Virginia Fallout: Guy’s Analysis and Fact Check

At Walmart, we're helping our associates build meaningful careers. One way we're doing that, investing $1 billion in training and education. Last year, more than 100,000 associates earned promotions. Combined with benefits like 401K matching and paid parental leave, we're proving that Walmart isn't just a place to work, it's a place to grow. Learn more at walmart.com slash grow at Walmart. Have you ever stopped and thought about what's actually powering your day, the coffee you made this morning, the drive you took to get here, even the device you're listening on it? I'm Tanner Faust, and that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to talk about on the energy tailgate, a podcast from Chevron. I'll be your host inviting guests to discuss big energy topics and what they mean for everyday life, all from the tailgate of our truck. This is the energy tailgate. Pays checkout is offered by your banks and credit unions. So when you shop online at participating merchants, your cards appear in one place. Pays. It checks out. Activation required. See Pays.com to learn more. Terms and conditions apply.

heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson. It is Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026. I'm Guy Benson. Welcome everyone to Guy Benson. We're here together for the next three hours as we are every weekday between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern. Then the show becomes a podcast. Start to finish absolutely three on demand. Guy Benson.com, Fox News Podcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts, I'm a Fox News political analyst, senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. You can reach us by email here at the show, GBS at fox.com. You can follow us on social media. At Guy Benson's show. Guy Benson, my personal handle on social. Great lineup today. Molly Hemingway is going to join us later on this hour, out with a new book this week. A lot to get to with her, including on her book about Samuel Alito and then some big news stories as well. Paul Morrow will also join us in our next hour, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst rounding things out just after 5 p.m. Eastern on the show today in our last hour. Well, we open, unsurprisingly, with the result last night in Virginia. Boy, was it close. Excruciatingly close. But the yes side in favor of Democrats, I think, wildly dishonestly marketed. gerrymandering power grab the yes side did prevail by three percentage points just over just over i should say 51 percent of statewide voters pretty big turnout voted yes and therefore unless the virginia supreme court intervenes By November's elections, the congressional map in Virginia, which is currently six Democrats, five Republicans, will become ten Democrats, one Republican. Overnight, Virginia would become the most unrepresentative gerrymander in the entire country. One of the fairest maps, most proportional maps in... the whole United States of America will become the most gerrymandered map. And a state in which nearly 49% of the electorate voted no on this thing, in that Commonwealth here in Virginia, we will now be seeing just one congressional seat controlled by Republicans. In 2024, 48% of Virginia voters cast ballots for House Republican candidates, 48%. And the delegation under this new map will be 9% Republican. And they called this a fairness referendum. And that's actually how they put it in the ballot language, which was breathtakingly mendacious. They called it.

A vision to restore fairness, which was insultingly untrue. It was also a blowout. It was a very close outcome, 51.5% to 48.5% thereabouts. Very close outcome. But it was not close on the propaganda machine. The yes side vastly outspent, the no side. And I'm still seeing different numbers out there and ranges from four to one or three to one, that kind of margin. I saw one story about tens of millions of dark money dollars flowing into Virginia on behalf of the yes side. As I like to say, Democrats love dark money in politics. They just pretend not to. They want their own dark money. to win the day in politics while preening and posturing against dark money, if it's right-wing dark money. Well, the dark money did a lot of work here, and I think was determinative, actually. And on one hand, I'll give the Democrats in the left credit. They treated this with the urgency and seriousness and ruthlessness that it merited, given what was at stake. And the Republicans did not. I'll have more to say on that in just a moment because I have a bone to pick with the Republicans as well. But I just want to underscore how completely outrageous this entire scheme is. And it's actually pretty revealing, and it's sort of common sense, actually. It blows my mind, as an aside, that you can... alter the constitution of the state with a simple majority vote. If they won this thing by literally one vote statewide, it would change the constitution. That seems like an insane way to go about amending a state constitution, but it is what it is. But by virtue of this vote and the closeness of it, and by the way, if you look at the New York Times map of like how the vote shifted, this is interesting. The electorate in Virginia shifted right, i.e., in the no direction, dramatically compared to not just 2025 when the Democrats had a blowout. That's not surprising, right? Democrats had their blue wave in Virginia in 2025, which is how we got this. fake moderate Abigail Spanberger as governor and these majorities in the legislature, one of which is razor thin, by the way, did not stop them from jamming this whole thing through. Eye on the ball for their power. I know they claim that it's about Texas and leveling the playing field and Trump and all of that. I will address all of those arguments in the next hour. Oh, I have a lot of detailed points to make on that because this is the national argument. It's not just like bogged down details in Virginia. Get ready for this argument across the country. And I've equipped myself with a lot of the facts. I want to help equip you with a lot of the facts and the context because I'm seeing a lot of, I would say, tendentious, specious arguments out there. And I will break that down.

pretty exhaustively coming up in the next hour. So please stay tuned for that or check it out on the podcast when you have a chance. But by virtue of how close this was, right? Two and a half, three points. It actually points to... The fairness of the current map, right? We saw a lot of the state swing rightward, as I was saying, not just compared to last year, a baseline, which was a 15-point Abigail Spanberger victory. It actually moved, it lurched to the right, Virginia did, compared to 2024 when Kamala Harris won Virginia by mid-single digits. In fact, This margin last night, yes versus no on the gerrymandering scheme, the margin was half of what Kamala Harris's victory margin was in Virginia two years ago. It was half of the victory margin last year of the Attorney General Jay Jones, the Democrat who said he wanted to kill Republicans and their children and then doubled down. That guy won by six points in a blue wave year. This was a three-point margin.

extremely tightly contested. In fact, in the new districts that they've drawn in this insane map that they've put together where you have five districts. snaking their way out of Fairfax County, deep blue northern Virginia is what did this. It is the very left-wing, very rich D.C. suburbs, very populous, because by the way, a lot of people have left D.C. in Maryland because they didn't like how those places were run. They've moved over into Virginia, and they are now voting the exact same way, and they are now trying to, and in this case they have. exerted and imposed their dominance on the rest of the state, including much of rural Virginia, which will be represented, quote, unquote, by Democrats living in a handful of neighborhoods in the very northern part of the state just outside D.C. That's how this is going to go, if the Supreme Court of Virginia does not stop it, and they might. And that's something I want to explore in the days ahead and get some smart legal thinkers on the show because I have seen some analyses that suggest there's like three or four different lines of attack that are compelling against the procedure, the way that they did this, breaking legislative procedure, breaking Virginia statute, the law, violating the state constitution, and then just the wording. The restoring fairness thing, the wording that they put on the ballot, it's like. It's a buffet of options to try to get this thing thrown out. I don't know how to feel about the likelihood of that. I guess I'm maybe just like naturally pessimistic about Virginia politics in general. So I'm kind of expecting the worst. But. Some pretty smart thinkers, smart legal minds have told me, no, there's a legitimate shot, especially if the Supreme Court maintains in Virginia its reputation for being pretty real sticklers about, like, process and institutional procedure. We'll see. So this may not be over yet. I know the Democrats are doing their victory laps, although I think it's been a little tempered by the fact that it was so close. And I will now finish this point. The fact that it was so close, again, I think highlights the nature of the bluish-purple state that Virginia is, which vindicates and validates a six-to-five congressional map because that's roughly... on par with the result that we saw, not just in the last presidential election and the last statewide House elections, but also in this special referendum, right? 5149, 518, if you were to break down that sentiment into 11 House districts,

I think if you put this in front of school kits, like elementary school kids, hey, these are the percentages. What would be roughly fair if you have 11 representatives that has to represent the state? They'd probably come up with 6 to 5, which is exactly what it was. But by virtue of the system, which again, I think has been abused by the Democrats here, and we'll see what the justices in Richmond have to say about that, 51% of Virginians. heavily concentrated in one tiny part of the state with a ton of people up there, very left wing, Arlington County, for example, all these sanctuary counties with all the terrible stories out of schools and illegal immigration, those stories that we've brought to your attention, those counties, that little cluster of them, Alexandria, Arlington, they voted like 80-20 percentage-wise for this thing. Fairfax and Loudon, a little less dramatic, but still tons of votes coming in for yes. That was the difference. And because of that, 51-ish percent of Virginia has voted to now change the Constitution and impose a 10-to-one map in which many, many, many, many, Virginians who voted no on this whole scheme will now lose any semblance of fair representation. And they are doing this in the name of fairness and democracy, which is really the Orwellian echo. On top of all of this. And in the process, they have wiped out, by the way, the will of the people expressed just a few years ago in a referendum that was not done in a sloppy slipshod sort of way, where corners weren't cut, where rules and laws weren't violated, where it wasn't some special snap election in the middle of a spring of an off year. It was a presidential election, maximum turnout. where two-thirds of the state endorsed getting rid of partisan gerrymandering and having these impartial districts drawn, which turned out to be the fairest districts in the country. That was a legitimate will of the people, a super majority of the people in a very clear and concise ballot question, and that has now been wiped out by the will of 51.5% of people on a confusing ballot question, even as admitted by NPR, designed to mislead and manipulate. And the Constitution has now been re-changed with the politicians put back in charge. And the result is the most gerrymandered map in the country. Fairness and democracy, they say. And you could say, well, guy, crocodile tears. What about the Republicans in Texas? What about this? What about that? Again, stay tuned. Next hour, I will be addressing much of that in great detail. And I think it is going to be very worthwhile information for many of you to hear. I'll put all of it as best I can in one place and lay it out. For now, though, I want to take a break. And when we come back, I want to turn to the Republicans who I think... Again, as a whole, writ large, the Republicans blew it. The Democrats treated this as a mini Super Bowl and did everything that it would take by hook or by crook, pouring mounds of cash into this thing, and the Republicans were generally just asleep. So I want to talk about that when we come back. We're just getting started on this Wednesday. It's Guy Benson.

