Episode 5323: Stopping The Unconstitutional Gerrymandering Of Virginia
Stephen K. Bannon and guests dissect Virginia's unconstitutional gerrymandering, where a court blocked a partisan map due to misleading ballot language, potentially escalating to the U.S. Supreme Court despite Democratic control of the state judiciary. The episode also covers Ohio's alleged 35,000 invalid voter records, Florida's district redrawing efforts, and Eli Crane's H-1B reform bill requiring $200,000 minimum wages. Meanwhile, Trump asserts U.S. energy dominance over Saudi Arabia and Russia while criticizing past G7 exclusions of Putin, arguing that diplomatic engagement remains vital despite ongoing geopolitical tensions. [Automatically generated summary]
Trump is now ordering the Navy to shoot and kill all Iranian boats that are dropping mines as the stalemate over the Strait of Hormuz shows no signs of letting up.
Today, the Defense Department announced it had boarded a sanctioned stateless vessel in the Indian Ocean that was carrying Iranian oil.
And as talks with Tehran stall, President Trump is increasing the pressure.
A short time ago, he posted that he has all the time in the world, but Iran doesn't to strike a deal and that time is not on their side.
Just one day after Virginia became the latest state to redraw its congressional map, For partisan benefit, a court there has now blocked the results from being certified.
The judge in rural Tazewell County says the language on the ballot was, quote, flagrantly misleading and accused state lawmakers of not following their own rules.
So, if you look at their various challenges here brought by the RNC and other Republican entities, they're basically making two types of challenges here.
One is substantive.
So, they're arguing that the way the question was phrased on the ballot was unfair, was misleading.
And there is some legitimacy to that.
I mean, the question asks, do you want to, quote, restore fairness?
To the process.
Who's going to realistically vote no on that?
I mean, a lot of people did, but it's slanted.
I don't know if it's slanted enough to win the legal challenge.
But the second category is the procedural challenges.
And that's where I think the challengers have some real heft behind their arguments.
For example, one of the laws says if you're going to do this, the Virginia General Assembly has to pass a law, and then voting, the referendum, can't start for 90 days after the law is passed.
Here, we're not even 90 days out now, and the voting's done.
So I don't know. how Virginia is going to defend that.
There's another procedural quirk, I guess, that says the way you have to do this is the Virginia General Assembly has to pass a law, then you need to have an intervening election, then a second General Assembly needs to pass the law again.
And the argument here that you're hearing from the defenders is, well, the 2025 governor election, that's the intervening election.
The problem is that overlapped with the first vote.
So there's some procedural nuance here that I think is going to be a real problem for people defending this outcome.
And I think it's going to give the Republicans a chance to actually get it knocked down on the legal challenges.
First of all, each of these is very intensely state focused, right?
You're getting into things that were passed as part of the original constitutional conventions in the 1700s and 1800s.
I also think the extremity of this redistricting, the fact that you have a state that's roughly 50 50, a little bit Democratic leaning, Ends up with a 10 to 1 congressional split.
I don't know how that's going to sit when it gets up the line in the courts.
It's not technically legally relevant, but I think the extremity of this is going to be something that judges do take notice of.
We may play that again to let that sink into folks about what the challenges are here and what happened in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Rob Lockwood's got a great piece in the Washington Post.
We're going to bring him in.
And of course, I want to go back through that H 1B to make sure everybody understands what the great Eli Crane has done.
And so then we can get up on Bill Blaster and Article 3 and man the ramparts here for support to get more co sponsors of this.
I want to start in the Buckeye State, the great state of Ohio, kind of the railhead of the MAGA movement, a state that President Trump came in and kind of took off the playing field as far as being competitive.
It used to be the battleground state.
It hasn't been under President Trump because the spreads there have been very big, although coming up this fall, it's going to be much, much tighter.
Secretary of State, running for Secretary of State, Marcel Sturbidge joins us by phone.
Sir, thank you very much.
I have heard.
Your name, they just finished the Tom Fitton down in Doral, the Judicial Watch seminar, I think for the last three or four days.
And people are talking about you as the next rock star Secretary of State.
