BONUS: Verdict with Ted Cruz
California in Chaos & Democrats side with the Rioters, plus “Maryland Man” Indicted for Human Trafficking & Biden’s Autopen Investigation
California is in chaos with illegal aliens protesting violently in the streets of Los Angeles. “Maryland Dad”, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is returned to America and charged with Gang Affiliation and Human Trafficking. And, President Trump wants an investigation into Joe Biden's use of an autopen. All this and more on this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Be sure to follow and subscribe to Verdict with Ted Cruz wherever you get your podcasts. And don’t forget to follow the show on social media so you never miss a moment!
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz
X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow
#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
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you and Center, We've got one packed show for
people today.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Well, once again California has descended into chaos. We're seeing riots,
We're seeing cars lit on fire. We're seeing protesters waving
Mexican flags, waving flags of other countries and defying, assaulting
law enforcement. And amazingly, we're seeing a parade of Democrats
all lining up to say, we the Democrats, We're with
(00:30):
the rioters, that's the side we're on. Likewise, if you
think about the illegal alien that we saw a parade
of Democrats going down to El Salvador saying we're on
your side as well well, that particularly illegal alien has
been brought to America to be tried for human trafficking.
Is this is an amazing illustration of exactly where today's
(00:53):
Democrat party stands. And finally, we're going to talk about
Joe Biden's use of the auto pen u to the
autopen to sign legislation, use of the autopen to issue pardons.
What does that mean legally, what's the consequence of it,
and what does it mean that President Trump says he's
going to investigate it what happens next.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, we're going to deal with that in a moment.
I also want to talk to you about your cell
phone service right now. How would you like to know
that every time you make a phone call, and every
time you send a text, and every time you pay
your bill, you're actually standing up for the values you
believe in. You're setting up for our First or Second
Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children, and you're also
(01:33):
supporting and advocating for our wounded warriors, our veterans, and
our first responders. Well, when you're with Patriot Mobile, that's
exactly what you do. And most of you are going
to save real money when you make the switch to
Patriot Mobile. So why are you waiting? They have cutting
edge technology just like everyone else now in twenty twenty five,
it is so easy to switch, no store visits, no hassle,
(01:57):
keep your same number and keep your phone or great
to a new one. Plus, you're gonna love the team
at Patriot Mobile. They have one hundred percent US based
customer team that can literally activate you in minutes right
over the phone and get this. Patriot Mobile is one
of a few carriers with access to all three major
US networks. That means you're gonna get amazing nationwide coverage.
(02:20):
And they can even put a second number on a
different network on your same phone. So maybe you walk
around with two phones right now, you don't have to
do that with Patriot Mobile. They've got unlimited plans, mobile hotspots,
international roaming, Internet on the go devices, They've got it all,
even home internet backup. So what are you waiting for?
(02:41):
Make a difference With every call you make, every text
you send, go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's
Patriot Mobile dot com slash vertict or call them nine
to seven to two Patriot right now, use the promo
code Verdict for a free month of service. Switch to
Patriot Mobile and defend freedom with every call and text
you make Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or nine
(03:04):
to seven to Patriot All right, So, Senator, I just
want to be clear. There's no riots in California, peaceful
protesters out there. This is completely normal. Maybe there's some
cars on fire, maybe there's some Mexican flags being fund
by people that are angry that they're getting deported. You
cannot make up what democrats will defend.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Well, look, it's tragic. It's tragic. The chaos, the violence
that that that seems more and more commonplace in California,
that seems more and more to be to be the
face of today's Democrat Party. I want you just to
watch and see what is unfolding right now in California. Uh,
in Los Angeles and and and this, this is this
(03:46):
is who today's left is.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Turning now to a Fox News alert. Anti ice protesters
are still riding in Los Angeles County and setting a
car on fire. You're looking at live pictures and a
mound California right now. In the last hour, borders are
Tom Homan told us they were sending in the National
Guard to California. You know, Lydia. The damage is just
(04:12):
striking here that we're seeing. We also have seen reports.
There's a Fox Los Angeles reporter who's just there on
seeing trying to cover this story. He said his car
was destroyed by protesters.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
You know, let's hope that no one is hurt and
no one is injured and it doesn't escalate from here.