Not the same talking points here, Guy Benson. This episode is brought to you by San Pellegrino Chau. A gift from Italy to your home. San Pellegrino Chau is a flavored sparkling water made with real fruit juice. Finished with a pinch of Sicilian salt for a perfectly balanced taste. So which flavor will you choose? Peach, lime, blood orange, cherry, or maybe the all-new limoncello. Crafted in Italy with zero grams of added sugar. San Pellegrino Chau. Buy it now. Guy Benson were back. Democrats in the left spent a fortune, including dark money, soros money, you name it, to squeak by in Virginia by three points, which means that the actual persuasion margin was one and a half points. If this electorate had been tugged a point and a half net in the other direction, right? Minds changed. The outcome is reversed. Which leads me to believe, and I think I can say this with confidence, the no side absolutely could have won with any meaningful, concerted, smart persuasion effort. You guys heard me complain on this show for months that the Republicans were getting their asses kicked on the air. Starting in the Olympics, the Winter Olympics, like the Democrats, remember they said they're not going to do it. Abigail Spanberger said she wasn't going to do it, and then she did. Her first bill she signed into law was to violate what she said on the campaign trial. Her first bill was to get this ball rolling. And they came out of the gate ready to go with a ton of ads, a blitz of ads, winter Olympics. I remember seeing them like, whoa, that was fast. And I kept thinking, well, the no ads, the opposition ads, they're going to come soon. They're just there. Maybe scrambling. They're getting it together. They raise the money, but we're going to get the answer, the other side of this. And this didn't happen. Now, they ended up spending millions of dollars. I've been told some ads were run. I met someone yesterday who had seen two. I would estimate that I saw two to 300 yes ads, multiple ads all the time on TV. I heard them on the air on the radio. I never saw one single on air ad saying no and making the case for no, not one. Mary Catherine Hamm, not one. Dylan, our DC-based producer, in this TV market, not one. It was a total avalanche of propaganda in one direction. And when you could have just persuaded a relatively small handful of people to go the other way and could have won this thing with four House seats at stake and a bunch of other stuff at stake, I am absolutely baffled by what the Republicans were up to. Plus, I've been getting all these emails this week announcing their quarterly fundraising in the Trump world, in the Senate.

arm of the campaign, the NRC, oh, we're flush with cash, look at all this money we've raised, record money, blah, blah, blah, crushing the Democrats. Where was any of that in Virginia? And it was a very straightforward, nonpartisan case you could have made. You didn't have to make it partisan. That would have been stupid, actually, in Virginia. You could have said, we voted as Virginians to reject. Partisan gerrymandering in 2020 by a huge majority. The politicians want it back. Tell them no. Protect fair maps. Vote no. How hard was that? Molly Hemingway coming up. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up front payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12-1 plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy. See terms.

Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. We are back. Thanks for being here with us. Guy Benson.com podcast, always free. With us now is Molly Hemingway, editor-in-chief of the Federalist, best-selling author several times over, and she's got a new one on her hands, I'm sure, and it is literally in my hands right now as we speak, Samuel Alito. The justice who reshape the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution, it is out this week available everywhere. Molly, congratulations on the book, and welcome back to the show. Thank you. It's very exciting to be here with you. I want to talk about the book in a moment, but first, just a few news of the day stories that I have to get your reaction to. Number one, take it in any direction you'd like. I did half an hour already on Virginia. I'm doing more thoughts on gerrymandering and all of that later in the show, but we got that outcome in Virginia. Yes, squeaking by by three points and all the after effects of that. Your top takeaway is what? Well, seeing how close this ended up, much closer than I thought it would be, is a little bit painful because you realize that had Republicans invested more in terms of money, time, national attention to what was happening in Virginia, I think they would have had a really good shot of pushing this back. And it's cold comfort to say in a few years the courts might overturn this, given what happened. Yeah, I think that's probably true. I was just making the point before this last break, Molly, that I think if the Republicans had gotten in on this, guns blazing, tons of money in a partisan fight, they would have lost. But I think if they had appealed to the messaging that allowed... a ban on gerrymandering to pass overwhelmingly just six years ago and said we're actually protecting the fair maps and keeping this out of the hands of politicians vote no if that had been a consistent message on the air combating the the onslaught of ads that we saw from the other side, I think the persuasion, all you had to do is swing one and a half percentage points net the other direction and you win. And I don't know what you saw. You live in Northern Virginia as well, and maybe you were watching more TV than I was. I watched a fair amount of TV from the Olympics to March Madness. I never saw a single... No ad. Good or bad, like whether I thought it was effective or not, I didn't see any on-air ad on TV the entire time versus hundreds of yes ads. Was your experience similar or different? I don't watch a ton of TV or like TV with advertising, but I was struck by how 100% of the mailers we got were for voting in favor of the gerrymander, and we didn't get any mailers against it.

Yeah, so we'll talk about what the chances are that this thing gets blown up in court. I think there's a certainly non-zero chance of that, maybe more optimistic than non-zero. There's a lot to unpack, and there's a lot that might be coming soon because already Hakeem Jeffries is putting out a statement because Florida is now thinking about retaliating again in the other direction on redistricting. Jeffrey's basically said, if Florida does that, Republicans can once again prepare for, quote, maximum warfare everywhere all the time. That is the Democrat slogan. And, I mean, there's something truthful about that, Molly, maximum warfare everywhere all the time. That's who they are. That's what they do. Right, but Republicans need to understand that that is warfare. I saw Mark Elias tweeting that he'd been working on the project to rig the maps in Virginia for 10 years. He said gerrymandering is like one of his big things. He's the guy who ran the Russia collusion hoax and who worked to make the 2020 elections less secure. So if they're saying that this is their big goal, you have to fight them. You have to take them seriously at their word. And Republicans seem to have this idea that what they're doing is. ungentlemanly and then they lay down their arms and i don't know exactly the right answer for what to do i'm not a fan of gerrymandering but at the very least you should fight them when they are trying to do something like what they did in virginia yeah and at least have a clear eyes about what's going on and not fall for some of these i think really weak spurious arguments that we're hearing now the justifications the blaming texas and all of that and i will in great detail delve into that in the next hour here on the show the second story i want to quickly get your take on we haven't talked about it yet here we will mention it in the next hour with paul morrow this indictment These charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is at least bills itself as an anti-hate organization. It is in fact a far-left hate organization that has raised a ton of money through the years. And now they've been indicted by a federal grand jury after this federal investigation. What is the crux of the indictment, Mali? Well, I was going to say, as someone who has long been critical of the Southern Poverty Law Center, I was shocked by the details in the indictment. And what the federal government is alleging is that the SPLC was funding some of the leaders of many of the racist groups, even funding people who were... involved in the organization of things like the unite the right event that led to the death of a woman and which Joe Biden said was the entire reason he ran for president. The Charlottesville thing.

And then they were concealing this through, you know, lying to banks about the purpose of various accounts, which you're not allowed to do. They were obviously also lying to their donors and the federal government about how they were financing the groups they claimed to be opposing. And it's just, this is a group that put out hate maps and hate lists. that led to real violence. I mean, the guy who shot up the Family Research Council found them on a map put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which said, this group over there is hateful. And then they said Charlie Kirk was on their hate list. He was assassinated months later. They have targeted every single group they politically oppose and labeled them as racist and bigots and hateful. And then media companies used this. to censor people. It's a really nefarious organization. And if this stuff is, as alleged, it is apocalypticly bad for the Southern Poverty Law Center, that they were literally giving money to the KKK leadership. Yeah, millions. Millions to KKK in neo-Nazi groups and sending people like helping with transportation for the Charlottesville thing. And what people are saying is, well, they need, maybe there's not enough genuine, hardcore racism out there to justify the Southern Poverty Law Center and all the money that they want for their various deeds. And so they were going to fund and gin up and AstroTurf, some racism themselves. And that's what this is alleging, and alleging that they broke the law several ways in doing so. And yet, and we're seeing this very quickly congealing, the talking point on the left, Democrats are racing to the defense of SPLC, saying, in fact, that it's the Department of Justice that needs to be held accountable. Hakeem Jeffries was suggesting that maybe people need to go to prison at DOJ for this investigation. The media, of course, going right along with it. The talking point now is SPLC was, this is quoting USA Today, indicted for paying sources to infiltrate hate groups, a tactic federal agencies have used for decades. They're saying, oh, well, they were just infiltrating these groups to see what they were up to and then helping out federal agencies who do this kind of thing. So this is a witch hunt by the Trump DOJ against political opponents. That is the spin, Molly. It's an amazing spin. I want to say first off, there are a lot of people who actually do criticize the FBI for claiming that that's what they're doing. But then when the details come out, you see that actually the FBI informants were the ones instigating hate crimes or attempted terrorists. And so the idea is bad enough for the FBI to do it. And it really isn't great. But the SPLC is not the FBI. And also, it's more akin. They did like to spin this as informants. These were leaders of the group. actually doing things like the Unite the Right rally. So it does not pass muster. And John Roberts had said earlier this afternoon that this was more akin to a fire department paying arsonists to set fires so that they could.

