The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - June 21, 2024

Episode Date: June 21, 2024

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/ The Texan’s Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion. Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email [e-mail] — they just might be answered on a future podcast.This week on The Texan’s “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses the most interesting upcoming primary runoff elections, including:Biden Administration to Allow ‘Non-Citizen’ Spouses, Children of U.S Citizens to Qualify for Permanent ResidencyState, Activists Quarrel Over Disclosure of ‘Algorithm’ in Ballot Security LawsuitSen. Cruz Introduces Bill to Combat AI-Generated Deepfake 'Revenge Porn'Trump’s Conviction More Likely to Draw Electoral Support from Texas Voters than OppositionFederal Lawsuit Challenges Firearm Carry Ban in U.S. Post OfficesRepublican Senator Blocks Democratic Bill to Ban Bump StocksPaxton Investigates Texas Children's Hospital Following Second Child Gender Modification WhistleblowerProject Connect Trial Set to Begin in Austin, Likely to Be Halted ImmediatelyFredericksburg Doctor Convicted in $70 Million Medicaid Fraud SchemeNew Dallas GOP Chair Allen West Calls for County Election AuditKenneth Omoruyi Requests Recount in GOP Congressional Runoff After Narrow Defeat by Caroline Kane

I feel like Pepper's a good name for a spicy little parrot, too. You know? Add some spice to your life with Pepper the Parrot. Spicy? Are you planning on eating it? There's not much meat on those bones, I don't think. Have you ever eaten a parrot? This delightful parrot has a very spicy personality. You are, as you call yourself, usually a hungry, hungry hippo.

This isn't going to do much for you. Howdy, folks. Welcome back to the podcast. It's Matt here with Brad, Matt, and Cam. Gentlemen, I said before we started recording that I had something to share with you that I was going to wait until we were on the podcast to divulge. Here I am divulging. I'm in Ireland. I'm a very pale individual.

Ireland has been between 55 and 62 degrees the entire time I've been here. I have managed wearing long sleeve, long pants, everything, to somehow get sunburned while here. And it was just on my little face. But I think there are very few people who can come to Ireland with this kind of overcast weather and manage to get sunburned. So I just wanted to announce that, see what the reactions might be, give you guys an open mic to, you know, say what you must about the issue.

You know, it probably makes for some awkward tan lines. You know, there's the farmer's tan where it's very tan on the forearms but very pale above the forearm. What is it called when just your face and the tops of your hands are sunburned where it looks like you're wearing tan clothes? That's a great question. Is there a term for that? Maybe we can invent it.

I have no idea. I also don't even understand when it happened because it has it's been overcast every single day so it's just me walking outside in slightly overcast weather you didn't get sunburned for hours on end you got cloud burn fair the clouds just were like hey that girl's same color as us you know let's make her pay i don't know what yeah i don't know i don't know it sounded right in the moment how's the office guys riding cam it's been good yeah it's it's been quiet. Not as much bickering as there normally is. Because someone is notably absent from the office, but it's been fine. Interesting. I wonder who that common factor is that's now absent. Cameron, I have a question.

Uh-oh. Would you expect the same result if Brad was the one who was absent from the office? Probably not. Probably not? That's why. In what world? Well, because you often come out of your office, sit down, chat with us, and, you know, there's good conversation that's had.

You can have that with all of us, back and forth between you and Rob. That usually makes it into your newsletter. But it just goes to another level when it's you and Brad. So you're saying they would still be bickering. But Brad doesn't get into it with Rob. You can get into it with Rob. That's not true. Brad, you would

admit that you get into it with Rob. It usually ends pretty quickly because I set him down. Oh, the haughtiness of that response is insane. Oh, brother. Well, Cameron, I will respect your answer. Okay, thank you.

I'll respectfully disagree also, but I understand. Okay. I understand. And we'll move on now that I have been sufficiently called out. Let's start. Matt, we have right off the bat bat you've written so many stories this week so like half the podcast today i'm not exaggerating will be you sharing your news stories with our audience so let's go ahead and jump into this the first one right off the bat the biden administration

announced a new policy allowing the non-citizen spouses and children of U.S. citizens who are illegally present in the country to remain and provide a path to legal status. Sparking pushback from Republicans, walk us through this policy. A new rule will allow non-citizen spouses and children of U.S. citizens who are illegally present in the country to apply for legal status, namely permanent residency. Specifically, the change in the current rules will go from forcing those in this situation who otherwise qualify to apply for legal status from having to leave the United States before being eligible to apply. Essentially, the rule simply changes it from having to apply from being out of the country to where they can, as they are present in the country, apply and begin going through the process to qualify and obtain permanent legal status. The move announced by the Biden administration

this week is intended to allow the families of U.S. citizens to remain together as opposed to the one that has to apply having to leave the country and apply from outside. The policy has been met with strong criticism from Republicans who've characterized it as a mass amnesty program being undertaken instead of prioritizing the securing of the southern border and have said the policy will only result in causing a magnet effect, that,000 children. It will also qualify them to apply for illegal immigration, and further strain U.S. social service programs among the myriad of reasons that Republicans are opposing the rule. Matt, quickly, I have a question for you. When we say that these folks are spouses, they're non-citizen spouses and children, they're family members of U.S. citizens who are illegally present in the country. What does that mean? Let's say, for example, a U.S. citizen marries a citizen of Mexico, and that maybe,