Look at the flag yet, guy, I say.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
There it is Mexican flag, and you know.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
You know, this is this is criminal activity that I
hope is people are held accountable for And I'm talking
about the riots right here.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
Where are the cops?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Yeah? Where are they? We heard earlier that Karen Bass,
the mayor of LA and allegation that she had prevented
the LAPD from responding yesterday when there was our first
developing guy for upwards of two hours or more. To
your point, where are the police?
Speaker 5 (04:58):
Well, the officials in this part of the country, in
Los Angeles and California are too busy tripping over themselves
to attack Donald Trump and law enforcement. I guess those
are the cops back there to actually condemn these people
doing these things. And in the intro, Alicia, you said,
these are anti ICE protesters. Yes, but if you just squint,
(05:19):
it could easily be the BLM protesters, or the Free
Palestine protesters, or the resist Doge protesters, or the resist
ICE in this case protesters.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
It is this dirt bag.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Coalition of leftist violent so called protest that has been
a huge problem in this country for years, and they
are escalating.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Yeah, Kanch, you don't see Democrats coming out with any
sort of outrage of the destruction here. Their outrage is
the opposite. It's over the ICE officials who are out there.
Speaker 6 (05:48):
Let me give you five names where we're not hearing
a lot from right now except to attack these ICE officials,
which is leading to attacks like this. Karen Bass Los
Angeles Mayor Gavin Newsom, California Governor Adam shiff who's awfully
active on x and social media, condemning to guy's point,
Donald Trump not hearing anything from him. Eric swallwell as well,
you can't get away from this guy on social media
attacking Trump. Nancy Pelosi, the whole former House speaker, where
(06:10):
are you? This is war right now that we're seeing
in terms of our federal agents being attacked and California
officials doing nothing to stop it.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Now, it's going to be an incredibly bad look in
the next twenty four to forty eight hours if you
don't get the governor out there, if you don't get
someone out there to at least get people to stop,
because right now you have city leaders encouraging people to
join the resistance.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
You have city leaders, let's just pick it up there,
encouraging people to go out there and do this. You
watch that video. There are a lot of Mexican flags.
So I'm just trying to get my head around this.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
So Ben, I have an idea. Let's you and me,
let's go illegally to France. Let's just break into France.
Once we get there, let's start rioting against France because
we hate France. Let's light the Eiffel Tower on fire.
Let's start waving the American flag around while we're lighting
the Eiffel Tower on fire, and let's say, don't you
(07:08):
dare send us back to America the flag we're flying,
because you have no right to decide if we get
to come into your country illegally. We can do anything
you want. And if you try to enforce your laws,
I guess we'll just light things on fire. And even better,
your elected officials would say, damn right, you keep burning.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
And we'll send you more.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
This is truly through the twilight zone and what is striking.
Let's break down several pieces of it. First of all,
let's take the media. So we saw Fox News where
they actually covered what's going on. Yes, I want to
contrast that with CNN because CNN, look, if you're a
propaganda outlet, you've got a message to get out, and
(07:54):
you know what the message is. Nothing to see here.
This is peaceful. This is fine.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I mean they are famous, famous for the police station
being on fire, remember that in the summer of rage,
and they're like, it's fiery but peace Yeah, fiery but
peaceful protests here.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
So all right, I want you to watch CNN covering
this same riot.
Speaker 7 (08:12):
Watch So there's unrest. Let's start with there's protest, lawful protest,
which is allowed in this country. There is some unrest
generally dealt with by local law enforcement, and that there
needs to be state support through state police and sometimes
even National Guard under a governor's authority. What is happening
(08:36):
tonight is unprecedent.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
I mean, I love it. She's like, it's unrest. Oh,
I can't say that. Hold on, I got to back
that up. And this is just peaceful and that is
something that is protected and we're totally fine with this.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Like she admitted unrest and immediately had to run away
from it. Yeah, and I got to say it's striking. Also,
the video that they don't show anything on fire there,
they've learned the less and where during during the Antifa
and Black Lives Matter riots where they literally put on
If you don't remember this, they had a video to
an entire store on fire, and their chiron said, uh,
(09:12):
fiery but peaceful.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Protests as buildings are burning.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It is they've got a message. And and and look
in the first video on Fox where the folks are talking,
they say, where are the cops? And you see way,
mister top a block a block away, and yet there
are no police officers anywhere near the protesters, no police
officers anywhere near the car that's on fire.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
And it's clear it goes back to leadership. That's the
question I want to ask you. You look at this,
you're allowing.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
You may or ordered them to stay away.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Okay, So I want to be that that was a
question I want to ask you.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Of course, of course, of course, But here you're and
my friend Dana Bash, she's got to jump in now
and really defend what's going on here here.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Give a listen.
Speaker 8 (09:58):
It's pretty bad.
Speaker 9 (10:00):
That's a different question. But I just I just want
to just stay for the record that what did happen
in nineteen ninety two was so different from what we're
seeing now. I mean that was that was a real,
a real riot that went all across the city of
Los Angeles after a verdict in the Rodney King case,
this is a situation where the La County La County Police,
(10:23):
it's not good, but they're saying that they have it
under control, and the and the President is sending national.
Speaker 8 (10:30):
Troops in a way that we can look at it. Obviously,
we see that it is not under control. It's not
under control. You and I both see that it's not
under control. And a riot is a right. They're throwing
they're throwing all types of objects at law enforcement. And
the President is absolutely right.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
By the way, you ask the people whose cars and
buildings are on fire if this is a riot or not.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Dana told us it's not real. It's not really, it's
a fake. You know, they are familiar with fakes. They
are experts in fakes. You know, it really is striking.
This has nothing to see here, not a real riot.
It's all okay. And then she says, well, okay, it's
not good.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
But it's nothing like a real riot back in the
old days in the nineties.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
And look, there have been multiple arrests because you have
these protesters are actively aggressively trying to stop ice from
carrying out their jobs, from enforcing immigration laws. One of
the people arrested was the president of the SEIU union
who was arrested for physically actively stopping federal agents from
(11:36):
carrying out their jobs. Now what is the reaction of
Democrat politicians. Well, here, take a look.
Speaker 10 (11:42):
The reality is we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles,
and again, any violence against police officers should not be accepted.
Local authorities can handle that. But remember a lot of
these peaceful protests are being generated because the President of
the United States is so in case and confusion by
arresting people who are showing up for their immigration hearings.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
They other aren't peaceful, don't they.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
So the phrase peaceful protests, which they say repeatedly and
noticed that. So that was Corey Booker, and he's saying, well, look,
you can't commit violence against cops. Look, I'm glad he
says that in part because they've seen where these riots go.
But at the same time he's repeatedly saying what CNN
is saying, which is it's only the governor and local
(12:31):
law enforcement that can do it. Nothing federal because President
Trump has called up the National Guard, and they are
so unhappy that we're actually going to see these violent protesters.
Will be stopped from terrorizing the communities they're engaged with.
And that's a nightmare scenario for the Democrats because anytime
you have violence like this, they are on the side
(12:53):
of the violence.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Do you notice Booker also said the beginnings that we've
talked about how orchestra tray Democrats are when they do
these things on college campuses where there's people behind him
in advocacy. Booker said, this.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
You're suggesting the people who are paying for this are
also paying for the Democrats are going on TV to fin.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
I'm saying, Cory Booker seems to have some pretty good
insider information that this is the quote beginning his words,
not mine, of something big like this is the beginning.
And he said that on Sunday morning, after a weekend
of this violence, the beginning. So you got to ask
the question are they all in on it?
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Well, look, you know, you look at so much of
today's Democrat Party that's paid for by George Soros that
it kind of makes you wonder if it's now George
Zorro and it is all about go back, and they
want California to secede from America and go back to Mexico.
But look, Corey Booker was not alone. Give another Listen.
Speaker 11 (13:49):
Every single ICE agent who's engaged in this aggressive overreach,
and I'm trying to hide their identities from the American
people will be unsuccessful in doing that.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
This is America.
Speaker 11 (14:03):
It is not the Soviet Union, but not behind the
Iron curtain. This is not the nineteen thirties, And every
single one of them, no matter what it takes, no
matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
As I have a dad who's spent the majority of
his life in law enforcement. That is a threat, yes
to law enforcement. Yes, that we're going to make sure
that everyone that hates you knows who you are, where
you live, who your kids may be, who your wife is,
and we're going to make you feel in safe for
doing your job.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Look, that is grotesque. It's one of the most grotesque
things I've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
That's a king.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, and
he's not hiding what he's saying. He is threatening to
docks to expose, to reveal the identities of federal law
enforcement agents ICE because he wants threats, he wants violence,
he wants intimidation, he wants violence, an intimidation directed at
(15:01):
federal law enforcement. That is grotesque. By the way, the
Mayor of Boston analogized Ice to Nazis. Yeah, I mean
that is understand today's Democrat party. This is not your
grandfather's Democrat party. This is a Democrat party. Now. If
you are an illegal alien, if you are a gang member,
(15:21):
if you are a murderer, if you are a rapist,
the Democrats stand with you. If you're a police officer,
the Democrats are not with you. If you are an
ICE agent, they are not with you. If you're a
border patrol agent, they are not with you. If you
are enforcing the law, they are not with you. And
listen to what Corey Booker said. Corey Booker said, well,
Trump is causing it because he's enforcing the law.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Because yeah, because enforcing the law, it is well. And
then you got to look at Newsom. I mean, look
at Newsom. We had this very interesting rebranding. I would
call it Newsom maybe three point zero four point zero.
He's rebranded himself a lot. He's really good at it.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
He's pretending to be a he's suddenly discovered that boys
and girls exist. It's really remarkable because you know, twelve
seconds ago he didn't know that.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
And yet here's his true colors yet again. So here's
what he tweeted out.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
He says, the federal government is taking over the California
National Guard and deploying two thousand soldiers in Los Angeles,
not because there's a shortage of law enforcement, but because
they want a spectacle. Don't give them one. Never use violence,
speak out peacefully. So understand the end of that. Speak
out peacefully. He's calling for I'm the governor. I want
(16:33):
more riots. They're not enough of you out there, more
and more and more. Somebody gets sorrows online too. George,
we need more money. Can you send out more protests now?
That is his message, and they are furious, furious with
President Trump for actually defending the communities. Look, we saw
in that first video the law enforcement, the police officers
(16:55):
are ordered don't do anything about it, don't keep people safe.
We've seen, by the way, we've seen this video before.
We saw it during the Antifa in Black Lives Matter riots,
where where again Democrat mayors, Democrat governors prevented law enforcement
from doing their jobs. And by the way, look.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Well, and the word is on the street that local
I mean local law enforcement. We're told on Saturday and
Friday night stand down, like, don't get involved, let them
do what they're gonna do. If that turns out to
be like the entire policy of LA and the local
government there, doesn't that give even more credence to Wine.
(17:38):
Donald Trump should send in the National Guard.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Absolutely, And look, I will give those Democrats credit for
being the voice of reason, the voice of moderation. I
want you to listen to this, this very careful, calm
measured analysis from a Democrat California congress woman. She's assessing
(18:01):
the situation carefully. She's trying to balance competing interests, trying
to protect property and lives, and give a listen to
what she has to say.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
I skip the coality so that order defy stored there.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
It is if ICE would just leave and all the
illegal immigrants can do what they want to do. And
we've had no crime problems in California in the last
year or so.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
So understand their message. Also, they do not want federal
immigration laws enforced. She wants ICE out of the state.
And by the way, to be clear, her message also
every illegal alien in America, please come to California. Because
that's who she represents. That is and I don't even
know that congresswoman. She's one of the many left at California.
(18:44):
They blur together. You know, she has has Look I
give her credit. Apparently she's volunteering to join AOC and
ilhan Omar and the other kooks to be the face
of today Democrat party.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
This is sad. Final question on this. You look at
the present's decisions in the National Guard, and you look
at Democrats now clearly wanting a fight, They're wanting more
illegals to come out. Is this one of those things
where they think this is a positive nationwide? I mean,
how could you think that burning down cities, attacking your
neighbor's property, burning cars, attacking law enforcement somehow a political win.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
I don't understand that while you're riding a motorcycle around
a burning car, waving a Mexican flag bingo. Look at
the end of the day, apparently those individuals and we
saw Mexican flags everywhere you look. Apparently those individuals they
want America to be Mexico. What else do you And
(19:47):
by the way, look, Mexico is a beautiful country. If
you want to go to Mexico go to Mexico.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
But if you want to fly the flag, go to Mexico.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
But you don't have a right to defy federal law
to come here illegally. And yet that is, at the
end of the day, that is what today's Democrat Party
stands for. It is their core belief, it is their
reason for being. And you asked if they think this
is a winning message, Well, it depends who you're talking to.