Why are people so enthusiastic about your campaign and people that matter, like the Tom Fittons of the world, the Cleta Mitchells, the people that have been fighting to get great Secretaries of State in to these state offices, sir?
What this campaign reflects is an outcome of the constitutional crisis that rocked our country.
And I was in the military post 9 11, and I experienced all of it from military service members being purged out to DEI.
And I reflected on my 9 11 years of service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I reached a point where I realized I cannot fight this fight from within the military ranks as an Air Force Intel officer.
So I decided to take that fight back to Ohio, the home state of my wife.
And I realized that even in the state of Ohio, we have some serious issues.
Our elections are in trouble.
And whereas, let's say Secretary of State wasn't as important of a position maybe 10 years ago, it is the center point of gravity right now in each and every state, reflective of the fact that they oversee ballot referendums.
And you saw what happened in Virginia with the audience.
And so I'm taking this on as a cause post military.
And I've been at this in the trenches for the last three years, pushing legislation hard.
And whatever it takes, this is my task and purpose.
Here's the issue we have an election season, not an election day in Ohio.
The Republicans have been accommodating Democrats for the past two decades and making it all about accessibility here.
And that means we're not focused on verifiability and eligibility verification on the front end.
I discovered that we have 50 to 100,000 voter records that are mismatched or invalid.
In fact, there are 35,000 records on Ohio's voter rolls whose social security numbers are mismatched, and they have access to a no-excuse ballot.
On top of that, even though we passed the voter ID bill in Ohio, the Republican legislature did a carve-out and exemption for photo ID when it came to mail-in ballots.
And in 2024, when we had our election and about 20% of Ohioans voted by mail in ballot, all of them did not require a copy of a photo ID.
So, in that regard, we are not as fortified as a bellwether state as people say we are.
Although it's been in the interest of every elected official who's run through this office because they're in pursuit of the U.S. Senate or governor, there are very few who are mission focused and are looking at this and think long term if we keep the back door open because of an honor system with registration.
Will be right where Virginia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in a matter of years.
Is there an awareness in Ohio about how critical you are to the MAGA movement and particularly how critical you are to national elections?
That if we don't have Ohio, it's going to be virtually impossible for us to put victories.
And the reason is that if we don't keep that spread, if you had to spend a ton of time, if you have spent a lot of money, I mean, this is what we learned in the 16 campaign, the 20, and the 24.
Is there a heightened level of awareness among The MAGA movement there of how essential Ohio is and how we have to keep, we have to have ultimate preeminent voter integrity there?
Yes, now there is, but there is still kind of the holdouts of the Republican Party pre Trump who are holding tight.
You see, we had breakthroughs at the federal level with Vice President Vance winning.
He had to do it the hard way.
So did Senator Bernie Moreno.
So the party grandies who've been in Ohio all the way going back to Governor DeWine in the 1970s have created a system where they've revolved doors.
And so I'm up against an opponent.
I was winning and am winning, but it's tight, and we're going to need all the MAGA in Ohio to come out with President Trump on the bandwagon on this because they have been revolving amongst each other to avoid term limits.
And the track record here we have one of the most favorable states as far as a supermajority legislature.
We've had executive level office for the past 30 years.
This is the state where we should be pushing the agenda for election integrity and setting the pace for all other states.
Instead, we're tiptoeing, and we just passed a bill here recently that.
Disallows ballots after Election Day, but we did so on the basis that we could have faced the Department of Justice Lawson.
So, in that regard, we did it because we were being pushed from the White House.
I want to see a state where we're leaning forward, we're not being pushed in that regard, and we're just solving these issues piece by piece.
You know, I got the fortune of as an Air Force Intel officer being thrown right into Iraq and the operations.
I've overseen both Surge, I did intelligence collection missions, I did human.
I've done tactical, operational, and strategic missions all over the world, eliminating terror targets across four continents.
And then I had the fortune of working with emerging and disruptive technology, moving to Ohio at the time with the National Air and Space Intelligence Center.
And then eventually, I worked for the vice chairman, joint chiefs of staff for five years in the first Trump administration.
I was responsible for updating and upgrading information system programs to the tune of about $25 billion.
