Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDRLST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Representative Brian's Style, representing Wisconsin's first
congressional district, is also chairman of the House Administration Committee.
The committee has and will play a key role in
government accountability in this new session of Congress. Congressman Style,
thank you so much for joining us at the Federalist
Radio Hour. Matt, thanks for having me on busy week
already so far. In fact, we're talking to you as
you just stepped off the floor. What you vote on
on this Thursday, Well, this is all.
Speaker 2: About getting our country back on track and setting ourselves
up for success when President Trump comes into office, in particular,
securing the border. The Lake and Riley Act in particular
gives us an opportunity to say, hey, if you're an
individual who committed a crime, who's in the country illegally,
you don't have business being in the United States. It's
working to secure the border and making sure that we're
actually in a position to take advantage of President Trump
coming into office to secure the border for the American people.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, that's jumping right out in front here. There's
been a lot of talk about that that the transition
team for the President is. I mean, it's very aggressive
in setting that up and certainly making his agenda very clear,
well known to Congress. One of the biggest parts of that,
of course, is the whole illegal immigration mess that to
he and this Congress inherits thanks to Joe Biden and
his borders are Kamala Harris. Let's talk a little bit
about the Lake and Riley Act. Let's say her name,
which was a very important seminal point last year during
the State of the Union address. You are saying her
name and the names of other victims of just unimaginable
violence wrought by criminals coming over the border, violent criminals
coming over the border. What does this legislation do, what
does it aim to accomplish?
Speaker 2: Well, the end of the day, individuals that illegally enter
our country. In particularly, are those that engage in illegal
behavior should be held and departed by ICE. And what
we see across the country is jurisdictions that refuse to
work with the federal government to deport to legal aliens,
in particular those that engage in heinous crimes. And we
have seen that in my home state of Wisconsin, where
Dane County does not cooperate with ICE.
Speaker 1: They're listed.
Speaker 2: By ICE for not cooperating with them to deport individuals
who engage in cernel behavior. We see some of our
nation's largest cities that do the same thing. And as
we look for the opportunity to turn things around as
President Trump comes to office, there's an obvious need to
make sure that every jurisdiction in the United States of
America is complying with ICE, complying with the federal government
in enforcing our immigration laws, rather than what we've done
for the past four years, what the federal government has
done for the past four years, which is to look
the other way and allow US immigration laws to be
completely ignored, not only by President Biden, but in particular
by jurisdictions across the country.
Speaker 1: It's interesting to me, maybe refreshing to some as well,
that you have a lot of Democrats joining in this
vote in the House. If my numbers are correct, there
were scores of Democrats joining along in this vote. That's
something that may not have happened just a couple of
years ago. Two questions on that front, what do you
attribute to the change and do you see cities like
Madison and these other so called sanctuary cities doubling down
on the resistance moving forward upon passage and signing of
bills like this.
Speaker 2: Well, I think you're seeing a change in tone from
the Democrats only because of the political groundswell that is
directly shown in November's election. So you do see Democrats
being willing to come forward and say, okay, in the
case an individual engage in a hang azak, yet that
individual should go. Which is why I think there's a
real opportunity in the Senate for this to pass. We've
had a handful of you senators stand up and say, yeah,
I support this, but that's only one small step. We
need to make massive change in our fixing of the
broken illegal immigration system. And so I think that is
the real impetus here as to why we're seeing a
shift in tone amongst some Democrats. It's because it's obvious
that these types of common sense reforms should pass, should
be signed into law. But again, time and again, the
Democrats will ultimately go back to their corner and go
back to their reflexive attitude, which is that we shouldn't
have any form of border security.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and again to that point, what do you see
happening in places like Madison. We saw the so called
resistance movement before the inauguration of twenty seventeen. It's been
a little bit more quiet, But as I've often said,
like rust and mold, the left never sleeps.
Speaker 2: At the end of the day, We're going to have
to force jurisdictions to comply with federal law. We're going
to have far left governmental organizations, whether or not that's
for example, in Dane County where they're listed, is not
complying with ice, or whether or not that some of
our nation's largest and most liberal communities that continue to
fail to enforce federal immigration law. We're going to have
to look at all the tools and a tool kit
at the federal level to force these jurisdictions to comply
and to work with the federal government enforcing our immigration laws.
