The Real Reason Candace Owens' Macron Problem Isn't Over & Guess Who Got Charged With Voter Fraud

- You know, the best gifts are the ones that don't just look good under the tree. They actually earn a place in someone's life. And that's exactly why I like today's sponsor, Quince. You know, I already wear their stuff, so when I'm shopping for other people, it's nice knowing I'm giving them something I'd actually want myself. Quince, they focus on high quality staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian cashmere, 14 karat gold, and Italian leather. And they're like cashmere sweaters. They start at just 60 bucks. Plus you've got premium down jackets, wool outerwear, and cashmere accessories. And Quince works directly with ethical factories and cuts out middlemen. So everything is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. And I've already got Quince pieces that I wear constantly, like their performance tanks and crew neck short sleeve sweaters. So I know firsthand that these are the kinds of pieces that make great gifts. And hey, if clothing isn't the move, they also have fine jewelry, leather bags, hotel quality bedding, chef grade cookware, and five-star luggage. So give the gift of quality this holiday season. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers. Go to quince.com/defranco or scan the code for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. And now available in Canada and the UK too. Right when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know. This is The Philip DeFranco Show. It's one of the best ways to support the show. What's really going on with this crazy Candace Owens, McCrone case and these wild updates? Alaska's Mary Patola, Dan Sullivan scandal now has a criminal investigation, but how serious is it really? 41,000 DHS employees, including ICE agents, just got doxxed and it has everyone fighting. With this Hailey Stevens, Abdul El-Sayed controversy really exposes. We're talking about all of that even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show. You daily dive into the news, starting with this. This Mary Patola, Dan Sullivan situation has been one of the wildest rides of this season. This election cycle. Right, so many people have understandably been focused on Texas, Michigan, Maine, but Alaska, what a wild one with so many twists and turns. And now the newest involves a new investigation from the New York Times. Right, though to give a little background here to understand this Senate race, at the center of this story are two men by the name of Dan Sullivan. One is a retired school teacher, one is the incumbent Republican Senator, and both are running for Senate as Republicans. And they are facing off against Democrat Mary Patola. Right, and pretty much since Dan the teacher first popped up back in May, Republicans have been accusing him of being a Democrat plant and to siphon voters away from Senator Sullivan. And also for the purposes of this story, I'm gonna be talking about Dan the teacher and Senator Sullivan. Right, we need to distinguish between the two somehow, and that seems like the easiest way to do it. So Dan the teacher, he's maintained that, hey, he is running completely of his own volition, right? That he is not part of some Democratic plot or anything like that. He says, hey, he's just not happy with the way Senator Sullivan has run things and believes the Republican party doesn't need to be MAGA. But he also hasn't done much to clear up the mystery either. Right, he hasn't given many interviews or really done any campaigning. Though he probably couldn't have gotten very far if he did, because Republicans have been doing a lot of work trying to rail his campaign from the very beginning. But despite their best efforts, he was on the primary ballot labeled as Sullivan Daniel J. Jr. with the incumbent Senator listed as Sullivan Dan S. Right, as clear a distinction as you can make under the circumstances. I mean, he saw it as a, you know, actually a pretty clear distinction. And during the primaries, he managed to get enough votes to make it to the general election. 'Cause right, in Alaska, the top four candidates who get the most votes advance to the next round, regardless of party. And so then, Republicans escalated things with Trump's DOJ filing a lawsuit looking to block the certification of the Senate race in Alaska if Senator Sullivan narrowly loses. Right, arguing that the name confusion contained the result. And that lawsuit then prompted a wave of backlash with some accusing the Trump administration of trying to claim undue authority over the midterm elections. And you had that including David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group that advises election officials saying that he couldn't remember a single other instance where the federal government tried to seek to block certification of an election. And absolutely never this close to an election and adding, "DOJ making this claim this late smells of political interference and is against DOJ policy." Saying the feds have absolutely no authority to tell Alaska when and how to certify. And the state officials are following Alaska state law as the constitution requires. And you've even seen Alaska leaders being out against the lawsuit, including Republican Lisa Murkowski, who made it very clear that the state had handled differentiating the two Dan Sullivans just fine on the ballot and adding, "The Department of Justice should have never filed this lawsuit." And even Senator Sullivan's team said that the state had handled the issue with their statement