Candace Owens BANNED, Leaked Texts Expose "Young" Republicans, & The Voting Rights Act Seems Doomed
PDS Published 10/15/2025
-
Top Young Republicans were just exposed in 2,900 pages of slurs, Hitler praise, and rape jokes — this is what they didn’t want you to see.
Right, Politico just released a massive report detailing the contents of a leaked Telegram chat that included leaders of Young Republican groups across the country - including from New York, Kansas, Arizona, and Vermont.
Over the course of 7 months, these leaders exchanged some CRAZY texts.
Just to get a picture before we jump into it - this chat included the use of slurs more than 250 times.
The chat in question is called “Restore YR War Room” and it was created by this guy - Peter Giunta (Ghee-yoon-tuh) - during his campaign to become chair of the Young Republican National Federation.
Which is the GOP’s 15,000 member political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40 years old.
And many of the people included in the chat already held positions within government or party politics - including one who’s actually a state senator.
Now, mixed in with formal conversations about social media strategy, logistics, and earning votes were incredibly racist comments from Ghee-yoon-tuh like,
“If your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there. Scream the no no word.”
And he also responded to a question about watching the NBA playoff game with,
“I’d go to the zoo if I wanted to watch monkey play ball.”
At one point, he even made a comment about loving Hitler and said that anyone voting against his bid for leadership of the Young Republican National Federation, quote, “is going to the gas chamber.”
Adding,
“Im going to create some of the greatest physiological torture methods known to man. We only want true believers.”
But it wasn’t just Ghee-yoon-tuh saying off-the-wall shit - in fact, Joe Maligno, who’d previously identified himself as the general counsel for the New York State Young Republicans, responded to that last comment from Ghee-yoon-tuh by saying,
“Can we fix the showers? Gas chambers don’t fit the Hitler aesthetic.”
At one point, the chair of the Arizona Young Republicans Luke Mosiman told the chat, quote, “The Spanish came to America and had sex with every single woman.”
And then responded to someone else’s comment that “sex is gay” with, quote, “Sex? It was rape.”
To that comment, Bobby Walker - the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time - responded by saying “Epic.”
And, like I mentioned earlier, there was PROLIFIC slur usage - including slurs against Black and Hispanic people as well as the LGBTQ plus community.
With William Hendrix - the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair - being specifically called out for using variations of the N-word more than a dozen times.
All of that? Everything I just mentioned? It’s just the tip of the iceberg - Politico reports this goes on for roughly 2,900 pages.
And it’s not like these people weren’t aware that what they were saying was deeply, deeply controversial.
According to Politico, there were occasionally messages about how toxic the chat was and what the fallout would be if anyone outside of their group were to read it.
With Walker at one point explicitly saying,
“If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked.”
And cooked they have been - the fallout from this chat even just a day after Politico’s article went up has been substantial.
Hell, even before that - at one point Politico noted in the article that since they began making inquiries into this story, one member of this group lost their job and another had a job offer rescinded.
But since its publication, both Joe Maligno and Peter Ghee-yoon-tuh have been removed from their positions, there have been calls for the state senator in the chat to resign, and the Kansas Young Republicans was disbanded by the state GOP.
And we’ve also seen demands for all the people involved to resign from Young Republicans.
Including from the organization itself - with the Young Republicans National Federation putting out a statement on X saying,
"Such behavior is disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican, and stands in direct opposition to the values our movement represents,”
"Those involved must immediately resign from all positions within their state and local Young Republican organizations. We must hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity, respect, and professionalism."
We also saw Republican leaders on the national level quickly chime in to condemn this chat and the people in it.
With a senior advisor for Representative Elise Stefanik - who had previously applauded Ghee-yoon-tuh’s leadership - saying that she was, quote, “absolutely appalled to learn about the alleged comments made.”
Adding,
“According to the description provided by Politico, the comments were heinous, antisemitic, racist and unacceptable. If the description by Politico is accurate, Congresswoman Stefanik calls for any NY Young Republicans responsible for these horrific comments in this chat to step down immediately.”
With Representative Mike Lawler saying something similar in his own statement,
“The deeply offensive and hateful comments reportedly made in a private chat among members of the New York State Young Republicans are disgusting. They should resign from any leadership position immediately and reflect on how far they have strayed from basic human respect and decency.”
And that sentiment was echoed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Vermont Governor Phil Scott and others.