I exclusively report that they slow walked their dissent because usually the way Supreme Court decisions are handed down, it's with the opinion released publicly along with any dissents that might be, or dissent or concurrences that might be in play. And when the leak happened, the lives of the five Dobbs justices were immediately under threat. They were wearing bulletproof vests and being moved to secure locations. They were facing assassination threats. And they asked their liberal colleagues to please get things finished. And instead, they went out of their way to delay it. And I have all the details. For what purpose? Why would they, what would benefit them in their mind to delay it? Right. Well, some people have said, well, you know, these people's lives were under threat. They were trying to get one of them killed. I don't think that's the case at all. But I do think we'd known from previous reporting. And I wasn't. Actually able to confirm this part, but it has previously been reported that justices Breyer and John Roberts were trying to pull Brett Kavanaugh away from the Dobbs majority. And it is possible they were looking for more time to get him to pull away and also helping him see that the left really would resort to violence in order to keep. The Roe regime. Someone showed up at his house to try to kill him, ultimately, Brett Kavanaugh, of course. And there was a very splashy, buzzy anecdote that I saw that involved some very loud arguments between liberal justices, after all this happened, to the point that the wall was shaking, someone was screaming so loudly? What was that? Okay, so Justice Breyer is a solid liberal on the court, but he was beloved by his colleagues, and he always treated them very, very well. He was the one who was most willing of the three, or I guess the four justices who did not want to overturn Dobbs. He was the one most willing to accommodate his colleagues. And knowing that, according to my sources, Elena Kagan went to his chambers and was... loudly telling him not to accommodate those justices. And I also had some other interesting things that I learned from interviewing people about Elena Kagan. She's far in away the smartest of the liberal justices on the court. She's actually an intellectual heavyweight, I would say. And people respect her jurisprudence. But she also has kind of an interesting heated side. Clerks across everybody's chambers reported feeling very badly. for her clerks because of how she treated them. So I do, I mean, the book isn't like gossipy per se, but there are some interesting anecdotes there about what's happening inside the court, which is sometimes hard to see inside the court about how different people are.

Molly, if, because we just had Sarah Isgar on the show talking about her Supreme Court book, Last Branch Standing, which was fantastic talking about the importance of the institution. And you're now kind of diving into some of the most strained days within that institution in recent memory. Do those two theses sort of reside side by side in a way that makes sense to you? Let me just first say that I think Sarah Isker's thesis that this is the last competent branch of government. This is the last one that really has been able to continue its function. I think that is absolutely right. I remember, you know, someone high up at the court saying, This actually works pretty well here, what we're doing. And you have nine people who, even the ones you don't like, you know, these are significant people who are hashing out their view of the law. And they do it pretty well. That's why what's happened recently, the story I tell, or even what you saw with Justice Sotomayor attacking Brett Kavanaugh, later apologizing for it. But more importantly, some of the justices undermining the integrity of the court, that does. strain that special thing that is going on at the Supreme Court. And I would encourage everyone left and right to understand the importance of having rule of law and having a Supreme Court that is inured from political battles like that. Samuel Alito is a very consequential figure at the court. I know he's got a reputation for being really good at getting a coalition together and keeping it. That seems to be a particular skill of his, obviously a good writer as well. Most of them are. This is the first real deep dive into his story and then fleshing it out in a number of, I think, very compelling ways. I've started the book. I can't wait to finish it. Samuel Alito by Molly Hemingway, our guest here on Guy Benson. Molly, best of luck with this book. Again, congratulations. Thank you, Guy. Guy Benson. We'll continue after this very short break. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson. This is going to be an extremely busy month. I have to watch 104 soccer games. Follow the pregame, the post game, yell useless opinions at the TV. It's a lot. So I knew that when it comes to screening for colon cancer, the choice was clear. The Colagard Plus test. It can be used at home and can only take 15 minutes, so I can do it during halftime and not miss any action. If you are 45 or older and at average risk, ask your healthcare provider about screening for colon cancer with the Coligard test. You can also request a prescription at colagard.com.

This is Guy Benson. Fox News Alert. It's just crossing minutes ago. A circuit court here in Virginia has just enjoined, blocked the certification of the gerrymandering referendum result last night. This is a circuit court where the judge reaffirmed prior rulings that had said this was an illegal process. declared the referendum as unconstitutional and the amendment process of the related bill as unconstitutional. The judge entered injunctive relief and specifically denied the certification of the election. He denied a motion to stay pending appeal. A final order will be entered once drafted this according to sources in Virginia. So. Not a surprise. We had seen several courts rule against this monstrosity before it happened, but it will come down to the Supreme Court of Virginia, I would imagine. And that is a process we'll keep an eye on. But another wrench, another wrinkle. That just breaking. More thoughts on all of it coming up in the next hour. With Paul Morrow on deck, you don't want to miss that. It's all straight ahead.

On July 16th, the hawk lands on Netflix. From the mind of Will Ferrell. Oh, mama, I'm back. Come in love! Comes a new original series. Get ready, get ready. That's it. Did I stutter? When an iconic pro golfer. Lonnie? Hockey! Takes one last swing at greatness. You were a big shot golfer. I still am a big shot golfer. No one. Dad, I'm the Hawk now. Will stand in his way. That's how it's done. The Hawk, only on Netflix, July 16th. A new generation of conservative talk. Right here, right now. Fair, fun, and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of Fox News. Fox News. You're listening to Guy Benson. And now, here's your host, Guy Benson. hour underway here on Guy Benson Wednesday edition. Thanks for tuning in. Guy Benson.com, our online home. The podcast is free every day on demand. Oxnese alert as we hit the middle hour. The Dow back up today bouncing 340 points in the green. The Dow finishing the day at 49,490. Guess the market's like the news of the extended ceasefire that we reported here yesterday. But for how long? That's a very, very big question as the Iranian regime continues in some ways to escalate, apparently seizing some ships. So this could be coming to ahead again sometime very soon. We'll be covering that as the week unfolds here on the show. Let's turn now to Paul Morrow, Fox News contributor, attorney, and retired NYPD inspector, Paul. Always great to have you. Thanks for having me, guide. All right. So I want to pick your brain on the Southern Poverty Law Center indictment from a federal grand jury in Alabama based on this federal investigation. We are seeing some of the details that are just staggering to me. We talked about this a bit last hour with Molly Hemingway. And now we're seeing the... The damage control coming out from the left from top elected Democratic leaders doing the bidding of SPLC saying this is an abusive prosecution by the Trump administration and others, including journalists saying all SPLC was doing was paying confidential sources to infiltrate these hate groups to keep an eye on them and saying, well, you know. Law enforcement does this, and that's what they were up to, and now they're weaponizing that, they're criminalizing that. Let's take this piece by piece. You're a lawyer and a longtime law enforcement officer. What do you make of the story and then some of these excuses? So the story itself, as I said today on outnumbered, is utterly bonkers. Now, full disclosure, I had some contact with SPLC when I was working kind of terrorism 15, 16 years here in New York. They would occasionally try to refer cases to us, et cetera. And my impression was that they just really wanted to get in the game. You know, they wanted to be a kind of terrorism agency, but they were not. And that's not their role. But I think they felt like they were sort of missing out.

on what had become the flavor of the day because we were in the post 9-11 era and it was New York City, etc. So that's just sort of background. My impression here is that they got way out over their skis. You have to remember that even the government is proscribed. And the case law on this, by the way, is fairly substantial and settled. The government can do this kind of thing. The private industry, private citizens, run into a lot more trouble legally. You know, as I said today, don't try this at home. And even the government is prescribed from doing certain things when you're running informants. And one of those things is having the bad idea, so to speak, the illegal activity initiated in any way by your asset. Because what that does is immediately it brings an entrapment defense. And when you consider that they're not professionally trained, and not trained to run informants, which is tricky business. The idea here that their informants didn't get out ahead of what they are legally allowed to do utterly beggars belief, and that is the basis really of the indictment, that they were not only running informants, but they were running informants that fomented a lot of the activity that they ostensibly was standing against. That's where they're in real trouble. And I actually think once this thing starts to develop, it's not only going to get worse for them, but you're going to see more charges and an expanded purview of what they were up to. And I don't think it's got to be pretty. You know, Paul. The crimes alleged here aren't running illegal informants. There's, like, actual crimes listed in the indictment. So from a legal standpoint, that seems to be significant. And a lot of people are, I think... obfuscating that deliberately to hue to the instant party line, which is, oh, no, they were just paying sources and informants to try to infiltrate these groups, and they were actually doing God's work to try to protect people, and now they're being punished for it. That doesn't really, that doesn't jive with the crimes that are being alleged and the information, the evidence backing it up. And then there's also just the amount of money, millions of dollars over the years, including to... leaders within these organizations and like helping to coordinate apparently or allegedly like travel for some of these extremists to the unite the right quote unquote rally that is now very infamous in charlottesville virginia i mean it it does kind of seem like they were trying to whip up