there could be a number of situations. Let's say that spouse from Mexico came to the United States on her Mexican passport and overstayed the amount of time that you can stay in the United States on a passport and just didn't leave. Under passport guidelines, without obtaining a visa or other legal status, you have a certain amount of time, I forget what it is, that you can actually stay inside the country. Another example would be the spouse illegally crossing the southern border between ports of entry. There's a number of circumstances in which the spouse ultimately got into the United States, but does not have a legal right to be or remain here. Got it. Thanks for that clarification. Yeah, that's very, very helpful, Matt. Thank you. We'll come back to you very soon. Bradley, coming to you, you have an update on the court case involving ballot security and the Secretary of State, a wild story that broke a few weeks ago when we were at the in the election system through which individual ballots may be publicly accessed. In the states, they're fighting over the protective order, specifically how far it should extend. There is an algorithm that Presley says she's been able to use to access individuals' ballots to see who people voted for.

That's the center of this case. And she is suing the states over that to try and fix the issue, whatever redacted the algorithm itself and a few other parts of the evidence. And so the state is trying to get a hold of that to verify whether this is legit or not. And they filed a motion for a protective order and confidentiality. In the filing it says, Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains multiple redacted exhibits, which they are unwilling to show in unredacted form unless provided under a protective order. These redactions obscure the alleged algorithm that plaintiffs assert exists and which they allege defeats ballot secrecy in violation of the 14th Amendment.

At issue here is the definition of qualified persons under the protective order. eligible to handle the currently redacted evidence is broader than Presley's, and the states includes actual or potential independent experts or consultants, other miscellaneous consultants brought in by the court, staff of counsel, and anyone else the court permits to handle the evidence who agrees to confidentiality. Presley's counterproposal for a protective order limits it only to the parties of the case, their counsel, and then members of the court. One of their proposals, if it should be extended any further, was to give one attorney with the Office of the Attorney General

ability to view this redacted evidence. So this case is going to drag out for a while. But right now they are fighting it out over this. The court has not ruled on that yet. They've not decided who they're going to go with. But the reason that Presley wants to keep this very limited is so that the algorithm doesn't get out for someone to go look up an estimated 60,000 ballots for voters in Williamson County, which is where this case is centered. And so the state, though, also wants to verify this, see if it's legit.

So they're kind of at loggerheads right now. They both agree that a protective order should happen for this. It's just a question of who it extends to. going, but it became much more publicly known at that point when the release of then Texas GOP Chairman Matt Rinaldi's ballot became a big point of attention. So that's what we're referring to there. Awesome. Bradley, thank you. Cameron, okay, coming to you. AI continues to be a topic for lawmakers and one of your favorite beats. Ted Cruz is now taking it on at the federal level. Tell us about this new piece of legislation from Texas's senator. Yeah, so this is called the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks. Big name, but the acronym is Take It Down Act, and it will criminalize the publishing of revenge porn or non-consensual intimate imagery

that is uploaded to social media or other online platforms to embarrass or harass the individual that is depicted. And the bill aims to criminalize the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, they call this acronym NCII, including AI-generated deepfake pornography. And it would also mandate that social media platforms and similar websites establish procedures to promptly remove such content upon receiving a notification from the victim. websites to implement procedures for removing the images or videos within 48 hours and will be quote narrowly tailored in order to protect lawful speech and in addition the legislation will permit quote good faith disclosure for law enforcement and medical treatment and I actually got a chance to speak with a Texas mom whose daughter and her friends were actually victim to such an act like this, where the woman, Anna McAdams, her daughter and her friends, images were created using AI

technology and spread on Snapchat. And speaking with Anna, she told me she tried to get in contact with Snapchat to have them take it down, and she ran into issues with that. And she's been trying to make some things happen with her local school board, and she finally got in contact now, and they're addressing it at the federal level. But what's interesting is with the rapid development in artificial intelligence and the ease of use of it to create novel images like these and how they're being used in this aspect of creating pornographic images. And now it's being related to revenge pornography with minors. It's really becoming a big issue. And McAdams told me that since she's gone public with this issue, she's been surprised by how many parents have similar stories. So a very relevant piece of legislation, something I'll definitely be

keeping my eye on. Like you mentioned at the top, AI has been a beat I've been covering and it's not going to stop. It really is in so many ways the wild west, a new frontier for both policymaking and legislation. So Cameron, thank you for covering that for us and we'll keep an eye on that legislation from Texas' junior senator. Brad, we're coming to you. A new poll was released this morning. Very notable numbers. Give us the rundown. It was put out by the Texas Politics Project associated with the University of Texas. It was conducted between May 31st and June 9th had 1,200 registered voters with a 2.83 percent margin of error. Top lines show Donald Trump up on Joe Biden in Texas 43 percent to 34 percent with RFK Jr. coming in at eight percent. The other candidates, whether it's Cornel West or Jill Stein or anyone else pulling at 2% or below in Texas.

One interesting part of this was that TPP asked whether Trump's conviction makes you more or less likely to support him electorally. And the more category was 36%. The less category was 27%. And the no effect, not applicable, was 32%. So... I think that's really interesting. Yeah, I thought so too. Because it seems like the tactic

of putting all these charges on Trump, convicting him, is essentially sort of backfiring in some sense. Is that what you're getting from it as well? Oh, yeah, absolutely. You know, and another part of this that was interesting, I think we mentioned it on our Send Me Some Stuff podcast yesterday, but the breakdown of those supporting Trump asked whether they want – they're supporting him because they want Trump to be president or because they don't want Biden to be president was like 73 percent in favor of wanting Trump to be president and the rest against Biden being president. Now, flip that with Biden, and the breakdown was about 50-50 either way. So more about the same number of

people want Biden to be president than those who just don't want Trump to be president. So there's an enthusiasm gap there clearly. And maybe this plays into that. Maybe those numbers have changed recently given the conviction, but I think it probably is directionally the same even without without the conviction so um moving on to another this the U.S. Senate race Cruz is up 11 on Colin Allred in in the uh the U.S. Senate race in Texas that tracks with what TPP has put out recently, you know, throughout the year, really. Crews lead anywhere from like nine points to 13 points, and this is right in the middle of that. It differs, though,

from the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation poll, I believe that had crews up 5% on all red. So, you know, it is notable that this is registered voters. So take that into account. It's not likely voters. I'm not sure the reason for that, at least right now. Maybe it's too difficult to model a likely voter at this point. Maybe that will come later on.

And so there's that part of it. Then some fave, unfave breakdowns that I thought were interesting. Governor Abbott, plus 11. That's a pretty good spread for him, and he's been about that for a while. Lieutenant Governor Patrick is plus five speaker dade feeling's minus six uh ag paxton is minus two ted cruz is plus four john cornyn is minus six and then with views of the parties uh the republican party is at minus five which is you'd think alarming right like the republican Like, the Republican Party controls the state.

You'd think they would have a bit of a better reputation. But compare that to the Democratic Party, which is minus 11. Wow. So I think that tells you quite a bit there. And then some other issues, some other interesting points those polled named the top issues of the 2024 presidential race um to be the top one to be border security and immigration at 22 percent followed by the economy at 18 percent and inflation at 14 percent and then jumping all the way down to six percent was abortion so pretty clear delineation there on what is viewed to be the top, the most important

issues at hand. And that tracks similarly to, you know, top issues facing the state as well, you know, border security and immigration is top there as well. And then on that issue, broken down further, just under half of the respondents said the U.S. allows, quote, too many immigrants from other countries compared to about the right amount at 27 percent and too few at 13 percent. Fifty-seven percent of those respondents favored deporting illegal immigrants currently in the country immediately, with 37 percent opposed. There's a lot more in the piece. Interesting poll overall. You can see a bunch of different issues, but that's top lines.

Some fascinating numbers from that new poll, Brad. Thanks for breaking it down for us. And I would encourage folks to go to The Texan, read the entire story, get the whole scoop, lots of interesting information, background, especially heading into November. So, Brad, thank you so much. Matthew, coming to you, a gun rights group has filed a lawsuit in a Texas-based federal court challenging the law that prohibits the carrying of a firearm into post offices.

Niche, but also not. Walk us through it. The Firearm Policy Coalition has filed a federal lawsuit in the several Texans who are the plaintiffs in the suit, all are licensed to carry a handgun and want to be able to carry their handgun and not be forced to disarm prior to getting out of the car, going into the post office, and checking their mailboxes, something that I can appreciate. They say the law violates the Second Amendment and are citing a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court, specifically New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, to back up their arguments. In short, the Bruin decision, as it's referred, prohibits gun restrictions that are not consistent with the nation's historic tradition of firearms regulation. Court found

that a New York law prohibiting guns in Manhattan area violated the Second Amendment. Now the case is proposed to create further precedent on where the government can or cannot restrict an otherwise law-abiding citizen from carrying their guns. As of now, locations such as state legislatures, courthouses, and government buildings where the police provide total security are among those that can be deemed off limits for citizens to carry their handguns. Fascinating stuff. Thank you, Matt. I'm sure we'll come back uh come back to you oh wait you're next again oh how about that okay matt let's go to the story senate republicans blocked a democratic bill to ban bump stocks another second amendment story proposed in the wake of a u.s supreme

court decision that struck down a rule that had banned them as machine guns but gun rights groups warned that the bill could result in all semi-automatic firearms being banned. Walk us through the details. We're just going to talk a whole bunch about guns today, Mackenzie. And courts. Are you okay with that? And courts.

Courts and guns. A not uncommon combination as of late. So Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down an administrative rule that banned bump stocks as machine guns. For those that don't know, a bump stock is a silly little piece of plastic that you put on rifles like an AR-15, and you kind of use forward pressure and hold the grip loosely, and it kind of moves your finger on the trigger real fast, and you can sometimes get it to fire really, really fast like a machine gun. It's not that easy to do, but that's the device that we're talking about. Now, after a deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas where a gunman used a bump stock to murder some 60 concert attendees and injure hundreds more, the Trump administration issued a rule redefining a bump stock as a machine gun, which effectively outlawed them. is because Congress heavily regulated the ownership of machine guns under the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. And then in 1986, they issued an amendment to that that said after May 19th, 1986,

no more privately owned machine guns can be registered into the system. So the only legal machine guns are made before May of 1986, and bump stocks are all kind of new devices. So if you just don't find them as a machine gun, they will be outlawed. However, SCOTUS found the rule was illegally issued and struck it down, leaving the devices once again legal for civilian ownership. This prompted the Senate Democrats to put forward legislation seeking to codify the ban of the stocks in statute, with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer seeking unanimous consent to rapidly advance the bill in the U.S. Senate. However, gun rights groups such as Gun Owners of America warned the language of the bill could be used to ban all semi-automatic firearms like

the AR-15, or at a minimum, subject them to heavy regulation under the National Firearms Act, well beyond what the bill purported to do in simply banning bump stocks. They also said they believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to own a bump stock if you own a bump stock. This led Republican Senator Pete Ricketts, I believe from Nebraska, if I'm not mistaken, to file an objection to the legislation on the Senate floor, which blocked the bill from advancing. Texas Senator John Cornyn also opposed the bill, pointing out previous comments he'd made criticizing the Biden administration over their rule expanding the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to apply to gun sales beyond what

the statutory language Congress had agreed to. And if you will remember, we reported on a Texas court also recently issuing an injunction against that rule, finding that the Biden administration had illegally exceeded what the statute allows the executive branch to do. Matt, I want you really quick to plug the docket, your subscriber-only newsletter, that if you folks are interested, which you are because you're listening to this podcast, you need to go subscribe to the Texan right now so you can get access to Matt's newsletter. But you had a very fun subject line this week. And really quickly, since it does apply to this story, I want you to tell us what the subject line of your newsletter was this week. Oh my gosh, you're going to put me on a spot here. I know. I was actually just

thinking, I don't know if I can pull it out of my hat here right away or the exact one. I know the gist, but I can't. Yeah. So there was a Supreme Court ruling. I think it was on the bump stocks. And Justice Thomas issued the majority opinion and he methodically went through and from a textualist perspective, compared the rule itself against what the statute says. And then he went through and compared the actual mechanics, mechanical difference of a bump stock and a semi-auto and a machine gun. And then in dissent, I believe it was Justice, it might've been Justice Jackson, who basically said that she would have upheld the rule and said that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then in her opinion, it is a duck. And

that the bump stock fires just like a machine gun, therefore it is a machine gun. And so it was a pretty interesting analysis that I had to key up on for the docket headline. So if it quacks like a duck, it's a machine gun, I think, is what we ran with on the headline. That was one of our more fun headlines. Yeah, the draft came in and Rob and I were delighted. It was quite a fun piece to edit. I'd encourage folks to subscribe to The Texan and make sure that you get access to Matt's newsletter called The Docket, especially for that headline, for that subject line.

It's pretty awesome. Matt, thank you for covering that for us. Cameron, go on back to you. Oh yeah, go for it. I was just gonna say, we've got an exciting one coming out this week as well. Yeah, you've teased it to Rob and I. So we're on the edge of

our seats here, Matthew. It better be awesome, and it is going to be. Thank you, Matt. Okay, Cameron, coming to you, a second whistleblower has emerged regarding Texas Children's Hospital and continuing to treat children with gender modification treatments. Tell us about it. Yeah, so Christopher Rufo over at the Manhattan Institute, he's been reporting on these different whistleblowers out of Texas Children's Hospital. And this week, there was a second whistleblower who emerged. And in Ruffo's reporting, says, quote, doctors at Texas Children's Hospital were willing to falsify medical records and break the law to keep practicing gender-affirming care. And according to this whistleblower,

Texas Children's Hospital was, quote, unlawfully billing the state Medicaid program for these purposes of continuing child gender modification. I would encourage everyone to go check out not only our reporting, but the source reporting from Chris Ruffo, where he highlights all the different allegations that this whistleblower is mentioning in this new expose that he published. And we've seen some developments in the story pretty rapidly. Soon after Ruffo's reporting, we saw both Christopher Ruffo and Representative Brian Harrison confirm that Paxton and the OAG's office will be investigating the allegations of Medicaid fraud at Texas Children's Hospital.

And what makes this prescient is that Attorney General Compaxson actually issued an opinion last year stating that procedures for gender transition of a child, including administering puberty blockers, would meet the standard for child abuse in Texas. And then following that issuance from Paxson, Texas Children's Hospital actually released a statement that it made its decision to stop gender modification treatments. So there's been an issuance from Paxson last year. TCH said they were going to stop, but obviously with multiple whistleblower accounts, that has not been the case. And now

with the Medicaid fraud issue in the most recent whistleblower report, Paxton and his office will be investigating. So I'm sure there will be more developments and I'll be paying attention to them. Fascinating to see what that investigation will yield and no doubt we will keep an eye on that. So Cameron, thank you so much for your coverage. Brad, coming to you, a local story for y'all in Austin. Austin's Project Connect was supposed to finally face a trial this week, but it stalled immediately. What happened? So originally filed, I think, back in November last year, Dirty Martin's Place, which is a restaurant

along with a few taxpayers, sued over the mechanism by which Project Connect was approved. Specifically, it was a 2020 election, a tax rate election, not a bond election, that basically raised taxes, raised the tax rate in perpetuity to pay off this $7 billion then, now it's upwards of $11 billion project. And normally when you build a capital project, you use the bond election. Well, this is the first time this has ever been done, and voters overwhelmingly approved it in 2020. There's also the aspect that the project now is significantly different than what was originally approved for various reasons, a lot of it having to do with cost increases, and whether that's through inflation or supply chain stresses or things like

that. So fast forward to this week, there was finally supposed to be a hearing or a trial on this where both sides would present their evidence. But it stopped because the Office of the Attorney General filed an interlocutory, I think I said that right, appeal. It's a weird situation where there's that original petition about the merits of the case, but then the city of Austin earlier this year filed a bond verification case, essentially asking the court to determine the way they financed or they funded this project is legit and they got pushed put together and so the appeal is of the judge's decision not to rule on a request related to that second case but it also stopped the first case. So now we're just paused, and we'll see what happens there.

But, yeah, it's kind of an anticlimactic moment. You know, I saw a picture of Bill Allishire. He's the attorney for the plaintiffs against Project Connect, I think former Travis County judge. He was a countywide elected official in some capacity a while ago. But he was all ready to go in court, and there's a bunch of media surrounding him and, you know, ready to see what happens. And then it stalled out because of the appeal was filed. And so the attorney general joined the suit, siding with the taxpayers in the restaurant against Project Connect.

And I guess we'll see where it goes from here on in terms of courts, which is probably gonna be a while. So. Yeah, I was gonna ask, so what does this mean going forward? I mean, also, this is something you've had on the calendar and many reporters have had on the calendar for a very long time. And then all of a sudden, OK, well, that was the most anticlimactic start to a story. So what does this mean going forward? that would have required any additional changes to Project Connect to be approved at the ballot box. So if you're going to change what voters originally approved, then you need to get re-approval, basically.

Now, when that went to the Senate, the Senate tacked on language that basically said this method of financing is illegitimate for a capital project like that. And that resulted in it getting point of order in the House. So it didn't pass. The Office of the Attorney General issued an opinion stating that this method of financing was illegitimate. And now I guess they're now they're, I guess, they're making the, they're not a guess, but they are making the case in court. So there's, that's one potential way to get this instituted. The other one is through the legislature passing the bill next time. So. When did the first idea of Project Connect start?

How long has it been? Well, that's a bit of a loaded question because there were um there's been multiple bond elections to try and pass something like this i think back in uh 2014 or 2015 voters actually rejected a ballot proposition through a bond proposition to pass some sort of rail project. This iteration started in 2019, 2020. It really took root when the city council became very, very progressive. You know, Austin's austin's liberal always has been probably always will be but this it was the same city council that we saw were sitting the camping ban that um you know caused a lot of havoc in the city uh they're

also the ones that uh cut and redirected 150150 million from the police budget, and they also proposed Project Connect and passed it there. So, yeah, it's been going on for a while. This one, basically 2019-2020. And here we are four or five years later, and we still don't have a resolution on it. Wow, shocking. These kinds of things.

Also, this project, aside from the court case, it's just like so many other government projects and home remodels where, hey, a contractor comes to your house. He gives you a quote. You're like, oh, it will cost this much and take this long. And then it increases in cost by 30% and 50% longer it takes. And you're constantly looking at things like, okay, when is this going to be done? And how much will this actually cost when all is said and done? Well, you know, one of the reasons that the costs really spiked was they realized that the plan, they had to do a tunnel under the river for the sub for the train because of the capital view requirement like you have you can't block the view from south congress of the capital building that's a that's a

law it is yeah okay that exists in multiple other points so you like you know if you drive on 35 you can see the capital you're not allowed to build a it's a state law You're not allowed to build a, it's a state law, you're not allowed to build high-rises that block that view. I had no idea. And it also applies from down Congress Avenue. Wow. And so they didn't think about that, or they didn't think it'd be an issue.

Yeah. But it turns out that building another bridge for the rail, that would have blocked the view from parts of South Congress. Interesting. And so they realized they had to instead go under and have an underground substation there too. Wow.

That's crazy. Yeah. Add to that inflation and costs of everything increasing with supply chain stresses from COVID and the cost has ballooned. Matt, are you raising your hand because you have something to add or because you're next on the docket? Because I had a fun fact I wanted to add. Oh, love a fun fact. I do too. So whenever I went to Washington DC for the first time back in 2019, on my tour, I learned an interesting fun fact. I kind of noticed as I was driving around that all the buildings were the same height and there weren't really any

higher buildings than any others. And I was informed that there's actually a rule that you can't build so high based off the height of the Capitol building because you're not supposed to outdo the height of the Capitol building, so to speak. And that it's not uncommon in capitals around the country to have building restrictions to basically say, don't block or try to outdo our Capitol building. So there you go. Yeah, it certainly does happen with a lot of municipalities making those distinctions when there is some sort of site or historic nature of some building, like there is those kinds of ordinances certainly do come into play. So Bradley, thank you for your coverage there. Matt, we're going to come to you. The Texas Attorney General and the Department of Justice teamed up in the investigation and

the prosecution of a Texas doctor who was ultimately convicted of a scheme to defraud Medicaid. What happened? Well, that's a good question, Mackenzie. According to the Texas Attorney General's Office, officers with the OAG conducted a joint investigation with federal counterparts and a Fredericksburg physician, Dr. David Young. According to the case, undercover agents posed as patients who Young didn't even see in person, but was willing to prescribe orthotic braces and other tests billed to the Medicaid system. In all, Young was found responsible for some $70 million in unnecessary or fraudulent Medicaid claims, which resulted in $475,000 in illegal kickbacks to Dr. Young. While officers with the Attorney General's Office Medicaid Fraud Division investigated the case,

the charges were filed and prosecuted under federal law by the federal government, specifically the U.S. Department of Justice. Young was found guilty. According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, he took the opportunity to point out that the Medicaid fraud unit delivers a huge return for taxpayers, describing for how every dollar of state funding that the unit receives, it recovers $46, citing a statistic from the past three years of data. The more you know. The more you know. The more you know.

The more you know. The more you know. Thank you. Oh my gosh. Are you guys done? Yeah, I'm good. I'm done. Okay, good job.

Proud of you. Matthew, thank you. We have one more story from you that we'll get to in just a minute. So then we'll wrap up your portion of the podcast, which is about 50%. Bradley, coming to you. New Dallas GOP Chair Allen West called for an audit of the county's election processes. Why is that? New Dallas GOP Chair Allen West said in an open letter,

there's never been a serious third-party examination and analysis of Dallas' voting system, equipment, processes, procedures, and protocols. Now is the time. He went on to say this is not a forensic audit to question election results. This is a procedural audit to ensure Dallas is following all election code sections and rules outlined by the Texas Administrative Code. He listed a few, in addition to calling for the audit, he listed a few things he'd like to see changed. Restoring ballot numbering systems, secure the printing of early voting results tapes,

hash test voting equipment, resolve e-pull book issues, improving in-person and mail ballot security, and eliminate Secretary of State waivers. That number, that fifth one on ballot security is specifically related to what we talked about earlier with the lawsuit and the alleged vulnerability of ballots to a couple different ways of figuring out, you know, who voted for whom. So I don't know if this is going to, you know, spark an actual audit. He's calling for it, obviously. I reached out to the Dallas County Elections Office. They did not get back to me about it, so I'm not sure what they're thinking on this. But, yeah, it comes after we just saw a recount had for the HD 108 race,

the primary involving Morgan Meyer and Barry Wernick. It's all tied together in terms of themes here and causing one thing, causing another. Allen West is calling for this after that. There was some controversy regarding from Wernick. He alleged there were a lot of problems um in the audit or in the recount the recount actually grew his margin of loss grew morgan's uh morgan meyer's margin of victory by some number of votes i think like 30 some votes but so we'll see where this goes if it shows anything uh dallas county was audited by the secretary of state for the 2020 election.

But I think that was more results focused than just procedures focused. So maybe there's something new there. But, yeah, he's making quick work of his new position. We'll see if he can actually get anything done there. Election integrity, something we're entirely unfamiliar with reporting on here at the Texan. That's a joke. We report on it all the time. It's a big topic here in Texas and rightfully so. Brad, thank you. Matthew, coming to you, last story of the day, congressional candidate. Okay.

You're going to have to help me pronounce his name. Omar Rui. Omar Rui. Omerui. Kenneth Omerui is asking for a recount after the results of a GOP runoff left him only 44 votes behind opponent Caroline Kane. Wow, close margins there, Matt. Tell us all about this. It was. So Omerui is asking for a recount in the May GOP runoff for Congressional District 7 race, which is a Houston area congressional seat presently held by Democratic Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher. with a really strong first place lead. I think he was somewhere around 44% of the vote and she was somewhere in the 20s, if I recall correctly. So a major rebound on her part. However, until the recount is concluded, any subsequent challenges that also result from the recount,

the certification of the process will be stalled off. Now, kind of a fun fact, so to speak, some of the statistics in this case, in this race, specifically the May runoff results, Kane received 2,539 votes to Omaruri's 2,495. And I just pulled up those statistics that I was talking about from March, where Omaruri actually had 41% of the vote in a four-way race, where Kane only had 24% back then. Now, the eventual GOP victor, whoever manages to survive the recount and any potential challenges thereafter, legal-wise, is still facing an uphill battle as the seat is considered a heavily favored Democratic for heavy.

I'm sorry, it's heavily favored for Democratic candidates in November, according to the Texans Partisan Index. Very good stuff, Matthew. Thank you. Gentlemen, let's move on to our tweetery section, my favorite section of the podcast every single week. Bradley, let's start with some irreverent funny stuff. Well, KVUE posted an article and for some reason it's, I guess it's funny, so that's probably why they ran with it, but it's from Niagara Falls, New York. It's actually close to where my grandparents live, been to the falls quite a bit. It's a great site. But another great site is a newly available parrot up for adoption in Niagara Falls, New York. And the parrot's name is Pepper. And what's notable about Pepper is he cusses like a sailor, or whatever it is and the um the niagara spca said

in a facebook post it's not every day we receive a parrot as a surrender and certainly not a potty mouth parrot named pepper bring home a cursing canor i don't know what that is might seem like a fun idea until pepper offends Grandma's Tuesday night knitting group. On the bright side, if you want to keep the unannounced company from dropping in, adopt Pepper. They'll think twice after being cussed out by your new foul-mouthed feathered friend. I want this bird. Yeah.

What would Winston think of a parrot? He'd ignore it. You think so it he doesn't care about anything yeah i don't know it i think it's a great it's a it's a great name for a parrot okay pepper the parrot and one that curses what kind kind of owner, though, is going to fit with that? Maybe we need to bring back Pat. Brad. Literally Brad. Or maybe, like, a bar owner. Yeah.

You know, a pair would fit in there. Maybe a parking garage owner. Oh, definitely. Definitely. There is that restaurant chain called i think it's dick's last resort where they insult you yeah and first of all just horrible i don't get it but this parrot would go well there yeah so there you go if you want a a parrot that um that curses more than Samuel L. Jackson

in every movie he's in, then there you go. I feel like Pepper's a good name for a spicy little parrot, too. You know? Add some spice to your life with Pepper the Parrot. Spicy? Are you planning on eating it?

There's not much meat on those bones, I don't think. Have you ever eaten parrot? This delightful parrot has a very spicy personality. You are, as you call yourself, usually a hungry, hungry hippo. This isn't going to do much for you. Oh, man. But it could keep you humble.

I'll do that again. The parrot? Yeah. Cussing you out. I don't think me and a cussing parrot would get along very well, though. Right, but it'll keep your ego down. Oh, yeah, because that's a major problem. Thank you, Bradley, for that delightful tweetery cameron let's go to something a little more uh intellectual in our feudery section here what

do you got for us um well the dallas morning news they published a piece um where they're essentially calling out their own bias in some of their reporting. And I just thought this was very interesting. At one point in the article, it says, quote, I do not think our reporters are consciously unfair. I do think that sometimes when we interview sources with whom we might be sympathetic, we are not as quick to dig for other opposing voices. We are selective about weaving in voices from all sides. Throughout this article, they sort of mentioned that same sort of sentiment, how they haven't reached out to conservatives or Republican lawmakers, or they haven't mentioned that they have reached out and haven't heard back.

I just thought this was an interesting development in the larger conversation about bias making itself more prominent in different news sources. And this has been an ongoing conversation ever since Donald Trump's election, where he called everything fake news. And the terms misinformation and disinformation became part of our daily sort of conversations when we're trying to understand how things in the news are being portrayed. If people are interested in digging in this topic a little more, I actually wrote about this in my newsletter this week, redacted, where I sort of go through, well one of the big issues over the past few weeks has been the true Texas project they were going to be hosting a conference and some of the speakers and topics at this conference caught the

ire of some in the media landscape and there was a lot of reporting done on this and so I sort of go through why we have seen this rise in certain words that are used in reporting that sort of characterize certain things that might be outside of the normal ideological overton window of our mainstream media. So if people are interested in taking a really a deep dive, I took my time with this one. You can go check it out. It's redacted on the texan.news another great reason to subscribe go to the texan.news subscribe get access to redacted yeah i'm curious um matt and brad if you guys read this uh editorial from dallas morning news because i think there's um there's just a lot to consider here i think connie our ceo and founder made some great points in just discussions with us among our team today after reading the editorial is I think so many elected officials, even when we were founded and explicitly stating we're right of center And we're very grateful to those lawmakers who talked

to us of both, you know, political leanings. But I think we've seen that so often in, and I talked about this in my newsletter last week, the editor's desk. But basically what we're seeing is a lot of these lawmakers who are center right or all the way to the right say, hey, I think I'll talk to y'all instead of a mainstream outlet, right? Like I would, I'm not going to return the call or the text or the email of a mainstream outlet because I don't trust their approach to publishing my statement or my story and contextualizing it in a way that's respectful. And so seeing this then from Dallas Morning News was very, very interesting where they're acknowledging, yes, like we certainly have a bias. But at the same time, we're not getting the answers back from

some conservative lawmakers or some conservative voices. So it's an interesting dichotomy where, okay, yes, you need to reach out to them, get both sides of the story and do everything you can to share both sides of the story. But I think there is major distrust among those on the right of media. And so not getting a call back is something that we see a lot of day to day. Yeah, I would comment on that and just say that in my observations, speaking to officials, et cetera, et cetera, and some of the problems that they've expressed to me and why they tend to not respond to media inquiries or that sort of thing is one. Sometimes they feel like the media does not fairly characterize their remarks. So that's a mechanical problem with how they're actually describing the issue. But also it comes down to just the definitions of basic terminology.

A lot of people on the right feel that just basic terms that mainstream media adopts these days has a left-wing viewpoint baked into it. And so, you know, something that we strive for in our style at the Texan is to use terminology that is as neutral and and as fair of a characterization of a particular term, et cetera, as possible. And I think that's why we don't get a whole lot of trouble in not being able to speak to somebody. So that's my two cents. Which takes time. It takes a lot of time, right? That's not something that happened overnight. That takes a lot of time, right? That's not something that happened overnight. That took a lot of time of establishing trust.

You have to establish a trust and a reputation. And, you know, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. So as these politicians, officials, et cetera, as they read our content, et cetera, and speak to other officials who we've talked to or covered, et cetera, et cetera, it builds over time that they know, A, you're going to give a fair characterization. B, you're not going to use terminology that it unto itself bakes a partisan or controversial viewpoint into the situation to where, you know, that official is naturally being portrayed as being against the norm by using biased terminology, if that makes sense. It's hard to describe without giving an actual example. Yeah. And to highlight what you're just talking about, Matt, we've talked about on the podcast, McKenzie and we've gone back and forth for 15 20 30 minutes on how which term should we use in this context that is best going to represent what is actually happening and so I think that's something on the

immigration issue is big and then story selection as well, and how different stories are characterized based upon the outlet's ideological leaning. Like, for example, with my recent newsletter when I covered the TTP event, one of the outlets that I highlighted called True Texas Project, called them far right. So a far right activist group. But instead of just saying an activist group, they had to put that characterization in front of it. So by doing those sort of things, it's already putting that idea in the reader's head that anything that comes after that is outside the bounds of acceptable behavior. So just those- And I think that where that, oh, go ahead. No, I was just going to finish up. Go ahead.

Well, I think that's where it is absolutely fine to characterize a group, but I think a term like far right immediately comes with some sort of connotation, right? Maybe we'd say something else. A negative connotation, right? Maybe we'd say something else. Negative connotation. Exactly. Where it is fine to characterize a group as conservative or as whatever it is, right? And kind of look fairly at how one, they're perceived, two, what they call themselves, and three, what they stand for. So look at those things, characterize fairly, and don't do so in a way that immediately drums up some sort of negative connotation. And something that I didn't mention in my newsletter,

but I think highlights a point about this bias in reporting is there's quite a few reporters, not just in the state, but across the country, that do sort of extremist reporting, let's say. And if you go onto their Twitter feeds, you can keyword search. If you keyword search far right or extreme right, those sorts of terms, you're going to see hundreds of different Twitter posts, X posts about it. But if you do it for the opposite side, extreme left or far left, you're not going

to get any hits. So it seems like their reporting is only one-sided, pointing themselves in a single direction. So that's where the bias creeps in as well. Go ahead, Mac. Yeah, for sure. Well, I'm just going to move us along here. No, you're totally right. And I think that's where vocabulary, like you said, Cameron, is something we belabor at the Texan, just because it does. Words mean things. And we take that very seriously and will continue to do so. We still have two more Twittery sections to get through here. Matt, why don't you go ahead and tell us what you got? Well, I just want to mention a little bit of a non-controversial issue, and that is the weather. Non-controversial, not on this team. Not, oh, that's right. I guess maybe in the Texan, weather is controversial sometimes, but generally speaking, weather's not supposed to be controversial, Brad. But Tropical Storm Alberto is making landfall down on the Texas coast, and that prompted Governor Greg Abbott to issue a disaster declaration for 51 counties.

I've been seeing some weather reports down in the coastal area, just supposed to be getting a ton of rain. I guess we need to check in on Holly after this and make sure she hasn't floated away. But I'm happy to report that unfortunately, while the coastal area is flooding, some of that moisture has finally made it out here to West Texas. And so I think we've had one rain this year. It was getting pretty, pretty desperate or whatnot. And yesterday we've had our first rain since March or February and it rained two and a half inches. And today it's all cloudy and cool and amazing. And yeah, I'm loving it. So it's, it's unfortunate that other parts of the state have to have severe weather for us to get a little bit, but I'll take it.

So anyway, I'm keeping an eye on some of the updates from the Texas Division of Emergency Management. It's a great place, especially if you're in one of these 51 emergency disaster declaration area counties to get information on issues, especially since they're reporting that another tropical storm is apparently on the heels of Alberto. So y'all stay safe out there. On the heels of Alberto. There you go, Matt. Thank you. Thanks for that. I wanted to quickly, before we peace out here, add an update to my story about the Paris Olympics that I chatted about

last week. Unsafe E. coli levels found in Paris's Seine River less than two months before the Olympics. This was a story published earlier this week. Essentially, there were some big rains in Paris and now water in the Seine River had unsafe elevated levels of E. coli. Less than two months before swimming competitions are scheduled to take place in it during the Paris Olympics. So, wild. We'll continue to watch. Apparently, I spoke last week about the protests planned by Parisians where they will defecate in the river to protest the Olympics happening in their home city and that the both the president and the mayor of Paris have decided that they would swim in the river to show that their $1 billion, $1.4, $1.5 billion cleanup effort had been successful, that they would be the first to swim in the river. Apparently, Paris's mayor, Anne Hidalgo, doubled down on her promise

to take a dip in the river despite this news. And on Tuesday, she confirmed that her swim was postponed until after the snap elections in Paris, which end on July 7th. So at that point, we'll be about a month out from the Olympics. Wild. So delayed swim, E. coli in the river, craziness going down in Paris. Matthew, what you got? I just want to mention one other tweet that I just now saw. Of course, we're recording the podcast today on Thursday. This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of decisions. One case out of Texas involving

the former Castle Hills Councilwoman. We'll be having a story come out on that. There's 19 cases remaining on SCOTUS's docket for this term, which ends at the end of the month. They're major cases. We're talking Trump versus United States, the issue of presidential immunity. There's an abortion case out of Idaho. There's First Amendment, Second Amendment cases. So I would just real quickly plug to our readers to stay with the Texan, especially Friday and probably even a couple of days next week that the court will have to call to issue some of these just absolute blockbuster decisions. So we're going to be having some major judicial coverage come out this next week. Absolutely. Nice, Matt. Thank you so much.

Okay, folks, so we are nearing the end of our podcast here, folks. Thank you so much for listening to the weekly roundup and we will catch you on next week's episode. Thank you to everyone for listening. If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at thetexan.news. Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics. And send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting us an email to editor at thetexan.news. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup. God bless you and God bless Texas.