Speaker 1: We have a little bit of breaking news this morning
as it relates to you. Just a pointed chair of
the Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence Subcommittee. It
sounds like a lot of activity going on. Tell us
a little bit about what this subcommittee hopes to do.
Speaker 2: So this is a subcommitte on the Financial Services Committee.
It oversees financial innovation and particular digital assets, where there's
a huge opportunity to put forward common sense legislation and
encourages developments in the United States. The way that I
think about this is access to capital. The plumbing of
our financial system is evolving very very quickly. How do
we make sure that the rules of the road in
the United States encourage American development of this technology. So
let's step back for a moment, Matt, and let's look
back about thirty years is the Internet was coming online, right,
pets dot com, AOL, Apple was a company that was
nearing bankruptcy. What we have is I have a lot
of challenges with tech companies and others really than TikTok.
The bulk of those tech companies are US based, US
domicile companies operating under a US system of laws. I
still have challenges with tech, but one of the challenges
I don't have outside of really TikTok is that they're
not US companies. We are at a precipice where financial
innovation is developing very quickly. This development is going to occur.
It's going to either occur here in the United States
of America and under our system, under our laws, under
our standards, or we're going to force this innovation development
to occur offshore and jurisdictions unlike the United States, could
be a place like Russia, or it could be the
British Virgin Islands. You get have a whole host areas
that this could go. If we do this correctly, we're
going to put in place the rules of the road
for innovation to occur here in the United States, so
that we in the United States and the beneficiaries of
this innovation and generations to come. So my real focus
here is how do we keep innovation, development, jobs, and
technology in the United States, and how do we prevent
foreign actors from moving quicker than we are here in
the US.
Speaker 1: Pets dot Com, you really took me down memory laying
there along with.
Speaker 2: But there were people you don't remember that right, because
there were people, boy, they were buying stock and petstock.
I thought that was eventually the Internet and it was
the people that probably bought stock and the failing company
called Apple that are currently in a yacht in the
Gulf of America relaxing while those of us in Wisconsin
are bearing the cold weather.
Speaker 1: There you go, Yeah, I'm still asking Jeeves while I did.
Why I didn't get on board that one. But Jeeves's right. Oh,
that goes back a little bit too, other social network
forms that no longer exist, of course, But that's.
Speaker 2: We're going to have some young people listening to this
podcast matter. They are going to be googling what is
ask Jeeves and what is pets dot com?
Speaker 1: Well, we know for sure they won't be asking Jeeves.
Was what was asked? Jeeves? Absolutely? I don't know. You're
also involved. All of that involves this emerging It's been
around for some time, but it's really grown in importance
and significance and obviously its stature now in the tech sector.
But artificial intelligence does that scare the hell out of
you like it does me? Well, you can go two ways.
Speaker 2: Anytime there is new technology that comes online, the human
brain is really good at identifying new risk, it's not
so good at identifying new opportunities. And the way that
I think about this is back in the nineteen seventies,
when ATMs are if you're from Wisconsin, a time machine,
take your money anywhere. Those money machines. Your ATM came online.
There's a headline, I believe it was in the New
York Times that said money robots will end all bank
teller jobs. And then you step back and you look
with the perspective of time now forty fifty years later,
and what you actually see. Of course, ATMs are ubiquitous,
although they're fading because now you can pay for things
just on your phone. But ATMs are ubiquitous. They're everywhere.
You have the ease of getting your money when you're
nowhere near your home bank. And what happened with teller's
We actually saw the number of teller jobs increase. The
value of the work that they're doing goes up. In
the pay for your average bank teller is actually much higher,
even when adjusted for inflation, than it was back in
the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties, because the lower skilled
job of simply counting money and handing it across the
counter is now done by a machine, an ATM. In
the higher skilled work of maybe helping somebody refinance a
car loan, consolidate debt on your credit cards, or any
other financial transaction is the work of your teller. So
as we think about AI artificial intelligence, there is risk
with that. There's unquestionable risks, and we need to mitigate
that risk. But what we also have to do is
think really creatively about how we can leverage AI to
really enhance the value of the work that people are
doing so they can be paid more. So the way
that I think about this is no, I am out
of the belief that artificial intelligence will replace all jobs
done by humans, but I think humans that use artificial
intelligence will replace those workers that don't use artificial intelligence.
