response. And Gallego was more than a little shaky during that Q&A session with the press. That's an odd response about communications. Because if you didn't know anything, if you had been lied to, if he'd been living this double life, you knew nothing about, then wouldn't you say, well, you can see my communications with him, but there are no communications that are relevant because I didn't know anything. I had no idea. We didn't talk about the things that he has alleged to have done. We didn't talk about what he was up to in his personal life. I just thought he was a happily married man and father of three kids and he's the good husband and good father that his wife said he was. That's what I observed. That's what I knew. So why would I have any communications to the contrary? Instead, it's if you subpoena my records, I'll disclose them. Hmm. And by the way, of course, we had accusers come forward yesterday. No more anonymity, including the woman who previously appeared on CNN with her identity not disclosed, who accused Eric Swalwell of rape. And she did again yesterday. In 2018, while I was living and working as a model in Beverly Hills, and I also owned a fashion software company. I had contact with Eric Swalwell on three separate occasions after meeting him socially. He offered me connections to further my software company, and I also had an interest in local politics. He invited me to two public events.

I knew he was married at the time and that his wife was pregnant. He was my friend. On the third occasion, I believe he drugged my drink. I only had one glass of wine. We were supposed to go to a political event, and he said he needed to get paperwork from his hotel room. When I arrived at his hotel room, I was already incapacitated, and I couldn't move my arms or my body. He raped me, and he choked me. And while he was choking me, I lost consciousness. And I thought I died. Now, this was back in 2018, and she didn't get a rape kid, as she said. But she did communicate contemporaneously with people. And this was confirmed by CNN before they aired that interview earlier this week, or over the weekend. She did communicate with friends about what had transpired consistent with what she's saying now. In addition to that, two other women came forward with some kind of influencer who has been helping to expose this conduct, alleged conduct by Eric Swalwell, I guess. And she says, Cheyenne Hunt is the influencer's name. She says there are dozens more women who have communicated with her about varying. instances of Eric Swalwell's bad behavior. I mean, some of it is sending nude pictures of himself to a woman he met on X, a la Anthony Wiener, and some of it obviously is much more serious, like the accusations made by Lonnie Drews, who you just heard from. Okay, a lot there. California crackup continues. For more on all this, Susan Crabtree, she joins us. Real ClearPolitics.com's national political correspondent, regular contributor for the California Post, and co-author of the book, Fools Gold, The Radicals, Con Artists and Traders Who Kill the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All, Eric Swalwell, I'm sure, feature prominently in that book. Susan Crabtree, thanks for joining us again. Appreciate it. No, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me. So, you know, wherever you want to start on this Eric Swalwell disintegration, but part of it now, it's, you know, it's expanding. And if this was an internal hit job, as some, I think, rationally suggest, they may, there may be some collateral damage because I don't know if Ruben Gallego is going to hold up under scrutiny. Yes, yesterday, late yesterday we had George Santos, of all people, the former Republican, whose name became synonymous with falsehood, so we can't really take him at his word. But he's been hinting about Ruben Gallego because he lived in the same complex as him when he was a member of Congress and that there was a lot of smoke there, a lot of smoke around Rubin.

Now, George Santos says he has them a woman who is going to come forward with his help to say that she worked for Gallegos, but she was terminated when she rejected his sexual advances. So we'll see if that, you know, materializes or not in the next today or next to a couple days. But, yeah, I mean. The fact that Ruben Gallego has a sort of not so great history, we'll put it that way, with divorcing his wife when she was. nine months pregnant, and then he did end up marrying. The timing is sketchy to me. He says he met this woman, this woman, young woman afterwards, and then married her. I think she was 25 years old when they met. A lot, D.C. lobbyist, right? Kari Lake brought this up in the election in 24, yeah. Yeah, exactly. It just shows that, you know, these. This is a much, when there's a deficit in age that large, you have to, or a difference in age, it just starts raising eyebrows, just like during, you know, the fact that Clinton was having. Bill Clinton was having affairs was well known in the press corps at the time in the 90s, but the fact that it was an intern and she was caught on tape, that forced... their hand and they they had to report it at that point. Well, that's what that's, yeah, that's why I'm sorry to interrupt it. That's why this smacks of, of an inside job. I mean, there's no way that Nancy Pelosi and Gallego and pretty much anybody else inside that bubble didn't have the drop on Eric Swalwell. Maybe they have a drop on Gallego too, as you said, we'll see. But they, and maybe they couldn't. You know, they didn't know or they were willfully blind in terms of whether this is true or not. But there's no way there was no sort of advanced notice. There was no scuttle butt that Eric Swalwell was this, you know, bottom feeder that he clearly is. No, I mean, I was aware of the rumors. But, you know, you do have to have a woman to come forward to make a credible complaint. But certainly you couldn't have investigated it way earlier. Why in the heck was the SEIU and the CTA, the California Teachers Union and all of these people, you know, endorsing Adam Schiff.