saying, "We'll let the DOJ complaint run its course." But adding, "Alaskans can tell the difference between a Democrat sideshow and Senator Sullivan's strong record of delivering for Alaska." Right, and so really no one was putting much stock into any of this. Even legal experts were saying the chances of success here, they were low. But then you have the New York Times dropping this investigation. Right, the big thing is that throughout this whole ordeal, Pultola and her campaign had maintained, "Hey, they had nothing to do with Dan the teacher's candidacy." Except you now have the Times saying that according to interviews, text messages, and documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that is not the case at all. Claiming not only did Pultola's team work to recruit Dan the teacher into the race, they also worked to recruit other would-be spoilers in order to further dilute Senator Sullivan's support and secure the win. And the way they break it down is that in the summer of 2025, Mary Pultola's campaign decided to lure in some potential spoiler candidates onto the state's unusual four-person ballot. Right, at least according to Elisa Rios, who is Pultola's former campaign manager and long-time aide. And while ballot stacking tactics, they're common in politics, and they're generally considered legal and have been employed by both parties, specifically in Alaska, this maneuver, it took it to new heights, we'll call it. Specifically, it said that a staffer was asked to find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as possible, and saying they combed through voting records and compiled a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state. Then reportedly a few months later, a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee operative named Jared Cook from Ohio had met with Dan the teacher, who said he was willing to help. And according to Rios, Kurtz said that Dan the teacher told them in that meeting that he hated Trump and had no interest in being a politician, but he liked Pultola and was willing to help her. And from there, Kurtz reportedly touched base with Dan the teacher on a couple of occasions over the next few months, which apparently caused some anxiety amongst Pultola staffers about whether they were going to get caught. But also apparently it wasn't just Dan the teacher. Matthew Salisbury of Anchorage also reportedly sat down with Kurtz. It apparently took the time showing him a photo to determine it was him. Because when he was talking to Matthew, Kurtz reportedly called himself "Zane," but still tried convincing Matthew, who had once tried to run for US House, to run for Senate, saying he was looking for independent minded candidates and that his backers would support Matthew with outside spending. But apparently when he wouldn't provide any information about his background or political party, or even who was footing the bill, Matthew started hearing alarm bells saying, "I'm not naive. I had to have that general idea that they're not in it for me." And apparently even the fourth name on the general elections ballot this year, Gerald Heikes, he said that he was recruited to run for Senate by a guy from the Midwest. Apparently he couldn't remember his name and there were even reportedly efforts to support some of these candidates financially, right? So this just kind of goes deeper and deeper. But one of the big questions on everyone's mind at this point is, did Mary Paltola herself know that this was happening? And before we can really answer that, you then have to deal with what a lot of people see as a red flag of this investigation, and that is Elisa Rios, Paltola's former campaign manager. Because you see, Rios was one of 12 people who the Times spoke to for this investigation, and she at first agreed to a series of interviews. But the big thing is that she was fired in what appeared to be an out of nowhere staff shakeup back in August, and was planning on filing a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Paltola campaign. Except last week is the Times was getting ready to publish his story, she tried backing out, saying that she wanted to take back her previous statements and didn't want to be a source in any capacity. Though there, you had the Times saying, "That's not how this works, too bad." You know, their standards don't obligate reporters to comply with requests like that, and they've never agreed that previous interviews couldn't be published. Plus they said that her interviews were consistent with the rest of their reporting. And the reason we need to note all this now is because, one, it's important context to the investigation, and two, the Times does directly quote Elisa Rios as saying that while Mary Paltola wasn't directly involved with the ballot stacking project, she was, quote, "definitely aware." And with all that said, Mary's campaign, obviously they've denied the whole thing along with the DSCC. Right, both have said they haven't participated in the recruitment of any spoilers to the ballot in Alaska, including Dan the teacher. Mary herself also doesn't seem to be worried about it, calling the Times investigation a distraction and saying, "Nobody's waking up worried about ballot composition, "not even me." Saying, "I'm worried about my bills, "I'm worried about affordability and healthcare." But also at the same time, you Republicans jump in all over this, right? To them, they're like, "Oh, this is a chance." They're saying this is everything that they were claiming and more, right? And specifically, you've got Trump accusing Democrats in Paltola's