the type of hatred and unrest that would then give them a raise on detra to raise a bunch of money to fight the type of thing that they were actually secretly funding and allegedly, according to the government and the grand jury, with the indictment coming down from them, doing so in a few different ways that violate the law, right? That's very different than the spin we're hearing. Yeah, exactly. And you put your finger right on it, is that they had people in leadership roles. who were apparently allegedly fomenting. And that's where you get yourself into real trouble. I mean, look, one of the things you've got to remember about running sources, and even the government is sort of beholden to this, is that you need to be pretty passive. And it can be frustrating. It's one of the difficulties of doing these cases because, and this is the exact kind of police work I did at the height of my career and supervised at the height of my career for a decade and a half. And it's very tricky business. It gets very lawyerly. And some of the details here would be extremely troubling. Were a DHS doing it? Never mind a private entity. Right. And I think they got, you had a badge, right? You had a badge and you'd sworn an oath and had oversight and all of that. This is like left-wing LARPERS. Exactly. And, you know, it's unfortunate, but everybody wants to be the police. But the police, I got to ask myself to expand the canvas here. Did SPLC have anybody at 6th January? I'd like to see if that comes out. I think that that might be an open question here. And I'm not for defunding the police, but I'm very much in favor of defunding SPLC as they were cosplaying, apparently, in their own minds. Paul Morrow, Fox News, contributor, attorney, retired NYPD inspector on Guy Benson. Paul, as always, we appreciate it very much. Thanks, Guy. And one quick note, I gave you the market update at the start of the hour. I neglected to mention that that update was sponsored by our Friends and Americans for Prosperity. You can find out more at... Americans for Prosperity.org slash Guy. Find an AFP chapter near you. I'm a big fan of theirs and do a lot of work with them. I'm grateful for their partnership. When we come back, as promised last hour, a lot of thoughts about gerrymandering, redistricting, the fights to come. What about Texas? We'll answer all of it. Coming up. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. With the all-new Dynasty Blueprint in EA Sports College Football 27, you can build your program by earning Dynasty points to spend on NIL, staff, and more. But the fun doesn't end at graduation. With the EA Sports MVP bundle, get College Football 27, mad at NFL 27, plus deluxe edition rewards in both games. Make your rise with the MVP bundle, available now at EA.com. Rated E for everyone with mild lyrics, user interact, and in-game purchases includes random items, conditions, and restrictions apply. See the link for more info.

I'm Guy Benson. Welcome back. I'd like to address a few points post-Virginia, of course, with the court challenges still pending. I just want to talk about gerrymandering and the balance of power and some of the arguments that are flying around out there on social media. I've been engaging on Twitter at Guy Benson, including pushing back against even some people who are right-leaning. I think that we need to discuss some of this. And we have the breathing room to do it here on the radio. Some of this is in the weeds, but I think a lot of this matters a lot. Republicans being either asleep at the switch around all of this or making stupid, emotional decisions, neither one of those, I think, is a good idea. But we also need to have a realistic conversation about what's happening right now around these fights in this country. And I will just say parenthetically, yes, things might change dramatically if the Supreme Court makes some major alterations to the Voting Rights Act and what that would mean for certain districts, especially in the South. That would be a big seismic event. And then, of course, there's the 2030 census coming where blue states are expected to lose quite a few seats because people have left. So they'd be punished for their governing failures. If and when those two things happen, there will be another opportunity or more than one for Republicans to potentially, hopefully, thoughtfully, and I'm not opposed to ruthlessly taking another bite at this apple. As for the current moment, what about this argument that has been made, including by some people that I like and respect, and they're not exactly wrong? that really Texas started all of this. So if you're mad about Virginia, you should really be mad about what Texas did last year at the behest of Donald Trump to add red-leaning districts in mid-decade redistricting, which is not the norm, right? That is unusual. And I would say to one technical extent, it's true that Texas, quote-unquote, started it if you were defining it very narrowly. But if you zoom out just a little bit, it is preposterous to pretend that Texas started this. And by the way, on this show, I was sympathetic to the Texas effort. I also had some skepticism, saying you've got to be careful. If you get too aggressive with drawing new districts in a bad year, the new districts that you think are going to go your way could very much go the other way because you've diluted your vote. They call that a dummymander. These are things that I was concerned about and remain concerned about, frankly, ahead of November in Texas. But one of the ways that I was willing to at least defend Texas and what they were doing as potentially sensible as a corrective to the U.S. Census Bureau blowing it in 2020, admittedly. In roughly a dozen states, they got the count terribly wrong. It's their whole job is to count the population. They got it quite wrong in roughly a dozen states. And those errors, I know some people are skeptical that they're errors, but those errors overwhelmingly benefited blue states and harmed red states. So we're talking six to ten seats that were deprived of red states. House seats and electoral votes.

So Trump understandably was mad about that. I don't understand why we have to just sit around and say, oh, well, the Census Bureau didn't do its job properly, admitted that they screwed up, and now we're stuck with these unfair, inaccurate maps based on a wrong count across these states. We're stuck with them for a decade. That makes no sense to me. I've never heard anyone explain the counterpoint to that. Oh, you're just handcuffed to inaccurate counts and therefore unfair maps for a decade? Texas was looking to mitigate that problem, not even getting back all the seats, Republicans would be owed, but up to five of them. And then, of course, we got this spiraling effect with retaliations, California, now Virginia. We've talked about that. California was the tit-for-tat answer. If you sweep aside and ignore the census issue, which Democrats often do, almost always, actually. They never address that or account for that. And then Virginia was a major escalation. But I would also point out that New York Democrats arguably started this before Texas. New York Democrats have been messing with the voter-imposed independent redistricting commission that was very solidly adopted by voters back in 2014 in the state of new york implementing in 2020 ever since then democrats have been undermining ignoring and ultimately trying to usurp that commission for their own partisan purposes They support it, and we've seen this now, play out in multiple places where Democrats pretend good governance, high-minded. We are four fair redistricting processes. Let's have a bipartisan or independent commission. And then if they don't get their way, they try to change the system or ignore it. Or they just blow up the whole thing when they have an excuse because they have to for democracy or whatever. That is what's happened in New York now, multiple cycles in a row throughout this entire decade. New York Democrats tried to ignore their bipartisan redistricting commission and just. Blow them out of the water and do what they wanted and gain blue seats. That's what New York Democrats tried to do. They got sued. They lost in court. Then they came back and took another bite at the apple and partially lost in court. They tried to throw people off the bench and hound certain judges off the bench so they could get a better outcome next time. I mean, this is what New York Democrats have been up to now since 2022. And apparently they're looking to try to press the advantage again in 2028. Every couple of years they've been suing in trying to do this. Even though the people of New York said, no, there's a bipartisan commission. This is how we're doing it. New York Democrats don't like that. Claudia Tenney, congresswoman from New York, a Republican, she had a long tweet about this explaining that history.

including bullying two Court of Appeals judges off the bench to force through more favorable maps, where Republicans ended up losing seats and they were again pressing their luck and got slapped down by another court. But that would all count as, I would say, manipulations. Some people are arguing, like John Pot Horowitz, who I think is an interesting smart guy in many ways, he said Texas started this Calvin Ball, his term, mid-decade, and I just don't think that's accurate. If you want to say narrowly and only which state initiated mid-decade redistricting. Based on or in contradiction of previous norms during the current decade, the answer would be Texas. Point, granted. But if we're talking about gerrymandering and Calvin Ball and making up the rules as you go along and exploiting the system in a maximalist way for your own partisan advantage, it's crazy to say, oh, that's what Texas is doing here. I won't even go back to Maryland and Illinois. You look at some of these hardcore, most gerrymandered states. I saw Luke Roziak at the Daily Wire did an analysis. Eight now, when you add in Virginia, eight of the top ten, most gerrymandered states are Democrat gerrymanders? Does that count as Calvin Ball or is that a separate category? And does it make sense to separate these things out into different categories if the result and the purpose and the motive is the same, partisan advantage? And you can say, well, New York technically started this whole thing during a regular sort of in-cycle redistricted, and then it's just metastasized year after year as they're trying to throw out their independent commission or usurp their power or ignore them. Does that count as Calvin Ball or is that a separate category? I think all of this broader picture informs my view on all of this. which is why I reject the notion that this can be traced back to 2025 and Texas. And once again, I'll remind people, little asterisk, any comment on the Census Bureau? And why we're shackled to that, quote unquote, massive error? For an entire decade, and no one, including Texas, is allowed to do anything about that. And if they do, it's an attack on norms and democracy. What about the count being wrong? Depriving red states of, let's say, eight congressional seats? Is that? An attack on democracy? Is that okay? Because it hurt Republicans. So that's point one. Point two, what about this argument? We're seeing it a lot on the left, especially after Virginia. They're saying, well, if these Republicans and these conservatives were actually against what happened in Virginia, they should support a ban on gerrymandering statewide. Just get rid of gerrymandering. Why won't they do that? They've opposed Democrats' efforts to do that, so they're just mad that they lost. They're not actually against gerrymandering. Well, let's examine that one.

