🔥 1. Judicial Power and Nationwide Injunctions
- Main Argument: Senator Cruz criticizes what he describes as an abuse of judicial power by "radical left-wing judges" issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump-era policies.
- Historical Context: He claims that in the first 150 years of U.S. history, there were no nationwide injunctions, and that the Trump administration faced more such injunctions than any other presidency combined.
- Political Clash: A heated exchange between Cruz and Senator Cory Booker is highlighted, where they debate the enforcement of laws protecting judges and the political motivations behind judicial actions.
- Key Themes:
- Alleged partisan use of the judiciary to block Trump policies.
- Accusations of selective outrage and hypocrisy from Democrats.
- Concerns over undermining democratic processes and presidential authority.
💣 2. Colorado Terror Attack and Immigration Policy
- Incident Overview: The second half discusses a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, allegedly carried out by an Egyptian national affiliated with radical Islamist ideologies.
- Details:
- The suspect overstayed a tourist visa, was granted work authorization, and later committed a hate crime targeting Jewish individuals.
- He was reportedly inspired by anti-Zionist sentiments and had prepared Molotov cocktails.
- Criticism of Biden Administration:
- Cruz blames the Biden administration’s immigration policies for allowing such individuals into the country.
- He argues that open borders have led to national security threats, including the entry of individuals on terrorist watch lists.
- Call to Action:
- Cruz renews his push to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, citing its influence and support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
with you. It's really nice to have you with us
on this Wednesday morning. And Senator, we've got two big
topics to discuss today, including something in the Senate that
got a little spicy between you and Cory Booker.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Well, it did so yesterday I charity hearing that was
examining the abuse of power from individual district court judges
who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and the
Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of lawfair.
This is in the last four years, we saw Democrat
(00:39):
prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That that was
they were doing everything they could to stop the voters
from re electing President Trump.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
That failed.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Now during the Trump presidency, we are seeing lawfair unfold.
We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day.
We are seeing left wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day,
and they are seeking out radical left wing judges who've
been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have
(01:14):
seen is we have seen over forty nationwide injunctions against
the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of
just how egregious this is. In the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, Ben, do you
know how many nationwide injunctions were issued.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to
forty it's not going to be a lot.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
The number would be zero. So the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, there was not
a single nationwide injunction that was issued. Now, how about
the twentieth century, the twentieth century, the entire hundred years
from nineteen hundred to nineteen ninety nine, there have been
more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the
(01:58):
first five months than there were in the entire twentieth century.
There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump
than there have been during the George W. Bush presidency,
plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency
all combined. This is an assault. You have left wing judges,
(02:23):
individual radical district judges who are issuing injunctions, trying to
set aside the policies of the president and trying to
set aside the will of the American voters. And it
is an assault in democracy, and I got to say
Democrats not only are okay with it, they're enthusiastically cheering
(02:44):
it on.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
It really is shocking, and the level of I think
attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear. It is
these judges are saying, we're going to take away the
power of the presidency. The danger there is aspect of
that precedent is also something that I would hope that
many people that maybe consider themselves to be moderate or
(03:07):
liberal would be concerned about, because that's not how this
country is supposed to work now.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
It should not be an individual district judge having the
ability to set aside the policies of the United States government,
the president of the United States, and the policies that
the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest
issue in this last election was the voters were sick
and tired of the open borders we saw for four
years the invasion of twelve million illegal immigrants, and they
(03:38):
wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists,
child molesters, violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump
is doing. And we are seeing the Democrats who are
suing over and over again and they're getting radical left
wing judges to issue orders saying stop deport in criminals
(04:01):
and it's lawless. By the way, federal immigration law gives
enormous power to the president to deport illegal immigrants, and
these radical judges they don't care. And I will tell
you as we were discussing this in this hearing, So
the Democrats all showed up for this hearing and they
were loaded for bear, and they were all attacking President Trump.
That was no surprise. And they were saying that the
(04:23):
President is horribly saying mean, mean things about judges. And
mind you, these are judges who are dramatically abusing their power.
And yet the Democrats were all pretending to be horrified
that the President would criticize judges. Now, I want to
play for you in exchange I had I was talking
(04:46):
about the hypocrisy of Democrats who are claiming to be
defending judges. And yet when Joe Biden was president and
you had violent mobs protesting outside the homes of Supreme
Court justices, the Democrats said not a word. They were
not bothered at all that the Biden Justice Department refused
(05:07):
to enforce the criminal law that makes it a crime
to protest and outside the home of a justice and
to threaten the justice's families as they were. And there
was an exchange. So Corey Booker, he's a Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee. Corey wants to run for president. He
wants to run as the great Liberal hope. And Corey
(05:28):
decided to engage with me and attack me on this issue.
And he and I went back and forth. And I
want to play this entire exchange. It's a little bit extended,
but this exchange was striking because he jumped in and
he's like, no, no, no, I'm going to fight you
on this point. And I've got to say, I don't
want to be a spoiler here, but I don't think
(05:49):
it went well for Corey. Give a listen.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
It did not.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Here it is indulge me for a moment.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
We indulge you every moment.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
I appreciate that active generosity. It's just something you said
that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed.
And you're welcome. But when Judge Errol was killed in
New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate, they're outpouring
of support, their outpouring of concern. They're willing to work
together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary. It shows the
(06:20):
truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery
rhetoric that you were selling, we're really by parties working bipartisanship.
Cornin and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about, got
together and actually passed a bill to better protect our
Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours.
You know, Gorsich and I disagree on a lot of stuff.
(06:43):
I knew his wife before he did. We studied together
at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there
were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I
remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons.
I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman, are more than once
condemning those attacks on Republican appointed jurists. To say things
(07:08):
like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and
feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true.
It's just plain not true. And I think you know that.
But we can pull from the record from my colleagues
in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it. There's a
lot of substantive things to say here, but to think
(07:28):
that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being
threatened was not in existence. I think that's unfair and
really concerns me that you would say that in the
way that you did. Well.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note,
as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things, and
it is existing Federal law eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh
seven that makes it a crime to protest at a
judge's home. And the law provides whoever, with the intent
of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,
(08:01):
or with the intent or of influencing any judge, duror witness,
or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets
or parades in or near a building housing a court
of the United States, inter near a building or residence
occupied or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer,
or with such intent uses any sound, truck or similar device,
or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any
(08:23):
such building or residence, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That
is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry
mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices homes, and in
the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody.
(08:48):
We had the Attorney General sitting at that table, and
multiple Republican senators asked him, why are you not enforcing
the law. What they are doing is a crime. And
my friend in New Jersey said, it is a lie
to say we the Democrats condone this. I would challenge
my friend find a single Democrat senator on this committee
(09:11):
holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law.
I was here at those hearings, and I do not
recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General,
you should arrest these people who are violating the law.
You should protect the judges. I agree that there was
general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator
(09:35):
that I ever saw in this committee was willing to
hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding
the federal criminal law. Because the Biden administration agreed with
the protesters and I think wanted those justices haurrassed at
their home.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you
made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in
the face of protests as Supreme Court justices homes again,
we joined together in a bi parisan way not only
to condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round
(10:11):
the clock security protection literally days was introduced May fifth
past the Senate bi partisan fashion on May night. So
if you're saying that we didn't criticize them.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
And arrest a single person on who are now changing
the that is?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
That is what I say again. I'll I'll pull the record.
It's arrest even one again.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
The answer is not my.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Point to you. Who is the accusation that the Democrats
on this committee do not care about the safety of
federal judges. I did not interrupt you, sir. I would
appreciate if you let me finish. I am sick and
tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which
is one of the reasons why we have such divisions
(10:55):
in this country. The attacks we see from the President
of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges
through is to what we should be talking about. That
puts people in danger. I'm simply taking issue with the
claim that you made at the top that people on
the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about
(11:15):
the safety and the security of judges and said nothing.
You said we were silent after people's houses were protested.
That is a patent lie, sir. We were not silent.
We took action. We've joined in a bipartisan way to
protect those judges, as was done in a bipartisan way
to protect a New Jersey judge after their horrific attack
(11:40):
at their home. So I see you now trying to
shift the debate to whether we talk to an attorney general.
I'm simply taking issue with this accusation that somehow we
Democrats are so bad because we don't call out threats
to college to our judicial colleagues, and that is wrong.
You could change the argument now that you want, but
(12:00):
what you said was patently not true and was in
fact a patent lie.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from
New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent lie,
and says he's doing so in defense of lowering the rhetoric.
There is some irony to doing those two together. I'll
point out that in the entire course of those remarks,
Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made,
(12:26):
which is the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted
zero people for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat
senator on this committee was silent about it. And this
was an ongoing pattern four months. And I would note
also that the Senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls
about language threatening judges, and yet I do not recall
(12:48):
a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word
when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme
Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices
by name Gorsitchen Kavanaugh, and he said, you have unleashed
the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And not
a single Democrat senator had a word to say about this,
(13:10):
And so their outrage is selective. And I will give
my colleague from New Jersey a chance to just answer
a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden Justice Department
have enforced the criminal law against protesting at a justice's home,
Yes or no.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next
day and you holding that standard for him, and not
for your president, who you actually rightfully describe when you
were running against him in a primary. I would love
to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about
the danger of our president and his rhetoric. But now
(13:47):
you are failing in fact blind to the very things
you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump
would know an apology if it hit him in the head,
never set apologizing. So again, you are very very sir,
very very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your
criticisms of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer
the question and did not tell us whether the criminal
law should be enforced, because he knows the answer is yes,
and he knows that the Biden Department of Justice was
being wildly political and partisan in refusing to enforce the
law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court justice's rulings.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
That was one very entertaining back and forth center. I
wish there was actually more of this in the Senate
because it's a great moment where you can see two
very different viewpoints, two very different ways of looking at this,
and like you said, it did not go well for
Corey Booker, but I actually love that there's this type
(14:48):
of grand debate.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Absolutely, we need to have this engagement. We need to
have this engagement on ideas, and it's striking the Democrats.
They claim they support democracy, but yet when it comes
to Donald Trump, they want a single unelected district judge
striking down every policy he implements. And they don't care
(15:13):
that the American people voted for it. They want power.
And look, in the course of this hearing, there were
a couple of points I made that no Democrat had
a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed
over and over again before radical left wing judges. Of
the forty plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against
(15:34):
the Trump administration, thirty five of them have been in five jurisdictions,
five left wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these left wing
judges because they know that they'll rule for them, and
the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just violating
the law. Well, you know what, if that were true,
(15:56):
you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not.
The Democrat attorneys general, the left wing interest groups are
going to seek out the radicals because they know the
radicals will rule for them, and we're not seeing Democrat
senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say, give
any explanation as to why one radical judge should be
(16:20):
able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President
of the United States, who was elected by the American
people to secure the borders, to bring us back to
common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important,
and I got to say, I think Corey Booker listen,
Corey is running for president of the United States. That's
(16:40):
not complicated. He's going to run in twenty twenty eight,
and he's running in the left lane of the Democrat Party.
So he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren, he's going
to take on AOC and he's going to argue, I
am liberal Democrat here mirror. But at the end of
the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you got
(17:02):
a problem of you actually got to address the substance,
and I think today we did and it was not
the outcome he was hoping for.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments
that I'll be interested to see when this audio and
video comes back to haunt him down the road when
that president run you mentioned, because I think he thought
he was about to have a moment and it's not
the moment he probably was hoping for if you go
back and look at that tape. I want to also
get to this other big issue, and that is out
(17:32):
in Colorado and the tear attack there. We've got a
significant update on this individual and also real concerns and
honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat
of other terrorists that may be in this country that
were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Well, it turns out that four years of open borders
allowing over twelve million people to come into this country illegally,
that was a really bad point. And even worse, look,
there were ten million people who were apprehended by the
Biden administration. They let them go. That is problematic on
many many fronts, But the most disturbing number is two million.
(18:15):
They're roughly two million god aways. Those are people that
crossed the border. We know cross the border, but yet
they escaped detection. And those god aways are much much
more likely to be criminals. They're much more likely to
be murders, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, gang members. And if
(18:36):
you look at this, this radical who attacked and fire
bombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado, this was
a guy who never should have been in this country
to begin with. He came in on a tourist fe
SA he overstated, and this was a radical Islamist. And
(18:59):
I want to read to you a tweet from Bill Malusion. Now,
regular listeners of this podcast know Bill Malusian is the
best reporter in America. He reports for Fox News and
he's been detailing what's going on at the border. Here's
what Bill Malusion tweeted, breaking new details on Colorado terror
attack suspect as Fedes charged him with federal hate crime,
(19:21):
according to federal court filings obtained by Fox News, Egyptian
illegal alien Mohammed Solomon admitted in an interview that he
wanted to kill all quote Zionist people, and he had
been planning the attack for a year, and that he
would conduct the attack again if he could. He allegedly
(19:42):
told investigators that he waited to carry out the attack
until his daughter graduated high school, and that he specifically
targeted the quote Zionist group in Boulder after learning about
them from an online search. It was premeditated, as he
allegedly admitted he knew they would gather on Sunday at
(20:04):
one pm, he arrived and waited for them. Additionally, investigators
found a black container with fourteen more molotov cocktails near
the spot he was arrested in. Inside his vehicle, investigators
found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine, and USAID. This
(20:26):
man was admitted into the country via a tourist visa
during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed an asylum request,
and was granted work authorization by the Biden administration, which
expired at the end of March of this year. So understand,
this guy came into this country, he overstayed his visa,
(20:49):
and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look a radical
Islamic terrorist. We want you to stay. It was not
hard to figure out from his social media who this
guy was. But the Biden administration, they were not focused
on defending this nation. They were not focused on stopping
terrorists from coming into this country. Instead, they made a
(21:10):
political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben, why
would Democrats open up the borders. It clearly hurt them
in the flat last election. Why would they do this?
And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed
twelve million illegal immigrants, they said, listen, every one of
these we think are going to vote for Democrats. We
want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally.
(21:33):
The rest of them, they believed, if they stayed in power,
they'd grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if
they have to bring in Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who were
murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
This is the part that I really think we do
need to make it clear, not just now but in
the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to this
in your comments there. Their plan they knew was going
to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint. They
were willing to play Russian Roulette with that open border.
(22:11):
And they were warned and they saw the people that
were on the terrorists watch list center and they didn't
care because it was their overall plan to flood the
country with the legal immigrants and fundamentally changes country. They
knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists,
some of them on the terrorists watch lists at the
time to get into this country, and they still continued
(22:35):
to have the open border policy because they basically said, Hey,
it's part of our bigger plan, and there's going to
be collateral damage from.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
This, so be it and listen when I say this,
this sounds harsh, and you sort of think of a
listener who's not terribly political and they're like, wait, the
Democrats couldn't really want more terrorists in this country. But
at the end of the day, that was the inevitable
consequence of the policies they put in place. When you
(23:06):
allow twelve million people to cross the border illegally, and
by the way, the Biden Border Control the border patrol,
they instructed their agents be on the lookout for hesbela
Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jehad terrorists coming across this border. Look,
(23:26):
we have radical Zealots who have declared Jahad and America
who have demanded of their terrorists murder as many Americans
as you can and murder as many Jews and Israelis
as you can. And in the face of those very
real and clear national security threats, the fact that the
(23:47):
Biden administration and the Democrats, it wasn't just Joe Biden,
it wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was every single Democrat
in the Senate. It was every single Democrat in the House.
Because they voted in favor of open borders over and
over and over again, they knew that some of the
people coming were just like this radical and listen, I've
(24:07):
reintroduced this week legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as
a terrorist organization. The Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
This is something you've been sounding the alarm on for
quite some time. I want to be very clear about that.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than
a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It
is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt,
it is in cutter it is all across the Middle East.
And the Muslim Brotherhood openly aggressively they support hamas they
(24:46):
support Hesbela. They are a terrorist organization and by the way,
to be clear, in Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look,
we had Mohammed Morsey who was the leader of e
who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now now thankfully Mohammed
Morsey was defeated and he was defeated by Alcesi, who
(25:11):
is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, look if you
look at the Arabs who are dealing with this, the
Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadis, they believe in using violence,
using murder to force people to embrace their radical Islamus view.
And yet these are these are the radicals that are fighting,
(25:35):
that that are murdering Israelis, and that are murdering Americans.
And and this is exactly the radicals that this lunatic
in Boulder, Colorado was embracing, and that Joe Biden, the
Democrats were letting endo this country.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Final question on the on the the designate of Muslim
Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to
be the moment where you think there's a decent, there's
a chance that this can become reality, or there's still
going to be Democrats at all costs that say we
are going to defend this.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
So I hope so so right now today, the Muslim
Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia,
they're designated in the United Arab Emirates, They're designated in Egypt,
in Syria and Bahrain. But the United States has yet
to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When
(26:29):
you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jahad,
the murdering of innocence, they are a terrorist organization. And
so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term
for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated. We did not succeed.
I think we will succeed this administration. I think President
(26:52):
Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to
keep pressing designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
because because that is who they are, and we saw
the horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
It's an incredible story and it's a sad one. It's
also one that we must keep following and keep fighting
to protect American citizens. And we're gonna keep keeping you
updated on this story moving forward here on VERDIC. I
promise you that don't forget. We do this show Monday,
Wednesday and Friday, so make sure you hit that subscribe
or auto download button so that you do not miss
(27:30):
an episode. Please write it to five star review. It
helps us reach new listeners more than you can imagine.
So if you've not done that, please do that and
share this wherever you are, like I said on media
and the CINA, and I will see you back here
Friday morning.
Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
with you. It's really nice to have you with us
on this Wednesday morning. And Senator, we've got two big
topics to discuss today, including something in the Senate that
got a little spicy between you and Cory Booker.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Well, it did so yesterday I charity hearing that was
examining the abuse of power from individual district court judges
who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and the
Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of lawfair.
This is in the last four years, we saw Democrat
(00:39):
prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That that was
they were doing everything they could to stop the voters
from re electing President Trump.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
That failed.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Now during the Trump presidency, we are seeing lawfair unfold.
We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day.
We are seeing left wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day,
and they are seeking out radical left wing judges who've
been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have
(01:14):
seen is we have seen over forty nationwide injunctions against
the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of
just how egregious this is. In the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, Ben, do you
know how many nationwide injunctions were issued.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to
forty it's not going to be a lot.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
The number would be zero. So the first one hundred
and fifty years of our nation's history, there was not
a single nationwide injunction that was issued. Now, how about
the twentieth century, the twentieth century, the entire hundred years
from nineteen hundred to nineteen ninety nine, there have been
more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the
(01:58):
first five months than there were in the entire twentieth century.
There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump
than there have been during the George W. Bush presidency,
plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency
all combined. This is an assault. You have left wing judges,
(02:23):
individual radical district judges who are issuing injunctions, trying to
set aside the policies of the president and trying to
set aside the will of the American voters. And it
is an assault in democracy, and I got to say
Democrats not only are okay with it, they're enthusiastically cheering
(02:44):
it on.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
It really is shocking, and the level of I think
attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear. It is
these judges are saying, we're going to take away the
power of the presidency. The danger there is aspect of
that precedent is also something that I would hope that
many people that maybe consider themselves to be moderate or
(03:07):
liberal would be concerned about, because that's not how this
country is supposed to work now.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
It should not be an individual district judge having the
ability to set aside the policies of the United States government,
the president of the United States, and the policies that
the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest
issue in this last election was the voters were sick
and tired of the open borders we saw for four
years the invasion of twelve million illegal immigrants, and they
(03:38):
wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists,
child molesters, violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump
is doing. And we are seeing the Democrats who are
suing over and over again and they're getting radical left
wing judges to issue orders saying stop deport in criminals
(04:01):
and it's lawless. By the way, federal immigration law gives
enormous power to the president to deport illegal immigrants, and
these radical judges they don't care. And I will tell
you as we were discussing this in this hearing, So
the Democrats all showed up for this hearing and they
were loaded for bear, and they were all attacking President Trump.
That was no surprise. And they were saying that the
(04:23):
President is horribly saying mean, mean things about judges. And
mind you, these are judges who are dramatically abusing their power.
And yet the Democrats were all pretending to be horrified
that the President would criticize judges. Now, I want to
play for you in exchange I had I was talking
(04:46):
about the hypocrisy of Democrats who are claiming to be
defending judges. And yet when Joe Biden was president and
you had violent mobs protesting outside the homes of Supreme
Court justices, the Democrats said not a word. They were
not bothered at all that the Biden Justice Department refused
(05:07):
to enforce the criminal law that makes it a crime
to protest and outside the home of a justice and
to threaten the justice's families as they were. And there
was an exchange. So Corey Booker, he's a Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee. Corey wants to run for president. He
wants to run as the great Liberal hope. And Corey
(05:28):
decided to engage with me and attack me on this issue.
And he and I went back and forth. And I
want to play this entire exchange. It's a little bit extended,
but this exchange was striking because he jumped in and
he's like, no, no, no, I'm going to fight you
on this point. And I've got to say, I don't
want to be a spoiler here, but I don't think
(05:49):
it went well for Corey. Give a listen.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
It did not.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Here it is indulge me for a moment.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
We indulge you every moment.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
I appreciate that active generosity. It's just something you said
that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed.
And you're welcome. But when Judge Errol was killed in
New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate, they're outpouring
of support, their outpouring of concern. They're willing to work
together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary. It shows the
(06:20):
truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery
rhetoric that you were selling, we're really by parties working bipartisanship.
Cornin and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about, got
together and actually passed a bill to better protect our
Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours.
You know, Gorsich and I disagree on a lot of stuff.
(06:43):
I knew his wife before he did. We studied together
at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there
were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I
remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons.
I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman, are more than once
condemning those attacks on Republican appointed jurists. To say things
(07:08):
like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and
feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true.
It's just plain not true. And I think you know that.
But we can pull from the record from my colleagues
in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it. There's a
lot of substantive things to say here, but to think
(07:28):
that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being
threatened was not in existence. I think that's unfair and
really concerns me that you would say that in the
way that you did. Well.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note,
as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things, and
it is existing Federal law eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh
seven that makes it a crime to protest at a
judge's home. And the law provides whoever, with the intent
of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice,
(08:01):
or with the intent or of influencing any judge, duror witness,
or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets
or parades in or near a building housing a court
of the United States, inter near a building or residence
occupied or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer,
or with such intent uses any sound, truck or similar device,
or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any
(08:23):
such building or residence, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That
is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry
mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices homes, and in
the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody.
(08:48):
We had the Attorney General sitting at that table, and
multiple Republican senators asked him, why are you not enforcing
the law. What they are doing is a crime. And
my friend in New Jersey said, it is a lie
to say we the Democrats condone this. I would challenge
my friend find a single Democrat senator on this committee
(09:11):
holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law.
I was here at those hearings, and I do not
recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General,
you should arrest these people who are violating the law.
You should protect the judges. I agree that there was
general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator
(09:35):
that I ever saw in this committee was willing to
hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding
the federal criminal law. Because the Biden administration agreed with
the protesters and I think wanted those justices haurrassed at
their home.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you
made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in
the face of protests as Supreme Court justices homes again,
we joined together in a bi parisan way not only
to condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round
(10:11):
the clock security protection literally days was introduced May fifth
past the Senate bi partisan fashion on May night. So
if you're saying that we didn't criticize them.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
And arrest a single person on who are now changing
the that is?
Speaker 3 (10:27):
That is what I say again. I'll I'll pull the record.
It's arrest even one again.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
The answer is not my.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Point to you. Who is the accusation that the Democrats
on this committee do not care about the safety of
federal judges. I did not interrupt you, sir. I would
appreciate if you let me finish. I am sick and
tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which
is one of the reasons why we have such divisions
(10:55):
in this country. The attacks we see from the President
of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges
through is to what we should be talking about. That
puts people in danger. I'm simply taking issue with the
claim that you made at the top that people on
the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about
(11:15):
the safety and the security of judges and said nothing.
You said we were silent after people's houses were protested.
That is a patent lie, sir. We were not silent.
We took action. We've joined in a bipartisan way to
protect those judges, as was done in a bipartisan way
to protect a New Jersey judge after their horrific attack
(11:40):
at their home. So I see you now trying to
shift the debate to whether we talk to an attorney general.
I'm simply taking issue with this accusation that somehow we
Democrats are so bad because we don't call out threats
to college to our judicial colleagues, and that is wrong.
You could change the argument now that you want, but
(12:00):
what you said was patently not true and was in
fact a patent lie.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from
New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent lie,
and says he's doing so in defense of lowering the rhetoric.
There is some irony to doing those two together. I'll
point out that in the entire course of those remarks,
Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made,
(12:26):
which is the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted
zero people for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat
senator on this committee was silent about it. And this
was an ongoing pattern four months. And I would note
also that the Senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls
about language threatening judges, and yet I do not recall
(12:48):
a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word
when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme
Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices
by name Gorsitchen Kavanaugh, and he said, you have unleashed
the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And not
a single Democrat senator had a word to say about this,
(13:10):
And so their outrage is selective. And I will give
my colleague from New Jersey a chance to just answer
a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden Justice Department
have enforced the criminal law against protesting at a justice's home,
Yes or no.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next
day and you holding that standard for him, and not
for your president, who you actually rightfully describe when you
were running against him in a primary. I would love
to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about
the danger of our president and his rhetoric. But now
(13:47):
you are failing in fact blind to the very things
you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump
would know an apology if it hit him in the head,
never set apologizing. So again, you are very very sir,
very very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your
criticisms of Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer
the question and did not tell us whether the criminal
law should be enforced, because he knows the answer is yes,
and he knows that the Biden Department of Justice was
being wildly political and partisan in refusing to enforce the
law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court justice's rulings.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
That was one very entertaining back and forth center. I
wish there was actually more of this in the Senate
because it's a great moment where you can see two
very different viewpoints, two very different ways of looking at this,
and like you said, it did not go well for
Corey Booker, but I actually love that there's this type
(14:48):
of grand debate.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Absolutely, we need to have this engagement. We need to
have this engagement on ideas, and it's striking the Democrats.
They claim they support democracy, but yet when it comes
to Donald Trump, they want a single unelected district judge
striking down every policy he implements. And they don't care
(15:13):
that the American people voted for it. They want power.
And look, in the course of this hearing, there were
a couple of points I made that no Democrat had
a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed
over and over again before radical left wing judges. Of
the forty plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against
(15:34):
the Trump administration, thirty five of them have been in five jurisdictions,
five left wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these left wing
judges because they know that they'll rule for them, and
the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just violating
the law. Well, you know what, if that were true,
(15:56):
you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not.
The Democrat attorneys general, the left wing interest groups are
going to seek out the radicals because they know the
radicals will rule for them, and we're not seeing Democrat
senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say, give
any explanation as to why one radical judge should be
(16:20):
able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President
of the United States, who was elected by the American
people to secure the borders, to bring us back to
common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important,
and I got to say, I think Corey Booker listen,
Corey is running for president of the United States. That's
(16:40):
not complicated. He's going to run in twenty twenty eight,
and he's running in the left lane of the Democrat Party.
So he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren, he's going
to take on AOC and he's going to argue, I
am liberal Democrat here mirror. But at the end of
the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you got
(17:02):
a problem of you actually got to address the substance,
and I think today we did and it was not
the outcome he was hoping for.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments
that I'll be interested to see when this audio and
video comes back to haunt him down the road when
that president run you mentioned, because I think he thought
he was about to have a moment and it's not
the moment he probably was hoping for if you go
back and look at that tape. I want to also
get to this other big issue, and that is out
(17:32):
in Colorado and the tear attack there. We've got a
significant update on this individual and also real concerns and
honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat
of other terrorists that may be in this country that
were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
Well, it turns out that four years of open borders
allowing over twelve million people to come into this country illegally,
that was a really bad point. And even worse, look,
there were ten million people who were apprehended by the
Biden administration. They let them go. That is problematic on
many many fronts, But the most disturbing number is two million.
(18:15):
They're roughly two million god aways. Those are people that
crossed the border. We know cross the border, but yet
they escaped detection. And those god aways are much much
more likely to be criminals. They're much more likely to
be murders, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, gang members. And if
(18:36):
you look at this, this radical who attacked and fire
bombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado, this was
a guy who never should have been in this country
to begin with. He came in on a tourist fe
SA he overstated, and this was a radical Islamist. And
(18:59):
I want to read to you a tweet from Bill Malusion. Now,
regular listeners of this podcast know Bill Malusian is the
best reporter in America. He reports for Fox News and
he's been detailing what's going on at the border. Here's
what Bill Malusion tweeted, breaking new details on Colorado terror
attack suspect as Fedes charged him with federal hate crime,
(19:21):
according to federal court filings obtained by Fox News, Egyptian
illegal alien Mohammed Solomon admitted in an interview that he
wanted to kill all quote Zionist people, and he had
been planning the attack for a year, and that he
would conduct the attack again if he could. He allegedly
(19:42):
told investigators that he waited to carry out the attack
until his daughter graduated high school, and that he specifically
targeted the quote Zionist group in Boulder after learning about
them from an online search. It was premeditated, as he
allegedly admitted he knew they would gather on Sunday at
(20:04):
one pm, he arrived and waited for them. Additionally, investigators
found a black container with fourteen more molotov cocktails near
the spot he was arrested in. Inside his vehicle, investigators
found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine, and USAID. This
(20:26):
man was admitted into the country via a tourist visa
during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed an asylum request,
and was granted work authorization by the Biden administration, which
expired at the end of March of this year. So understand,
this guy came into this country, he overstayed his visa,
(20:49):
and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look a radical
Islamic terrorist. We want you to stay. It was not
hard to figure out from his social media who this
guy was. But the Biden administration, they were not focused
on defending this nation. They were not focused on stopping
terrorists from coming into this country. Instead, they made a
(21:10):
political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben, why
would Democrats open up the borders. It clearly hurt them
in the flat last election. Why would they do this?
And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed
twelve million illegal immigrants, they said, listen, every one of
these we think are going to vote for Democrats. We
want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally.
(21:33):
The rest of them, they believed, if they stayed in power,
they'd grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if
they have to bring in Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who were
murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
This is the part that I really think we do
need to make it clear, not just now but in
the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to this
in your comments there. Their plan they knew was going
to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint. They
were willing to play Russian Roulette with that open border.
(22:11):
And they were warned and they saw the people that
were on the terrorists watch list center and they didn't
care because it was their overall plan to flood the
country with the legal immigrants and fundamentally changes country. They
knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists,
some of them on the terrorists watch lists at the
time to get into this country, and they still continued
(22:35):
to have the open border policy because they basically said, Hey,
it's part of our bigger plan, and there's going to
be collateral damage from.
Speaker 2 (22:43):
This, so be it and listen when I say this,
this sounds harsh, and you sort of think of a
listener who's not terribly political and they're like, wait, the
Democrats couldn't really want more terrorists in this country. But
at the end of the day, that was the inevitable
consequence of the policies they put in place. When you
(23:06):
allow twelve million people to cross the border illegally, and
by the way, the Biden Border Control the border patrol,
they instructed their agents be on the lookout for hesbela
Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jehad terrorists coming across this border. Look,
(23:26):
we have radical Zealots who have declared Jahad and America
who have demanded of their terrorists murder as many Americans
as you can and murder as many Jews and Israelis
as you can. And in the face of those very
real and clear national security threats, the fact that the
(23:47):
Biden administration and the Democrats, it wasn't just Joe Biden,
it wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was every single Democrat
in the Senate. It was every single Democrat in the House.
Because they voted in favor of open borders over and
over and over again, they knew that some of the
people coming were just like this radical and listen, I've
(24:07):
reintroduced this week legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as
a terrorist organization. The Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
This is something you've been sounding the alarm on for
quite some time. I want to be very clear about that.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than
a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It
is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt,
it is in cutter it is all across the Middle East.
And the Muslim Brotherhood openly aggressively they support hamas they
(24:46):
support Hesbela. They are a terrorist organization and by the way,
to be clear, in Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look,
we had Mohammed Morsey who was the leader of e
who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now now thankfully Mohammed
Morsey was defeated and he was defeated by Alcesi, who
(25:11):
is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, look if you
look at the Arabs who are dealing with this, the
Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadis, they believe in using violence,
using murder to force people to embrace their radical Islamus view.
And yet these are these are the radicals that are fighting,
(25:35):
that that are murdering Israelis, and that are murdering Americans.
And and this is exactly the radicals that this lunatic
in Boulder, Colorado was embracing, and that Joe Biden, the
Democrats were letting endo this country.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Final question on the on the the designate of Muslim
Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to
be the moment where you think there's a decent, there's
a chance that this can become reality, or there's still
going to be Democrats at all costs that say we
are going to defend this.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
So I hope so so right now today, the Muslim
Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia,
they're designated in the United Arab Emirates, They're designated in Egypt,
in Syria and Bahrain. But the United States has yet
to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When
(26:29):
you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jahad,
the murdering of innocence, they are a terrorist organization. And
so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term
for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated. We did not succeed.
I think we will succeed this administration. I think President
(26:52):
Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to
keep pressing designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization
because because that is who they are, and we saw
the horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
It's an incredible story and it's a sad one. It's
also one that we must keep following and keep fighting
to protect American citizens. And we're gonna keep keeping you
updated on this story moving forward here on VERDIC. I
promise you that don't forget. We do this show Monday,
Wednesday and Friday, so make sure you hit that subscribe
or auto download button so that you do not miss
(27:30):
an episode. Please write it to five star review. It
helps us reach new listeners more than you can imagine.
So if you've not done that, please do that and
share this wherever you are, like I said on media
and the CINA, and I will see you back here
Friday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.