endorsing Swallow. I would like to know from Representative Ro Khanna, who endorsed Tom Steyer early on, who was very close in location to Eric Swalwell's district in San Francisco outside of San Francisco, what he knew and when he knew it. That has yet to be explored. But, yes, certainly the rumors were circulating. And, you know, Nancy Pelosi is defending Eric Swalwell, who has called her one of his greatest mentors for not being pushed off the Intelligence Committee. when he had that affair with feng fang. Right. That should have been when the dominos fell on Swallow. Right. But that was the time that was. Yeah, that was the time he was useful. And then he became not useful because they, you know, have this, they had this problem with the jungle primary in California that they've now solved with the removal of the erstwhile frontrunner. And we can redistribute that to somebody who will. Pass muster and have a glide path to the governorship so that nobody upsets the apple cart there. That's exactly right. And Thomas Tire just won the California Teachers' Genian endorsement last night. I have a story coming out about that. He's releasing his anti-ice plan that is extremely radical, criminalizes any cooperation with ICE, even when it comes to serious felons, illegal immigrants. And it's who we're going to get. And Tom Steyer, they chose Tom Steyer over Katie Porter because he's got a billion dollars and he'll be a good checkwriter fundraiser for the party and they don't want to see Katie Porter melting down and throwing mashed potatoes at people. Yeah, Katie Porter has her own serious baggage that imploded her campaign even before it got started last year. So, you know, Tom Steyer at the unions don't have to put the money in that they were planning already. The SCIU is backing this billionaire wealth tax. So all of its funds and money is. devoted, they already paid swallow, so that, you know, spent money. The rest of their money is already budgeted to promote this wealth tax in California, this ballot initiative. So this makes it easy for them. They, Tom Steyer, already plowed more than $100 million into his race. But, you know, I'd love to talk to you about the history in California of covering up for sexual harassment from prominent individuals. I mean, we have Kamala Harris, who...

pledged ignorance from her own staffer who was a close confidant, or even the Sacramento Bee said that doesn't make any sense. When they had to settle the Justice Department where she was serving as Attorney General had to settle a $400,000 case, make a payment to someone who accused one of her closest confidants, advisors of sexual harassment. And she just pleaded ignorance to that. And then we had Jennifer Siebel-Nuson, who Rose McAllen during Larry Elders, raced her governor during the recall of Gavin Newsom. She accused Jennifer Steeble-Nuson of saying. calling her and trying to stop the Me Too movement against Harvey Weinstein by saying, what can we do for you? The lawyers for Harvey Weinstein want me to call you and say, how can we make you happy Rose McGowan? She's a Hollywood actress. So, you know, all of this is part of the history now. Of course, Ebel Gavin Newsom said she went on, and she was testifying against Harvey Weinstein in the case. She's claimed she's a victim, but a lot of people think she's a fake Me Too, me to work, which is not real that she was forced into it. And she really wanted to, you know, ingratiate herself with the powers that be in Hollywood to stop the MeToo movement. You know, there's a sorted history here when the Meaty movement happened. The California legislature was a mess full of sexual allegations, and they covered them up for years. So. Yeah, and then it's not new in California. Right. And then you get that they all trot out and say, where they essentially, you know, but believe the accuser. Women are to be believed. Believe the accuser. I mean, except when a woman is accusing me or somebody alike. I mean, there's always the exception that where they're exempted from the statements they make. And this is another case of it. No, I mean, he has, Swallow has to, you know, is hoisted by his own partard because he was going after Brett Kavanaugh and saying you have to believe the survivors, the accusers. And it didn't make, if there's three people, three women who didn't know each other beforehand, accusing Brett Kavanaugh of its sexual impropriety, then you have to believe them. Okay, well, now there's, how many now have we had? Five. So he has to be held by his own standards, and he is being held by his own standards. But the timing of it is ridiculous. There's two weeks before the mail-in, the mail ballots go out all. We have all-mellon elections out here. So, you know, why is this happening now?