So, if there's anybody predisposed and has the ability to update, upgrade the antiquated, outdated voting systems and bring us into the 21st century, which I think it should be pre printed, hand marked paper ballots personally, I think the era of electronic vote casting machines is done and it doesn't coincide well with the cyber threat environment of today.
And that would be one of my imperatives.
It would be that.
It would be requiring only valid excuse mail in ballots in Ohio.
These are scary thoughts to the people who've been doing things the same way 20 years.
But where is that getting us?
Six out of 10 Americans, as you know, Steve, said that they weren't sure about the honesty and trust and the accuracy of the elections in 24.
And so we can't have that.
We need to restore trust and confidence in elections, or we're not going to have a country.
And we certainly almost lost it.
With the open borders.
So I think I've arrived at the right time to lead Ohio.
In 1776, we declared our independence from the United Kingdom, Great Britain.
We won.
We are the greatest nation that's ever existed in this.
We celebrate our 250th birthday.
One of the most lasting gifts that we can give this country is actually rebranding our language to what it is.
It's no longer American English.
We can make it American.
And I think that it's something that could be a fantastic addition to all of the festivities that the president and the Congress and the executive branch have planned.
So I wrote a piece today in the Washington Post arguing for that.
It's something that, going back to our founders' generation, has been debated amongst great thinkers and great minds, and 250 years overdue in my mind.
So I think this is the time to do it if we ever wanted to and plant our flag and say, hey, we're speaking American from here on out.
And I say this to somebody whose surname is English.
I think we won, and it's time that we do this.
We should dump.
English is the official language.
Like we dumped the tea in 17, I think it was 74, actually, but not 76.
But no, dead serious on the timing of this.
I wrote this piece months ago, and the timing is coincidental with the king coming.
But it's also impactful.
And it's something when you look at what President Trump did last year with the naming of renaming the Gulf of America, I thought that was tremendously important.
It was something that was executed at the Department of the Interior.
And when you look at the importance in celebrating American greatness, our language, the tongue we speak, there's nothing greater.
Or, like I said, it could have a longer lasting impact than rebranding as American.
So, yeah, it's a marketing play, but it's one that I think is highly appropriate for our country.
And on the 250th birthday, it's a great gift that we can give ourselves.
A lot of people still just refer to it as English.
Is there enough about the language itself that's actually structurally changed or the words we use or that maybe the cadence that actually backs up your point that, hey, this is, we speak American.
I mean, the question asks, do you want to, quote, restore fairness to the process?
Who's going to realistically vote no on that?
I mean, a lot of people did, but it's slanted.
I don't know if it's slanted enough to win the legal challenge.
But the second category is the procedural challenges.
And that's where I think the challengers have some real heft behind their arguments.
For example, one of the laws says if you're going to do this, the Virginia General Assembly has to pass a law and then voting, the referendum can't start for 90 days after the law is passed.
Here, We're not even 90 days out now and the voting's done.
So I don't know how Virginia is going to defend that.
There's another procedural quirk, I guess, that says the way you have to do this is the Virginia General Assembly has to pass a law, then you need to have an intervening election, then a second General Assembly needs to pass the law again.
And the argument here that you're hearing from the defenders is, well, the 2025 governor election, that's the intervening election.
The problem is that overlapped with the first vote.
So there's some procedural nuance here that I think is going to be a real problem For people defending this outcome.
And I think it's going to give the Republicans a chance to actually get it knocked down on the legal challenges.
I am just, I'm pretty skeptical about the legal process in Virginia that's about to play out.
I mean, as you mentioned, in Virginia, the Supreme Court justices, they're not appointed by the governor or elected like in many states.
In fact, there's only two states where the justices are actually elected by the state legislature.
So these seven justices are elected by the Virginia state legislature, they serve 12 year terms and come up for reelection.
But here's the kicker the Democrats of Virginia have a large majority in both the state House and the state Senate.
So, the same Supreme Court justices that are going to rule on this redistricting effort also have to be reelected by this hyper partisan Democrat state legislature in Virginia.
So, like, forgive me that I am not overly confident in this.
