All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2024 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
34:27
Episode 165 LIVE: America Last Foreign Aid (feat. Reps. Ogles & Luna) - Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
you that gates biggest firebrand inside of the House of Representatives You're not taking Matt Gaetz off the board, okay?
Because Matt Gaetz is an American patriot and Matt Gaetz is an American hero.
We will not continue to allow the Uniparty to run this town without a fight.
I want to thank you, Matt Gaetz, for holding the line.
Matt Gaetz is a courageous man.
If we had hundreds of Matt Gaetz in D.C., the country turns around.
It's that simple.
He's so tough, he's so strong, he's smart, and he loves this country.
Matt Gaetz.
It is the honor of my life to fight alongside each and every one of you.
We will save America.
It's choose your fighter time.
Send in the firebrands.
Welcome back to Firebrand.
We are broadcasting live from the friendly confines here at the Rumble Studios in Washington, D.C. I'm going to be joined by two of my colleagues to go over the work of the day.
And there was a foreign aid bill largely constructed by Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell some months ago.
It was the globalist dreamboat of ideas, everything from funding research and development in other countries to a quarter of a billion dollars for the World Bank.
And a whole lot of money for Ukraine, not just money for lethal munitions in the fight, but the funding of the Ukrainian government, about $14 billion worth.
So that was passed.
And in the House of Representatives at the time, it received a very chilly reception.
We were more worried about the southern border.
We were worried about America's growing bureaucratic nightmare and what we had to do to constrain that.
And many of us were deeply concerned about spending, seeking a process that would present single subject spending bills over the typical continuing resolution omnibus structure.
So, we find ourselves today taking up this foreign aid bill.
And here's what they don't teach you in social studies class.
Whenever a piece of legislation of major import is considered before the House of Representatives, before it is considered, it has to be a subject to terms and conditions.
Just like your iPhone is subject to terms and conditions, Every major bill we consider that can pass by a majority vote would have terms and conditions applied.
Those would include things like how long is each side going to get to present debate?
How many amendments will be allowed?
What type of amendments will be allowed?
In some cases, which specific amendments can be allowed?
The rules discuss when the legislation will be voted on and indeed when it will be sent to the united states senate for their consideration so there's a lot of things that can be built into those terms and conditions and in the end you have to vote on those and that is called the rule vote so you're going to hear my colleagues and i today discuss how we voted on the rule what we believed is that this foreign aid bill It was so America last and so bad,
we should reject the terms and conditions to proceed on to that bill.
And they weren't good terms and conditions, by the way.
They took the single subject bills that we cared about and they lashed them together for ease of passage in the United States Senate.
And those terms and conditions didn't allow for a lot of the Republican conservative cost-saving amendments that we care about.
So here to discuss Where we go from here, how we're going to proceed onto this foreign aid bill where the terms and conditions passed.
Two great firebrands, my colleague from Florida, Ana Paulina Luna, and my colleague from Tennessee, Andy Ogles.
Both have been on the show before.
Both have a lot to say about what's going on in Washington.
Andy, I'll start with you.
Just your reaction to how the rule vote went today.
We voted no, and yet it overwhelmingly passed with Democrats.
Well, I mean, I think that's the important point, is that this is a Democrat piece of legislation, because you had more Democrats voting for it than Republicans.
And so this is the Schumer, Biden, Johnson bill that unfortunately, I think, betrays the American public.
Because we have a southern border that's wide open.
Fentanyl is a crisis that's touching all of America.
You could have had a Ukraine bill that had maybe remaining Mexico in it.
Maybe then it's palatable.
I'm not saying that it is.
But there's things that we could have done to make it better for the American people.
But instead, they jammed this crap down our throats.
Ana, you voted no.
You've been messaging that conservatives should vote no.
I thought it was helpful that groups like the Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth key voted this issue, asking conservatives to vote no.
At the end of the day, fewer Republicans voted for this rule than Democrats.
How do you assess how it shook out?
You know, I look at this and I think a lot of the Republicans that would typically vote for a rule, one of their biggest concerns that I kept hearing, and some of those were vets, is that this rule, these bills, funded both sides of what's happening right now with Israel and Hamas.
And so if you're looking at it from that perspective, you know, I don't think it was by accident.
Even last night, we had a reporter reach out saying that there was an article saying that, oh, well, how could you vote against funding that helps your district with these defense contractors?
Well, it's pretty simple.
I'm not funded by the defense contractors, and so I'm here to represent the interests of the American people and my constituents.
And so when you're seeing bills that essentially go into giving money to Israel, but then at the same time giving humanitarian aid to Gaza, which could ultimately end up in the hands of Hamas, you're basically funding both sides of the war.
And so that's exactly why I held strong in that conviction.
And I think a lot of people, people not in Washington, understand that and share that same sentiment.
And what are you hearing from your district about how we proceeded now onto this massive $100 billion foreign aid bill at a time when our southern border is wide open?
A lot of people, you know, the common question is what's going on with Johnson.
I get that a lot.
Why is he doing what he's What he basically promised that he was going to do the exact opposite of.
And so I try to tell people, because this job, you can get into the weeds on parliamentary procedure.
But the fact is, is that when people can't afford groceries and you're paying for pensions in Ukraine, that's a problem.
We shouldn't be doing that.
So that should be a bipartisan position.
Did you hear from a lot of folks in your office about the bill and about the vote we just took?
Yeah, you know, we did a lot of messaging like Ana did.
And what people need to understand is there's a lot of stuff buried in this bill.
I mean, you know, because we do find ourselves, if this goes forward as it's constructed, that you'll be on both sides of the conflict with Israel because we know this is a fact that some of the money that goes into Gaza is going to Hamas.
You look at Ukraine.
Part of it funds the 3rd Regiment.
That's a neo-Nazi group.
So at a time that Israel's under attack, are we literally going to prop up Nazis in Europe?
I'm guessing that's a bad idea.
I thought that the left was against white supremacy until they're funding the groups fighting in Ukraine that have white supremacy embedded in a lot of their imagery and messaging.
I guess they're willing to take U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund white supremacy abroad, While calling every MAGA grandmother that's wearing a red hat a white supremacist if they live across the street.
Or trying to fund programs in the military to go after that when they should be focusing on job readiness, not trying to basically use the military to politically hunt opposition.
You talked about the way Speaker Johnson changed and how he thought about this foreign aid bill relative to the border.
And I want to get into that because it makes up a lot of the feedback that I'm receiving.
Just regular folks are looking at this saying, How are you guys prioritizing the eastern border of Ukraine over the southern border of the United States?
And we know you only have one half of one third of the government, but folks want to see us use leverage because I don't even think a bill would have to pass to put Substantial downward pressure on the border.
I think we would just have to force Biden to return to the Trump policies on the border.
And then I think people in the election would say, oh, well, we now know which policies work and which policies don't work.
And that used to be our viewpoint.
And we came off of that.
How do you think that affects kind of our credibility as a conference?
I think we've lost credibility, but I actually had some of the more moderate members at the back.
So we actually sit kind of in the center part of the conference where you can kind of see everything, but we had some of the more moderate members coming into the background and talking to us and saying, we don't understand why HR2 is not being attached to this, because even in some of these- This is the border bill.
This is a border bill.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, so you'll actually have some of these more moderate districts, whether they're in New York, but they're getting completely just devastated with what's happening with illegal immigration.
Us being from, you know, Florida, it's not so bad, but in other parts of the country, I mean, they are absolutely just getting destroyed by this.
And so I think a lot of people are kind of wondering why is it that it seems like there's coalition government now and things that we didn't agree to, that we promised the American people we would be delivering on earlier on in the year, and then now you're seeing this pivot.
And my response to them is that it can't change, so you as a member have to make the decision.
Like, there seems to be this idea that you can't do things like discharge petitions or vote against the rule.
All of that is brainwashing into making you just a sheep.
So if you really want to come up here and legislate, you have to use those tools, and sometimes that means bucking your own party.
So in just moments, there will be another vote on essentially HR2, what Ana just described.
There'll be another vote on that, but we call that a show vote.
If someone tells you something is a show vote, it is intended to get people on record, but it is not an effort to actually make law.
It is not an effort to Congeal into a policy outcome that would be more beneficial for the American people.
So because we have a lot of colleagues who I think incorrectly voted for the terms and conditions to proceed on to the foreign aid bill, they're now creating in just a few hours a show vote on a lot of the features of HR2 under a suspension of the rules.
So this will not achieve two-thirds of the vote.
This will not become law, but it will be a way for people to go and tweet and post about how strong they are against the border, but it doesn't really deliver an outcome or a result.
You know, Andy, one of the things that What we talked about in strategy sessions was attaching to any Ukraine aid a requirement that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections.
That was something that the Freedom Caucus really tried to inject into this process.
It ultimately was rejected by the speaker.
Talk a little bit about how you would advise to use leverage on those points.
Yeah, I mean, look, we have divided government.
We have three branches of government.
And unfortunately, what we're seeing is a pattern.
And look, Speaker Johnson is a friend of mine.
I love him to death.
But that being said, he's making bad play calls.
And so when you're going to the Senate and asking Schumer, what will you accept?
You're not negotiating from a position of strength.
When you're going to the White House and literally asking Biden, what would you sign?
You're not negotiating from a position of strength.
And so we've got to start pushing our agenda as the Republican Party, which is to save the Republic.
You kind of touched on it, this whole issue of Congress has low favorability ratings, what's our credibility like?
On my show, we had this montage, and it was floating around Twitter or X, of Speaker Johnson.
It's like, border, border, border.
We're not doing Ukraine without border.
It was border, border, border.
And then what do we end up doing?
We're going to do Ukraine without functionally, substantively, you know, closing our southern border.
That is a problem.
And so we need a speaker.
We need our speaker to stand up and fight, fight, fight for our country.
And to me, that means not voting to proceed onto something that should not be on the agenda.
One of our Republican colleagues, Dr. Murphy, a congressman from North Carolina, said that any vote against the terms and conditions I disagreed with that strongly.
I think that they can vote their way, we can vote our way.
But Ana, your reaction to Dr. Murphy saying that if we vote against proceeding on to one of these bad bills, that that somehow is like a war crime that breaks all the mores.
Yeah, that is exactly what I was addressing earlier in that they try to bring you up here, especially as freshmen members of Congress and try to brainwash you into basically doing what they want you to do, but you are then not representing your district, the American people.
So I actually liked your perspective on it and that if you were voting for this, you're actually voting for the invasion because ultimately that's exactly what it's doing.
These whole messaging bills, I mean, you can also have a perfect example.
We voted to stop the assault on the Fourth Amendment with FISA. Which was something that, to our disappointment, went down in a ball of flames.
Do you think this is cumulative, by the way?
I mean, we were fighting so hard on spending, all of us, and then we see them fight against us on the Fourth Amendment, and now we see this.
I think, had we been successful along the way at single-subject spending bills or getting a warrant on FISA, maybe we wouldn't feel as burned as we do on this crappy foreign aid bill.
Well, all it's doing is just exposing that these people, they keep saying that they don't want to take tough votes.
Last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment was not a tough vote.
You're supposed to defend that.
Last time I checked, funding both sides of the war makes you a sociopath.
And last time I checked, if you're calling your fellow colleagues a terrorist because you don't like how we voted, you're a beta male.
Beta mail call out here on Firebrand.
Expect no less.
I want to get into the individual provisions and I want to start with the Israel bill.
On the Israel bill, I have concerns about deficit spending to send money to any country, even if that country is a great ally and even if that country is under attack.
I think that there are ways to make reductions in our budget.
What I believe is we ought to defund the UN to get the money to Israel since the UN has become such an anti-Israel entity.
That way, You not only help Israel by getting them the resources, but you also help them by defunding one of their adversaries, which would be the UN. So you actually get value out of the pay-for.
So I didn't like the deficit spending.
I won't be voting for the Israel aid because there are no offsets, because the amendments, the terms and conditions we would have liked to put in those reductions to the UN in order to pay for Israel were not allowed to be considered.
But, Andy, you've done so many pro-Israel bills.
On this Israel vote that you're about to take, how do you assess it?
You know, we see this unprecedented attack from Iran.
Walk through your thinking.
Yeah, I mean, it's unfortunate.
You know, what I personally advise the Speaker he could do is if you put a clean Israel bill on the House floor and you could do a pay-for, and it could be a non-controversial pay-for.
Yeah, I mean, there's just clawback COVID funds that are unspenting.
There's wasted money laying around everywhere up here.
So you could do a non-controversial pay-for and it would pass.
And then you could put Ukraine on the floor.
You could attach something like remain in Mexico and it would pass.
You could do something for Taiwan.
And by the way, they've already spent $20 billion on US weapons and armaments that have not been delivered to them because they're going to Ukraine, which is a problem in and of itself because you have China ratcheting up their aggression towards Taiwan.
And so there was a path that was, I think, would have been less painful, but it would have required the Speaker to really push back against the Warhawks and say, here's the play call.
You may not get everything that you want, but you're going to get most of what you want.
And I think as a conference, we would have been more united.
But now with the posture we're on, are you voting for the Israel provision of the bill?
I'm torn.
I mean, obviously, I'm one of the outspoken supporters of Israel.
One of the most.
I don't know if there are a whole lot of members who filed as many Israel bills as you have.
That's right.
I had 18 amendments yesterday.
You want to guess how many were made in order?
Zero is my guess.
That's right.
That's right.
So, as of right now, I'm a lean no, but it's a tough vote.
But if those amendments would have been offered, even if they hadn't been adopted...
See, my theory is if you would have given me a chance to go after the UN to try to help Israel or to vote on some of the Ogles amendments, I might have been more inclined to vote for the overall deal.
But the fact that we're forced into borrowing money from China to give it to Israel is just such a bad way to think about it.
How do you think about it, Rep.
Luna?
I'm torn right now, mainly because, I mean, you go back to the UN. The UN also, too, is guilty of abuses against women.
I mean, literally most of the countries on the UN Human Rights Council, which is just so ironic, have literally had some of the worst policies with women ever.
But, I mean, you look at the whole process and the way that they handle this and that we can't openly amend this and that it has to go through the Speaker's office.
And they're effectively governing by martial law is kind of what I look at it as.
And so I'm at the point now where I obviously support our allies, but it's like, how could you expect us to then vote for funding on a bill that actually has funding contained that's going to help places and individuals that are going to hurt Israel in itself?
You were basically funding the slaughter of Israelis, and I said that.
And I know that this is highly technical, but those terms and conditions, again, they weave all this together.
You don't like that they weave the Israel money to the Gaza aid money.
It's shady.
We all don't like that it weaves this money to the Ukraine.
It's not as if we have the opportunity for a vote on Israel that would only be about Israel because the terms and conditions tether Israel to Ukraine, which is kind of where I want to go next.
The $60 billion Here for Ukraine, the entire United States Marine Corps is $50 billion.
So we could have another Marine Corps and $10 billion in our pocket, or we could do this bill, $14 billion plus for direct government support for Ukraine.
I also think that even the armaments risk escalatory accident because we have not yet heard from the Biden administration what winning looks like.
When I was asking some of their senior officials in armed services, they were saying we're going to fight until they repatriated Crimea.
Which is crazy.
So, on the Ukraine vote, Andy, how you voting?
I'm gonna know.
Anna?
I'm gonna know.
Alright, any different reasons or kind of aligned with that?
I keep saying this and I keep trying to tell as many people this as I can.
I actually physically went to Poland and I met with the Ukrainian parliament.
I met with their speaker.
And they literally told us in a bipartisan delegation they demanded F-35s, which, by the way, Ukraine chose to not join NATO in the 90s.
The BBC has an article on it.
I know the left wants to argue that that didn't happen.
That actually happened.
They had an opportunity.
They did not join.
Therefore, why is it our responsibility to then give them our tax dollars, our funding, our protection, when they chose not to do so?
That's my main thing.
And then the second thing is that they told us that they wanted to create a mercenary army off of the equipment that we were giving them.
I'm sorry, but we should not be funding mercenary armies, period.
How is that a controversial statement?
It's not controversial.
And I had all of these people, Blue Check Mafia, I think that they're bots actually on Twitter or X, try to come for us.
But the thing is, I don't care.
I'm not sponsored by the government of Ukraine.
I represent the American people, and I don't want mercenary armies, so I'm gonna know.
I actually asked one of our colleagues in conference, like, are you worried that in Ukraine they're going to run out of men before they run out of bullets?
Which none of us root for, but we have to look at the math here.
And he looked at me and said, there'll always be mercenaries willing to fight.
And I thought, man, that's crazy.
Where are we going to go?
Get a bunch of Africans and drop them off in Europe and give them weapons and all in the name of peace and defending democracy doesn't really sound very democratic to me.
Well, I mean, even if you wanted, let's say hypothetically, I wanted to support Ukraine, right?
I can't in good conscience vote to send them money.
Lake and Riley is dead.
Because of this southern border.
Just roughly three weeks ago, there was a 14-year-old girl raped in Virginia by an illegal because this southern border is open.
Three weeks ago, a 14-year-old girl in Louisiana was raped by an illegal because the southern border is open.
We've caught 300 terrorists at the southern border.
There's an Iranian hitman loose in our country that we're trying to find who has a hit list of American politicians because of the southern border.
Enough is enough.
So if I have to choose between America and another country's border, I'm going to choose America.
It's a pretty simple calculation in my book.
Yeah, and I just think a lot of people at home Feel like we don't really care about them as we should, as their representatives, if we vote for this stuff.
Does that thinking also apply to how you see this Taiwan vote?
I mean, we're all anti-China.
We want to make sure we deter China, this Taiwan package.
I'm still undecided on.
To me, I would have liked to have seen reductions in other areas of the budget.
I keep coming back to that, and that shapes my thinking.
But you want to persuade me to vote yes on the Taiwan thing?
As we read the bill, and we'll double check this, but there's a provision in there that allows Biden to sweep the money for Taiwan into Ukraine.
There's a little bait and switch going on there.
That's a nice little nugget.
Details matter folks, details matter.
You're breaking news here.
What do you think?
I'm where you're at, but now that this is just more money for Ukraine, unless we can get something in an amendment that would actually make it permit, which we won't be able to, I'm going to lean no.
Man, and then it will all go over to the Senate.
And I was really encouraged that we had J.D. Vance and Mike Lee, Senator Tuberville, so many others trying to stand with House conservatives to focus our priorities on what you just laid out on the border.
We are at times outcasts in the House and at times outcasts in our own party because we aren't bought and paid for.
With the lobbyists and special interests that seem to pull the strings of a lot of our colleagues.
We actually represent our districts and our constituents.
And to me, it is so refreshing to have a little group of senators who I think are motivated the same way.
Talk a little bit about that bicameral partnership, if you don't mind.
Well, you know, I do believe this is fairly unprecedented for that many senators to weigh in with the House Freedom Caucus.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
But, you know, I go back to our founding fathers.
You know, they were, there was a small group of individuals that believed in a dream of a republic, a free country.
And we have to hold on to that.
And we have to respect their vision.
And we're protected by the Constitution of the United States.
But every single day, this town tries to chip away at that.
So when you go back to FISA, And where we know there's been over 3 million queries, so the FISA bill, essentially, that's the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that is designed to spy on people like the 9-11 terrorists, right?
But they're spying on Americans.
We know this.
That's not campaign speak.
That's truth.
And yet they pass it and they ignore the Fourth Amendment.
And so I'm encouraged that they're willing to stand with us to be so bold.
And my hope is that when we win the Senate and we win the White House and we have the House of Representatives, we can get transformative change done in this town and we will be the tips of the spirit getting it done.
I want to shift gears and talk now about what all these reporters have been bugging me about, this motion to vacate, okay?
And here's my perspective on it.
First of all, Joel, are you watching the live stream right now?
Okay, yeah, so our live stream is basically a motion to vacate piranha pool most of the time.
I wonder why.
Yeah, they are pretty active about that.
So what's the feedback?
Folks want to know about the Vacate Johnson movement?
Why are you firing Johnson?
So the sentiment on the live stream is, why aren't we firing Mike Johnson?
Stop being weak.
That's on the rumble chat?
Or where do we get that from?
All platforms, all fired up.
Okay, so here's my perspective on the motion to vacate.
When I filed the motion to vacate, I thought war-gamed, strategized about how a four-seat Republican majority would then re-elect another speaker.
Because it's not enough to have the votes to remove somebody.
You have to actually replace them with somebody else.
I really, really took great care to promise this audience and the entire country that under no circumstance would there be a Democrat Speaker of the House.
I knew there might have been a few that maybe a little iffy.
Would they vote for maybe a Josh Gottheimer-style Democrat or a Trone-style Democrat?
But indeed, I did not believe that the prisoner's dilemma Of a four-seat majority would allow five or six to be able to break off together.
That wouldn't be available.
But here is what I regret to inform you.
I do believe in a one-seat majority, there could be one or two or three of my colleagues who would take a bribe in one form or another in order to deprive the Republicans of a majority at all.
And let me tell you what a Democrat speaker looks like.
Their leadoff hitter will be declaring Donald Trump an insurrectionist and setting up a barrier to him being able to become the President of the United States if he is lawfully and legally elected, as I expect he will be.
That'll be their leadoff hitter.
And then the chaser to that shot Will be a massive spending package that looks a lot more like the American Rescue Plan.
They will blow past every concept of every cap ever imagined.
You'll be looking at universal basic income.
You could be looking at packing the Supreme Court.
And so the risk that one or two of my corrupt Republican colleagues might take a bribe, take a walk, Feign an ailment and flip this thing to the Democrats is a risk that is too high for me at this time.
But Ana, I want to hand it to you.
Yeah, I'm just going to tell you directly on what we're hearing right now.
So I'm just going to tell them.
Yeah.
So I heard that when, if and when, the motion to vacate is introduced, That there will be immediate resignations of a couple of more moderate members of Congress.
And in the event that that happens, that ultimately means it does go to a Democrat speaker.
And so we're in a predicament.
I do not like or support what Mike Johnson has doing.
And I think that he has absolutely gone back on what he promised us.
But at this time, that is no kidding a possibility.
And as a result of that, I'm hoping that that does not move forward.
Andy, your thoughts?
Yeah, I would agree with both of you.
I think the timing of a motion to vacate is ill-timed.
I think it does result in us being in a worse place, both from an election standpoint and the potential of losing the House.
I, among others, We're trying to tamp down the talk of a motion to vacate.
Let's stay focused on the job at hand.
And look, we lost the fight today.
But there are other fights ahead.
You never give up.
Again, go back to the Founding Fathers.
There were nights where the night was dark and hope was lost.
But they continued to fight, they continued to pray, and they continued to do the right thing.
And that's what we'll continue to do.
You know, I noticed that a lot of the members who have found themselves recently in competitive Republican primaries voted no on the rule.
People who've never voted no on the rule before were voting no on the rule.
And in that spirit Andy's talking about, you know, of seeing the fight ahead.
I don't believe this team can save the country.
I believe, fundamentally, there has to be a different Republican team that is focused on the border, on the single-subject bills, on the process reforms that we've been fighting for since the two of you got to Congress.
And this team doesn't want that.
What this team wants is the massive bills, the 3,000-page bills jammed together where no one's really responsible.
They want the $100 billion foreign aid without the type of really itemized review that you and Andy have been talking about.
And so do you share that sentiment that the fight's over the horizon?
Yeah, and I think that we actually have, this is growing pains, I think we have an opportunity.
You're seeing an identity crisis within the GOP right now, currently, and I think that a lot of people that are resigning are those more moderate members.
Remember, I just want to remind people too, we had timed resignations that would bring this majority to a one or two seat majority.
It was intentionally done, okay?
So with the opportunity that we have had to get better people into office, Don't just get frustrated and shut down.
Get involved and send us better people, because as you're seeing, time and time again, the votes are showing that there is a small group that will fight for your constitutional rights, but then there's a uniparty that exists.
And I will say that there are some Democrats, too, that will vote with us on the issues of the Fourth Amendment, but they even have their own uniparty that's working against them.
So please send us different people, please.
And earlier, there was this big CNN piece about how a lot of Republicans were choosing to not run for re-election, and they blamed me for making the place so miserable, for making people actually take votes and do a lot of the open amendment work that we have been fighting for.
And let me just walk you through the economics of how this could work in a vacate situation to flip control of the Democrats.
Let's assume you're a Republican and you've already announced that you're not seeking re-election.
You make $175,000 a year.
And then you say, OK, well, I'm going to be going off to this consulting firm or this media job.
And let's say that opportunity is around $400,000 a year.
So I'm set to go to that.
It's going to be great.
Finish out my term.
Do that.
All is well and good.
And all of a sudden, that employer calls you up and says, well, Turns out, we need you right now.
And instead of that $400,000 contract that you were going to get because we've got so much work for you to do now and because it's so important right now, we'll pay you $2 million to leave.
So now you're looking at a $1.6 million windfall and people are saying, huh, is it worth $1.6 million just for me to stick around in my $175,000 a year job for a few extra months?
Or do I take the payoff When I've been making $175,000 a year and go do that.
I find this deeply disgusting and unsettling, but you deserve to know how a vacate scenario with one or two or three people.
You don't have to win with a majority of people doing that.
You're risking Potentially having a Hakeem Jeffries Speaker of the House, that there might be some temptation among some to do that, who have no plans to come back, who don't want a political future, who basically just want their golden parachute.
So keep that in mind.
Joel, are they buying it or they think we're squishes?
They're not exactly buying it.
None of you are buying it.
You want the vacation.
That's the truth, though, unfortunately.
We do not have the numbers.
Copencede, audience.
Copencede.
It's the truth, and we owe you that and nothing else.
So, Ana Paulina Luna, how do people follow you?
You have built such an incredible platform.
My wife, Ginger, follows all your accounts, and you break down what we're doing in Congress so well on Instagram and everywhere else.
So how can people stay up?
On my official accounts, it's Rep Luna, and then on my personal where I can give a little bit more commentary and filter is at Real Ana Paulina.
And Andy, you have launched a new show that is terrific.
What's the show?
How can folks get to it and subscribe?
Well, it's Restoring the Republic.
It's on the official side, so you can go to Rep Ogles or on the unofficial side at Andy Ogles.
But, you know, like you, I tend not to have A filter.
It does get me in trouble sometimes.
But at least you know where I stand on the issues.
And I think people appreciate that.
And so, you know, yesterday on the show we played that montage of Speaker Johnson, again, who's a friend of mine.
But people deserved to hear from his own mouth, his words, what he said he was going to do.
Meanwhile, the actions speak louder than words because today and tomorrow will reflect his true action.
Make sure to follow Representative Luna and Representative Ogles, two great Firebrands.
Andy's show really is great.
I have become a viewer, and we're going to be carrying that show on the Gates Network, which is our 24-7 live stream.
You can catch up with the key action from House committees, key debates on the floor, and some of our favorite episodes of Firebrand.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
Hope and seethe.
Roll the credits.
▲
Export Selection