It's obvious. It's obvious. It was a political hit job from top to bottom of the Democratic ruling class in California. Something else about that sort of system that you were talking about with respect to the issue of sexual harassment and the union and the political aspect of it. This is always about power politics. It's not about principle or propriety. But that also was with respect to benefits fraud in California quickly displacing. Minnesota as ground zero for that. Chris Rufo over at the Manhattan Institute, they did a piece on it as many have. This is not, you know, this is being well documented by a number of outlets, but. But Rufo, on sort of the political cycle that you were sort of describing when you were talking about Tom Steyer being the selection and why and the relationship between the unions and the other power brokers. And so it is a cycle of corruption. Gavin Newsom gives $30 billion in taxpayer money to these in-home caregivers, including huge numbers of fraud. These caregivers give money to the unions. The unions give the money back to Gavin Newsom. This is the dirty business of California. It's the circle of life and politics well outside California. We know well in Illinois, but California may be going a step further than we've gone so far, although Nick Shirley hasn't been here yet. The Stop Nick Shirley Act that Nick Shirley talked to Will Kane about yesterday. Yeah, they're making it, they're trying to make it so citizen journalists or just average Americans who are going about seeing what's happening inside their community. They're trying to scare them. from talking about potential fraud taking place inside of these communities. And, like, I mean, think about it. They're literally willing to impose a $10,000 fine or imprisonment if you go and seek to find out the truth about a location that could potentially be fraudulent inside your own neighborhood. Your reaction to that, Susan Crabtree. Well, interestingly enough, I'm part of Chris Rufo's team on a, I'm freelancing for them. in addition to my real clear job, and I have been asking about immigration nonprofits for the last two weeks. And so Mia Rob Bonta, who's the wife of our Attorney General, Rob Bonta, who's also in a bit of hot water himself, legal hot water. He, Mia Rob Bonta, wants to have illegal immigrants. have an attorney for every illegal immigrant to prevent deportation for them. That's her goal. And so then she now has come out after I've been asking about these immigrant nonprofits. So that's what her bill is specifically protecting. is immigration nonprofits, and I'll have a story about that with Chris Rufo this week or next coming out. But the amount of money that California has spent on illegal immigrant, legal aid for illegal immigrants through nonprofits, a whole network of nonprofits is mind-boggling.

And so they're trying to, but I mean, you agree with Nick Shirley's assessment of the legislation, which is they're trying to put a chill on people asking impertinent questions like yourself. Absolutely. That's what it is. And it's, I mean, it's just indicative of the one-party system here. They simply don't care how bad it looks. Susan Crabtree. They want to protect illegal immigrants. Susan Crabtree, RealclearPolitics.com's national political correspondent, regular contributor to the California Post and co-author of Fools Gold, The Radicals, Con Artists and Traders Who Killed the California Dream and now Threaten Us All. We'll look forward to your piece on California benefits fraud too, as always. Susan Crabtree, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Absolutely, Dan. Thanks for having me. And Susan joined us on the alphawealthgroup.com answer line. It's news, opinion, insight. This is Chicago's morning answer. An AM 560, the answer. If you're looking for the latest news, insight into what it means, and the sharpest opinion, there's only one station in Chicago where you can turn, and it's this one. We're AM 560, the answer.

Top of the morning, Dan Proft here. JD Vance at that T.P. USA event in Georgia yesterday. Taking questions on a range of topics, as you would expect, including on the rhetorical contretem between the president and the pontiff. JD Vance saying, look, I don't mind if the Pope opines on things. It starts a conversation. When the Pope says that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword, there is a thousand year, more than a thousand year tradition of just war theory. Okay? Now, we can, of course, have disagreements about whether this or that conflict is just, but I think that it's important. In the same way that it's important for the Vice President of United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy, I think it's very, very important for the Pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. Indeed. I think one of the issues here is that if you're going to opine on matters of theology, you've got to be careful. You've got to make sure it's anchored in the truth. And that's one of the things that I try to do. And it's certainly something I would expect from the clergy, whether they're Catholic or Protestant. Now. And, you know, he also, just to advance this idea of just war theory, provided, I thought, a useful example of what he means, put it in another context. Even when there's disagreement. I like it when the Pope comments on questions of immigration. I like it when the Pope talks about abortion. I like it when the Pope talks about matters of war and peace because I think that at the very least it invites a conversation. So I think some people, you know, their reaction to this is to say, well, you know, he shouldn't have said that. And look, there are certainly things that the Pope has said in the last few months that I disagree with. Let me just take like one very concrete example related to this conflict in Iran. So the Pope said something where he said, and I'm going to try to remember the exact quote, but he said that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword. God is never on the side of those who wield the sword. I'm pretty sure that he said that exact statement. Now, on the one hand, again, I like that the Pope is an advocate for peace. I think that's certainly one of his roles. On the other hand, how can you say that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis?