Really important points that I want to bring to the table on that argument. As soon as we come back, it's Guy Benson. Keep it right here. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FN Radio 20. 20%. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Halfway through Guy Benson, halfway through the broadcast week on this Wednesday, Guy Benson.com. Podcasts always free and on demand when the show is over. So, of course, we're talking about what happened in Virginia last night and then talking more broadly about the issue of redistricting and really those power fights that happen hyper-political. They play out in skirmishes all across the country. And we're seeing a ton of arguing right now about what comes next, who's at fault, who started what, solutions, all of it. And you have the Democrats in the person of the speaker in waiting, the man who wants to be Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. coining the slogan, maximum warfare everywhere all the time. That's what he's promising on this. And by the way, that's what they did in Virginia. They poured in a ton of money, as we mentioned in that first hour, and the Republicans largely were just snoozing. I don't know what they were up to, as we have already discussed. But the Democrats certainly had their eye on this ball and were totally relentless and ruthless about it. And I think smart ruthlessness by Republicans is in order. understanding that Democrats simply get away with more things than Republicans do because the news media and the culture shapers tend to very much be on their side. So you have to be ruthless if you want to match their ruthlessness, but you also have to be smart about it and the way you go about doing things. That is one of my sort of broad-based warnings or admonitions to Republicans as these fights continue to play out as we think about what Florida might do, for example, moving forward, what might happen if the Supreme Court has this voting rights. ruling that's pretty widely expected at this point and how that could have various implications. But as I said before the break, one of the tidy little solutions, quote unquote, that we've heard from a lot of people, especially on the left, is, well, if Republicans and conservatives are really upset about what happened in Virginia, because it was a disgrace. The way that they did it, the way that they marketed it, the outcome of it, the slogans around fairness being particularly insulting. But I still think there's a chance this thing goes down at the Virginia Supreme Court for any number of reasons. And we can get more into those in the days to come. If people are really upset and offended by what the Democrats have done in Virginia, these people say, they, we. should back a nationwide ban on gerrymandering. It's just that simple. Why don't you just ban gerrymandering? Now, there's a few responses to that that I think merit careful consideration and scrutiny. Number one, I would just point out that Virginia did ban gerrymandering. In fact, two-thirds of the state voted to ban it. And then the moment Democrats decided that they had the power and the excuse or the...

triggering event, in this case, Texas, doing what they did, ignoring, of course, that California already responded, Virginia was going to go even further. The second they had that amount of power to claw it all back and undo their own ban that they had all supported, because they're very responsible good governance leftists, that's what they would have us believe, they did it without blinking an eye, and they just bulldozed. rules, laws, norms, all of it to do it. And of course, they said they had to because of Trump. So I'm skeptical of people saying, well, we should just ban this thing when that's exactly what we did in Virginia. A super majority voted to do it. It changed the Constitution. And then they said, oh, never mind. Let's put it in reverse. Simple majority, very narrow. Undue it and then some. Because that's what the political moment requires. Well, they might respond. Well, that's in one state. If you do a national ban, then everyone's on the same playing field, and you wouldn't have these retaliatory things going on. And so the national ban is the way to go. Now, I would just note, and this is not a small little picayune detail, this is something that I think would have to be really seriously considered and dealt with if it's really possible at all. I'm not sure if constitutionally. The Congress can tell states how to administer their elections. That is a job for the states. So I would have to leave it to some constitutionalists to tell me whether or not that would survive. legal challenges, for example, all the way up to SCOTUS. If Congress, the federal government said, all right, states, heads up, here is now a brand new rule that you all have to follow when it comes to how you administer your elections and drawing your maps. We are imposing this on you from the federal government in Washington, D.C. across all 50 states. I'm not sure if that's constitutional. And again, that's not a minor question. That's a threshold question. But for the sake of this discussion that we're having, for the sake of this argument, let's just say there was a clean bill of health, green checkmark, that's allowed. My problem becomes what would that law actually look like? How would it be implemented? How would it work? And I have big, big concerns about it. And not because I'm a conspiracy weirdo, but because I have eyes and ears and I pay attention to things. And there are good reasons to be extremely suspicious and cynical about what a so-called national gerrymandering ban might look like. Democrats have proposed this, by the way, but often they've loaded up their bills with all kinds of absolutely toxic, intolerable poison pills, they call them, where no Republican would agree to any of those extra things so the whole thing were to collapse. That could not happen. Let's say it was just, and this is all hypothetical, a constitutionally permissible, clean bill that was only about gerrymandering banning, and nothing else. Okay, I'm listening.

You've got my attention. I am open to that. Let's do a case study. One Virginia, one California, which happened to be very relevant states in this whole conversation, but for good reason, we're going to focus on both of them. When Virginia adopted by roughly a two-thirds majority, a bipartisan commission back in 2020, the result ended up being actually very good. All right, so let me make that point first. This would be the case in favor of a gerrymander ban because in Virginia, they actually did it well. There was this overwhelming vote by the electorate during a presidential, regularly scheduled, high turnout election year. We're going to take this away from the politicians and put it into a bipartisan commission and have fair districts. That's what people wanted, and that is what they got in Virginia until yesterday. with this tiny, tiny margin to then undo the whole thing for political reasons. But while it lasted, it was quite good. It was called one of the fairest, most proportional, most representative maps in the country for good reason. Right? If you go back to the last general election, 51% of Virginians voted for Democrats in the House across the whole Commonwealth, 48% for Republicans. So a six Democrat, five Republican map actually sounds pretty good. In a red year, Republicans would do better, potentially. In a blue year, Democrats would pick off a few of those seats, right? So marginal seats. That is a fair map that also, if you look at the map, the districts were compact, they made sense. And that was the work of the bipartisan commission. And after that deadlocked, Sean Trendy, who's been on this show, plus a left-leaning counterpart of his, they came in and drew this up, and that is what Virginia got. Call them the Sean Trendy maps, and they were excellent. If you could somehow guarantee that that type of thing would happen in all 50 states and it was constitutionally okay and it was written in a clean, airtight way, I would be very much in the market for an idea like that. Because I don't like this never-ending downward spiral, maximum warfare everywhere all the time mentality. I don't think it's good for our politics or for the country. I also don't think one side can unilaterally disarm. And I know both sides thinks that's what they're in danger of doing, which is why this keeps getting perpetuated. But if you could do the Sean Trendy map thing that Virginia did before, of course, the Democrats came in and wiped the whole thing out. with 51% of a statewide vote, to then shove all the Republican representation in Congress into 9% of the seats, 1 out of 11, with 10 going to Dems. That's what they've done, which, again, I think is such an escalation that has poisoned the well in a very deep way and has radicalized to a significant extent, me, and I'm sure therefore others, if you can just close your eyes and imagine what the maps were like.

in the last cycle or two, that is the platonic ideal. That would be the goal of what a gerrymandering ban would produce in terms of a map in one state and just replicate it in the other 49. Okay, I'm very willing to have that conversation. I want to think it all through. I'd have to really study it, but I would be inclined to be interested in supporting something like that. However, and here's the big, big capital B butt. Another state that had an independent commission that was demanded by the electorate. Californians overwhelmingly voted for this in 2010. And as soon as the people decided that's what was going to happen, taking it away from the politicians and putting it into a bipartisan or independent commission, I believe it was five Democrats, five Republicans, four independents. That was the California model. The Democrats who dominate California. set about manipulating and undermining and taking over rigging the so-called independent commission. And I actually, in my research on this, stumbled across a piece in ProPublica, which is a left-wing organization. I'm actually surprised they did this investigative story because it was not flattering at all for the Democrats in California, talking about some of the ways that they rigged this commission through dishonesty. There were some examples I saw elsewhere, for example, of people who were the Republicans, quote, unquote, on the commission, who were actually Democrats who just switched their party to get on the commission. And they just figured out a way to have this independent commission do what the Democrats wanted anyway under the guise of a bipartisan commission. That presumably, if you had just sort of a blanket gerrymandering ban, California's commission would qualify, right? It would count. It would satisfy the kind of broad-based requirements. They would be in compliance, but in practice, the thing is a scam. And you can go look up that ProPublica piece about the way that they scammed it and rigged it. But what was the result? So bear with me. I know this is a lot of facts and figures, but I think I can help illustrate this. And I will endeavor to do so right after this very short break. Some really key points coming up. In the swamp, not of the swamp. Guy Benson. Back on Guy Benson, a lot of people saying, hey, if Republicans are suddenly offended by gerrymandering, why not ban it? Well, let's talk about California. Let's talk about a very recent election year. In 2024, the most recent national general election, pretty good year for Republicans, right? Republicans won the trifecta. It wasn't a blowout, certainly in Congress. Trump did sweep the swing states, and he won the popular vote, but it wasn't like some gigantic margin for him. But it's a good year overall for Republicans. In California, The House map that had put together by this independent, scare quotes, commission, again, that would be presumably AOK under a gerrymandering ban, because look, it's not the politician. It's these commissioners, and it's all very independent. The map in California in House seats produced a 43 to 9 Democrat to Republican House seats outcome.