But - because of course, there’s a but - not everyone was on the same page.
With JD Vance very notably not condemning the chat and its participants - instead he drew a comparison to Jay Jones, a candidate for Attorney General in Virginia.
Sharing a screenshot of Jones acknowledging he’d previously said he hoped the children of the former Republican Virginia House Speaker would die.
With Vance saying,
“This is far worse than anything said in a college group chat, and the guy who said it could become the AG of Virginia. I refuse to join the pearl clutching when powerful people call for political violence.”
And we also saw some people even coming to the defense of Ghee-yoon-tuh and friends here - saying this is clearly sarcasm.
Specifically referring to Ghee-yoon-tuh’s Hitler comment - saying it’s a clear response to Democrats calling those on the right “Nazis” and referring to Trump as the new Hitler.
With the likes of conservative commentator Matt Walsh saying,
“If you actually read that Politico hit piece you’ll see that many of the messages are being taken wildly out of context. For example, the guy who said “I love Hitler” was clearly being sarcastic. It’s explicitly meant to be a sarcastic joke,” []
“He was saying “yeah I’m so right wing, I guess I love Hitler.” Basic sarcasm of a kind deployed by right wingers all the time. I have “theocratic fascist” in my bio. Clearly a sarcastic joke. Again: Politico made this the HEADLINE of the piece. Fundamentally dishonest. Nobody on the Right should be giving it any credibility.”
Though we also saw people pushing back against the idea that any of these comments were meant as jokes- including Asmongold, who said on X,
“If you think all of these are jokes, you're in for a very bad time over the next 10-15 years.”
And “it was sarcastic” isn’t the route that Ghee-yoon-tuh seems to be taking.
Instead, his response to the situation has been an apology for the, quote, “insensitive and inexcusable language” in the messages.
Before immediately undercutting that apology by implying the messages may be fake - saying,
“While I take complete responsibility, I have had no way of verifying their accuracy and am deeply concerned that the message logs in question may have been deceptively doctored.”
For now, that’s where we are at.
We’re going to have to wait and see what the continued fallout here will be.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts about this whole thing in those comments down below.
-
Because the U.S. just announced yesterday that it has revoked visas for at least six people accused of celebrating Charlie’s death.
With the State Department saying in a post:
“The United States has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.”[]
And while they did not disclose the names or identities of those who lost their visas, they did post a thread of the comments that led to the revocations.
Pointing to a Mexican national who allegedly said that Kirk “died being a racist, he died being a misogynist…there are people who deserve to die. There are people who would make the world better off dead.”[]
As well as a German national who is accused of justifying Kirk’s murder by writing “when fascists die, democrats don’t complain.”[]
Right, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said he planned on doing this, and tons on the right have been supportive of measures punishing those perceived to have mocked or celebrated Kirk’s death.
But there has also been a ton of backlash, and tons of people slamming the Trump administration for officially revoking visas over this.
With the free speech organization FIRE writing that:
“You can’t defend ‘our culture’ by eroding the very cornerstone of what America stands for: freedom of speech and thought. The Trump Administration must stop punishing people for their opinions alone. The Supreme Court has been clear that noncitizens have a right to freedom of speech. In America, no one should fear a midnight knock at the door because of their political views.”[]
And the news about these visas came as Charlie was posthumously getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom yesterday.
Right, we talked a little bit about it on show, and once the ceremony actually happened, a few standout moments went viral.
Including this one where Trump brought up the assassination attempt he survived:
“They have rammed vehicles into federal law enforcement, fired sniper rifles at ICE agents, and me. But I was, I made a turn at a good time. I turned to the right. Charlie couldn’t believe it, actually. He said, ‘Oh, how the hell did you make that turn?’ I said, I don’t know.” (20:17-20:37)
And that clip landed some criticism, with some thinking that Trump was bragging about surviving an assassination attempt when Charlie was killed in one, that it sounded like he was saying he was better at dodging bullets. [][][]
Right, noting that his administration is revoking visas for those mocking Charlie’s death, but arguing that “I don’t think anybody has trolled Charlie Kirk’s murder harder than Trump has.”[][]
Then, this pair of clips where both Trump and Erika Kirk discussed Charlie’s feelings about his enemies both got a ton of attention, too.