was God on the side of the Americans who liberated Holocaust camps and liberated those innocent people from those who had survived the Holocaust? I certainly think the answer is yes. I would agree. I would agree with him. The Pope doesn't need to, quote, stay in his lane. You can offer and encourage you to offer as a Catholic theological perspective on salient. worldly issues. It doesn't bother me. It bothers me when you're not precise, as JD Vance was saying, or incorrect when you weighed out of the faith and into public policy. But, yeah, it certainly sparks a debate. I mean, again, when we talked about this yesterday, I mentioned I appreciated as a young man, Pope now St. John Paul II's. theological and intellectual leadership during the Cold War as an ally of Western civilization and an opponent of totalitarianism. And, you know, that's where I would like the leaders of my faith to be, proponents of free minds and free markets and individual liberty, Western civilization, and opponents of repression, wherever. it may rear its ugly head, including in Iran, for example. For more on this topic and others, including the ouster of Viktor Orban in Hungary, which we talked about a bit. Richard Reins joins us. He's the editor-in-chief of Civitas Outlook. Thanks so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Hey, thank you for having me on. You know, what's your perspective on sort of the Pope as a, and religious leaders of other faith traditions, too, as both theologians, but as well as, you know, public policy influencers, for lack of a better description. A couple of things. You know, I've at different points of my career, had the opportunity to study in depth. just war theory. And you can't understand just war theory without Roman Catholic theologians and those who are considered to be intellectual leaders of the Catholic tradition, you know, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, the scholastics, Jesuit thinkers as well, and as we move into the early modern era. So I think when I heard, and I say this as a faithful Roman Catholic, When I heard Pope Leo the 14 say that God is never on the side of the warrior and dismissed out of hand, the possibility that what America is doing against Iran couldn't be a just war, that made me scratch my head. Yeah. I also will say it's a faithful Roman Catholic. The Pope and the bishops in America can speak on any issue they want, but they should also do so, I would argue, in the light of what does Catholicism actually have to contribute to this question?

And on the idea of war, just war theory says the decision is in the hands of those who have care for the common good. That would be the President of the United States and the United States Congress, to the extent the Congress wants to get involved in this question. It's not, I think, unless it's just blatantly obvious, I would argue, the Pope weighing in is not as helpful as it could be. There is also a tradition of recent popes, including John Paul II, of not really running through the analysis of just-worth theory, which is about, is it just? who made the decision, what measures are being taken? Are they not, you know, are they avoiding attacking the innocent and civilians? Is there a possibility of bringing this war to an end? What's the resolution? Those are all the sorts of practical, wisdom, prudential questions that Just War theory emphasizes precisely to cabin what war can do and that war also inherently activates, even if you're fighting a just war the worst. part of, parts of human nature. And so you're trying to cabin that and steer it towards a good end. So, you know, my sense with Pope Leo is he's an American. And there are parts of Trump that drive him crazy, and he's speaking about Donald Trump in a way most popes wouldn't. So, you know, Pope Leo criticized, made fun of truth social on the papal plan yesterday. I would submit he did that because he's an American. And he decided to act like an American who were always talking about Donald Trump. How could you not? And so I think as I listen to the vice president's comments, they're better, they're much better than what I think Donald Trump said about the Pope. And they're better than what JD Vance recently said about the Pope, where he said he just shouldn't speak on these issues. Now, it's also sort of weird having the Vice President tell the Pope he doesn't understand his own tradition. You've got to be careful there as well. Well, but you're right. But I mean – What I think – I'll just say real quickly. What I think JD Vance's comments do is they put the pressure back on the Pope. to come to terms with what the Catholic Church actually teaches about war. And that's a good thing. Yeah, no, that's, well, that's why I was going, too. It's challenging his own understanding of his own tradition. Well, when he says something like he said, that, as you said, had you scratching your head, I mean, I think it's fine for a Catholic or, frankly, anybody else to challenge his own understanding of his thinking, right? I mean, he... He got just war theory wrong, at least with that sort of imprecise comment about God is never on the side of the warrior. I mean, that's just that, and the example JD Vance gave from World War II is on the mark.