43 Democrats, nine Republicans. In a year, that cycle, if you look at the whole state combined in California, about 40% of the voters voted for a Republican for the House. 6040 is what the popular vote on House of Representatives races combined across California. 60D 40R. And what we got was 43 Democrat seats and nine Republican seats. 17% were Republican seats of the entire California delegation. So 40% of the vote translated into 17% of the seats. That is... outrageous. That is not remotely fair or proportionate or representative. That is basically a really hardcore gerrymander that was done under the fig leaf of a bipartisan or independent commission where the Democrats were pulling all the strings anyway and they jiggered the thing. to have that kind of 83% to 17% house outcome in a 6040 percentage-wise voter split. You can just see how disproportionate and out of whack that is. And that status quo, by the way, in 2024, that was more gerrymandered than Texas's new map. Texas did their partisan gerrymander under their own rules in their state, tried to add five Republican seats. That's what they did. And even still the new Texas map is significantly more fair and more proportional and more representative than California's was before California took back the power into the politicians and gerrymandered to add five more seats to retaliate, quote unquote, against Texas. California under the Independent Commission was more gerrymandered than Texas was after their gerrymandering. And now it's even worse, of course, because of the whole Gavin Newsom power grab, and they added five seats. So it's significantly worse. And for all the but Texas sputtering that you're hearing, especially on the left, I will also point out that now that we've seen Virginia do what it has done, if that stands, if the court in Richmond upholds that, you will now have 9% of the seats held by Republicans. in a state where 48% of the House vote went to Republicans. 48% of the statewide vote went to Republicans in the last general election. They will now have 9% of the seats. That is twice as unfair, twice as gerrymandered as Texas's new gerrymander. So again, I mean, the Democrats have escalated here in multiple ways. And I suppose my overall argument now comes back to this, the gerrymandering ban. If you can have it pass constitutional muster, if it can be written in a fair-minded, straightforward way, how could you guarantee that the commission result in Virginia would prevail over the California model where it's rigged by a political party? The fact that the commission in California was able to...

slope the thing to the left as dramatically as it did while also patting themselves on the back and saying, look, we don't do partisan gerrymandering. That makes me and should make you very suspicious of any sort of blanket requirement against gerrymandering. Because you've got to go not just with the overall vibes and the spirit of the law, you also have to get the outcomes that comport with the goal. The Virginia model? Before last night? Yes. The California model? No. So it's not as simple as just saying ban gerrymandering. They haven't put together a clean, acceptable legislation package on that to begin with. They've shown Democrats that they are willing to ban gerrymandering when they think it's in their interest and then unban it when they have their own partisan adventures to pursue. And if you're going to get to a place where you want to consider a national requirement to ban gerrymandering, how on earth do you do that? This is me trying to be constructive, not saying it could never happen. I am on high alert. My antenna is up. How do you do it in such a way where the California manipulation doesn't happen in places like that? Therein lies the real struggle. and the real challenge. It's not so easy, breezy, snappy sloganeering from a lot of people, some of whom I would say are very clearly operating in bad faith. Beware of that. A lot of technical conversation there on these subjects, but they matter a ton. And if you think that we're done having this fight as a country, I think you're deluding yourself after last night with all the passions raging, which is why I really wanted to make all of these points and lay them out as clearly as I can to inform the conversation as best I can. And with that, we will move on to our final hour of Guy Benson. U.S. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa on a host of topics is straight ahead.

Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit the longdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson. It is the happy hour here on Guy Benson on this Wednesday. We are grateful that you're here with us. Guy Bensonshow.com is our online home. Podcast is always free, lots of other goodies there. You can also find the free podcast daily at Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Email us, GBS at Fox.com. Follow us on social at Guy Benson. You can follow me, Guy Benson. This radio hour brought you by our friends at the Finnish long drinks. So good. It is an alcoholic beverage. So always drink responsibly. Thank you. 21 plus only, please, and thank you. Thelongdrink.com. Joining us now is U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa. Senator, good to have you back. Hey, great to be with you, Guy. Thanks so much. You bet. So I want to start with this anti-fraud package that you have led and that Senate Republicans have unveiled. You guys say it would save taxpayers $240 billion. And what you claimed on social media was every day that this bill is not passed. Fraudsters are stealing almost a billion and a half bucks from taxpayers. Talk about the math here. What would this anti-fraud package do? Well, what it does, a number of very simple, common sense things that we have bundled together. One, require every single treasury payment to have a description and the ability to cross-check it. To stop transfers of taxpayer dollars abroad, we saw this a lot in the Minnesota fraud scheme. require transparency of every tax dollar and demand answers on improper payments. Again, going back to that first one, I said, making sure that we can cross-check it and have a description. There's a lot of improper payments that go back that are never recovered. We need to prohibit funds from going to the countries of our adversaries. We need to make sure that we're disclosing cash assistance that could go to the Taliban. And also ensure that COVID criminals are caught and held accountable. We have so many instances of this. So it's just simple accounting mechanisms that I used to use when I was at the local level of the county auditor. And I am so darn surprised that what we have found in trying to audit federal government and in trying to check expenditures that we don't do these simple things. Now, opponents of this.

I assume, will pretend that this is really just spending cuts, mean-spirited cuts to vital programs, and women, children, people of color, hit hardest, right? This is what they always do whenever you try to rein in fraud or abuse or something like this. Have you heard a compelling counter argument to this? And what would you say to people who'd say, all these are just spending cuts disguised as anti-fraud? As we're looking at this, opponents might say that, oh my gosh, you know, you're maybe going after SNAP or maybe you're going after health care programs. And we're not at all, Guy. There is no proposal included in this package that is going to change the federal nutrition program or our health care programs. that would protect those that need additional assistance or elderly. No, we are not doing that. This is simple anti-fraud, anti-abuse measures that should, again, be very, very common sense across the board. I would even say, too, one of the bills that we have included in the package is authored by Gary Peters, who is a Democrat of Michigan. We have a number of Democrats that have actually co-sponsored some of the bills that are being included in this package. So we have 17 different anti-fraud bills that I've rolled into one kind of omnibus anti-fraud package, and there's 13 different authors or primary co-sponsors or primary sponsors that have included legislation in this package. We have more that are coming out and signing on as co-sponsors. So it's a really good package. It's a bipartisan package. So those that are opposed to it, they will just simply be opposed because they've seen their states benefit from incredible fraud perpetuated upon our American taxpayer. All right. So let me just clarify one thing because you said one of the elements of the package. was authored by a Michigan Democrat, Gary Peters. Is that the bipartisanship, or are you getting actual existing Senate Democrats? signing on now to this full package as co-sponsors? We don't have any that have signed on as original co-sponsors yet, but we do have a number of those bills that are also co-authored by Democrats. Yes. So it's been really good because we have worked with people like Maggie Hassan and others and Gary Peters, who are really kind of common sense, work with Republicans to find ways. that we can better protect our taxpayer kind of Democrats. You know, we like people like that. We want them to engage with us. We want them to help make our bills better and help us move this bill through the United States Senate. Do you think you could pass? Well, I hope it passes. And for heaven's sakes, when we bring it up for a vote.

Please take note of those who vote know against it. Poor who filibuster, right? That's the other concern. They might filibuster this. That as well. So there is no reason that this should not make it through the United States Senate other than you will have people, again, minority, the Democrats, who have allowed their states to be overrun by fraudsters and taking advantage of all of the other hardworking Americans who are paying their tax dollars. You know, these fraudsters come in, they snatch it away. We've got to stop that. What we saw with Nick Shirley in Minnesota and the journalism, the investigative journalism that he did there in the Somali population, it really opened the eyes of so many Americans. And we estimate that every single day we lose about 10% of our expenditures to fraud. That's a lot of money. At the end of the day, come the close of the fiscal year, to lose 10% of our buying power as a federal government is such a waste. On that score, one of the states that has been really just flooded with fraud is California. And there have been a few reports even by... the likes of CBS News and others that have gone in and looked at some of these programs that have received state aid or Medicaid funding, taxpayer funding at the federal level, that it's very clear the red flags are flapping in a very stiff breeze of fraud in California. And one area was Southern California, Los Angeles, and hospice care facilities getting all this taxpayer money. And it's just, it stinks to high heaven. Dr. Oz, the CMS. administrator in the Trump administration, he told an incredible story and dropped this fact in an interview with our friend Katie Pavlach, specifically involving Los Angeles hospice care. Listen to Cut 27. We're seeing the same thing in California with hospice, where you have one-third of all the hospices, Katie, in the entire country, are in Los Angeles, not California, just L.A. I mean, how many people are dying there? Yeah. Right? So you obviously have a loud question. We, and I'll make this announcement at your show, we have stopped payments to 450 hospices in California. Guess what? Not one has called us asking to reinstitute them. Wow. They may change their minds over time. But in 10 weeks, we've shut down 450 payments systems to these guys that's representing at least $600, 700 million just this year. And no one's complaining. Senator, we played that clip earlier in the week. That is quite a revelation. And with all the caveats in place, some people might eventually see that the spigots turned off and they're doing a legitimate job caring for people at end of life. And they say, actually, hang on, where did my funding go? That's one thing. But the fact that they shut down the funding for hundreds of these supposed hospice centers in L.A. And weeks and weeks and weeks later had not received a single complaint. Suggest to me that there's...

