Marc Sanford Ends Bid, No Friendly Fire at WHCA, Voting Rights Act, Obama Roasted for SCOTUS Take

Your education is more than a path to a degree. At Regent University, it's an important step in God's plan for your career. It's where you'll be equipped to lead and serve with purpose. It's where 40,000 graduates have prepared to fulfill their callings, and so can you. Choose a top ringed program from over 150 areas of study, on campus or online, and watch what God will do. Learn more at regent.edu. That's regent.edu. on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app. O'Connor and Company. WMAL. And just like that, the 26 midterms look very, very different for Republicans. Just like that. Red states in the United States of America, especially in the South, well, they just got a little bit redder. when it comes to the congressional districts in the House of Representatives, just like that, just one Supreme Court decision. And the entire playing board shifts for this November. We're going to give you full coverage of that landmark Supreme Court decision yesterday on the Equal Rights, the Voting Rights Act, excuse me. I'm going to say Equal Rights Amendment, Cassie, but that never made it in. What was I thinking? Cassie Smedley with us all morning long, running shotgun with me. Can I say shotgun? Is that okay? Yeah, I'm pro second amendment. I'm good. Okay. I just didn't know if you were more of a Glock girl or, you know, Smith & Wesson. Coming up at 635, our legal expert from advancing American freedom, Hans von Spikoski will break down that decision. He's also, by the way, used to work in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and the voting rights division, so he knows everything. He's the man this morning. 705. Tom Fitton, he had a pretty big day yesterday, too, with that indictment of the former Anthony Fauci advisor as well as. Huge, huge purging of voter rolls in a certain state that had way too many dead people sitting there ready to vote. So a huge day for Judicial Watch. We'll talk to Tom Fidden. And then at 805, Katie McFarland, for our weekly visit on Thursdays. Here is Cassie Smedley. Good morning. Cassie, you were not at the White House Correspondence Center, right? I just like to check in with people because I know you were at a lot of events last week as well. Yes, no, I stayed away from D.C. on Saturday night. Thankfully, everyone, okay, I was talking with coworkers, too. I mean, everybody has pretty heroin accounts of folks, even those who were at, you know, there are other parties that are happening in the hotel at that time. We're at some of the other parties harrowing, but so glad everyone's safe. Yes, amen to that. And I, you basically had the same strategy of the Meredith and I had, which is, you know, do all these obligatory middle of the week events that are all very, very work related. And then if possible, avoid Saturday night and stay home and just enjoy the weekend while you can. And it turned out. Exactly. We were in a position to watch it all unfold. And I don't know about you. I kept looking in the background, looking for my friends to make sure that they weren't, you know, freaking out or anything. Or stealing bottles of wine, or as my friends would, by the way. That's on brand. That was.

Make his mark on America. The people on the Appalachian Trail were finally going to get some representation. For people who don't remember Mark Stamford, when he was governor at the time, wasn't he? Yes, South Carolina. Missing in action. I mean, he was gone. Nobody knew where he was. And then he came back and claimed he had gone hiking. On the Appalachian Trail. And this is before, you know, Elon Musk and Big Tech had given us much better cell coverage everywhere. So you could actually, you can't. There's very few places in America now where you can claim, I'm sorry, I had no coverage. I was out hiking. It's like that. And this was only 10 years ago, if I remember, well, maybe 15 years ago. When it was, it turned out Mark Sanford was not, in fact, hiking in the Appalachian Trail. He was in Argentina with a girlfriend. With his lover. Yes. And the staff, no one knew. No one knew. And we were talking about really quick. Obviously, the family didn't. The wife didn't know. And she did not do a standby your man. thing. She didn't do the Hillary Clinton thing. She was like, uh-uh, he's on his own. I'm going to our beach house and left him hanging out to dry to deal with that. But he did wage a comeback. You know, he did make it back to Congress once. He did. And then he came back between 2013 and 2019 for a couple of terms actually. Then he lost. And now he wanted to come back. And you know, this is a thesis that I've had for a long time. It's an addiction, isn't it? holding political office, holding elected office. Yes. It attracts, honestly, the worst kind, I don't want to say the worst kind of people, but people that have the worst tendencies. Some nurses. My friend, Krista Gall, famously, is running for Congress right now. When we talk on a regular basis, I don't want to speak at it as well. I don't think he wouldn't mind me telling you this. I said, you know, what's the hardest part? He said, honestly, the hardest part is to look somebody in the eye and say, I need your money. I need you to give me money. I mean, that, think about that. Think about what it takes to look someone in the eyes and not just, you know, small amounts of money. I mean, I need 14 grand. You know, you want to help me? You want to support me? Here's how, here's how you can support me. Some of these congressmen, some of these elected officials that you've worked with, Cassie, they're great at it. They are really good at just looking at someone in the eye and say, give me your money. But that personality trait. that allows them to be good at raising money for a campaign also makes them kind of sketchy people. Right? So I, and I feel like this is so Midwest of us because, you know, we both have Midwest roots and with Chris, of course, too, that I will never forget working for a member who couldn't do it, hated doing the fundraising calls. And the fundraiser says, the people you're calling, you are not asking your grandmother for $50 from her social security check. You are asking. people who are budgeting to give you that money. And he got over that hump to ask these folks for money. And he, I remember him saying, I feel like I have crossed a Rubicon that I'm now okay with this, that this is comfortable. Because all of a sudden, now you're in the business of politics. Right. You didn't get into it to raise money and to collect money. You got into it for other reasons. But you can't do the one without the other. That's right. Right. That's right.