“He didn’t like losing. And he was able to fight people that were enemies. And he didn’t necessarily love his enemies so much. I heard he loved his enemies, and I thought, wait a minute? Is that the same Charlie that I know? I’m not sure.” (2:11-2:28)
“He stood for God when it was costly, that is what we are called to do. Surprisingly enough, he did pray for his enemies. Which is very hard, but he did, He did. (Trump shrugs) He did. No one else, I mean, I saw him do it. He never did it in front of anyone else, but I can attest to that.” (45:06-45:30)
With some thinking it kind of mirrored comments Trump made during Charlie’s massive memorial in Arizona, when he noted that while Charlie wanted the best for his enemies, he disagreed.
“I hate my opponents. And I don’t want the best for them, I’m sorry. I am sorry Erika.”(1:30-1:36)
That landed a ton of backlash, and now this medal ceremony was sort of another avenue for him to further rhetoric that isolates enemies, even in the face of those who might oppose that.
But I would love to know your thoughts on any of this, whether it be the visas, the medal of honor, anything in between.
Go to: trainwell & take the quiz to find your perfect trainer and get 14 days of free training.
-
With the highest court in country rejecting a visa challenge she filed after the country blocked her from entering last year.
For some context, Candace was set to do a speaking tour in both Australia and New Zealand in November of 2024,
But Home Affairs Minister TonyBurke refused her visa on character grounds, citing the Migration Act.
With a filing claiming that:[]
“were she to be allowed to enter Australia, there was ‘a risk she would incite discord in the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community.’”
With Minister Burke saying that because she is a political commentator, he examined her views and found they:
“amounted to ‘extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities.’”
And he further noted that Australia was already experiencing heightened community tensions, and he believed Candace’s presence would “amplify grievances” and “lead to hostility and violent or radical action.”
After Australia made this call, New Zealand followed suit and blocked her visa there as well, but a judge later overturned that and said she would be allowed in, citing free speech.[]
But back in Australia, Candace, unsurprisingly, did not agree with the country’s decision and appealed it to the high court, arguing it violated the implied right of freedom of political communication.[]
So sort of like a free speech claim, but Australia does not have a first amendment free speech right the same way the U.S. does.
But now, the court just rejected her, ruling that the implied freedom of political communication is not a “personal right,” and it is also not “unlimited [or] absolute.”[]
And on top of having her visa denied, the court also ordered Candace to pay the Australian government’s costs related to this case. []
With Minister Burke calling the court’s decision a "win for social cohesion” and adding:
"Inciting discord might be the way some people make money but it’s not welcome in Australia. Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.”
So far, Candace Owens has not publicly responded to this.
But you have multiple reports noting that this is not the first high-profile visa denial Australia has issued on character grounds lately.
In July, they cancelled Kanye’s visa over his song Heil Hitler and promotion of other Nazi ideology. []
And this actually brings us to another story about visa denials and political beliefs, this time tied to someone Candace has been talking a lot about: Charlie Kirk.
-
Today could be the day that the Supreme Court is convinced to gut the Voting Rights Act and hand the Republicans up to 19 more House seats.
At the center of this case is Louisiana’s 6th district.
After the 2020 Census, Louisiana had made a new congressional map that was quickly taken to court.
So a lower court said this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which led the state to add a second black-represented district.
Obviously, this begs the question: What is Section 2?
To keep it simple, Section 2 bans racial discrimination in voting.
In the case of congressional districts, this means giving minority voters a meaningful chance to elect their preferred candidates.
But a group of “non-African American” voters flipped this argument on its head and sued over Louisiana’s redrawn map, arguing it dilutes their voting power and that Section 2 violates the 14th and 15th Amendments.
After a lot of legal back and forth, the case made its way up to the Supreme Court, which first heard arguments back in March.
At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t seem impressed with the 6th district.
Specifically, one of the things the lawmakers are supposed to do is keep districts “reasonably compact,” but Roberts didn’t seem convinced of that and said:
“If you look at CD6, what does ‘reasonably compact’ mean?” @29:16
“I mean, it’s – it’s a snake that runs from one end of the state to the other. I mean, how is that compact?”
But despite initial skepticism, the court took the rare move of rehearing the case again today -- something that is usually only done in MAJOR cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education.
And this time, conservative Justices like Brett Kavanaugh signaled they were interested in hearing more about the argument that Section 2 violates the 14th Amendment.
Now, very notably here, there is a past Supreme Court precedent that has been in place for nearly four decades and states that representation should be “proportional” to racial groups.