And as you did mention, you know, they have already rejected this twice.
And even if they let it come through into them, I just don't see them.
They'll use the excuse of we're not going to overturn the will of the voters.
I can already probably write exactly what they're going to say to have their cop out, even though it was blatantly unconstitutional, blatantly illegal, but they don't care.
So, yeah, I mean, you heard Ellie, and it's pretty big to get honing to agree with anything that MAGA believes in.
Even with those legal arguments, the procedural arguments that I think are pretty cut and dry, you're saying the politics itself, and particularly as, specifically as Virginia is becoming more radicalized, because this was such a radical process to essentially take Fairfax County.
The home of all these foreign born globalist deep staters and basically infect five congressional districts through the lobster map.
You're saying anybody that would do that, anyone by would have a Supreme Court that wouldn't shut this thing down immediately, don't look for them to save you, even if the law is in your favor?
No, I think Virginia Democrats have a super majority in the House.
I think it's 64 to 30 Republicans, something absurd.
So if you're a Virginia Supreme Court Justice, there are only seven.
Again, they get reelected or reappointed by the legislature, and you get the way you get elected by the legislature is just a simple majority vote.
And so, by you would be signing your death sentence from uh if if you uh overturn you know this this referendum.
And so, while yes, I agree, it is blatantly illegal, blatantly unconstitutional, but I think that these justices will go with the political wins, unfortunately.
How did I'm gonna hold you I'm gonna hold you through the break, and then Rosemary Jenks is also gonna join us on this H 1B visa uh.
Act from legislation from Eli Crane.
How did Virginia get in this situation?
How did Youngkin and the establishment completely destroy, literally destroy the MAGA movement and the Republican Party in one of the most important states in the Union, ma'am?
I know a lot of people didn't even think Virginia was going to go through with this, but Governor Spamberger has chosen to come in extremely hot, very, very aggressive since she's come in, a very partisan left lean Democrat.
And they did, I mean, I'm impressed with what they did.
I wish Republicans fought as hard as the Democrats are on this stuff.
It's unbelievable to me in states like Indiana.
We can't get this done.
And they did something like this in Virginia, which is a purple left leaning state, though.
And so they shoved it through, they got it done.
There was little to no, we were outspent, what, two, three to one by the Democrats on this referendum.
Birchgold.com, promo code Bannon, end of the dollar empire, this huge thing.
And this afternoon, after we did the analysis of Scott Besson and what we had David Malpass, the former head of the World Bank under President Trump, the number three guy in the Treasury Department in his first term, and Eric Bolling, we talked about this.
The media all afternoon has been pounding.
About this, what they're calling a bailout for the United Arab Emirates.
Scott Besson said it's really protecting the dollar.
Why are they protecting the dollar?
Against the BRICS nations.
End of the dollar empire.
Birchgold.com, promo code BANNON.
Get it today.
Seven free installments, a new eighth we just dropped.
Okay, that far left comedian, remember her from years ago, Margaret Cho, not actually.
Very funny, but went on a.
This is in Gateway Pundit, one of their lead stories.
Went on another unhinged tirade on a podcast this week, first accusing President Donald Trump and his administration of having a sexual kink for cruelty to immigrants, trans people, children, and the poor.
So, the Florida legislature is convening for a special session next week, and it's to address redistricting, among other things.
Now, the key here why this is different from Virginia or these other redistricting.
The argument that Governor DeSantis is making, which I think is absolutely correct, is that this is not about partisan gerrymandering.
This is about population change.
I mean, Florida has materially changed since the map was last drawn in 2022.
And that was using the 2020 census data that no longer matches today's reality.
Look, I moved to Florida in 2023 along with millions of others.
I mean, the population has massively shifted.
They've added at least 2 million new residents since that census.
And that is explosive growth.
And these congressional maps in our state, they are badly outdated.
And some of the bluest seats in the state, they've been bleeding residents as well because during COVID and, you know, as the state has gotten more red, the, if you were a Democrat, you left the state of Florida.
And so the, the few Democrat districts that do exist in this state, again, those districts have gotten smaller while Republican districts have absolutely exploded.
And so Florida has to redistrict this year.