And Mark Sanford, this is the other part of it, that, you know, the personality trait that makes you run for Congress, then run for governor, then get caught in a sex scandal, have your marriage fall apart, have it be international news, then come back and run for Congress again, then lose your seat, and then come back and run for Congress again. It's like... You got to be that hungry. You got to have it in your veins that is like this is the most important thing in the world. And it's not. And I see that and now here he is saying, well, I'm going to suspend my campaign. I'm not going to run again. Good. Be a normal human being. Don't be Diane Feinstein and sit there in a wheelchair and in your final dying days. Just be there to cast a vote. Don't be Mitch McConnell, not able to walk from the car to your office because you have to hold on to that office. Go enjoy your family. Go enjoy your grandchildren. And go enjoy your girlfriend in Argentina. I wonder if they're still together. But yes, did you see Ben Sass's recent 60 Minutes interview where he talked about that of people who are addicted to the power and the title. But that the title of senator or congressman, it's a great thing to do in your life. But hopefully it's, you know, the fifth or sixth best title you ever hold behind husband, father, friend, neighbor. And for some of these career people. They don't know who they are without that title or without people opening doors for them. That's right. And now we've got a huge gaggle of longtime veteran members of the Congressional Black Caucus who never had to face a challenge in the primary or in the general election because of their racially gerrymandered districts. And now I'm happy to say that they get a chance to lose their jobs. and go find something else to do with their lives. I brought it back. That's what we call a segue. Five-17. All right. Just real fast. I was referring to the fact that Mark Sanford was hiking the Appalachian Trail, and I'm being told that it's Appalachian Trail. Now, I know I have learned that if you say you're from the area, like JD Vance, was raised in Appalachia. I get that. But I thought that the trail, you could still say Appalachian. Do you know the rules here? I thought it was all Appalachia Appalachian Trail. So it is Appalachian Trail, not Appalachian Trail. But you know, Larry, I come from a state that's clearly Missouri, and people call it Missouri. Well, excuse me, Missourians call it Missouri. Yeah, no, we say politicians call it, is there right? Anyway, but point being, I'm not going to say that you're disgracing anybody, but you clearly got a call about it. I did. I got a Facebook message. So I check them. Sometimes I'll take a minute and I'll see my notifications in there. I was said it's Appalachian. All right, fine, Appalachian Trail. Mark Sanford lied when he said he was on the Appalachian Trail and didn't have cell coverage when he was really out in Argentina. Stippen.