Yeah. No, and I think if, you know, now clearly Donald Trump, even for those of us to support the war, I wish that Trump had been clear from the beginning about the purposes and objectives. I wish he had made more of a public case before we went in. But to argue that taking away nuclear weapons from what is essentially a regime of terror and apocalyptic-mindedness about theology and how they might use those weapons, which they have said for years they want to use them against us, and they want to use them against their ally. To say that that can't be a just war, just a priori, it's ridiculous. Yeah. I'm just glad that Trump stopped short of calling for regime change at the Vatican. He wants Lewis Prevost to be the Pope. That would have been way too much, yeah. Way too much. And I'll say this too. Trump positioning himself as Christ on social media and all that stuff. Yeah. If that's not, that seems to me to rise of level blasphemy, if not disrespect. Yes. They shouldn't do those things. Yes. Yes. Yes.

The other problem, though, too, just because this is not just Iran, there are other issues too, and one was brought up, JD Vance brought up immigration. You know, I mean, the other thing, it's a bad look. It's a bad look for the Pope and for the Vatican. I mean, I've been to Vatican City. pretty fortified. So it's a bad look for the Pope and for Cardinals, including Chicago's very own Supich, to be lecturing the administration and by extension of the country in the Western world in the direction of... sort of the pithy no person is illegal kind of leftist mantra refrigerator magnet aphorisms and dumb ones at that to be lecturing people in that direction when as I said Vatican City is quite fortified so you know the plank in your eye is a bad look for the papacy Well, no, and we can say something similar about this immigration debate. Like, I, again, as a faithful Roman Catholic, I have disagreed with the prudential conclusion that American Catholic bishops came to on immigration, and it's a position they've had for decades. that somehow we should have an open border or we should have a very loosely regulated immigration system. And this is inherently for the good of the country. And you have Catholic charities, which are largely now run. I don't know if that's still true, but it does venture they're run through federal government funding, and they're sort of making all of this immigration possible. But what does the Catholic Church actually teach about immigration? Nations have to make decisions. based on who they can bring in. You know, you bring in people who are maybe suffering, who are close to you, you help them out. And ultimately, it's a question of what can you absorb and what's good for your country? And that's, you know, broadly speaking, the Catholic Church position, that is not a blanket justification for anyone in the world who wants to come to America or Europe gets to go. And that's kind of their position. And so I, you know, and then, you know, this ridiculous CBS interview with Cardinal Suppich, Cardinal McElroy of Washington, D.C., and Cardinal Tobin, all of whom are very left-wing, were appointed by Pope Francis, not just for their left-wing politics, but to liberalize the church of teaching a doctrine. It's sort of silly, and it's kind of dumb when you think about what's happening right now in the Catholic Church in America is a lot of young people are converting and joining and want to be a part of it. That was not supposed to be the case. And why not talk about that and emphasize that rather than get into this very partisan, one-sided war, that a lot of the people in your churches don't agree with you on and don't understand the sort of moralizing Hector and tone on something that's not essential to church doctrine, practice, and being Roman Catholic? Yeah. Something else, JD Vance, of course, prior to...

heading off to Pakistan for negotiations with the Iranians last weekend was in Budapest in advance of this weekend's election in Hungary, which Viktor Orban lost, ending a reign of, you know, a decade and a half. And JD Vance had this to say about Viktor Orban's loss. you know, did this reflect poorly on the Trump administration and so forth? I think that Viktor Orban's a great guy who's done a very good job. I think that his legacy in Hungary is transformational 16 years fundamentally changing that country. But one of the reasons why we decided to do that, Brett, is not because, you know, we can't read polls. We certainly knew there was a very good chance that Victor would lose that election. We did it because he's one of the few European leaders we've seen who's been willing to stand up to the bureaucracy in Brussels that has been. been very bad for the United States. So for example, when you see a European bureaucrat go after an American company, sometimes the only vote no. The only vote to protect that American interest has been Victor or Bonn. We didn't go because we expected Victor to cruise to an election victory. We went because it was the right thing to do to stand behind a person who had stood by us for a very long time. So this wasn't about Russia and fundamentally it wasn't about Europe. It was about the United States. and the fact that he's been a good partner to both me and the president personally, but also to the United States. I'm sad that he lost. We'll work very well, I'm sure, with the next Prime Minister of Hungary. But it wasn't a bad trip at all because it's worth standing by people, even if you don't win every race. You know, I don't have the same affinity for Viktor Orban that Trump and JD Vance do. And even Rod Dreher, who I, you know, have great admiration for. But I also don't think some of the criticisms of Viktor Orban as some sort of Vladimir Putin-esque autocrat, Stoge are accurate. I mean, what's your view on that? And Viktor Orban and the implication. I mean, is this something this may be discussion or debate between conservatives about Viktor Orban and who he was and what his legacy is? Is this something that has that is forward looking in terms of how we assess foreign leaders? So I think I have kind of what I think is a balance taken on Viktor Orban. You know, like I've written pieces on Viktor Orban that he had more democratic legitimacy. I think that his European Union opponent, this is a man who had won multiple elections in Hungary. The Constitution, you know, he's blamed for changing the Constitution, which moved in a more religious Christian direction in terms of some of its... you know, principles, you might say, and yet the Constitution Hungary had at that time was essentially the communist constitution it had when it was under, you know, or the Constitution that it was given right when it transitioned out of being in the Eastern Bloc.

and the people wanted to change it and move it more in their direction, and he helped with that. I think he also made the right decision in keeping out the migrants in 2015. Hungary is a very safe place if you're Jewish. That cannot be said in many countries and capitals in Europe. But I also think there's a question about corruption. There's corruption about people if you are close to him being put in charge of major companies. There's a question of economic stagnation of your most talented people leaving your country and going elsewhere, viewing Hungary is kind of a dead end if you're a high human capital. And I think there's also this sort of we might call quote unquote new right network. of thinking that, you know, he was involved in very extensive interventions in the economy, and also this idea of, well, we'll increase our birth rate by spending large amounts of money on families and paying people to have more children. And none of those policies, I mean, I've read a lot, really seemed to move the needle in the directions that we were told. and including Hungary's birth rate, which is lower than America and as lower than many other countries in Europe, who don't have nearly the extensive payment structure that Hungary put into place. I think JD Vance, you know, the question, too, who is Viktor Orban's opponent in this election? This is actually, you know, Peter Maggiard is actually center-right. He's a conservative, and major, you know, people were not supporting him necessarily for those reasons. They were supporting him and helped him win an overwhelming victory in electoral districts, many of which have been gerrymandered by Obama Party, precisely because of this corruption issue, an issue of insider or cronyism type stuff that people perceived and what's happening in the government. Péter Magyar is going to be a friend of the United States of America and the European Union. I'm not – I don't think that's in doubt. I think really the big rub is Russia and Ukraine. Yeah. And JD Vance very much opposes any support to Ukraine. He said this is like the crowning thing he's worked on as a vice president, took her tail funding to Ukraine. And Maggie R does not agree with that position. And he's Vladimir Putin in Russia. as a bad regime that should not have invaded Ukraine, and that bothers JD Vance. I do not think Magyar is going to let in lots of migrants into Hungary or anything along those lines, and I think he's actually going to be he will pursue policies that most conservatives in America would agree with. So why this became sort of a ground zero contest for JD Vance to go over there and intervene when it looked like Viktor Orban was going to lose, and America has to work with the next. The next government doesn't make a lot of sense. Maggie R, to his credit, has said, you know, I can't wait to work with the Trump administration. Donald Trump today has said he looks like a great guy we can work with, but it doesn't seem to have cost anything. There's also this question of the network of conservatives in America who have gone over there to be a part of these extensive think tank network publicly funded that are won put into place. And these people are all very close.

to JD Vance. A lot of them are Americans. You mentioned one. Rod Dreher. There are others. Gladden Pappen, Adrian Vermeel, others who have received funding or opportunities there. And that all sort of comes to an end. But they were looking to Hungary as a place where their different ideas about the state and the economy and the family and religion were coming together. And that's why they were so invested in Robon. And that is over. That is over. And JD Vance is inherently a part of this network. He owes his rise and many of his ideas to these people. So it's much more complicated than that comment he made. Richard Reinsch, Editor-in-Chief of Civitas Outlook. Thanks so much for joining us again. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much. And he joined us on the AlphaWealthgroup.com answer line. This is the morning show. More Chicago radio listeners are choosing. This is Chicago's Morning Answer. An AM-560, The Answer. Thanks for listening to Chicago's Morning Answer podcast sponsored by Signature Bank. Signature Bank takes pride in helping customers grow their business and provide unmatched banking expertise, custom financial solutions, and the industry's best technology. So whether your business looking for a deposit relationship or needs a ready source of financing, Signature Bank is the right bank for you. Call today at 773-467. five, six hundred to hear how signature bank can help your business grow and thrive. Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.