an astounding amount of fraud going on there. Oh, my heavens, yes, absolutely. And again, if we go back to this bill that we're proposing by making sure that certain payments are tagged with a description of what's going out, if you can then go in and use AI to search the Treasury database and you see that, wow, we have all of these payments that are flowing out and going to hospice centers in LA. you know, far more than what we see in any other state or city across the United States. That should be a red flag. And so greater efficiencies within the system and making sure that we are appropriately entering the information for any disbursement of an American taxpayer dollar. I mean, for heaven's sakes, how long has that been going on, yet nobody could catch it? because we didn't make it searchable. Or they didn't want to catch it in some cases, I would guess. Here's the other thing, Senator, and I've credited this point to my friend Mary Catherine Hamm, and it was such a good one. You actually could even go back further than just the Obamacare point I'm going to make here, back to the Medicaid so-called cuts in the working families' tax cut, big beautiful bill that you guys passed, that has resulted in so much more money flowing back into families' bank accounts with these tax refunds, which is a big win for... families and businesses. When you guys passed that, you guys were hammered and inundated with all these claims that you were cutting Medicaid for vulnerable people and they wouldn't have their health care. I know they came after you very hard on that. And the point that you guys kept making was, no, we are making sure that only people who are U.S. citizens and eligible. for these programs are actually getting the money. And that was framed as a draconian cut by Republicans. Similarly, last year, you remember this well, Democrats in the Senate shut down the government for the longest shutdown at that point ever. And their excuse, their rationale for doing so was these Obamacare supposedly temporary emergency COVID-era subsidies that the Democrats had. jammed through on a party-line vote, never had any Republican buy-in, then they extended them the temporary and emergency subsidies that were going to even very rich families. They said, oh, we have to extend them again, or people are going to lose their health care and they'll be dying, and we're going to shut down the government unless the Republicans go along with yet another extension of these, what they wanted to become basically permanent, non-emergency subsidies that were not part of Obamacare originally. You guys actually held firm. The Republicans said, we're not going to do that. They got the government back open after this whole hissy fit by the Democrats. Their chosen excuse was these Obamacare subsidies, which have now expired. And, Senator, I'm sure there are some examples somewhere.

of people who've been impacted by it, but the loud nationwide wailing of misery that the Democrats predicted, I haven't really seen that. Have you, I feel like between the Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid, we know how much fraud has been just pumped into those vats of money. It seems like a lot of that money. It's now been confirmed was going to fraudulent sources because the supposed victims that Democrats were talking about have not exactly come out of the woodwork the way the Democrats were insisting they would. You know, I, yes, I have many conversations with health care providers about this. And of course, you know, our states and our health care providers would love to see that additional Medicaid money continuing. And they will say, yes, this was a cut. But I would say, no, it wasn't a cut, because think of it, it was temporary. So think of it as a bonus. We're going to give you a bonus this year because of the COVID hardships. Well, you can't cut a bonus. I mean, a bonus is like a one-time thing. That's what the temporary payment was. And now that that has ceased to exist, I'm not really hearing from constituents that, you know, not the teeth gnashing and wailing, you know, that you describe. And yes, there probably are impacts to certain families, and that's who we want to help. So I always tell people, you know, if this is impacting you and you think it shouldn't be impacting you, please reach out to me and we can serve as a conduit between the agency and you and your family. We are happy to do that. But by and large, when we said enough enough... You know, all we're asking is that you volunteer in your community, that you go to job training so that you can better your life skills and get a better job. You know, if we ask you to work part-time, you know, that's not too much to ask, you know, of an individual who is relying on the country to support them. in their medical needs. Totally. And I think this is such an important point. We've made these arguments you guys did, too. The Democrats just sort of cut through all of it saying, screaming, cut, cut, cut, and it's mean, and people are going to lose their health care with Medicaid cuts and Obamacare cuts. And you guys had these very common sense steps. And if we can't even do things like that, how can we ever fix? this basket case that we have fiscally in the country. And that's part of the tug of war that's happening in our politics right now. And again, not extending the temporary emergency COVID Obamacare subsidies that were not part of Obamacare until then. If you can't even sunset those, again, what are we doing here? And the parade of horribles that they said.

was going to march through American streets with all this misery and wailing and gnashing of teeth. That has not happened. And I think that is something that we need to pay attention to. Remember predictions versus outcomes, rhetoric versus reality. These are important to highlight. Senator, there's another government shutdown that we have to talk about, the one that's actually still going on. I want to get your thoughts on that as soon as we come back. Joni Ernst on Guy Benson. Miss a minute. Miss a lot. Guy Benson. We're back on Guy Benson, our final hour, our happy hour. Thank you for tuning in. Iowa Senator Joni Ernst is with us. We've been having a great conversation. Finally, Senator Ernst, I do want to ask you about the DHS shutdown, which is still going on. This is a much longer shutdown than the one we just referenced, although it's just of this one department. It sounds like there's supposedly a plan to... get through this. The Democrats caused this shutdown. Republicans have not been on exactly the same page, but apparently they're going to get it done. But DHS is warning that we're again hitting a wall soon about running out of money to pay TSA workers, etc. Is this going to be resolved by the Republicans who control Congress? Yes, it will. And this is the unfortunate circumstance that we are in currently. Because the Democrats will not negotiate, because of their absolute hatred of President Trump, what they are doing is continuing to allow DHS to be shut down, meaning TSA, Coast Guard, our Secret Service, others that fall within that department, Department of Homeland Security investigations, who go after the worst of the worst, you know, amongst the population. All of these folks are suffering the consequences of no paychecks and still continuing to work. The Democrats will not come to the table. They will not talk to our appropriations negotiators. So here's the situation we are in. We will have to move forward on a budget resolution. With that resolution, we will roll into a bill where we will be able to fund DHS, we'll be able to fund, you know, the Border Patrol and ICE. And so we have been forced into this position. Republicans in the Senate will take care of it. Republicans in the House will take care of it. We will get the bill to the president. But it really is affecting our outlook for appropriations in the future. It is really unfortunate that we can't work in a bipartisan way to make sure that our government is working effectively and efficiently.

Well, especially when it comes to enforcing immigration laws, which it seems like the opposition party doesn't actually want to do now as a matter of policy. That's a significant concern moving forward and a conversation that will, of course, continue. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, our guest here on Guy Benson. Senator, appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, Guy. And the happy hour resumes after this break. Keep it right here. Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. In our first hour today, we were very happy to have back, Molly Hemingway, big week for her. She, of course, is the editor-in-chief of the Federalist. And as of yesterday, the author of a newly released, sure-to-be bestseller, Samuel Alito, the justice who reshaped the Supreme Court to restore the Constitution available now at MZ Hemingway on social. Here's part of my conversation with Molly. These charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is at least bills itself as an anti-hate organization. It is in fact a far-left hate organization that has raised a ton of money through the years. And now they've been indicted by a federal grand jury after this federal investigation. What is the crux of the indictment, Molly? Well, I was going to say, as someone who has long been critical of the Southern Poverty Law Center, I was shocked by the details in the indictment. And what the federal government is alleging is that the SPLC was funding some of the leaders of many of the racist groups, even funding people who were... involved in the organization of things like the Unite the Right event that led to the death of a woman and which Joe Biden said was the entire reason he ran for president. The Charlottesville thing. And then they were concealing this through, you know, lying to banks about the purpose of various accounts, which you're not allowed to do. They were obviously also lying to their donors and the federal government about how they were financing the groups they claimed to be opposing. And it's just, this is a group that put out hate maps and hate lists. that led to real violence. The guy who shot up the Family Research Council found them on a map put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which said, this group over there is hateful. And then they said Charlie Kirk was on their hate list. He was assassinated months later. They have targeted every single group they politically oppose and labeled them as racist and bigots and hateful. And then media companies used this. to censor people. It's a really nefarious organization. And if this stuff is, as alleged, it is apocalypticly bad for the Southern Poverty Law Center, that they were literally giving money to the KKK leadership. Yeah, millions. Millions to KKK in neo-Nazi groups and sending people like helping with transportation for the Charlottesville thing.

And what people are saying is, well, they need, maybe there's not enough genuine, hardcore racism out there to justify the Southern Poverty Law Center and all the money that they want for their various deeds. And so they were going to fund and gin up and astroturf some racism themselves. And that's what this is alleging and alleging that they. broke the law several ways in doing so. And yet, and we're seeing this very quickly congealing, the talking point on the left, Democrats are racing to the defense of SPLC, saying, in fact, that it's the Department of Justice that needs to be held accountable. Hakeem Jeffries was suggesting that maybe people meet to go to prison at DOJ for this investigation. But the media, of course, going right along with it, the talking point now is. SPLC was, this is quoting USA Today, indicted for paying sources to infiltrate hate groups, a tactic federal agencies have used for decades. They're saying, oh, well, they were just infiltrating these groups to see what they were up to and then helping out federal agencies who do this kind of thing. So this is a witch hunt by the Trump DOJ against political opponents. That is the spin, Molly. It's an amazing spin. I want to say first off, there are a lot of people who actually do criticize the FBI for claiming that that's what they're doing. But then when the details come out, you see that actually the FBI informants were the ones instigating hate crimes or attempted terrorists. And so the idea is bad enough for the FBI to do it. And it really isn't great. But the SPLC is not the FBI. And also, it's more akin. They did like to spin this as informants. These were leaders of the group. actually doing things like the Unite the Right rally. So it does not pass muster. And John Roberts had said earlier this afternoon that this was more akin to a fire department paying arsonists to set fires so that they could. get more money to put them out. And that's exactly right. They were telling donors, there's this big problem with racism. They didn't tell the donors that we ourselves are creating and you give us more money. And they got, they got, they have so much money, guy. It's unbelievable. Like corporations have been funneling money to the SPLC for decades and they have offshore accounts. It's a real scandal here. And the charges are not that they were trying to infiltrate hate groups. The charges have to do with wire fraud and false statements like actual crimes. And you wouldn't know that from a lot of the news coverage, of course. And I mean, the Democrats furious blowing up in defense of this group, which is, you know, part of the foot soldiers, these militias really on the left. It's breathtaking this story. We'll get more of a legal angle and a law enforcement angle on it from Paul Morrow in the next hour. Meanwhile, Molly Hemingway, Samuel Alito out yesterday, the Justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution, your latest book, sure to be a bestseller. I am confident. Let's talk about this book.