So it's about embracing technology to be able to perform
your job better to a higher value, so you can
get paid more and live a higher standard of life,
rather than what is always the fear when new technology
comes online, which is stick your head in the sand
and just hope that it passes you by. That's a
bad approach, and again we got to mitigate the downside
risks in AI and there are downside risks that are
going to require government action.
Speaker 3: This is Molly Hemingway encouraging you to listen to my
favorite podcast, Issues, etc. Every day you get in depth
interviews with host Todd Wilkin, asking expert guests substantive thought
provoking questions on all of the important news and issues
of our day. The expert guests are in culture, law, ethics, philosophy, theology,
and apologetics. Expert guests expansive topics, always extolling christ issues, etc.
Speaker 1: Well, let us focus on government action for a moment
and talk about it in terms of the things that
we hold most dear, the things that sustain this great experiment.
As to Toppil said, this republic, this representative style democracy.
We heard a lot of talk, of course from the left,
that it was under threat because of Donald Trump and
the mega movement and conservatives in America. It's all a
bunch of in the words of the soon thankfully outgoing
President of the United States, a bunch of malarkey. But
that said, we did have threats, real actual threats to
democracy through our elections, and no matter what you thought
about twenty twenty, it did create a lot of questions
and rightfully so, in the minds of a lot of
Americans about the integrity of our elections. And I have
to say I've talked to you before about this. There
are three committees that I think did Yeoman's work and
very vital and necessary work that brought to light over
the last couple of years the abuses of government, particularly
as it relates to elections and election integrity. That of
course is James Comer's Oversight Group, the Judiciary Committee by
Representative Jordan and yours the Government the House Administration Committee,
and what you were able to do through a number
of meetings was to really shine a light on some
of the major problems we've seen with election integrity. Let's
take a look back at what you were able to
accomplish in the last two years with the use of
that committee.
Speaker 2: So the Committee Administration overseas federal election law and working
as you noted, with my counterparts, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Jim
James Comer, we said, let's look in at what's going
on and how we strengthen Americans confidence in our elections.
We pointed out a series of flaws, a series of
loopholes that exist that need to be closed.
Speaker 1: For example, in our committee, we've proved.
Speaker 2: How a foreign billionaire could bring funds into US elections
currently utilizing lee loopholes in US campaign finance law. For example,
a foreign billionaire could transfer say a million dollars into
a five oh one CE organization, and then that organization
can take roughly forty percent of the money and transfer
it over to an American super pack that's running political
advertisements in the United States, directly impacting US elections. I
have legislation to close that. That's work that still needs
to be done. We saw off loopholes in lack of
security inside campaign finance laws, in particular as it relates
to online fundraising committees such as the Democrat Committee of
Act Blue that didn't have even basic financial security protocols
in place. I brought forward legislation that said, okay, Act Blue,
you need to require, for example, a CVV number that's
that three or four digit code on the back of
your credit card you have to enter almost any time
you buy anything online. They weren't requiring that. I think
about prepaid debit and credit cards and the ability for
fraud to be utilized in that regard. We're working to
close that loophole. And so time and time again, there
is a need to reform American laws to make sure
that we're increasing Americans confidence in our elections. And if
we do that, well, we've actually seen there's a lot
of empirical data on this. There's Americans confidence in their
elections improves, they're more likely to actually engage and participate
in American elections, and that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was telling Laura Trump about that a recent
edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. We were talking about
the Pew Research study that came out, and again Pew
Research is certainly no bastion of conservative thought, but it
came out with a study I think they had interviewed
something like ten thousand American voters had just voted in
the November fifth election. Ninety five percent expressed at least
some level of confidence in elections how they were handled
and administered in their communities. Eighty eight percent said the
same about elections across the country. That's vastly different than
I think what the fifty eight to fifty nine percent
after the two thousand and twenty elections. So something obviously
changed here, and I think what happened was a greater
focus on election and integrity. It became more than just
a catchphrase. It became a call to action. Did it not?