I mean, every Floridian does deserve equal representation.
And if you wait until the next census in 2030, that means you would lock in unfair maps for the next.
Four election cycles.
It is not fair.
And that is why I do expect that hopefully this will pass.
Now, whether or not it could be, I've heard nobody's seen the maps yet, but it could add somewhere between one and five seats.
I think five is pretty unlikely.
Certainly, hope they go for four because I do think the population growth is that large.
But all eyes are going to be on Florida next week.
I want to watch this process and see how it unfolds throughout the week.
I mean, I think it is unbelievably important for the future of our country.
Again, I'm a resident of Florida, so this deeply matters to me.
I actually live in this weird, slipper, gerrymandered district.
Myself, every single neighbor person in my neighborhood has a Trump or MAGA sign, yet we have a Sheila, the woman I can't even pronounce her double last name, who just had to resign.
I'm technically in her district, and the way it's drawn is insane.
I'm like, I live in a red district, but I have a congresswoman who's now since resigned that I should not have, and this district should not have.
And so they need to match the population growth in places like Palm Beach County that have absolutely exploded.
Caroline Ford, Lucia, there's a total mismatch in resources, and you understand this.
Business, this part of the business better than anyone.
You've got a hundred million dollars being spent to destroy the grassroots movement and Ken Pax in Texas.
And people are furious about this now.
In Virginia, not one penny was spent to really support the grassroots, which could have won this four or five million bucks.
I think Sean Spice could have won this just by getting some professional phones, door knockers, just some support for the grassroots who turned out amazingly with no money and no support at all.
I've been yelling about this with the Republican Party since about 2014.
I've been yelling about it on your show for the last, I don't know, four, six years.
But it is unbelievably frustrating.
Republican money is spent based off of television buys, and it's spent based off of consultants that get a percentage on placing a TV buy, which, by the way, is the easiest thing known to man.
It doesn't take some genius to be able to do that, but they get these massive percentages.
And so it forces you, whether or not you're running a statewide campaign, an issue advocacy effort, they always just want to spend money.
On cable television or on any type of TV where they get 3% on the buy, and you make a million dollar buy, you have a consultant who will get like just, I don't know, they end up making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars each election cycle on placing these ad buys.
And it frustrates me to knowing because there is no, you don't make money, a commission off of spending on the grassroots.
That's why the grassroots never gets any money.
Like this is how our system has been broken.
And the Democrat Party has historically done all their funding, as we just saw with the FBI coming out with the SP, Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Democrat Party funds their campaigns through nonprofits and C4s.
And when you do that, you're actually, you can't spend that money really on television.
You have to use it through things like grassroots and voter registration.
So we are always, that's why we are always at a disadvantage when things like this come up or just voter turnout problems.
And it's because of the broken system our consultant class works in.
Caroline, where do people keep up with you, particularly as you head to Tallahassee next week?
Because this will be the center of gravity of the political world as everyone focuses on how we right the ship in the run up to the midterm elections, man.
Well, first of all, Steve, I want to say that this is what IAP does the Immigration Accountability Project.
This is what we are here for to assist members of Congress in drafting legislation and pushing policies that serve Americans' interests.
This bill is absolutely historic.
It would pause all H 1B visa issuances for a period of three years.
During that three year period, every H 1B visa holder who is currently in the United States would have to leave.
They would not be able to get an extension of their visas.
They would not be able to switch to a different visa status.
They would have to leave the United States.
So that would open up all of the jobs that are currently being held by H 1B visa holders.
After the three year period, The number of H 1B visas would drop by about three quarters from well over 100,000 to 25,000 per year.
Every H 1B employer, every employer who wants to bring an H 1B into the United States would have to agree to pay that person a minimum of $200,000, plus pay the $100,000 Trump fee for every single applicant.
The employer would have to attest that he has tried to find an American worker to fill that job, which is not a requirement right now.
He would also have to show that he has had no layoffs for the previous 12 months and will have no layoffs for the following 12 months.
Basically, any new H 1B who comes into the country would be here for a maximum period of three years.
No extensions, no adjustment of status.
They come, they fill the supposedly temporary labor gap, and then they leave.
So, first of all, it will be more expensive under this bill.
For an employer to bring in a foreign worker than to hire an American.
And that is the goal.
Second, even if an employer really is determined to spend all this money and rely on H 1B workers, that employer is going to have to train a new H 1B worker every three years because none of them are allowed to stay longer than three years.
And by the way, the prohibition on adjustment of status, which is how people switch from an H 1B or a An L visa to some other kind of visa.
It's how foreign students switch to H 1B visas.
That is all prohibited under this bill.
So, foreign students cannot get employment authorization.
So, the bill ends OPT, optional practical training.
It prohibits H visa holders from bringing their families here.
So, no more H 4 EADs for the spouses of H 1B holders.
So, I mean, this is groundbreaking.
It would have a massive impact on the number of jobs that open up for Americans and the incentives for both employers to hire foreign workers and the incentives for the foreign workers.
Because if you're in another country and you're determined to come to the United States permanently, the H 1B is no longer going to be the way to do that because you cannot stay under the provisions of this bill.
I mean, Congressman Crane came to me and said that he wanted to introduce an H 1B reform bill that would actually make a difference, that would help Americans and put American workers first.
And I said, let's do it.
And this is what we came up with.
His staff has been amazing, he has been amazing.
This has been a fantastic process, and I think it is a fantastic bill.
It is not, you know, the elimination of the H 1B program, but I'll tell you what, I don't see how we could get that through Congress.
I think this is a bill that has the possibility of getting enough support to actually start moving.
I think that it is possible that we'll have hearings on this, potentially a markup in the Judiciary Committee.
I think this is a realistic solution and it's a damn good one.
And if you just type in the search bar at the top, Crane, C R A N E. You will find all the information about this bill and the co sponsors of it, and who you need to contact to get more co sponsors.
The contact information for all your members of Congress are on this page, iapaction.com.
Mr. President, apparently there was a special forces soldier who was involved in the capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, who was arrested by federal authorities today on suspicion of insider trading and betting on the poly market.
Are you concerned that federal employees are betting on these prediction markets and potentially getting rich?
There are also bets that are being placed as well on the Iran conflict, too, and there have been some tracking where people suspect that there's insider trading happening on these prediction markets around the war.
Well, I'm pretty sure that that'll be ended very quickly.
Okay, I'll make sure that and I know Lebanon doesn't want that will end up you will you work on that please everybody That's crazy the ship that was captured on Monday.
You said there was a gift for the Iranians in it.
And nobody, nobody gets through.
And nobody wants to get through.
Nobody's trying.
The one tried, they shut out the engine, but nobody's trying.
We have complete control.
Now, they can drop their mines in there and do all those stupid things.
It's just going to take longer for them to make money because the mines are going to affect them much more than they're going to affect us.
And we don't know that they're doing that, but they could be that they're doing that.
If they're doing it, it's a very foolish thing to do.
Just like for Iran to shoot at Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar and Kuwait.
Bahrain, all the different places they shot, nobody expected that.
They thought they'd shoot at Israel at all fairness, but you didn't expect they'd be shooting at numerous other countries.
I think it was a big mistake.
If they're putting mines down, it's a big mistake for them, I will say.
Are you angry at China for what they sent to Iran?
No, but if he came, it would be probably very helpful.
You know, I've said a long time ago when they made the G8, the G7, they threw Russia out before my time.
That was Obama and a certain prime minister from a place called Canada.
It's Trudeau.
And I said, that's a stupid thing to do.
And I was right.
You know, they spent.
I'd go to these meetings of the G7, and about 90% of the meeting was talking about Russia and what's going on with Russia.
And I said, why'd you throw them out?
You know, if they didn't throw them out, they would have been much better off, in my opinion.
You know, it should have been the G8.
But when they threw out President Putin, he was very offended by that.
He was, you know, rightfully, but he was very offended by that.
I venture to say you probably wouldn't be having these problems if you didn't throw them out.
So he's not coming to the G20?
unidentified
Not that I know of, but because there are senior administration officials being quoted in news reports this afternoon that says the Russians are being invited to a lease ministry.