Despite this, Kavanaugh hinted that he wasn’t happy with Louisiana’s map, saying that “race-based districting" puts the US on a “most dangerous course.”
He was also concerned about whether states could use race-based maps indefinitely.
Right, he asked today: [read, transcuript from today not available yet so finding the audio might take forever]
“This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time.”
“But they should not be indefinite and should have an end point. What exactly do you think the end point should be?”
Lawyers representing Black voters in the state said that the Voting Rights Act addresses this already since states have to redraw their maps every 10 years after a census.
And Justice Sonia Sotomayor is arguing that race-based maps are always a thing and said: [read, transcuript from today not available yet so finding the audio might take forever]
“Race is a part of redistricting always… Race is always a part of these decisions, and my colleagues are trying to tease it out in this intellectual way that doesn’t deal with the fact that race is used to help people.”
How the justices decide this case remains to be seen, but the impacts could be MASSIVE -- and that’s putting it lightly.
Removing Section 2 would heavily curtail how powerful the Voting Rights Act is, especially since about 10 years ago, Conservative justices struck down other provisions of the law.
And in the long run, killing Section 2 could mean that as much as 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could lose their districts.
…actually that may not be as far off as we think.
We’ve talked about Trump’s demands that states redraw their districts to get more votes in the upcoming midterms -- which sparked some blue states to do the same in response.
And this could be the push for some states to make that happen.
Speaking of which, North Carolina is the latest pushing to redraw their map.
All of these efforts are actually facing their own lawsuits, so even after this Louisiana case is finished, we might be seeing another fight about Congressional Districts play out in the court just before the midterm.
With all that, there’s really only one thing to say: gerrymandering sucks and don’t do it please.
People already feel like their vote doesn’t matter, and it will even less if you just draw the districts to benefit the candidates rather than having the candidates pushing to benefit the districts.
Head to Equip Foods, use code PHIL to get 20% off your first order, or 35% off your first subscription!
-
Donald Trump has admitted that Americans won’t benefit from his administration’s $20 billion bailout for Argentina.
But he also said the country won’t get that money unless his far-right ally, current president Javier Milei, wins the next election.
Right, because Trump? He loves this guy.
He’s described the man as his “favorite president” – and Milei actually ended up being one of only two world leaders onstage at Trump’s inauguration.
But back in Argentina, he’s not quite as popular.
Right, his policies have sparked mass protests, his administration has been racked by corruptionscandals, and lawmakers have recently voted to overturn his vetoes.
With all this leading to him losing a key provincial election by a landslide last month, and this being seen as something of a bad omen ahead of the national midterm elections coming up on October 26th.
Although, I will say, Milei himself isn’t due to run again until 2027 - and it’s not entirely clear on which election Trump is conditioning American assistance.
Also unclear are the exact details of this $20 billion lifeline except that it would come in the form of a currency swap with Argentina’s central bank.
But what’s really important to note is that this was seen as something that might provide a political boost for Milei – and the Trump administration made it clear that that was one of its aims.
With Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent describing the deal as a “bridge to the election.” []
You also had him saying he had “been in touch with numerous US companies who intend to make substantial foreign direct investments in Argentina multiple sectors in the event of a positive election outcome.” []
And that’s notable because it’s expected that major hedge funds might benefit financially from the bailout – and those just happen to include several that are led by friends of Bessent.
Of course, he’s rejected the idea that enriching his buddies has anything to do with it – saying earlier this month:
“This trope that we’re helping out wealthy Americans with interest down there couldn’t be more false. What we’re doing is maintaining a U.S. strategic interest in the Western Hemisphere.” (12:37-12:50)
And with that, he’s also arguing that the currency swap the government plans to offer Argentina does not amount to a bailout, claiming: “We are not putting money into Argentina.”
But experts have pushed back on that, with a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics saying:
“They can call it what they want, but it’s a bailout.”
“It’s a country in crisis, it’s running out of dollars, and the U.S. is giving the country dollars. That’s a bailout by definition.” []
And with all that, you’ve also had experts pushing back on the idea that this makes any economic sense at all.
With one economist at the University of California comparing it to actions taken by the Clinton administration to help out Mexico and South Korea – and saying:
“In both cases, there was a significant risk of financial contagion to other countries, which is not the case of Argentina today.”
“In both cases, the U.S. was significantly exposed to instability in the subject country either economically or financially. Neither condition applies today in Argentina.” []
And then, of course, adding to all that, the fact that this is happening as the government is shut down and many Americans are struggling? It’s been an easy target for Democrats.