Speaker 2: Well, here's how I look at that, Matt, from an
empirical analysis. Let's just study into the state of Georgia.
Is we headed into the twenty twenty two elections, the
state of Georgia put forward a substantive and real election
integrity bill that ultimately get passed into law. But if
we remember, the left attacked that bill mercilessly. Yeah, President
Biden called a Jim Crow two point oh. That was
actually a fact check to be false by the Washington Post.
You had the entire left apparatus attack it so much so,
so much so that Major League Baseball move their All
Star Game out of the city of Atlanta. That was
the level of hype about that bill. Of course, it passed,
and now we've run two elections under the laws as
passed by the election integrity bill in Georgia. Well, wouldn't
it be a great moment in time to look back
and to say, well, how did it work?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: In fact, there was a study after the twenty twenty
two election the mid term. The University of Georgia put
forward a massive study analyzing the impact of that legislation
and what did it fine, And if you haven't heard
about it, there's a reason that the left media didn't
want to tell you about it, because the study actually
showed Matt that people were across the board positive about
how the election was run after they put in place
election integrity legislation, and in fact, that was true across
all key demographic groups, which is important. It was positive
for whites, for blacks, for Asians, Hispanics, women, veterans, and
that's a good thing. We want to pass election integrity
legislation that has universal support and when it actually is
implemented and done, that's what we see time and again.
Yet we still see the left fighting tooth and nail
for even basic, common sense election integery reforms like photo ID,
which makes absolutely no sense when you look at the
empirical data. But that's what we're up against. The radical
left doesn't want to put in place even basic reforms,
let alone the substantive reform that is needed to make
sure that every American has confidence in our elections.
Speaker 1: Indeed, look at the Save Act. We'll get into that
in just a moment. Our guest today is Representative Brian Style,
representing Wisconsin's first congressional district. He's also chairman of the
House Administration Committee. The committee, as we've talked about, has
and will play a key role in government accountability, particularly
as it relates to the topic right now elections and
election integrity. Yeah, I wanted to talk to you more
about that because I see in your home state, in Wisconsin,
a key swing state that was critical to the election
of Donald Trump both in two thousand and sixteen and
now again in two thy twenty before, you have Democrats
there trying to push a lot of phony ideas and
trying to bring back legislation that would get rid of
the successful voter identification law in the state of Wisconsin
that's been on the books for several years. Now, what
do you think about this charge After all that we've
experienced in the state of Wisconsin and across the country
about the success of voter id.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely ridiculous what we're seeing the radical left do
in this regard. It is as if they have an
objective to actually gut Americans confidence in our elections. Sometimes,
the way that I think about this map from a
picture standpoint is, if you've ever gone to a casino
and played blackjack, the casino has put in place rules
of the road that actually it's still confidence in you
in the game itself, that you're being treated fairly, as
you know if youre going to at the end of
the day, you're going to lose money, but you actually
know you're doing.
Speaker 1: It above board.
Speaker 2: Right, they allow you play blackjack, who flips their cards
first the dealer, then you flip your cards immediately following.
There's cameras on the table. Right, if you went outside
the casino and there's a gentleman sitting on the street
corner with a little table and offered to play cards
with you, even if that person was the Pope, you
wouldn't probably feel very good about how that blackjack game
was gonna go because you're pretty sure he's got a
card up his sleeve. He's going to make you flip
your cards over first. You want to have confidence in
the system, and photo ID is one of those key
principles of confidence in the system that makes everyone walk
in and say, you know they're checking everyone's ID. They
know that everyone coming in is who they say they are.
We're not going to operate on a trust basis. We're
going to trust, but verify who that individual is. What
the radical left wants to do is gut that system out,
and in so doing, what it does is to remove
your confidence that you are being treated fairly, that your
legal vote is going to count, that no illegal votes
are going to enter the system. And when we come
forward as Republicans, as conservatives, that people that believe in
election integrity, and we put forward legislation that says, here's
a problem in the system, and this is the reform
that's needed to tighten it down to strengthen Americans confidence
in our elections. What we see time and again is
the radical left pushing back against that rather than saying, yeah,
that is a reform that we should all be able
to stand behind. Photo ID is the most obvious example
of that. Wisconsin put that in place. It increased Americans
confidence in our elections. Voters in Wisconsin understand it, voters
in Wisconsin like it. And one of the things I'm
concerned about, there's an upcoming for our national listeners. There's
an upcoming state Supreme court race in the state of Wisconsin,
where clearly whether or not photo idea is going to
be allowed or be thrown out by what would be
an illegitimate Supreme Court ruling, but a Supreme Court ruling
by the radical left is truly and subsequently on the
table and something we're going to have to bird dog,
both at the state level and in particular my committee
at the federal level.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is alarming, and it tells you exactly what
money can buy in our judicial system in America today.
Of course, in twenty twenty three, Wisconsin had set the
record for the most expensive court election judicial race in
the history of the country, not just the state. Millions
upon millions of dollars poured into that race, and now
they have another one. In twenty twenty three. That election
determined the liberal majority that now controls the Court. And
that's why you see just you know, basic reforms that
so many Wisconsin Nights supported now on the line, including
Act ten, reforms to the collective bargaining at the state
to public sector, and then a voter i D of
course also on the line. Now you have an election
coming up in early April and Wisconsin that could flip
that court back to a conservative control, and it just
tells you just how significant these local state elections are
yet how so few people are involved in them. On
the election integrity front, I mentioned before the Save Act,
which is talk about basic protections for election integrity. All
that it asks is that if you are going to
register to vote, you show proof that you are a
US citizen. That's basically the core of the Save Act.
You passed it in the House and it died in
the Senate. That has to show you exactly where the
left in Congress is in America today. Do you expect
the Save Act to come back and what are its prospects.
Speaker 2: I think we have an opportunity to move forward on
the House side, both the Save Act and the AS Act.
Speaker 1: The ACE is the.
Speaker 2: Broader, comprehensive election intigrity legislation that I brought forward. The
Save Act is a piece of that specifically focused on
preventing non citizens from voting in US elections. Both incredibly
important pieces of legislation. Here's the challenge we face in
the House.
Speaker 1: We have a.
Speaker 2: Narrow majority, but we have a majority, and at the
end of the day, I'm confident that we're going to
be able to get our election integrity legislation across the
line our friends across the other side of the capitol
here in Washington, d C. That's the United States Senate,
and they operate right under some goofy rules, in my opinion,
one of which requires a sixty vote threshold to get
almost anything done. That sixty vote threshold is a real
logjam when Republicans have fifty three of one hundred votes,
and so whether or not that legislation is going to
move forward across that threshold, I don't have full visibility
as to how now Leader Soon is going to make
those play calls. But here's one opportunity is at least,
at a minimum, bring it to a vote. What we
saw is under Democratic leadership, they just let it sit
on the table and never put anyone on the record.
At an absolute minimum, absolute minimum, you'd have a vote,
and the American voters that would know where their Democratic
senators stand on the issue of election integrity, and a
best case scenario, we would see it like I think
the Lake and Riley Act, where the American public will
say that is such an obvious common sense reform that
we need to put in place. Let's get it done.
You may Senator's cave and actually work to implement some
of these election reforms and go and actually get sixty
votes in the Senate. However the Senate's going to play out.
I'm a House guy. I'm focused on the House. We
are ready to go. Navigating that through the United States Senate.
That's another animal. But this is such an important topic,
match so critical to American people, to our democracy, to
American's confidence in voting, that I think we need to
work and navigate how to get that done in the
United States Senate.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope that the United States Senate, the leadership
there will note the COVA movement in America. So citizens
only voting amendments pass be approved by voters in eight states,
including battle ground Wisconsin in the last election. There is
very very strong support in America for only US citizens
voting in USA selections, and so that should be I
would think, would that not be a roadmap to move
at least a few Democrats along the way in the Senate?