in how it came together, because Samuel Alito is beloved by many conservatives, utterly reviled on the left. In particular, he was the author of the Dobbs' decision overturning Rovers' way to calamity for the legal left, and so he has been attacked every which way. You have written this biography of him, inside story. Tell us about your sourcing and your access to justices, multiple, in writing this book. Well, it is part biography. It's part a behind-the-scenes look at the Supreme Court and a look at the jurisprudence of the various justices and how they go about things. And it's partly a deep dive into that Dobbs decision and the leak. And to write something with that type of scope, I did interview close to 100 people, some of them many times. I was privileged to interview most of the justices and many. you know, federal judges and law clerks, law deans of law schools, you know, pretty high-level people to get this story because, of course, you know, Samuel Alito has been around enough that a lot of his, the people who know him best are at that level. And it was a really wonderful experience to get these stories. from these people and be able to tell them. I'm really happy with how it turned out. That full interview with Molly Hemingway, partially about news of the day, partially about her new book, Samuel Alito, available online at Guy Benson.com. Part of the free podcast every day on demand, no charge at all. The home stretch is coming up next. A few funny observations about being, well, roughly my age. I'll explain when we come back. New talk for a new generation, Guy Benson. And now. It's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home Stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on. So I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. Home stretch on this Wednesday on Guy Benson. Thank you for tuning in. Guy Benson.com. Podcasts always free when the show ends in a matter of minutes. I saw a viral tweet had millions of views that made me chuckle. especially as someone who is now my age, which is 41 years old. And I laugh because it's true. And it's just funny when you arrive at new stages of life, how you start to think of yourself and your peer group and you look forward and you look backward. Here is a brief meditation by someone named Ben Eisenhardt.

on being in your 40s. And he says specifically early 40s, so I would qualify. He writes, being in your early 40s is weird, man. People around your age are in every stage of life. You have people who are grandparents. You have people who have newborns. You have people dating 25-year-olds. You have people celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary. Some look 60. Some look 30. All the bases are covered when you're in your 40s. And then there's someone else who goes by DJ Crowbar on X or Twitter, who seems to have ripped off the tweet, which also then went viral. Similar points. But he added a funny line at the end saying, it looks like a confused group project being in your 40s. And I can confirm what I was thinking about the different categories of people that were. mentioned by this guy, Ben, and it's like, yeah, there are people in their 40s that I know who are now becoming grandparents, which is, again, astounding to me because I'm a parent of a young child with another baby on the way. I will be one of these 40-somethings with a newborn while others are becoming grandparents. And then, yes, there are people who are dating. well below their age into the 20s, other people who have been married since college or just after college to, let's say, their high school sweetheart, and they're talking about being together for 20 or 25 years, which is why some of them have potentially grandkids coming on the way. And then, yes, the 40s people age at different rates. And some people, it's just genetics, lucky or unlucky. Some of it is how you've lived your life and all of that. Some things in your control. Some things not. But there is a wide spectrum of people in their 40s from, oh, wow, that person looks really youthful and good to, well, that person is looking a little rough. Not sure if we'd say 60, which was his joke, but it is an interesting decade of life, no doubt. And so we were talking about sort of the passage of time to quote our great former vice president here in the home stretch yesterday and just feeling a little wistful and sentimental about my own son and going to check out preschools yesterday and playing a little bit of him singing. And I heard from a lot of you, by the way. And if you missed it, you can go back on the podcast, Guy Benson.com. A little clip of him singing, twinkle, twinkle, little star into his fake microphone. And it was just the cutest thing. And I felt like I was worried that I was maybe being a little too self-indulgent, something that a parent finds adorable but may not be relevant to a wider audience. Well, many of you reached out and apparently loved it. And yeah, I'm sorry, there's something very pure and innocent and wonderful about a little kid singing. So that was the mood I was in yesterday. This one's a little bit more sarcastic and a little bit more of a jaundiced eye looking at life and just sort of a wry sense of humor about where I currently am on the age spectrum, like fully middle-aged. I know that some people assume.

or associate middle age with maybe people a little bit older than I am. But if you look at the actuarial charts, right, about how long on average Americans tend to live, I would be pretty much smack dab in middle age right now, which is a bit head spinning, but also is what it is. Like, not going to freak out about it. Just try to enjoy it to some extent. And I just on this point wanted to bring in the boys here. Christine is on vacation this week, not a surprise. And it's a shame because we have multiple decades represented right now. We have someone in his 20s, someone in his 30s, I'm in my 40s. And sadly with Christine not here today off on her vacation, we are lacking that. sort of elder stateswoman if you will someone who's much older than any of the rest of us representing a completely different decade and different generation as cookie is A boomer, I kind of forget where she is, like, very end of Gen X, beginning of boomers, I forget what it is. 50s, 60s, I don't think 70 yet. I'm not always clear on that, but we'll just have to get her wisdom that has come with a lot of age when she's back from this vacation if she ever does return, supposedly next week. So let's just, let's cap it at the 40s, where I am, and then take a few steps back. Joelle, you are early 30s, right? Correct. Exactly 30. When do you turn 30? September, Soma, September baby Virgo. Got it. Okay. Were you dreading your 30s or kind of comfortable with it? Because I know some people, when they get to the big birthdays with a zero at the end of it, that often either triggers some sort of like existential crisis or people are like totally ready. Were you at one end of that spectrum? Oh, I was heavily going through an existential crisis. My fiance, Christina, could tell you that the existential crisis was real. I just think it was because I loved my 20 so much. I know. maybe like episodes ago, you told me that your 30s are the beginning of a new chapter in your life. It's really where life starts for you. So it was just a lot of, oh, man, I don't know what's really expected in my 30s. Am I really going to have fun? Is the lower back pain going to kick in as everyone joked about with me? Right. Is the fun over? Is my youth over? All that stuff. And I just will reassure you yet again, 30s are amazing.

I think they're just incredible because there's still the youthfulness of the 20s, but you're hopefully more established, more comfortable in your own skin. You are maybe further along in your career and therefore have some more disposable income. You can do more things that you wish you could have done, at least do them in a nicer way than you could in your 20s. 30s were like an amazing sweet spot, and now I'm learning a lot of new, exciting things about my 40s, but I absolutely loved my 30s. I also could not wait to be 30. I was maybe rare in that sense because I wanted people to take me more seriously in this line of work where I'd go on TV and offer thoughts or whatever and people on Twitter would be screaming at me like, do you even shave? Like I wanted to look and feel a little bit older and have more gravitas. And so I was excited for 30. I was less eager, I will admit, for 40. But the 30s are great. Don't sweat it. Dylan, you are right. in the middle of your 20s, 25. How are you feeling about it? Are you feeling? Because a lot of people in their 20s have a lot of fun, but they're a little angsty about things and feeling stuck and they want to get on with their life. And they're not sure if they're on the right path. There's a lot of that happening in your 20s. Although you also got married and settled down right out of college. So you're not a typical 25-year-old. Yes, yeah, we got married. We graduated from college. Mel's actually got a degree lead on me, so she graduated with her master's. I graduated with my bachelor's in May. of 2023, and we got married June 9th of the next month. So we got married right out of college. So we're a little bit further ahead, I would say, in terms of life stages than a lot of 20-year-olds. But, you know, I mean, being in my mid-20s, Mel's a few years older than me, she's 27 and is already telling me that she's a cougar. I know. She's coming up. She's robbing the cradle. I know. I tell her that all the time. And she gets more and more tired of it every time I say it. But she is already talking about how she's going to be almost 30. I'm telling her to stop. Like she's got three years left in her 20s. I've got five. And, you know, I think there is a little bit of that angst of like wanting to continue to progress in our lives. at the same time, trying to enjoy our 20s. Yes. And also, like, we don't need to get too far ahead of ourselves. We're in our 20s. We've got plenty of time in our relationship to, you know, start a family, experience the world. And so it's just, it's an interesting dichotomy of where we're at right now. And I would just say, to quote the great Dana Perino, I believe it was a title of her book, everything is going to be okay. And there is just this irony, I think, that when you are getting older, you look back on being younger and you're like, oh, man, I wish I could be that again. And when you're younger, you're looking ahead to the things that you wish you...

have and that you hadn't achieved yet, and am I going to get to that place? You're always looking ahead, and then you start looking back, and I just think there's something to be said for looking around. Of course, being ambitious and planning, and I'm not saying you should just be heading the clouds, but just appreciating where you are, because you can't really avoid it anyway. So try to make the best of it. And there's a lot to be said for being 25, 30, or 41, or 63 or whatever Christine is. We'll have to ask her when she comes back, if she comes back from this vacation. But for now, we are out of here. We're done back on the Thursday edition of Guy Benson coming up tomorrow. Same time, same place. We'll talk to you then. Your team just added its 67th AI tool and also your 67th security blind spot. The good news? The Vanta agent works like a GRC engineer in the background, finding every app your team uses, scoring the risk, and drafting fixes for you. Vanta is the platform used by over 16,000 fast-moving companies like Ramp, Cursor, and Harvey, who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk. Get started at Vanta.com. Listen to the show ad free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.