campaign of perjury and fraud and taking it to social this morning to say, "It has been determined that the Democrats in Alaska "illegally searched for and recruited "a man named Dan Sullivan to run against "our distinguished Republican Senator, Dan Sullivan, "in order to defraud, confuse, and obfuscate the election, "thereby taking votes away "from the real Senator, Dan Sullivan." And adding, "Mary Paltola should suffer the legal "and political consequences for what she has done, "a fraud on the American public. "And Dan Sullivan should be allowed to run "without either Mary Paltola "or fake Dan Sullivan on the ballot." And while with this, you had many saying it's ironic that he apparently is deciding to trust the fake news, New York Times, about this one, though, regardless, you also had JD Vance echoing that, calling for a fraud investigation. And actually, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy went a step further than calling for an investigation, he ordered one, right, announcing on social media that he's ordered an investigation into whether or not criminal charges or civil action is warranted. And added, "Alaskans have a fundamental right "to vote for the candidate they actually intend to support, "saying deliberately tricking voters "into casting their ballots or someone else "strikes at the integrity of our election. "Anyone or any organization found to have broken the law "must be held accountable." Though a huge, big thing here is that there is some doubt about whether they actually did break the law here if they did what's been said. Because like I mentioned earlier, ballot stacking is not technically illegal, and Patola's campaign, definitely not the first to do it, even if they did it even in Alaska. And in fact, you've had many, including many Democrats, coming out to defend the plan by posting lists of times that both the right and left have done so. Some even applauding Patola's campaign for fighting tooth and nail in what could be an existential election. Right, and you've got no shortage of experts saying, "It has a long history in American politics, "dating all the way back to JFK." But as far as what Trump and co try to pull from this, or if this is kind of just trying to get in advance, save face for losing an election, we'll have to wait and see. And of course, in the meantime, I'd love to know your thoughts. Right, and then also, you know, while we wait to see how this case in Alaska plays out, we then have to talk about major updates to a legal battle against Candace Owens. Right, because Candace actually just got a huge win in her case with the McCrons. Right, you just had a judge in Delaware limit their lawsuit against her, meaning that she cannot be personally sued for defamation, but the case can continue against her two businesses. Right, because quick refresher, last year, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte sued Candace for defamation because she has repeatedly spread the false conspiracy that Brigitte was born a man. She has discussed this theory on her show, she did an entire investigative series into it, and she even once wrote that she would, quote, "Stake her entire professional reputation on the fact that Brigitte Macron is in fact a man." You've got the McCrons saying these claims are demonstrably false, that they've caused tremendous damage, and you have the suit alleging that they have been subjected to a campaign of global humiliation, turning their lives into fodder for profit-driven lies, saying it is invasive, dehumanizing, and deeply unjust. You have the lawsuit being filed in Delaware, and this week, the judge overseeing the case ruled that because "Candace lives in Tennessee, he has no jurisdiction over her." And so for the McCrawlins, end up winning the case, her personal assets would likely still be protected. Though like I said earlier, because the lawsuit was filed against both her and her companies, which are registered in Delaware, those businesses still remain as defendants. But that's also as there is a chance the McCrons could face even more setbacks in their case against Candace. Or because you also had the judge saying that France's statute of limitations could apply as that is where most of the reputational harm against the McCrons occurred. And that actually makes for a much shorter window because in France, there is a three month time limit for defamation claims. But it can also be extended to a year for cases where someone's race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation was targeted. So now both parties are gonna have to make arguments about which timeframe should apply. But also in the event that the judge thinks that it should be just three months, that could force the dismissal of the entire lawsuit. And so what you had was Candace celebrating this ruling in multiple posts, writing, "This case represents one of the grossest legal overreaches "by a foreign government leader in human history, "a sitting president's attempt to personally bankrupt "a single podcaster from outside the nation "in which he governs." And saying, "I am tremendously grateful "to the Delaware courts and to the presiding judge "for looking at this case "objectively." And in that post, she also claimed that she was never being sued for stating that Brigitte was born a male. But it is worth noting that the defamation counts in the suit do specifically reference her claims about Brigitte's gender, right? That is a huge part of the lawsuit. But still, Candace continued celebrating the win in other posts, saying, "I am in the absolute best mood "over this Macron dismissal." Saying, "It feels like a year and a half of my family "having to deal with the psychotic lies "regarding pending bankruptcy, secret accounts, "and plans to flee the country has finally come to an end." But again, at least as of now, this has not actually come to an end. She was personally dismissed, yes, but the case is still living and breathing for now. And actually, the McCarlin's legal team, they don't seem to be too pressed about it, right? They told Politico that they are pleased that the court will allow the case to continue against the LLCs and to add it. As for Mrs. Owens personally, we are keeping all options open to ensure that, in addition to the liability she still faces through her companies, she is held accountable personally. And they're actually not the only ones that are kind of spinning all this in their favor. Or because Candace, you know, a lot of people see her as this incredibly controversial figure, but she's also become even more divisive in MAGA spaces. And so you're also seeing some conservative influencers framing this legal development against her. Or with people like Tim Pool, for example, claiming that McCarlin scored a big legal win because the case was not fully dismissed. And you also had Ben Shapiro tearing into Candace's post where she reveled in the judge's decision, saying- - So no, this is not some sort of exoneration of Candace Owens. This is a personal jurisdiction technical issue. And so even if you're not from Delaware, you register your business in Delaware, and all the court said there was, "You can't be sued personally in Delaware just because you registered a business there." That is not an exoneration, but leave it to Candace to completely misinterpret law because she can't even speak English properly. - And so we're gonna have to see where all this goes, right? If the suit keeps moving forward, does McCrone's end up taking separate action against Candace? And then also, you know, as this is playing out, there are other defamation cases against Candace that we need to keep an eye on over claims around Charlie Kirk's death. So a lot still at play. And really the only question is how long is the road and where does it go? And then there's more we gotta dive into in just a minute after a quick break with our sponsor. But for those of us still working on something for over a year and you still don't have a website up, I need you to ask yourself this. Are you actually closer to launching than you were six months ago? And that's not a dig on you, right? That's just what happens when the build feels harder than the idea. But lucky for you, Squarespace makes the build stupid simple. And if you have no website, no problem. Today, that changes because Squarespace makes it easy to start selling content, courses, physical or digital products, really do whatever you've been dreaming up. Their beacon tools will literally draft your site copy, suggest your layout, design your pages, and you just describe what you want and it builds around you. No coding, no guesswork, just results. Wanna just showcase stuff or do you wanna do one-time payments, subscriptions? Get it all done. A beacon can help you design and build the business and Acuity handles the bookings. So by the time that your first client finds you, everything's already ready for them. And once you're live, their built-in analytics and marketing tools keep everything running like clockwork. You can just focus on what you actually care about. So let's be done with the procrastination, right? Your free trial is waiting for you at squarespace.com/phil or hey, scan that QR code. Today is launch day. Just remember that when it's ready to go live, use code Phil to get 10% off and let them know we sent you. But then diving right back into the news, let's talk about this drama that also has weight to it because you have a lot of Democrats asking whose side is Haley Stevens on? And that appears to be because just days from this critical election, you have Stevens who lost to Abdul El-Sayed in the Senate primary, blasting his campaign on CNN, right? And also responding to the not at all awkward news that her fiance, Jason Turkish, will be voting for Republican Mike Rogers. - Like a lot of households across America, we're a household divided. I still very much want our Democratic nominee, his name is Abdul, to win this race. Our nominee is in a very strong position to denounce the hateful ads that have hurt people. You know, we've got one with Tucker Carlson, who is a racist, anti-black, white supremacist, apologist. And we've got another that's blaming Jews for the cost of groceries. But someone's gotta speak up right now, Caitlin. And that's me. But I want to encourage, you know, this campaign to shut out the hate and to call it out and to make people who are in my coalition, right? Make them feel comfortable about coming to the polls, right? - Okay, so you are voting for her. - That's all that needs to be done. Just some. Yes. - And what many took is a pained expression from her. It kind of says a lot of it. You've got people saying the mixed messaging here is just very odd. Or you have people like Zateo's Mehdi Hassan calling this interview a de facto unendorsement. And you had others joking that Stevens is rocketing to the top of the list for worst Democratic primary loser of 2026. With this being kind of just the latest instance of her seeming to distance herself from El-Sayed and dissing the campaign. Right, she hasn't campaigned alongside him at all recently. She confirmed in a text message on Wednesday that she wouldn't appear with him in his last week of the campaign. You also had the New York Times reporting that Stevens has been even more critical of El-Sayed in private, leaving some allies wondering if she would in fact vote for him. And as far as her specific disagreements with him, those appear to be mostly around his criticisms of the Israeli government and the genocide in Gaza. Or because Stevens, whose campaign was heavily backed by AIPAC, is staunchly pro-Israel. You've had her calling him out for what she sees as alienating black and Jewish voters, coalitions that she did well with in the primaries. Specifically calling out those two ads she referenced. Or the Tucker Carlson ad refers to a recent El-Sayed spot that features a bunch of prominent conservatives saying nice things about him or negative things about Rogers. And that was created by his campaign to air exclusively on Fox News and Newsmax. - Don't want to take my word for it. How about some folks you know a little bit better? - You got to respect Abdul because he beat the machine. - I wouldn't vote for Mike Rogers at gunpoint. - There was some critical, but many saying that's not El-Sayed endorsing those people. That's just him trying to reach voters who watch those shows. And then the other ad that Stevens referenced on CNN, it wasn't even created by El-Sayed's campaign, right? It was created by Rebellion Pack. And that's the one we talked about recently where a couple realizes they can't buy eggs because they have to quote, set that $7 aside for killing Palestinians. And even though El-Sayed's campaign confirmed that that ad was not affiliated in any way with him, that statement clearly isn't enough for Stevens. And so she and her fiance see eye to eye there. - When police says genocide over and over again, when he refuses to condemn an ad that says Jews are to blame for the price of bananas, he makes my community less safe. - But with that, you had many noting that ad never uses the word Jews. And there is a difference between Jews or Jewish people or whatever word you want to use and the Israeli government. Though many, including Stevens, Turkish and others, they connect the two. And you actually had Turkish telling the Detroit News, I've just seen an escalation in his rhetoric since the primary and it makes folks unsafe. Saying every time he talks about genocide in Gaza, Jews get death threats. And adding, we have never seen a candidate for US Senate act so recklessly toward the safety of Jews in the community as we have seen from Abdul. And then he actually attended a Rogers event last night, which was sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition entitled, Who Will Keep Us Safe? Rogers versus El-Sayed in the wake of October 7th and the Temple Israel attack. Also with this, there've been a lot of people going, okay, who is this Turkish guy? And well, a quickie background is that Turkish is a disabilities and civil rights attorney, not a politician. But he's apparently been getting more and more involved in politics over the last few years. And he donated nearly $200,000 to federal democratic candidates and committees this cycle. But also a big thing is that he gave over $24,000 to Susan Collins' allied committees last year. And so this is definitely not his first rodeo supporting Republicans. But with this current news, you've got some folks out there saying, you know, I get divided households, but her fiance should not be making statements to Detroit News to undermine her endorsement. Or because Stevens technically still said that she's voting for El-Sayed, even if she said it through gritted teeth. Right, as far as El-Sayed's response to Stevens' fiance voting for Rogers, you had him keeping it respectful. - So if folks see another issue that is more important to them and decide that their disagreement with me on that is bigger than their agreement with me on all these other things, that is their choice. So, you know, I'm welcoming a big tent of folks to come together around the effort to push back on Trump, to push back on gas prices, to push back on the price of groceries, to push back on the way he's making it harder to see doctors. - So you've got him trying to bring the focus back to everyday issues that affect the majority of people in the state. And for now, like this race, which is one of the most pivotal in the country, it's currently a toss up. Then, jumping from that to some important election news, the Federal Election Commission was hacked and its electronic filing system was down for nearly 48 hours just days before the midterms. And you've got experts saying, one, that shutdown is totally unprecedented before an election, and two, it is massively significant because that filing system is the only official way to track who is making donations and how candidates in PACs spend money. And so as a result, the outage prevented Americans from seeing time-sensitive campaign finance disclosures at a time when spending is surging in an election cycle that has now become the most expensive ever in US history for political advertising. It has even surpassed years with presidential races. And according to the FEC's incident update page, the filing system went down at around 10:00 PM Eastern on Monday, though, notably, previous disclosures were still viewable, we just couldn't see new ones. And then at around 8:00 PM on Tuesday, they issued a new status message saying that the issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented. But it actually took until yesterday evening for the FEC to finally get the system back online, with the agency saying on Twitter that they were still working to restore the system's search feature. But at least as of recording, the FEC has provided absolutely zero information about what caused this major shutdown. Right, which is especially concerning because you had Reuters obtaining an email that the agency sent to several campaign compliance firms Monday night that read, "We have a bad actor "attempting to breach FEC system. "As a result, we had to temporarily shut down "our web facing services." Right now, it's not clear whether anyone gained access to the FEC systems or if any data was compromised and the total lack of transparency from the agency, it's just causing more alarm. And you have some experts noting that a cyber attack would be a good way for the bad actors to hide controversial last minute spending. And to be very clear, the FEC does not play any role in administering the elections that are now less than a week away. Still, this outage is a big deal, especially because it's coming at an absolutely critical In the 20 days before an election, federal candidate committees must report certain contributions or loans of a thousand bucks or more within 48 hours, while PACs and others, they just have 24 hours to disclose certain spending. And there's a good reason for that rapid transparency, especially because spending absolutely skyrockets in the final stretch of an election. And according to reports, candidates in their allied super PACs spent over a billion dollars just in the first two weeks of October alone. When you look at the numbers, it's just staggering. According to the research director at Open Secrets, super PACs and dark money groups have spent an average of over $50 million per day, just over the last week. And again, all of this is just for the final push of historic levels of funding. Right, the ad tracking service, Ad Impact, they just reported that this year's midterms have seen a record $11.21 billion in total ad spending and reservations, narrowly surpassing the previous record set in 2024, which is absolutely insane 'cause there was a presidential election that cycle and one that accounted for nearly a third of all ad spending. I mean, we're talking about sums that are larger than the entire annual budget for many states, which is then also, I don't know if it's ironic or crazy, given the fact that so much of the money is being poured into ads focused on affordability. So when the FEC's filing system was down for nearly two full days, we had no way of tracking how enormous quantities of money are being given and spent. And with that, you had an expert noting that the timing here is especially notable because early voting's already underway in some of these states and arguing, voters are going to vote without the full picture that the law entitles them to. That becomes even more alarming when you consider where most of the money's coming from. Because like in every election since Citizens United, spending has largely been driven by super PACs, which accept unlimited sums from ultra rich mega donors and corporations, and then spend as much of that money as they want on campaigns with very few restrictions. And actually, according to a recent analysis by the Washington Post, the 50 largest donors have poured more than $2.77 billion into influencing this year's midterms. And of course, the biggest spender by far is Elon Musk, who has spent $446 million of his own money, way more than the roughly $290 million he gave in 2024, despite the fact that he said he was going to cut back after that election. But instead, he became the single biggest individual political donor in modern American history. And what's wild is that number is astronomical, but it's also kind of nothing for him. Think of it this way. Elon Musk is an on-again, off-again trillionaire, depending on the day of the week. So him dropping $446 million just on this cycle, while it seems huge, for him, that's like if you were a millionaire and you decided, "Hey, I guess I'll spend $446." And of course, all of that has helped the Republicans get a huge lead on spending, right? Among the top 50 contributors this cycle, Republican-leaning donors gave $1.7 billion, more than double the 832 million from Democratic-leaning givers. And also, like, we don't even know where a lot of the money's coming from, with, for example, the New York Times review revealing that about a billion dollars in anonymous dark money has been infused into the election, largely through super PACs. And so while the FEC's filing system's back up now, there will likely be a lag in data because Politico obtained an automated email informing filers that they wouldn't be fined as long as they file within 24 hours of the system being back online. In the meantime, right, this total lack of transparency from the FEC about what actually happens has just caused conspiracies to swirl and undermine trust in the system at a time where we need it more than ever. For now, we're just gonna have to keep a close eye on the situation and see if any more information comes out. And then, there's even more we gotta dive into, in just a minute, after a quick break with our sponsor. Because fall is basically three different seasons fighting for control of the same afternoon. You leave the house in sunshine, you hit rain by lunch, and somehow, by the end of the day, you're dodging puddles like it's part of the commute. But today's sponsor, Vessi, they're looking out for you, especially with their new match sneakers, AKA my new go-tos. Like y'all know, I've worn Vessi's for years. The extreme waterproof thing is legit, but I fucking love these match sneakers. Right, some of you might've even seen them when I was on stage during the tour recently, which is also probably the easiest way to showcase and explain that they don't look like a rain shoe. They just look like a great everyday sneaker that also just happens to be completely unfazed by wet sidewalks. They're lightweight, breathable, and comfortable right out of the box, which matters when the day goes from errands to dinner to whatever else you somehow agreed to. And the grippy rubber outsole, it gives you solid traction on wet pavements, slick concrete, subway stairs, all the usual fall nonsense. And hey, also, when the sidewalk wins anyway, they're machine washable, problem solved. So hey, scan that QR code or head to Vessi.com/pds to get 20% off for new and existing customers, but only for the next two days. That's Vessi.com/pds. Go now. And then, Devin, right back into the news, we need to talk about Utah now bringing criminal charges against CalSheet and two of its top executives. And you've got the state specifically accusing the prediction market and its executives of illegally promoting online gambling in violation of state law. So this is actually just the latest front in this ongoing battle and one that goes way beyond Utah. Because since Trump took office and rolled back Biden-era attempts to regulate prediction markets, there's been this ongoing fight over who gets to control this massive industry. And we've had numerous states trying to impose regulations within their own borders. The Trump administration and industry leaders have fought back, filing lawsuits to block the policies and arguing that the prediction markets fall under federal jurisdiction. And you're seeing the litigation over this debate now spreading across 20 states. And many experts expect that this is ultimately gonna be decided by the Supreme Court. Right, and the story that you have playing out in Utah, it fits the kind of general theme. Right, back in February, CalSheet actually preemptively sued the state to stop it from enforcing gambling restrictions on the company, arguing that they lacked jurisdiction. And that was coming right as Utah was poised to pass legislation that would expand the state's strict gambling ban to include proposition bets. Right, which are bets on certain actions, statistics, and other occurrences. But then in August, a federal judge ruled against CalSheet, rejecting their request to block the state's restrictions and allowing Utah to enforce its law. And you then had an appeals court also refusing to block the law from taking effect while the case plays out. Right, and then last week, you had Utah filing a civil lawsuit against CalSheet, which is separate from the criminal one that they just filed. And there, they allege that CalSheet is still operating in the state and letting people place bets in violation of the newly expanded gambling laws. Estimating that CalSheet has made between $30.6 and $61.2 million in fees from wages placed by Utah accounts and asking the judge to stop the company from operating in the state and award millions of dollars in damages. But then on Tuesday, you had the Trump administration filing its own lawsuit against Utah, making that same jurisdiction argument that we've seen time and time again. Right, Team Trump saying that only the federal government can regulate prediction markets. Or which brings us full circle back to the criminal charges that Utah just filed, which mark a dramatic escalation. And getting into the specifics, the state actually slapped CalSheet with 14 different counts, most of which are felony charges that carry jail time, including unlawful activity and online gambling promotion. Right, and Utah actually isn't even the first state to file criminal charges against CalSheet. Arizona did it earlier this year in a lawsuit that similarly accused the company of operating an illegal gambling business in that state. With that one, you had a federal judge blocking the state from criminally prosecuting CalSheet at the Trump administration's request. And so that ended up actually being something the company mentioned in their statement responding to Utah's lawsuit, saying this is a crazy overreach. Utah is clearly playing politics, saying we look forward to putting a stop to this in court, just like we did in Arizona. But then also at the same time, you have some analysts predicting that this could be the beginning of a new tactic in the battle over regulatory power. And we can see more states maybe doing the same. Well, of course, we're gonna have to keep our eyes on this. I will say, given all the overlapping litigations playing out all over the country, it very much seems like this is gonna be a Supreme Court thing. But what I will say is it is always funny, whether it be Trump or certain Republicans, when and where they care about states' rights. Like it seems to always matter, unless maybe, I don't know, it's connected to someone that gives a lot of money to the administration or the families involved with in some way. But you know, that's probably just coincidence and there's nothing to really look into. No, no corruption. The swamp has been drained. Oh, hey, I will say regarding the Supreme Court, this could happen sooner than later because I mean, just last month, New Jersey asked the high court to rule on whether a state or federal authorities of jurisdiction over prediction market platforms. But then jumping from that to the final thing today, let's close it out with a few quick stories. Starting with the fact that a hacktivist group just docked more than 41,000 Department of Homeland Security employees, including ICE agents, border patrol, even undercover investigators and posted it all online. Right, so you have this group calling itself the Department of Peace saying that it broke in through the single sign-on service that DHS uses to log into its systems. And then saying they handed the data to a transparency group that published it and a Swiss hacker then made a searchable database listing of names, offices, and assignments. And it appears to be real. You had both the Washington Post and Reuters saying that they verified the data with DHS officials and by contacting people on the list. And you're seeing very different reactions to this news. Where the people behind it and others, they're framing this as oversight. Or their argument being that federal agents have been operating masked and anonymous while running an aggressive immigration crackdown and the public deserves to know who is behind the policies. We're saying that it targets the architects of DHS, not every employee. But you have DHS and others seeing it very differently. They're calling it a nightmare scenario, saying that the agents are masked to protect themselves as threats against them rise and that this leak could endanger officers, their families, and ongoing criminal investigations. And then also in the news, you have two conservative influencers sitting out to expose voter fraud in Minnesota, but now they're the ones that are charged with it. Because back in August, James O'Keefe, formerly the Project Veritas guy, and Cam Higby went to polling places during Minnesota's primary disguised in Muslim clothing, using fake accents and the names of real registered voters. And he said that the point was to show how easy it is to gain Minnesota's vouching system where a registered voter can vouch that someone lives in the precinct. They apparently filmed it all on hidden cameras. - Can she vote if I vouch? - No, good luck. - Does she live within this precinct? - Yes. - Yep, we didn't get her registered. - Now, you have them being charged with felony unlawful voting and identity theft. And a huge key thing here is that they never actually cast a ballot, but prosecutors say that actually doesn't matter. And under Minnesota law, giving election workers someone else's name to apply for a ballot is itself the crime. You have the county attorney also noting that the names they used included dead voters and one real person who had already voted and said that this isn't about their policies or their disguises, it's about impersonating people. You've got O'Keefe and Higby firing back, calling it lawfare and an attack on the first amendment. Arguing this is journalism and the lawsuits don't scare them. But ultimately, now a court's gonna decide whether they committed it. So while they apparently set out to prove how easy voter fraud is, they may have actually proved the opposite by getting charged. And then finally today, we have Fox News. Right, and they're in the news because their ratings haven't dropped this much in the month before an election in 10 years. Even though midterm year is gonna be a mixed bag for ratings, in recent years, reports say that Fox has generally done well in the October leading up to an election day. But according to these Nielsen ratings that we're seeing now, Fox's prime time viewers fell 28% in its full term full day viewers fell 27% compared to just last year. And viewers in their demo, 25 to 54 years old, dropped by over 30%. That's a 25 year low. Though also like, don't get it wrong, they still had a pretty commanding lead over their competitors. Right, despite a number of their people complaining about the mainstream media, they have the five most watched cable news shows. And on YouTube, they've gotten 3.8 billion views so far this year. But still, you can't ignore the trends here. And with that, you have media analysts looking at Trump. Right, because while Nielsen data doesn't track the Y, the ratings ebb and flow, experts are speculating that Trump's little approval ratings they're not helping. Really, there could be multiple factors at play. So for example, Trump's also taking shots at Fox News for things like airing interviews with Democratic candidates, Abdul El-Sayed and Charles Booker. And he's also complained that they've cut coverage of his rallies. So that could have actually driven some people from tuning in and maybe going to something that's even more pro-Trump. Oh wow, you have reports saying that this election cycle in general seems to have favored the Democrats. And so all of that could be making their numbers worse while networks like MSNOW and CNN, they're seeing gains. And now my friends, you beautiful bastards, is the end of your Thursday show. But hey, some quick housekeeping as we close down today's show and maybe shows for the week. If you haven't already, you should definitely join the text line over at 813-213-4423. You literally just text to join. Also, if you haven't already, go to philipdefranco.com, sign up, get the newsletter. That way, if these videos get suppressed, you'll always get one in your mailbox. And then also, if you decide to upgrade your account, you can get "The Philip DeFranco Show" with no ads. But no matter what you do, including if you watch this video that YouTube thinks you'll love, I will see you right back here on Monday at the latest. 'Cause you know, the world might go crazy and we might have to do a bonus show. Thank you for watching. I love yo faces and I'll see you then.