And last week, you actually had eight Democratic senators introducing legislation to block the bailout.
With Elizabeth Warren – the top Democrat on the banking committee, and one who helped draft the legislation – saying in a statement:
“It is inexplicable that President Trump is propping up a foreign government, while he shuts down our own.”
“Trump promised ‘America First,’ but he’s putting himself and his billionaire buddies first and sticking Americans with the bill.”[]
But while none of that has changed Trump's mind, what he may have noticed is that the bailout has seemingly failed to calm the markets – or improve Milei’s party’s polling numbers. []
And so when you had Milei visiting the White House yesterday, you actually had Trump seemingly acknowledging that the US wasn’t really getting anything out of this deal:
“It’s very simple. I mean, we don’t have to do it. It’s not going to make a big difference for our country.” (15:21- 15:33,)
And you then had him trying to draw a parallel between bailing out a foreign country and providing federal funding to American cities.
With him basically saying that just like a New York City run by Zohran Mamdani wouldn’t get his help, neither would an Argentina run by anyone but Milei.
It's a little like New York. You know, you're reading in Argentina about New York. We have a problem. We have a communist who's 33 years old, doesn't know a thing practically. He's never worked a day in his life, and he's sort of caught on, right? And I'm not going to spend a lot of money to New York. I don't have to.” (1:23-1:43)
“And I'm very generous, and I was always very generous with New York, even when you had opposition there. But I was always very generous. But I wouldn't be generous to a communist, a guy that's going to take the money and throw it out the window, because you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, and we're not going to let somebody get into office and squander the taxpayer money from this country. We're not going to let it happen. So it's a little bit like that with—if you take a look—Argentina. If the President doesn’t win…” (3:15-3:44, 4:01- 4:04)
But with that, that’s where we are now, we’ll see what happens with Argentina’s election in a couple weeks, and then where this all goes from there.
-
But then for one final thing, I just wanted to share this piece
from today's episode of Crashing Out.
I'm in this weird space now where over the last I want to.
How long has it been now? Nine months.
Where like almost nine months.
Around nine months into this presidency.
Is that a long time or a short time? I don't know. Anymore.
It feels like an eternity.
It. Feels like a very quick eternity.
But it feels like every day, you know, I would open my.
Phone every week and I would start compiling a list of, like, all the things.
That are horrifying.
And this week I would open my phone and be like, oh, we don't have a CDC anymore.
Okay. That's what they do. They just. Close those. Things.
Oh, we got rid of the special education for everybody
by the order of the CEO of WWE.
Okay. That happens.
Fat Texas National Guard has invaded Chicago.
Okay, I don't what.
And like, but the whole time I was just like, okay.
And I closed my phone and just went back to what I was doing.
And that's I think that subliminally has.
Been driving me more crazy.
It's like a dull roar now underneath in the background, you know what I mean?
Like, I not I'm not just grabbing, bark, bark, bark at my own reflection,
but I'm like something there, I don't know, there's something.
Are we getting used to it?
Oh, yeah. Right.
I mean, it has to be,
I think I think it's like the slow, grinding down, and, I don't know, maybe.
Maybe there will be.
I mean,
we're when this goes up, we'll be three days away from the, the no Kings protest.
So maybe there will be kind of like that spark of like, oh yeah, that's right.
This isn't normal.
But it's very easy to be like, this is I just want to
I mean, this I just want to get away from the world.
I mean, this weekend, for me, I just
I just threw myself into family and consumerism.
We went to a theme park, like, you know, there's always that kind of thing of like,
a lot of Americans, they live in Disneyland.
I like I went to Universal Studios, and I was like,
let me just turn off my brain and and and let,
let just get into a machine that's going to shake my brain
around to like, maybe get the the, the sads and the crazy out.
then my friends is the end of this video.
But there's more to watch from here. even my other new video today.
It's, episode three of Crashing Out of me and Alex.
It's a it's a special one.
and or there's the newest Philip DeFranco show that you might not have seen yet.
Right here.
even got links to the pods or the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts.
In the description.
you know, no matter what you do or how you like getting filled
in, let me just say thank you for watching.
I love your faces.
And I'll see you right back here.
Probably tomorrow, maybe 5050.
Probably best to turn on notifications on.
like a nine hour travel day, but I think I might be able to pull it off.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek
