-
Designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a Terrorist Organization
- Senator Cruz discusses his long-standing effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.
- He outlines the organization's history, global reach, and alleged ties to terrorism.
- The conversation critiques past U.S. administrations, particularly the Obama and Biden administrations, for their handling of the Brotherhood.
- Cruz introduces a “modernized” version of his bill using a “bottom-up” approach to target specific violent branches first.
-
IRS Ruling on Churches and Political Endorsements
- The IRS has agreed that churches and pastors can endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status.
- This is framed as a major shift from the Johnson Amendment, which previously discouraged political speech from the pulpit.
- The discussion includes a personal anecdote from Cruz about defending pastors in Houston who were subpoenaed for their sermons.
-
Biden Autopen Scandal
- The New York Times reported that President Biden used an autopen to sign pardons without personally reviewing each case.
- Cruz argues that this could render many of those pardons legally invalid under DOJ guidelines.
- The conversation speculates on the legal and political implications, including potential challenges to the pardons.
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 (00:01):
Welcome in his verdict with Center, Ted Kruz Ben Ferguson
with you. It's nice to have you, and we've got
some very interesting legislation that you are heading up that
is making waves.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Fill people in on what you're wanting to do well.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
This week, I introduced legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood
as a terrorist organization. This is a fight I've been
fighting for over a decade. I think the Muslim Brotherhood
clearly is a terrorist organization. It is profoundly dangerous, and
I think we are closer right now to victory on
this issue than we ever have been. We're going to
do a deep dive, explain the background, what the issues are,
(00:39):
why we're close to victory, and what that would mean.
We're also going to talk about an amazing development, a
really important development, which is the IRS has now said
explicitly that churches and pastors can endorse political candidates. That
is a big, big deal. For a long time, there
(00:59):
was legislation known as the Johnson Amendment that was interpreted
as stripping the ability of pastors and churches to express
their views on politics. The IRS entered into a consent
agreement that now makes clear churches and pastors can can
tell their congregations exactly what they think about politics.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
That's a big, big deal.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
And finally, The New York Times, in a shocking expose,
looked at the Biden autopen scandal and they reported that
from for a significant portion of the autopenned pardons that
Joe Biden signed, that he was not individually aware of
who it was that was getting pardoned. That is incredibly consequential.
(01:44):
It means as a legal matter, those pardons are null
and void. We're going to explain all of that right now.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Yeah, it's a really interesting story. We're going to have
all those details for you in just a moment. Let
me also just say many of you may be listening
to the show for the first time fighting this podcasts
on another feed, and if you are, don't forget to
hit that subscribe or auto download button, as we actually
do the show three days a week, so makes you
do that.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
All right?
Speaker 1 (02:10):
I love when I get to take a moment and
tell you about something that I genuinely think you're going
to love. And my good friends Buck Sexton and Klay Travis,
they are coffee aficionados and they decided to start a company.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
It is called Krockett Coffee.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
It is maybe the best cup of coffee I've ever had, period,
And every morning I start my day now with Krockett Coffee.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
It is small batch.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
They do this on purpose by experts who love the
taste of great coffee.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
It's also roasted in our nation's heartland.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
And then the best part is it's delivered to you
at your home or your office. Now, if you love
starting your day with a cup of coffee, why not
get the best you can get in a small batch
the way they designed it to be done.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
At Krockett Coffee.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
You get to choose between their dark roast, their mild roast.
They're light roast. They even have a decap version. You
get to choose between fresh ground or whole bean or
k cups whatever it is you want. They also have
mushroom coffee and the positive benefits that come with enjoying
that each day.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
They are now producing that as well.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Now, let me save you money so you can try
Crockett Coffee and it's gonna save you a bunch of cash.
A right, go to Crocketcoffee dot com and if you
use my name Ben, you get twenty percent off your
first order. All right, that's Crocketcoffee dot com and my
name Ben as your promo code. You're gonna get twenty
percent off. Whether it's k cups with the whole being
(03:39):
and the fresh ground, just up your coffee game. And
it's also really well priced. That's what you're gonna love.
You just gonna upgrade to a better cup of coffee
for probably what you're spending right now. So check it
out Crockett Coffee dot Com. Use my name Ben as
your promo code. You get twenty percent off. All right, Senata,
you said that twenty This has been something I should say,
(03:59):
for well over a decade you have been working on
and I am shocked why there is so much pushback.
Give a little background on the Muslim Brotherhood. Let's start
there for people that may not realize what this global
organization is, what they do, and why you think that
they need to be included and designated as a terrorist organization.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is a global Islamist violent organization.
It was founded in nineteen twenty eight in Egypt. It
was a fringe group for the first few decades, and
then it grew dramatically inside of Egypt and then it
spread beyond. The Muslim Brotherhood has branches and countries and
(04:43):
territories all over the world, and they are openly committed
to seizing control of those countries and seizing control of
those territories. They explicitly intend to use violent jihad to
overthrow non Islamist governments. During the Obama administration, they did.
(05:07):
They seized control of Egypt. Mohammed Morci and the Muslim
Brotherhood seized control until they were ultimately overthrown by the
Egyptian army. By the way, when when the Muslim Brotherhood
took over Egypt, the Obama administration cheered them on. And
how do we know that the Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism
(05:28):
because several of their branches are explicit terrorist organizations. Among
those is Hamas, which everyone listening to this podcast knows about.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Hamas.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Yeah, Hamas is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood.
They also include other groups that folks may not have
heard about, like Hassim and Leewa al Thawrah, both of
which the State Departman says have been associated with the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and they are branches that have already
(06:06):
been formally designated as terrorist groups. Other Brotherhood branches are
committing terrorism right now, but they haven't yet been formally designated.
Just a few weeks ago, the Jordanian government disrupted attacks
being planned by Brotherhood members, and police raided the Islamic
Action Front, which is the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood branch.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
You hear that.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And then the question that I think some of people
listening and I'm thinking my head right now, is Okay,
if there is such a long history, why did it
take so long for us to even get to the
point they're at right now? If it's been this clear
that their terrorist organization? And then the second part is,
then why in the past, even after whether it was
nine to eleven or other attacks that we've seen around
(06:55):
the world, why haven't they already been listened as a
terrorist organization.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Well, so, it's a complicated story, and it basically comes
down to the messed up politics inside the American Democrat Party.
A bunch of our allies have already designated the entire
Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization in.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
The Middle East.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Bahrain has done so, Egypt has done so, Jordan has
done so, Saudi Arabia has done so. The UAE has
done so in Europe. Austria has designated the Muslim Brotherhood
as a haarrist organization. There's a bill right now in
Germany to designate it, and French intelligence has described the
Muslim Brotherhood as quote a threat to national cohesion. British
(07:40):
officials say the Brotherhood is right now under surveillance under
their anti extremism laws. So the question is why is
America lagging behind? And I'll tell you We've done it.
I've been pushing to do this for over a decade.
You're in the one hundred and nineteenth Congress right now.
(08:02):
I introduced versions of this bill in the one hundred
and fourteenth Congress in twenty fifteen, in the one hundred
and fifteenth Congress in twenty seventeen, and the one hundred
and sixteenth Congress in twenty twenty, and in the one
hundred and seventeenth Congress in twenty twenty one. And the
reason that it hasn't gone anywhere is that Democrats oppose it. Now,
(08:27):
it seems weird. Why would a why would progressives embrace
a fundamentalist Islamist jihadist organization which is openly and brazenly
against rights for women, openly and brazenly against rights for homosexuals.
But to the left, they do it because the Muslim
(08:47):
Brotherhood is also anti American and it wants to see
Israel destroyed. And there is a significant chunk of today's
left that celebrates with the anti Israel hatred, that celebrates
with Amas, and and that celebrates attacks on America.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
If I remember correctly, the Muslim Brotherhood was also if
we go back to Obama's years, somewhat normalized as well.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Yeah, look when when the Muslim Brotherhood was running Egypt.
When when when they they took it over, Mohammed Morsey
was was there? You may remember there were a million
people that showed up in the streets of Cairo protesting
against the Muslim Brotherhood because the people of Egypt did
not want to live under Jahadis, They did not want
to live under enforced Sharia law. And at the time,
(09:36):
it was amazing. There were signs that you could see
in this crowd of a million Egyptians protesting, signs that
said Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
The ambassador, Obama's ambassador at the time to Egypt was
a woman named Ann Patterson. There were signs pictures of
her saying Ann Patterson supports Mohammed Morsey. The Obama administration
leaned in aggressively supporting the Brotherhood. And and in fact,
when when Alceci was the current leader of of of
Egypt took over, when the army took over, the Obama
(10:11):
administration was vocally against that. Now Alcci is an ally
of America. Alceci is locking up Jihadis and radical Islamic
terrorists who want to murder us. And bizarrely, the Obama
administration got very angry with them, withhold weapons from them,
put pressure on them because they didn't like that that
(10:31):
that the current Egyptian government was standing up to the
Muslim Brotherhood. And if you fast forward to the Biden administration,
the Biden administration basically restored the old Obama policies of
embracing the Muslim Brotherhood. And and not only that, they
sent hundreds of millions of dollars maybe even billions of
dollars UH to Gaza, knowing that Gaza was controlled by
(10:55):
Hamas and knowing that it would go directly into the
hands of Hamas.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yeah, and that.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Is when I look at this. And then you go
back and you say, okay, all this is happening. You
announced that you're doing this bill several weeks ago, in fact,
you announced it on AX and I remember in that
post that you said you were introducing a modernized version
of your bill.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Explain exactly what that means.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
How is this one different, and what changes were made
and why they're so important? And could this help this
possibly become something that is bipartisan or is there no
way that's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Well, it might, and actually it is bipartisan right now
in the House. So I've introduced the bill in the
Senate and I have a total of five senators on
my bill right now.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
They're all Republican.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I am trying to convince a Democrat senator to support it.
In the House, the same bill is being led by
two representatives from Florida, Mario Diaz Billard, a Republican, a
fellow Cuban American, a good friend, and Jared Moskovitz. And
Jared is a Democrat. So in the House we have
Democrat supporters bipartisan support. That is encouraging. But you asked
(12:09):
how we modernize the bill in the past, both in
Congress and in the Trump forty five White House. We
took a top down approach to listing the entire Brotherhood,
and the idea was to designate the global Muslim Brotherhood
and then all of its branches. Now, the challenge and
some of the pushback we got is that not every
(12:31):
one of the Brotherhood branches is currently violent, and so
each of the branches doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for designation,
and that was an argument critics used to try to
block the designation. This new bill instead uses a bottoms
up approach. We start by identifying all the branches that
(12:54):
the Muslim Brotherhood supports that are terrorist groups or that
commit terrorism, and then we designate the entire Brotherhood for
that support. In other words, we build up with what
is explicitly and indisputably terrorist, and then we designate the
Brotherhood as a whole for supporting those terrorist groups.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So do you think this approach will actually work moving forward?
Is this something that you say is going to be
more palatable for people and also easier sale.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Well, look, I think it could work.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
We use the exact same approach during the Trump forty
five administration to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp. That
the IRGC in twenty seventeen, and Congress mandated that action
through legislation, and then the Treasury Department implemented our mandate
by listing the IRGC for supporting one of its branches,
(13:50):
the IRGC Quood's Force, which is undoubtedly a terrorist organization.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
So it worked.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
And to get technical for sex, there are three different
ways to list terrorist groups. Congress can do it through
the Anti Terrorism Act of nineteen eighty seven, which is
how the PLO is listed. The State Department can do
it by labeling a group as a foreign Terrorist organization,
or the Treasury Department can do it by labeling a
(14:19):
group what is called a specially designated Global Terrorist. My
bill does all three, and so it's belts and suspenders
on the global Muslim Brotherhood. And that results in immediate
and devastating sanctions, and it gives law enforcement greater tools
(14:40):
to go after not just the Muslim Brotherhood, but those
who are financially supporting it. Now you asked, can it happen?
It can? We have one Democrat in the House. I'm
hoping we will get one or more Democrats in the Senate.
We don't right now. I've had conversations today with Democrats
trying to get them on board. There are two paths
(15:02):
for this to go forward. One, I think it would
make a very good sense for us to vote on
it on the Senate floor, for John Thune to bring
it up and make senators vote. Most of the Democrats
are going to vote no, because, for whatever reason, the
Democrat ideology. These are the same Democrats that are terrified
to announce the anti Israel antisemitic protests on campuses. These
(15:26):
are the same Democrats that are really frightened of the
pro Hamas wing of their party, and the pro Hamas wing,
as we talked about, Hamas is explicitly an arm of
the Muslim brotherhood. So most of the Democrats would be
a no. I think it'd be valuable to get them
on record, force them to vote. But I'll tell you
what I think the real path the success will be
(15:47):
is that we're going to lead the fight in the Senate.
I hope we tee this up for a vote, and
if the Democrats block it, which in all likelihood they will,
they have.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
For a decade.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
What I think is going to have and is I
think the President is going to do this through an
executive order and I'm certainly urging President Trump to designate
the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization through an executive order,
and I think the fight that I'm leading in the
Senate helps build momentum for the President to step in
and make this designation.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
I think it's going to happen. I think we're going
to see it happen this term.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Final question on this for people that are listening, This
is why I love doing the show.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
People want to get involved. What can they do?
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Should they be calling their Congress and their centaters, and
should they be reaching out to the White House as well?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yes, yes, yes, absolutely speak out. Call your senator, call
your house member, tell them to support my legislation designating
the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Get on social media,
speak out, use your voice, and by the way, share
this podcast. This podcast lays out all the facts and
so if you want people to know about this, share
(16:56):
this podcast with others so that they can know the
facts and build momentum. Because really, what we're trying to
do through this fight is build momentum that will encourage
the White House to designate the Muslim Brotherhood, which would
be a big, big deal if and when we get
this done.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Yeah, we're going to keep you updated on this because
I mean this could be something that could take obviously
weeks or months, right, I mean that's a realistic timeline, absolutely,
So we'll keep you update on it. But I love
that we got to start with this. This is something
you may hear nowhere else. Make sure you share the podcast.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
All right.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I want to move on to this other issue center,
and that is the IRAS is now saying churches can
endorse candidates. I want to be clear. When I first
saw this headline, I'm like, hold on. Many on the
Democrat side have been doing this.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
For years, and I know it's a complete double standard.
You see Democrats that they go and campaign in frequently
African American churches and pastors and endorse Democrats openly and brazenly.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
They have for a long time.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Nevertheless, that there is a provision of the United States Code.
It's known as the Johnson Amendment, and it is part
of of twenty six USC. Section five oh one c
three that threatens to strip nonprofits of their tax exempt
status should they quote participate in or intervene in any
(18:20):
political campaign. And for many years, pastors and churches particularly
those right of center, have been afraid to be explicit
about politics because the consequence they feared was that was
that their tax exempt status would be stripped away. Now,
(18:40):
from the day the Johnson Amendment was passed, no church
has ever had its tax exempt status stripped for speaking
out under about politics. But nonetheless, a lot of pastors
self censor and are afraid to say say their own
views about about what they think the Bible teaches about
(19:01):
issues of public policy, about issues of politics. And just
last week on July seventh, the IRS agreed in a
court filing that churches can now endorse political candidates at
the pulpit, and the IRS created an exception to the
Johnson Amendment. The IRS reasoned that churches endorsing political candidates
(19:28):
resembles a family discussion concerning candidates, and therefore communications from
houses of worship to its congregation on matters of faith
involving electoral politics do not run a foul of the
Johnson Amendment.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
This is one of those moments where I actually think
this is going to just be massive to level the
playing field, as you mentioned a moment ago, because it's
been happening on the left for so long and there
have been a lot of, like you said, pastors, pastors
that I know personally that we're afraid to talk about
politics or even the election day outside of like hey,
remember to vote, a registered to vote, but like not
(20:03):
getting into the issues, not getting into the candidates. And
this is I think great that many Christians, in many churches,
many pastors are now going to be freed up to
actually preach what they believe the Bible says about biblical
issues that are in the political realm. Abortion is a
great example of that.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Yeah, and and and this was teed up. This came
through litigation, and it was a lawsuit National Religious Broadcasters
versus long Billy long As is the commissioner of the
i r S and National Religious Broadcasters sued the i
r S and and they argue that the Johnson Amendment
violated the church's First Amendment rights. And they filed the
(20:44):
case in the Eastern District of Texas. They were before
a Judge Cam Barker, who I helped select.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
To be on the bench.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
He's a strong principled conservative and a constitutionalist. And they
were litigating before Judge Barker in Texas, and the IRS
decided to settle this matter, and the IRS settled this matter.
And this is one of the advantages of winning elections.
When you win elections, you control the executive branch. And
when you control the executive branch, you can decide to
(21:14):
settle litigation. And so the IRS signed a joint consent
judgment that expressly stipulates churches may endorse candidates or promote
political issues without risking their taxes m status. And here's
what the Irs said. When churches address political matters quote
(21:34):
through the lens of religious faith, it neither participates nor
intervenes in a political campaign. Remember those are the words
of the Johnson Amendment. Participate or intervene in a political
campaign within the ordinary meaning of those words, rather than
take part or interfere with the course of a campaign.
(21:55):
Churches that endorse political candidates simply engage in a family discussion. Therefore,
when properly interpreted, communications from a house of worship to
its congregation on matters of faith involving electoral politics quote,
do not run a foul of the Johnson Amendment. That
is a big deal, and it will free up the
(22:18):
ability for for religious leaders, for pastors to to speak
their heart and to speak the truth to the congregation
about what they believe the Bible teaches and and and
and how that impacts issues in public policy. This is
a major major change.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
It also going to have a huge impact on local elections.
And I think that's one of the biggest outcomes that
could be positive from this, is that pastors really are
able to talk about who they believe is best for
their cities, uh and for their community and bring it
back to the local aspect of it. And it'll be
well see how this plays out as well.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
Yeah, Ben, And let me tell you a story from
from a number of years ago. A number of years ago,
the the huge Houston mayor who was a left wing Democrat,
and the Houston City attorney subpoenaed the sermon notes for
five pastors in Houston. And these were pastors in Houston
(23:16):
who were preaching on marriage and preaching on same sex marriage.
And the left wing Democrat mayor did not like what
these pastors were preaching about marriage and biblical marriage, and
so the city decided we're going to subpoena your sermon
notes and go after you. And when that happened, I
was very.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Dismayed about that.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I've spent most of my adult life fighting to defend
religious liberty, and the idea of the city going.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
After pastors was horrific.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
And so I picked up the phone and I called
my pastor and I called him. I said, Pastor, have
you seen what's happened with a subpoena to the five
pastors in Houston? And he said, oh, yeah, I've definitely
seen it. He said, I've been praying about it all morning.
And I said, well, look, I'm praying about it as well,
and I'm very dismayed. I want us to stand up
(24:06):
and fight it. And I told him, I said, listen.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
I want to organize a rally.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
I want to bring pastors together to speak out against this,
to defend the religious liberty of pastors in our hometown.
And I said, I'd like to have a rally of
pastors tomorrow, Thursday at eleven am. And I was calling
to see would you be willing to host that rally
at the church. And then my pastor begins laughing and
(24:36):
he says, ted, you know, the Bible tells us that
God has ordered our steps.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Long before we have any awareness of it.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
My pastor said, a month ago, God laid on my
heart to pray for our city.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
He said.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
A month ago, I reached out to pastors across the
city and invited them to come to my office to
pray for the city of Houston. He said, I've got
fifty pastors coming to my office tomorrow Thursday at ten am.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
That's incredible.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
And we both just kind of stopped. And I don't
know if you ever heard the phrase of godwink, but
it kind of kind of felt like, you know, God
was winking at us then. And so the next day
I arrived at his office at ten am, I joined
the pastors. We spent an hour on our knees praying
for a city, and then we went out in a rally.
And it was fantastic. If you look at you had
(25:33):
pastors across denominations. You had pastors across racial lines of
white pastors, Black pastors, Hispanic pastors, Asian pastors. Heck, you
even had first Baptists and second Baptist and you know
well that that is not easy. But they were there
and we had complete unity. And one of the things
(25:56):
I said at that rally, I said, Caesar has no
jurisdiction over the pulpit. And when usubpoena one pastor. You
subpoena every pastor, and I'll tell you, Ben, it was amazing.
There was so much light and heat that came from
(26:16):
that press conference. It drove enormous attention and drove enormous
coverage in the news and in the media that within
twenty four hours, the city of Houston withdrew it subpoenas
and just surrendered. That was the power of pastors standing
up saying we will not submit, and it made a
real difference in the city of Houston.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Finally, Sender, I want to move to another issue, and
it is really exploited over the last twenty four hours,
and that is new information that we now have on
Biden's use of the auto pen. It is a scandal
that I don't think people understand just how big it
is and what has now been at mass to when
(27:00):
it comes the autopen usage and Joe Biden maybe not
knowing it was being used at all.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Well.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
So The New York Times on July thirteenth wrote a
major story that says Biden says he made the clemency
decisions that were recorded with autopen, and you and I
talked about in an earlier podcast that the Department of
Justice has an opinion that it issued a number of
years ago the Office Legal Counsel about whether you can
use an autopen for presidential signatures, whether that's a presidential
(27:29):
signature on an executive order, a presidential signature on a
law that is being signed into law, or a presidential
signature on a pardon. And what the Department of Justice
has concluded is that you can use an autopen for
any of those. But the test is the authority is
the president's and the presidents alone, So the president cannot
(27:52):
delegate that authority to anyone else. The president has to
make the decision. And what the Department of Justice explained,
and this was years ago, is that the operative legal
test is did the president make the individual determination to
sign the executive order, to sign the specific piece of
(28:14):
legislation to grant the pardon? And if the president made
that individualized determination, then you can use an autopen to
reflect that, But the president has to be the decider.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
And so that's the legal standard. But what the New.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
York Times reported was, quote, mister Biden did not individually
approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to
large numbers of people. He and AIDS confirmed, rather, after
extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on
(28:55):
the standards he wanted to be used to determine which
convicts would qualify for a reduction and sentence. Even after
mister Biden made that decision, one former AID said, the
Bureau of Prisons kept providing additional information about specific inmates,
resulting in small changes to the list. Rather than ask
(29:17):
mister Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited
and then ran the final version through the autopen, which
they saw as a routine procedure. The AID said that
is stunning because under the Department of Justice guidance, those
pardons aren't valid. If the President didn't decide I am
going to pardon Ben Ferguson. If he didn't know that,
(29:44):
that would not be sufficient. And the New York Times
the consequence of this listen. I think the Trump White
House needs to go through the records and look they
have the records because they're now in charge of the
White House, and examine what specifically has a paper trail
that shows Biden signed off on the specific action, and
(30:05):
those that that there is no paper trail, that there
is no evidence in the New York Times is reporting
they're admitting, Oh yeah, they're broad categories. He didn't know
about it all. He didn't know the specific people. Those
are null and void. Those have no legal force. And
my recommendation to Pambondi in the Department of Justice is
they should look specifically at the most vulnerable and and
(30:26):
and devise and implement a legal challenge to challenge these
and to make clear that an unelected aid running an
auto pen does not have the power to grant a
pardon under the United States Constitution.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
So, now that we have this information, the big question
is when do these pardons, what happens next, how do
you go about undoing this?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
And how big of a legal fight is that going
to be?
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Well, look, it's going to be a termination number one
of the White House and the White House Council assessing
what are the record show? What records did they keep
of Biden's signing off. We know that he personally signed
the pardon for Hunter Biden, so that one he knew
about and he did so.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
So that one is is that also very telling?
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And is that going to be used in many ways
as an example of like dud he had no idea
what was going on over here. The ones he did
know about, he knew, he damned it well better signed
them himself. His son is a great example of that.
Does that actually hurt the argument for Biden? All the
others are.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Valid potentially, although they are arguing that they discussed it
with him and he approved, and so some of the
high profile ones, like you look at Anthony Fauci who
was pardoned, they're maintaining they discussed it with Biden and
Biden said he wanted to he wanted to pardon him.
If that's true, if he made the decision and directed
(31:51):
them to sign a pardon, then under the Department of
Justice's OLC memorandum, that is valid. The question is are
there ones, And according to the New York Times, there
are a lot that Biden did not know and did
not approve the specific individual receiving the pardon, And if
(32:12):
he didn't know and didn't approve, then it's not a
valid part.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
So when you look at the timeline of this moving forward,
and some of these could be very significant, one that
comes to mind is doctor Anthony Fauci, for example, could
this could I mean open up a whole lot of
can of worms on a lot of different issues.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
It could. It depends what so what I believe.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
I believe the White House should go through systematically through
the records and see what the records demonstrate, and the
Department of Justice should pick starting with a test case
to go challenge this the look for a fact pattern
in which there is the clearest absence of any approval
from from the actual president and go challenge those in particular.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
It's going to be interesting. We're to cover all of it.
Don't forget. We do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Hit that subscriber auto download button and make sure you
don't miss as we continue to keep updated on these
exact issues moving forward.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
The Senator and I will see you back here on
Friday morning.
Welcome in his verdict with Center, Ted Kruz Ben Ferguson
with you. It's nice to have you, and we've got
some very interesting legislation that you are heading up that
is making waves.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Fill people in on what you're wanting to do well.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
This week, I introduced legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood
as a terrorist organization. This is a fight I've been
fighting for over a decade. I think the Muslim Brotherhood
clearly is a terrorist organization. It is profoundly dangerous, and
I think we are closer right now to victory on
this issue than we ever have been. We're going to
do a deep dive, explain the background, what the issues are,
(00:39):
why we're close to victory, and what that would mean.
We're also going to talk about an amazing development, a
really important development, which is the IRS has now said
explicitly that churches and pastors can endorse political candidates. That
is a big, big deal. For a long time, there
(00:59):
was legislation known as the Johnson Amendment that was interpreted
as stripping the ability of pastors and churches to express
their views on politics. The IRS entered into a consent
agreement that now makes clear churches and pastors can can
tell their congregations exactly what they think about politics.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
That's a big, big deal.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
And finally, The New York Times, in a shocking expose,
looked at the Biden autopen scandal and they reported that
from for a significant portion of the autopenned pardons that
Joe Biden signed, that he was not individually aware of
who it was that was getting pardoned. That is incredibly consequential.
(01:44):
It means as a legal matter, those pardons are null
and void. We're going to explain all of that right now.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Yeah, it's a really interesting story. We're going to have
all those details for you in just a moment. Let
me also just say many of you may be listening
to the show for the first time fighting this podcasts
on another feed, and if you are, don't forget to
hit that subscribe or auto download button, as we actually
do the show three days a week, so makes you
do that.
Speaker 4 (02:10):
All right?
Speaker 1 (02:10):
I love when I get to take a moment and
tell you about something that I genuinely think you're going
to love. And my good friends Buck Sexton and Klay Travis,
they are coffee aficionados and they decided to start a company.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
It is called Krockett Coffee.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
It is maybe the best cup of coffee I've ever had, period,
And every morning I start my day now with Krockett Coffee.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
It is small batch.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
They do this on purpose by experts who love the
taste of great coffee.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
It's also roasted in our nation's heartland.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
And then the best part is it's delivered to you
at your home or your office. Now, if you love
starting your day with a cup of coffee, why not
get the best you can get in a small batch
the way they designed it to be done.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
At Krockett Coffee.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
You get to choose between their dark roast, their mild roast.
They're light roast. They even have a decap version. You
get to choose between fresh ground or whole bean or
k cups whatever it is you want. They also have
mushroom coffee and the positive benefits that come with enjoying
that each day.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
They are now producing that as well.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Now, let me save you money so you can try
Crockett Coffee and it's gonna save you a bunch of cash.
A right, go to Crocketcoffee dot com and if you
use my name Ben, you get twenty percent off your
first order. All right, that's Crocketcoffee dot com and my
name Ben as your promo code. You're gonna get twenty
percent off. Whether it's k cups with the whole being
(03:39):
and the fresh ground, just up your coffee game. And
it's also really well priced. That's what you're gonna love.
You just gonna upgrade to a better cup of coffee
for probably what you're spending right now. So check it
out Crockett Coffee dot Com. Use my name Ben as
your promo code. You get twenty percent off. All right, Senata,
you said that twenty This has been something I should say,
(03:59):
for well over a decade you have been working on
and I am shocked why there is so much pushback.
Give a little background on the Muslim Brotherhood. Let's start
there for people that may not realize what this global
organization is, what they do, and why you think that
they need to be included and designated as a terrorist organization.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood is a global Islamist violent organization.
It was founded in nineteen twenty eight in Egypt. It
was a fringe group for the first few decades, and
then it grew dramatically inside of Egypt and then it
spread beyond. The Muslim Brotherhood has branches and countries and
(04:43):
territories all over the world, and they are openly committed
to seizing control of those countries and seizing control of
those territories. They explicitly intend to use violent jihad to
overthrow non Islamist governments. During the Obama administration, they did.
(05:07):
They seized control of Egypt. Mohammed Morci and the Muslim
Brotherhood seized control until they were ultimately overthrown by the
Egyptian army. By the way, when when the Muslim Brotherhood
took over Egypt, the Obama administration cheered them on. And
how do we know that the Muslim Brotherhood supports terrorism
(05:28):
because several of their branches are explicit terrorist organizations. Among
those is Hamas, which everyone listening to this podcast knows about.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Hamas.
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Yeah, Hamas is one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood.
They also include other groups that folks may not have
heard about, like Hassim and Leewa al Thawrah, both of
which the State Departman says have been associated with the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and they are branches that have already
(06:06):
been formally designated as terrorist groups. Other Brotherhood branches are
committing terrorism right now, but they haven't yet been formally designated.
Just a few weeks ago, the Jordanian government disrupted attacks
being planned by Brotherhood members, and police raided the Islamic
Action Front, which is the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood branch.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
You hear that.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And then the question that I think some of people
listening and I'm thinking my head right now, is Okay,
if there is such a long history, why did it
take so long for us to even get to the
point they're at right now? If it's been this clear
that their terrorist organization? And then the second part is,
then why in the past, even after whether it was
nine to eleven or other attacks that we've seen around
(06:55):
the world, why haven't they already been listened as a
terrorist organization.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Well, so, it's a complicated story, and it basically comes
down to the messed up politics inside the American Democrat Party.
A bunch of our allies have already designated the entire
Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization in.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
The Middle East.
Speaker 3 (07:16):
Bahrain has done so, Egypt has done so, Jordan has
done so, Saudi Arabia has done so. The UAE has
done so in Europe. Austria has designated the Muslim Brotherhood
as a haarrist organization. There's a bill right now in
Germany to designate it, and French intelligence has described the
Muslim Brotherhood as quote a threat to national cohesion. British
(07:40):
officials say the Brotherhood is right now under surveillance under
their anti extremism laws. So the question is why is
America lagging behind? And I'll tell you We've done it.
I've been pushing to do this for over a decade.
You're in the one hundred and nineteenth Congress right now.
(08:02):
I introduced versions of this bill in the one hundred
and fourteenth Congress in twenty fifteen, in the one hundred
and fifteenth Congress in twenty seventeen, and the one hundred
and sixteenth Congress in twenty twenty, and in the one
hundred and seventeenth Congress in twenty twenty one. And the
reason that it hasn't gone anywhere is that Democrats oppose it. Now,
(08:27):
it seems weird. Why would a why would progressives embrace
a fundamentalist Islamist jihadist organization which is openly and brazenly
against rights for women, openly and brazenly against rights for homosexuals.
But to the left, they do it because the Muslim
(08:47):
Brotherhood is also anti American and it wants to see
Israel destroyed. And there is a significant chunk of today's
left that celebrates with the anti Israel hatred, that celebrates
with Amas, and and that celebrates attacks on America.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
If I remember correctly, the Muslim Brotherhood was also if
we go back to Obama's years, somewhat normalized as well.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Right.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Yeah, look when when the Muslim Brotherhood was running Egypt.
When when when they they took it over, Mohammed Morsey
was was there? You may remember there were a million
people that showed up in the streets of Cairo protesting
against the Muslim Brotherhood because the people of Egypt did
not want to live under Jahadis, They did not want
to live under enforced Sharia law. And at the time,
(09:36):
it was amazing. There were signs that you could see
in this crowd of a million Egyptians protesting, signs that
said Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
The ambassador, Obama's ambassador at the time to Egypt was
a woman named Ann Patterson. There were signs pictures of
her saying Ann Patterson supports Mohammed Morsey. The Obama administration
leaned in aggressively supporting the Brotherhood. And and in fact,
when when Alceci was the current leader of of of
Egypt took over, when the army took over, the Obama
(10:11):
administration was vocally against that. Now Alcci is an ally
of America. Alceci is locking up Jihadis and radical Islamic
terrorists who want to murder us. And bizarrely, the Obama
administration got very angry with them, withhold weapons from them,
put pressure on them because they didn't like that that
(10:31):
that the current Egyptian government was standing up to the
Muslim Brotherhood. And if you fast forward to the Biden administration,
the Biden administration basically restored the old Obama policies of
embracing the Muslim Brotherhood. And and not only that, they
sent hundreds of millions of dollars maybe even billions of
dollars UH to Gaza, knowing that Gaza was controlled by
(10:55):
Hamas and knowing that it would go directly into the
hands of Hamas.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Yeah, and that.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Is when I look at this. And then you go
back and you say, okay, all this is happening. You
announced that you're doing this bill several weeks ago, in fact,
you announced it on AX and I remember in that
post that you said you were introducing a modernized version
of your bill.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Explain exactly what that means.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
How is this one different, and what changes were made
and why they're so important? And could this help this
possibly become something that is bipartisan or is there no
way that's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Well, it might, and actually it is bipartisan right now
in the House. So I've introduced the bill in the
Senate and I have a total of five senators on
my bill right now.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
They're all Republican.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I am trying to convince a Democrat senator to support it.
In the House, the same bill is being led by
two representatives from Florida, Mario Diaz Billard, a Republican, a
fellow Cuban American, a good friend, and Jared Moskovitz. And
Jared is a Democrat. So in the House we have
Democrat supporters bipartisan support. That is encouraging. But you asked
(12:09):
how we modernize the bill in the past, both in
Congress and in the Trump forty five White House. We
took a top down approach to listing the entire Brotherhood,
and the idea was to designate the global Muslim Brotherhood
and then all of its branches. Now, the challenge and
some of the pushback we got is that not every
(12:31):
one of the Brotherhood branches is currently violent, and so
each of the branches doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for designation,
and that was an argument critics used to try to
block the designation. This new bill instead uses a bottoms
up approach. We start by identifying all the branches that
(12:54):
the Muslim Brotherhood supports that are terrorist groups or that
commit terrorism, and then we designate the entire Brotherhood for
that support. In other words, we build up with what
is explicitly and indisputably terrorist, and then we designate the
Brotherhood as a whole for supporting those terrorist groups.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So do you think this approach will actually work moving forward?
Is this something that you say is going to be
more palatable for people and also easier sale.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Well, look, I think it could work.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
We use the exact same approach during the Trump forty
five administration to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp. That
the IRGC in twenty seventeen, and Congress mandated that action
through legislation, and then the Treasury Department implemented our mandate
by listing the IRGC for supporting one of its branches,
(13:50):
the IRGC Quood's Force, which is undoubtedly a terrorist organization.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
So it worked.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
And to get technical for sex, there are three different
ways to list terrorist groups. Congress can do it through
the Anti Terrorism Act of nineteen eighty seven, which is
how the PLO is listed. The State Department can do
it by labeling a group as a foreign Terrorist organization,
or the Treasury Department can do it by labeling a
(14:19):
group what is called a specially designated Global Terrorist. My
bill does all three, and so it's belts and suspenders
on the global Muslim Brotherhood. And that results in immediate
and devastating sanctions, and it gives law enforcement greater tools
(14:40):
to go after not just the Muslim Brotherhood, but those
who are financially supporting it. Now you asked, can it happen?
It can? We have one Democrat in the House. I'm
hoping we will get one or more Democrats in the Senate.
We don't right now. I've had conversations today with Democrats
trying to get them on board. There are two paths
(15:02):
for this to go forward. One, I think it would
make a very good sense for us to vote on
it on the Senate floor, for John Thune to bring
it up and make senators vote. Most of the Democrats
are going to vote no, because, for whatever reason, the
Democrat ideology. These are the same Democrats that are terrified
to announce the anti Israel antisemitic protests on campuses. These
(15:26):
are the same Democrats that are really frightened of the
pro Hamas wing of their party, and the pro Hamas wing,
as we talked about, Hamas is explicitly an arm of
the Muslim brotherhood. So most of the Democrats would be
a no. I think it'd be valuable to get them
on record, force them to vote. But I'll tell you
what I think the real path the success will be
(15:47):
is that we're going to lead the fight in the Senate.
I hope we tee this up for a vote, and
if the Democrats block it, which in all likelihood they will,
they have.
Speaker 4 (15:57):
For a decade.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
What I think is going to have and is I
think the President is going to do this through an
executive order and I'm certainly urging President Trump to designate
the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization through an executive order,
and I think the fight that I'm leading in the
Senate helps build momentum for the President to step in
and make this designation.
Speaker 4 (16:20):
I think it's going to happen. I think we're going
to see it happen this term.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Final question on this for people that are listening, This
is why I love doing the show.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
People want to get involved. What can they do?
Speaker 1 (16:30):
Should they be calling their Congress and their centaters, and
should they be reaching out to the White House as well?
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Yes, yes, yes, absolutely speak out. Call your senator, call
your house member, tell them to support my legislation designating
the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Get on social media,
speak out, use your voice, and by the way, share
this podcast. This podcast lays out all the facts and
so if you want people to know about this, share
(16:56):
this podcast with others so that they can know the
facts and build momentum. Because really, what we're trying to
do through this fight is build momentum that will encourage
the White House to designate the Muslim Brotherhood, which would
be a big, big deal if and when we get
this done.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Yeah, we're going to keep you updated on this because
I mean this could be something that could take obviously
weeks or months, right, I mean that's a realistic timeline, absolutely,
So we'll keep you update on it. But I love
that we got to start with this. This is something
you may hear nowhere else. Make sure you share the podcast.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
All right.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
I want to move on to this other issue center,
and that is the IRAS is now saying churches can
endorse candidates. I want to be clear. When I first
saw this headline, I'm like, hold on. Many on the
Democrat side have been doing this.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
For years, and I know it's a complete double standard.
You see Democrats that they go and campaign in frequently
African American churches and pastors and endorse Democrats openly and brazenly.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
They have for a long time.
Speaker 3 (17:59):
Nevertheless, that there is a provision of the United States Code.
It's known as the Johnson Amendment, and it is part
of of twenty six USC. Section five oh one c
three that threatens to strip nonprofits of their tax exempt
status should they quote participate in or intervene in any
(18:20):
political campaign. And for many years, pastors and churches particularly
those right of center, have been afraid to be explicit
about politics because the consequence they feared was that was
that their tax exempt status would be stripped away. Now,
(18:40):
from the day the Johnson Amendment was passed, no church
has ever had its tax exempt status stripped for speaking
out under about politics. But nonetheless, a lot of pastors
self censor and are afraid to say say their own
views about about what they think the Bible teaches about
(19:01):
issues of public policy, about issues of politics. And just
last week on July seventh, the IRS agreed in a
court filing that churches can now endorse political candidates at
the pulpit, and the IRS created an exception to the
Johnson Amendment. The IRS reasoned that churches endorsing political candidates
(19:28):
resembles a family discussion concerning candidates, and therefore communications from
houses of worship to its congregation on matters of faith
involving electoral politics do not run a foul of the
Johnson Amendment.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
This is one of those moments where I actually think
this is going to just be massive to level the
playing field, as you mentioned a moment ago, because it's
been happening on the left for so long and there
have been a lot of, like you said, pastors, pastors
that I know personally that we're afraid to talk about
politics or even the election day outside of like hey,
remember to vote, a registered to vote, but like not
(20:03):
getting into the issues, not getting into the candidates. And
this is I think great that many Christians, in many churches,
many pastors are now going to be freed up to
actually preach what they believe the Bible says about biblical
issues that are in the political realm. Abortion is a
great example of that.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Yeah, and and and this was teed up. This came
through litigation, and it was a lawsuit National Religious Broadcasters
versus long Billy long As is the commissioner of the
i r S and National Religious Broadcasters sued the i
r S and and they argue that the Johnson Amendment
violated the church's First Amendment rights. And they filed the
(20:44):
case in the Eastern District of Texas. They were before
a Judge Cam Barker, who I helped select.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
To be on the bench.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
He's a strong principled conservative and a constitutionalist. And they
were litigating before Judge Barker in Texas, and the IRS
decided to settle this matter, and the IRS settled this matter.
And this is one of the advantages of winning elections.
When you win elections, you control the executive branch. And
when you control the executive branch, you can decide to
(21:14):
settle litigation. And so the IRS signed a joint consent
judgment that expressly stipulates churches may endorse candidates or promote
political issues without risking their taxes m status. And here's
what the Irs said. When churches address political matters quote
(21:34):
through the lens of religious faith, it neither participates nor
intervenes in a political campaign. Remember those are the words
of the Johnson Amendment. Participate or intervene in a political
campaign within the ordinary meaning of those words, rather than
take part or interfere with the course of a campaign.
(21:55):
Churches that endorse political candidates simply engage in a family discussion. Therefore,
when properly interpreted, communications from a house of worship to
its congregation on matters of faith involving electoral politics quote,
do not run a foul of the Johnson Amendment. That
is a big deal, and it will free up the
(22:18):
ability for for religious leaders, for pastors to to speak
their heart and to speak the truth to the congregation
about what they believe the Bible teaches and and and
and how that impacts issues in public policy. This is
a major major change.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
It also going to have a huge impact on local elections.
And I think that's one of the biggest outcomes that
could be positive from this, is that pastors really are
able to talk about who they believe is best for
their cities, uh and for their community and bring it
back to the local aspect of it. And it'll be
well see how this plays out as well.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
Yeah, Ben, And let me tell you a story from
from a number of years ago. A number of years ago,
the the huge Houston mayor who was a left wing Democrat,
and the Houston City attorney subpoenaed the sermon notes for
five pastors in Houston. And these were pastors in Houston
(23:16):
who were preaching on marriage and preaching on same sex marriage.
And the left wing Democrat mayor did not like what
these pastors were preaching about marriage and biblical marriage, and
so the city decided we're going to subpoena your sermon
notes and go after you. And when that happened, I
was very.
Speaker 4 (23:35):
Dismayed about that.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
I've spent most of my adult life fighting to defend
religious liberty, and the idea of the city going.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
After pastors was horrific.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
And so I picked up the phone and I called
my pastor and I called him. I said, Pastor, have
you seen what's happened with a subpoena to the five
pastors in Houston? And he said, oh, yeah, I've definitely
seen it. He said, I've been praying about it all morning.
And I said, well, look, I'm praying about it as well,
and I'm very dismayed. I want us to stand up
(24:06):
and fight it. And I told him, I said, listen.
Speaker 4 (24:10):
I want to organize a rally.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
I want to bring pastors together to speak out against this,
to defend the religious liberty of pastors in our hometown.
And I said, I'd like to have a rally of
pastors tomorrow, Thursday at eleven am. And I was calling
to see would you be willing to host that rally
at the church. And then my pastor begins laughing and
(24:36):
he says, ted, you know, the Bible tells us that
God has ordered our steps.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Long before we have any awareness of it.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
My pastor said, a month ago, God laid on my
heart to pray for our city.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
He said.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
A month ago, I reached out to pastors across the
city and invited them to come to my office to
pray for the city of Houston. He said, I've got
fifty pastors coming to my office tomorrow Thursday at ten am.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
That's incredible.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
And we both just kind of stopped. And I don't
know if you ever heard the phrase of godwink, but
it kind of kind of felt like, you know, God
was winking at us then. And so the next day
I arrived at his office at ten am, I joined
the pastors. We spent an hour on our knees praying
for a city, and then we went out in a rally.
And it was fantastic. If you look at you had
(25:33):
pastors across denominations. You had pastors across racial lines of
white pastors, Black pastors, Hispanic pastors, Asian pastors. Heck, you
even had first Baptists and second Baptist and you know
well that that is not easy. But they were there
and we had complete unity. And one of the things
(25:56):
I said at that rally, I said, Caesar has no
jurisdiction over the pulpit. And when usubpoena one pastor. You
subpoena every pastor, and I'll tell you, Ben, it was amazing.
There was so much light and heat that came from
(26:16):
that press conference. It drove enormous attention and drove enormous
coverage in the news and in the media that within
twenty four hours, the city of Houston withdrew it subpoenas
and just surrendered. That was the power of pastors standing
up saying we will not submit, and it made a
real difference in the city of Houston.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Finally, Sender, I want to move to another issue, and
it is really exploited over the last twenty four hours,
and that is new information that we now have on
Biden's use of the auto pen. It is a scandal
that I don't think people understand just how big it
is and what has now been at mass to when
(27:00):
it comes the autopen usage and Joe Biden maybe not
knowing it was being used at all.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Well.
Speaker 3 (27:06):
So The New York Times on July thirteenth wrote a
major story that says Biden says he made the clemency
decisions that were recorded with autopen, and you and I
talked about in an earlier podcast that the Department of
Justice has an opinion that it issued a number of
years ago the Office Legal Counsel about whether you can
use an autopen for presidential signatures, whether that's a presidential
(27:29):
signature on an executive order, a presidential signature on a
law that is being signed into law, or a presidential
signature on a pardon. And what the Department of Justice
has concluded is that you can use an autopen for
any of those. But the test is the authority is
the president's and the presidents alone, So the president cannot
(27:52):
delegate that authority to anyone else. The president has to
make the decision. And what the Department of Justice explained,
and this was years ago, is that the operative legal
test is did the president make the individual determination to
sign the executive order, to sign the specific piece of
(28:14):
legislation to grant the pardon? And if the president made
that individualized determination, then you can use an autopen to
reflect that, But the president has to be the decider.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
And so that's the legal standard. But what the New.
Speaker 3 (28:32):
York Times reported was, quote, mister Biden did not individually
approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to
large numbers of people. He and AIDS confirmed, rather, after
extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on
(28:55):
the standards he wanted to be used to determine which
convicts would qualify for a reduction and sentence. Even after
mister Biden made that decision, one former AID said, the
Bureau of Prisons kept providing additional information about specific inmates,
resulting in small changes to the list. Rather than ask
(29:17):
mister Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited
and then ran the final version through the autopen, which
they saw as a routine procedure. The AID said that
is stunning because under the Department of Justice guidance, those
pardons aren't valid. If the President didn't decide I am
going to pardon Ben Ferguson. If he didn't know that,
(29:44):
that would not be sufficient. And the New York Times
the consequence of this listen. I think the Trump White
House needs to go through the records and look they
have the records because they're now in charge of the
White House, and examine what specifically has a paper trail
that shows Biden signed off on the specific action, and
(30:05):
those that that there is no paper trail, that there
is no evidence in the New York Times is reporting
they're admitting, Oh yeah, they're broad categories. He didn't know
about it all. He didn't know the specific people. Those
are null and void. Those have no legal force. And
my recommendation to Pambondi in the Department of Justice is
they should look specifically at the most vulnerable and and
(30:26):
and devise and implement a legal challenge to challenge these
and to make clear that an unelected aid running an
auto pen does not have the power to grant a
pardon under the United States Constitution.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
So, now that we have this information, the big question
is when do these pardons, what happens next, how do
you go about undoing this?
Speaker 2 (30:51):
And how big of a legal fight is that going
to be?
Speaker 3 (30:55):
Well, look, it's going to be a termination number one
of the White House and the White House Council assessing
what are the record show? What records did they keep
of Biden's signing off. We know that he personally signed
the pardon for Hunter Biden, so that one he knew
about and he did so.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
So that one is is that also very telling?
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (31:15):
And is that going to be used in many ways
as an example of like dud he had no idea
what was going on over here. The ones he did
know about, he knew, he damned it well better signed
them himself. His son is a great example of that.
Does that actually hurt the argument for Biden? All the
others are.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
Valid potentially, although they are arguing that they discussed it
with him and he approved, and so some of the
high profile ones, like you look at Anthony Fauci who
was pardoned, they're maintaining they discussed it with Biden and
Biden said he wanted to he wanted to pardon him.
If that's true, if he made the decision and directed
(31:51):
them to sign a pardon, then under the Department of
Justice's OLC memorandum, that is valid. The question is are
there ones, And according to the New York Times, there
are a lot that Biden did not know and did
not approve the specific individual receiving the pardon, And if
(32:12):
he didn't know and didn't approve, then it's not a
valid part.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
So when you look at the timeline of this moving forward,
and some of these could be very significant, one that
comes to mind is doctor Anthony Fauci, for example, could
this could I mean open up a whole lot of
can of worms on a lot of different issues.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
It could. It depends what so what I believe.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
I believe the White House should go through systematically through
the records and see what the records demonstrate, and the
Department of Justice should pick starting with a test case
to go challenge this the look for a fact pattern
in which there is the clearest absence of any approval
from from the actual president and go challenge those in particular.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
It's going to be interesting. We're to cover all of it.
Don't forget. We do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Hit that subscriber auto download button and make sure you
don't miss as we continue to keep updated on these
exact issues moving forward.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
The Senator and I will see you back here on
Friday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.