Speaker 2: It absolutely should. And that's what I mean when I
say I think Senator Toom when we move this legislation
in the House, to bring it before the Senate, enforce
it to a vote, because if we can get the
attention to American people on this topic and show how
common sense and logical these reforms are, such as American
citizens should be the only people who can vote in
American elections, or that you need a photo ID to vote.
These are common sense things to almost everybody listening to
the podcast or anybody you'd talk to in line to
check out at the grocery store. And so what we
need to do is build the momentum for this and
when it comes to the Senate, get.
Speaker 1: It either a across the.
Speaker 2: Line with fifty votes and to heck with the filibuster,
or B get the mentum such that sixty votes come
across the line in the United States Senate. Because these
are necessary, but there are also in many ways common sense.
Speaker 4: Cutting the deficit seems simple, it's just not easy. The
watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski every day.
Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet. Like dieting or saving money,
Cutting the deficit is simple, it's just not easy. Cutting
the deficit is not so much about cutting personnel, it's
about cutting the money they hand out, whether it's happening
in DC or down on Wall Street. It's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Another common sense area I want to talk about, and
you mentioned it before, it is what you have been
working on for some time now in as chair of
the House Administration Committee. This whole situation with Act Blue,
which again is the Democrat at left platform for campaign
fund raising, and they have generated billions upon billions of
dollars over their existence, and there are very serious concerns
about foreign interference through those channels. There are some serious
allegations about Act Blue. You've talked about some of the
things that you have dealt with with the committee, some
of the legislation response. You had said before the end
of the year that just this is basically the big beginning,
and so did Speaker Johnson on this that there will
be more investigations into Act Blue. What's next on that front, Well.
Speaker 2: These allegations came forward, foreign interference, people who are being
notified that they donations are being made in their name.
We began our investigation now over a year ago into
online fund raising platforms, including a Blue, and said, what's
going on. I was at that period of time that
we actually discoss or the lack of very basic financial
security controls even existing at act Blue. Earlier reference that
they weren't requiring a CVV number. Again, that's that three
or four digit code on the back of your credit
card from being needed when an individual is making an
online contribution. That's kind of entry level credit card security
that is required by almost anything you do online. They
were accepting prepaid cards. And what we've actually seen through
documents that we've subpoenat, in particular from Act Blue, is
that Act Blue was changing their policies as we were
identifying and asking questions about the financial security weaknesses. So,
for example, after we started asking questions about why they
weren't using a CVV number, internal policy at act Blue
change and now Act Blue requires a CVV number, we
started asking questions about why they were accepting prepaid gift
cards from foreign entities. Well, when we started asking that
foreign funded when we started asking that question, Act Blue
changed their policy. Interestingly, they changed their policy more or
less on the same day I introduced my legislation to
force the change, meaning they realized that they needed to
do this, that this was a good idea, but nobody
was forcing them to do it until our investigation got
under way. Our investigation is going to continue. We need
to make sure that Americans have confidence that money inside
US elections is only from American and legal sources, not
from foreign sources, not from illegal sources. Americans need to
have that level of confidence. And we need to make
sure that online contribution portals and campaign operations are not
engaged in behavior where even basic security protocols are not
being followed.
Speaker 1: Indeed, and I think Americans need to have assurances that
Act Blue is doing what it claims it is doing.
As you mentioned, they changed all of this, as you know,
you're forwarding legislation that would compel them to do so.
But we find out through open records that they're making
claims that they've changed this stuff, you know, in the
I don't know, Midsummer At some point they hadn't changed
that policy really, or some of these policies that they
had internally, these these election or these security issues didn't
change them until once again, legislation was about to force
them to.
Speaker 2: So you're right, it was in September of twenty twenty
four that they finally implement an updated policies to automatically
reject donations they use foreign prepaid gift cards, domestic gift cards,
or from other high risk sanctioned countries that are determined
to be at a high risk level. Well, holy smokes,
they weren't automatically doing that before until our investigatoration showed
that to be a problem. This is why our investigation
has been so absolutely essential and why the team at
the Committee on House Administration that I work with day
in and day out, the diligent work that these young
men and women are doing is so absolutely essential because
it is actually changing how these companies are operating and
actually preventing them from taking actions that are absolutely ridiculous
until we shine a light on it.
Speaker 1: How much of that played into the massive record shattering
donations that candidate Joy and vibes Kamala Harris took in
in the first day and in the first few weeks
of her campaign when when she replaced Joe Biden on
the on the ballot.
Speaker 2: What we have visibility into Matt is that they had
lack financial protocols in place. My investigation continues and to
determine were those vulnerabilities being utilized at scale. So it's
kind of like discovering that nobody was watching the cookie jar,
and then you're trying to figure out how many cookies
were taken out of the jar, but nobody was watching.
And so what I'm saying is, Adam is on the
legislative side, Let's make sure that we put the protocols
in place so that we never have this problem again.
Let's not only seal the cookie jar, Let's put some
locks on it. Let's throw a camera on it. Let's
prevent anybody from coming into the kitchen. Separate of that.
Now that we have a Trump Department of Justice, hopefully
under Pambondi very soon, then the executive branch is in
a position to actually engage in criminal prosecutions if they
identify individuals that engaged in a legal behavior. And so
it's a bifurcation now that we have a Trump administration,
it's a bifurcation for judicial prosecution to be correctly located
at a now upcoming very soon conservative Trump run Department
of Justice, and then and the legislative branch to legislate
and actually put the laws in place to prevent this
type of activity from ever occurring again in the future.
Speaker 1: We have the Federalist will be watching both tracks very closely.
Of course, just a few minutes left, but I did
want to get to this as a final point. The
US House of Representatives on Monday past legislation to create
a Congressional time capsule to mark the two hundred and
fiftieth anniversary of the United States. It's hard to believe
this glorious republic is about to celebrate a quarter millennium
birthday next year. I know a lot of plans are underway,
but tell us a little bit more about the time capsule.
Will it include Adam Schiff's integrity, because so far we've
struggled to find that to put anywhere.
Speaker 2: I was not expecting this to be our final question, Matp,
that's a great question.
Speaker 1: Job.
Speaker 2: So in the time capsule in Congress, you do these
big transformative bills, right, tax reform, border security, and then
on occasion you real small ball stuff. One of them
is correctly known as the Congressional time capsule. And so
we're going to put in place a time capsule on
the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the United States.
Of America coming up in twenty twenty six and put
in place a whole host of items. I don't know
what's going to be on that, but maybe what I
should do is crowdsource this on social media and ask
people's suggestions of what we should or should not include.
And I will start with your suggestion as it relates
to mister Schiff.
Speaker 1: Please do I think we need to launch a congressional
investigation for a lot of reasons into Adam Shift, but
also to find where his integrity has been hiding all
of these years. And if we do uncover where that
integrity is, let's place that in the time capsule. That'll
be very nice. You know, there are so many different
things we could put in there over the years, from
Congress to you know, and then also celebrate these times.
But any ideas that you have at this point and
what you would like to see in that time capsule.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I haven't actually put enough thoughts of what should
go in. I know it's coming up in about a
year and a half, but maybe an explanation on pets
dot com and ask jeeves I would really help some
people who are already probably struggling on this podcast. I
understand what that is, but we'll help them out a
tw hundred and fifty years from today when it's open.
Speaker 1: That's right, and why while you're doing that, you could
solicit suggestions for the time capsule on MySpace and see
if friends friends dot com see if you get any
action on that front well. As always a great pleasure
talking to you, sir. I've known you for a long
time covering Wisconsin politics and of course congressional politics is
You've been a member of Congress for several years, representing
a great part of the great state of Wisconsin. I
wish you all the best moving forward in this session
on getting the real business of the people accomplished. You
have the majorities in Congress to do that. Now let's
see what happens. Thanks, Matt, have a great day. Absolutely
our guest today on this edition of the Federalist Radio
Hour Representative Brian Style, who serves as Chairman of the
House Committee on Administration. You've been listening to another edition
of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections
correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the frame.
Hear the fameboys reason and then away