Maria Belan Shapur. I had to look it up. Mark Sanford doesn't know how to say it either because he's never been on the Appalachian Trail. That's right. So back to the White House Correspondents Center. We have some new reporting coming out of the investigation into what happened and exactly what the charges are against the suspected assassin, Cassie. And I'm still confused. We had Susan Crabtree who has a lot of great sources in the Secret Service. And she was floating the idea that some are speculating based on the forensic evidence that the Secret Service. agent that got shot was actually shot with friendly fire by another Secret Service agent trying to, uh, trying to, uh, neutralize the threat. Uh, the man's been charged though with firing his weapon. and during the assault. But there's now some reports saying that no, that the shooter never fired a weapon. But we do have a secret service agent who had to go to the hospital because of being shot. And now CBS News is reporting that there was no secret service friendly fire. that the person who got shot was not shot by a secret service agent, so therefore that person had to be shot by the assailant, and yet we have conflicting reports saying the assailant's gun was never fired. And I'm sorry, I hate to go on air and say, I have no idea exactly what happened, but we've got so many conflicting reports that we still don't know exactly what happened. Right, which is curious, because there is footage, grainy as it may be, I assume that's something that they're working to enhance to try and figure this out exactly. But I understand conflicting reports in the moments after it happens, but weird that we've had both sides. come out. Right. We've had news cycles with both sides leading, both sides of the story. Yeah. Yeah. More evidence. And again, yeah. Yeah. Well, we'll try to get more definitive answers on it. And I'm sorry, but that's, I'm just sort of conveying the fact that this is very confusing. And we don't, we don't see the evidence necessarily that has been presented. Except CBS News now reporting that there was no friendly fire. We do have a key point of evidence, which is a narcissistic selfie taken by Cole Allen, the arrested assailant who charged through Secret Service Bill Gates and checkpoints. He took a selfie of himself in his hotel room, wearing a black shirt, black pants, and a red tie showing all of the weapons that he had with him. He was definitely armed up and ready to do a lot of damage.

That absolutely goes without saying. And the fact that he took a selfie there in the mirror, a mirror selfie too, is creepy as hell. And it shows you the influence that social media and the fueling of this person's narcissism had in his motive and his in his actions. Mm-hmm. Narcissism and radicalism. But this was clearly a premeditated. This wasn't someone who was sitting there sweating. Am I going to do it? Am I not? He had a plan that he was going to execute. It's really eerie. In the picture, you can see him wearing a small leather bag with, it looks like an ammunition bag. A shoulder, and a bag full of ammunition was found on him. He had a shoulder hoster, a sheathed knife. pliers and wire cutters and guns and knives as well, all packed across his body and stowed. So he was planning on getting in. He had a lot of ammunition so he could reload and keep shooting. He had a knife in case somebody tried to wrestle him down. He could just do close quarters do some hand-to-hand combat. He wanted to kill as many people as possible. And I would say, I know there's a lot of questions about Secret Service and the perimeter and what should have been done better indifferently, and they'll get to that. But can we just take a moment to recognize, I mean, this guy was armed to the teeth. He was clearly committed to whatever he was allegedly going to try and do. And there but for the grace of God, everyone walked away safely with the exception of the Secret Service agent. They got him. were able to successfully disarm him and prevent something really horrible from happening. Yeah. He also used his cell phone at 827 minutes before the attack. He visited a media company's website and accessed the video, watch live President Trump First Lady in route to the White House correspondence dinner. And he also visited another website to view live media coverage of the president exiting his vehicle to attend the dinner. He timed it so he could get there when President Trump was in the room. All the evidence shows that this was an assassination attempt. 524. Now on 105.9 FM and streaming worldwide on the WMAL app, O'Connor and Company.

Good Thursday morning to you. It's the 30th day of April. Our last day of April tomorrow, we begin the month of May, one-third of the way through 2026. Holden Moses. We've got full coverage of yesterday's Supreme Court decision and what the domino effect may be for the midterms and beyond. Coming up at 635, Hans von Spikoski, election law expert, will join us at 705. Tom Fitton. He was part and parcel to that indictment of a former Anthony Fauci advisor. And then at 805, K2 McFarland, we'll join us. It's Larry O'Connor with Cassie Smedley. Good morning, Cassie. Good morning, Larry. What a lineup. Yes. And what a news cycle. We were talking before the program as we do our... regular morning show prep meeting, sort of figure out the rundown. It's like, oh, I like this indictment of the Anthony Fauci advisor. It's like, oh, that's right, that happened. Oh, and then the Supreme Court decision. And then these, all these other things that happened yesterday. And the Supreme Court decision certainly is the top story. This, of course, was a case that was brought regarding a gerrymandered congressional district in Louisiana. There were two there that sort of stretch right down the middle of the state. It's a textbook example of the problem with gerrymandering in general. But then when you find out that these two districts were drawn in such a way for no other reason other than to ensure that the color of people's skin were the primary factor in determining. who the makeup of the American citizens and voters in those districts would be. And it stretches from the furthest northwest corner of Louisiana all the way down to New Orleans, right on the bayou, in the southeast corner of the state, where every other congressional district surrounding it is very uniform, geometrically shaped, compact, because it didn't take race into consideration. And the Supreme Court said, yeah, not anymore. Can't do it. This was always a bad interpretation of Title II of the Voting Rights Act. It actually wasn't in the Voting Rights Act, but it had been interpreted in such a way that black voters in America, especially in the South, after Jim Crow, after segregation, black voters required to have their own... drawn out congressional districts that had a majority minority representation so that they could elect a minority, a person of their race, of their skin color, I should say, to the House of Representatives. So there's two factors here, though, that sort of undid all of this. The first was that we have majority white districts in the south, in Texas, in Florida, and other states that have elected black. members to the House of Representatives, conservative Republicans, right? I was like, this is the, this, Wesley Hunt's election had a lot to do with this, which is like overwhelmingly white district, and he's a black conservative Republican. In other words, white Republicans voted for a black Republican because they didn't care about skin color. They cared about how he was going to vote and represent them. Same thing with, um, in Florida with, uh, with, uh, oh, the gentleman who's running for. Byron Donalds's.

Thank you, Byron Donalds's. Goodness gracious. So that's a big part of it. And also you've got South Carolina, you know, the state that was the flashpoint for the Civil War with Fort Sumter voting as an entire state to put Tim Scott in the Senate. Sure. Clearly, you know, something's changed in the South, right? But secondly, I think most importantly, and I don't know if this wasn't really written into the decision, but I think that it's a big part of it when you see the political fallout. is Democrats had a very cynical agenda. They, in my opinion, tried to get black voters in America sort of addicted to being Democrat. And it's like, you need Democrats because the other guys are racist. You need Democrats because we're going to give you benefits. You need Democrats because if you vote Republican, you're a traitor to your race, all of the things that we've seen in politics for the last couple of decades. And so because of that, they have locked in this idea that the black vote means the Democrat vote, right? And so if you could cynically draw congressional lines that were specifically black, that's a slam dunk. It's going to be a Democrat. And that's what's ended up happening. So now when the Supreme Court says, well, you can't just determine this based on racial criteria, but you can certainly do it based on political. I mean, that's as old as the gerrymander itself, the very first district that was. drawn by Governor Jerry or Gary or however he's supposed to be pronounced. Now, when you draw those lines differently, Democrats are going to lose because they didn't actually build a coalition of voters based on ideas or based on principles. They drew it based on race. And now that you can't determine that and you can come back in and draw it based on political and geographic and cultural concerns that is how a congressional district is supposed to be drawn. Democrats lose. So their cynical use of race and politics up until now to benefit them by just counting on and taking for granted the black vote to help the party now bites them in the butt because we're no longer going to be determining these districts on race. And that means Democrats are going to lose potentially 12 seats, potentially as soon as this upcoming midterm. Oh, Larry, speaking of cynical, you're being a cynic. You're saying that they were disingenuous all this time, that they were just using voters as a political pawn in their game. But I do think, as you laid it out. I know you're being silly, but it's proof positive. When a black Republican. would be elected to Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus would not allow them to participate. That's a perfect example. Yes. That's exactly what Democrats have done. That you read my mind that they weren't enough or they were somehow, they were a traitor. Tim Scott, who his story. is an American dream story. He always says from cotton to Congress and three generations. That's how it should be. That's what we should be celebrating. And he was not, I don't, if he was in the CBC, maybe they eventually invited him. But he was, he was not welcomed with open doors from the CBC with open arms when he came to Congress. He was perceived as not quite one of them. That's right. Which is pretty incredible. Race traders. You're not really black. You ain't black to.

to quote a former president. Yeah. It's huge. And here's the bottom line here. If he's like, well, because you've heard a lot of conflicting reports. Well, it's only for Louisiana. No, it's not. Well, it doesn't eliminate Title II completely. That's correct. It doesn't. It just tells you how to properly interpret and apply Title II from the Voting Rights Act. Well, it's not really that. No, you want to know how bad this is for Democrats? Here's Hakeem Jeffries yesterday, surrounded by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are about to be unemployed. Today's decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court. majority strikes a blow against the voting rights act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice but we're not here to step back we're here to fight back now when this decision came out earlier today it's an unacceptable decision but not an unexpected decision Because this isn't even really the John Roberts court. It's the Trump court. Yes. And what we would expect from the Trump court is an effort to continue their scheme to suppress the vote and rig the midterm elections and beyond. Because these extremists have failed America in every possible way. They failed on the economy. They failed on health care. They're failing as it relates to this reckless and costly war of choice. The extremists have completely and totally failed America. That's right. So they've concluded, aided and abetted by the Trump court, that they have to cheat to win. There you go. That's Hakeem Jeffries yesterday. He's got the sads. And, well, if he's upset, then it's got to be a good thing. Also, did you notice the Supreme Court is illegitimate? and the decision is unacceptable. Does that mean that they're not going to abide by it? Does that mean they're going to ignore it? We won't accept it because it's an illegitiveness. This is the kind of sort of anarchy language that you hear from a desperate politician at times like this, isn't it? Yeah, interesting. And you're thinking of, you've got me thinking of, oh gosh, never forget, oh, what's her name, who ran for governor in Georgia and never. Oh, never accepted. Stacey Abrams. Stacey Abrams. Yes, things. And, but this idea that we don't have to do it if it doesn't work for us instead of, wouldn't you rather saying they won't? Because again, it's politics. It's not genuine. But to say, we won't be defeated because we know we have the right ideas. We know we can earn your vote regardless of who you are and what you look like. No, they won't say that because for too long, instead he went right to it's all them. It's all bad. It's all the divisive language. Instead of saying, all right, I'm going to have to work a little harder.

But I know that I'm the person you want representing you. Yeah. These districts were drawn as a result of the segregation south and Jim Crow where you had white politicians, Democrats, every one of them, who could only win if the congressional districts were drawn in such a way as to maximize the white vote. And you've got Hakeem Jeffries now in 2026 lamenting the fact that they could only win by maximizing the black vote. and keeping white voters from voting. In other words, we only had our power because we disenfranchised whites, just like the white Democrats 60 years ago, only won election because they disenfranchised blacks. Hey, how about we don't disenfranchise anyone based on the color of their skin, okay? Anyone, but what's the through line here? It was Democrats saying it then. It's Democrats saying it now. It's 547. And now we're at a point where affirmative action is gone. Diversity is gone. Equity gone. Inclusion gone. Racial tolerance gone. The Voting Rights Act largely gone. I mean, stop it, Hakeem. We're already on board with this decision. You don't need to keep selling it to us. It's like, oh, restoring fairness. This is better than Christmas based on that, if only, if only. And then there's Barack Obama. So Barack Obama, who became the face of the radical gerrymandering referendum that disenfranchised. By the way, black voters in Virginia. One district, the congressional district, seven in Virginia, went from 20% black voters to seven and a half percent. You talk about diluting the black vote. Virginia was all about that. Barack Obama said, today's Supreme Court decision effectively got to keep pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures, did gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities so long as they do it under the guise of partisanship rather than explicit racial bias. But these districts were drawn based on explicit racial bias, and it was meant. to bolster one party over the other be based on race though nothing else but for Barack Obama to lament this and how how Again, we were talking about how you have to be shameless to be a politician, demand money from people, you know, be narcissists. You have to be so shameless to be Barack Obama and be the face of the Virginia gerrymander for a political power grab that disenfranchised black voters, rural voters, poor voters, and certainly Republicans, to then sit up their sanctimonious and say, this is outrageous that we're now going to be in a lot. Seriously, how does he do it? How does he do it with a straight face? because he gets paid a lot of money and he's crossed the Rubicon as addicted to the money. But also, if you're Barack Obama, it's like what we were just talking about with Wesley Hunt or Tim Scott, Barack Obama, the first black president to be elected in the United States of America by a majority of Americans. It's very racist country elected him two times.

But he can come here today with yesterday's decision. That's right. And America, after eight years of our first black president, was more divided racially than we had been in 50 years. And it wasn't because he was black. It was because he was a divisive community organizing Marxist. It's 554. In a world that screams for your attention, there is a place that invites you to peace. You don't need a building. You don't need a choir. You just need to turn your heart to Air One. Air One. Songs that heal. Lyrics that pray for you when you don't have the words. From Lauren Daigle to elevation worship and more. This isn't just radio. It's worship for the everyday. Escape the noise and worship now. Download the Air One app. Ask your smart speaker to play Air One or visit Air One.com. 1. Worship now.