(20:15):
If you're talking to your radicals, if you're talking to
your zealots, if you're.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Talking to the fun the stuff.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, If you're talking to the big, big money donors, yes,
that's a winning message. If you're talking to the people
who wrote checks on the anti Israel and anti America
protests and college campuses, it's a great message.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
If you're actually.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Talking to ordinary Americans, if you're talking to soccer moms,
if you're talking to people who would like their kids say,
if you're talking to people who don't really want to
see their neighborhoods lit on fire, I question, as Brea
Roberts said, throw me in that brier patch. Well, you know,
I question if they're gonna be happy with this decision
(20:56):
come next election.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Day, which brings me to story number two, and it's
one that is just maybe one of I laughed when
I saw the news. I thought this was a brilliant
move by the Trump administration. Democrats have been obsessed with
the Maryland father, the Maryland man who just happened to
get deported, who was an illegal immigrant, who was caught
(21:17):
human smuggling through my home state of Tennessee. And they
act like it never happened. And now all of a sudden,
we're like they were demanding you bring him home, bring
him back to America. Well, guess what, the dude's coming home.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
He is indeed, and he has been brought to be prosecuted.
He has been indicted. He has been indicted for human trafficking.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Wait, I thought he was just a Maryland dad, not
a human trafficker.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Well, I will tell you. I'm holding the indictment in
my hand and it is stunning. So how long was
he a human trafficker? Well, according to the indictment, from
in Or around twenty sixteen through inn Or around twenty
twenty five, So for nine years.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
That's a pretty good career.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Kilmar Armando Abrego, Garcia and others known and unknown to
the grand jury conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the
United States from countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador,
and elsewhere, ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas.
Very nice they came into Texas. The co conspirators knew
(22:24):
the undocumented aliens did not possess authorization to enter the
United States. They used cell phones, they used social media applications.
The indictment also allegesed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was a
citizen of El Salvador, was not a United States citizen,
was living in the United States, and was also a
(22:47):
member and associate of the transnational criminal organization MS thirteen.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
No, he's a dad. Hold on a second, you can't
say that this is just a Maryland dude, Maryland dad,
Maryland man.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
And by the way, they accurately describe MS thirteen. MS
thirteen was a criminal enterprise engaged in, among other activities,
acts and threats involving murder, extortion, narcotics, trafficking, firearms trafficking,
alien smuggling, and money laundering. MS thirteen operated throughout North
and Central America, including in El Salvador, Guatemalica, Mexico, the
(23:24):
United States, including in Texas, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, and elsewhere. Now,
how many illegal aliens do you think he's charged with smuggling?
Speaker 1 (23:34):
I'm assuming zero because he's just a Maryland man. He's
just a Maryland dad.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
He's a Maryland dad. I want to read this paragraph.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, as detailed further below, used his
status in MS thirteen to further his criminal activity.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Right, not as a father or dad, as a MS
thirteen gang member.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Over the course of the conspiracy, the co conspirators knowingly
and unlawfully transported wait for it, thousands of undocumented aliens,
many of whom were MS thirteen members and associates.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So you're bringing in people that are now a member
of a terrorist organization into the country. So not just
random buel pang. He was smuggling in members of the
Town organization in the United States America for not one year,
not two, not three, not four, five years, but nine years. Yes.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
And and look, the fact that DOJ brought this indictment
means presumably they have the evidence to prove this indictment.
They're going to put on that evidence they're gonna put
on that evidence that this guy was a gang member
for nine years, that he was part of a conspiracy
that smuggled thousands of people illegally, including other gang members.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
You think the media is gonna apologize for anither stories
or attacking Trump and saying that he just sent a
Maryland dad a Maryland man.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
And understand, this is the same the same illegal immigrant
that my colleague Chris van Holland, Democrat from Maryland, flew
down and had really what was a very sweet margarita
with I mean it was a Broman.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
It was a moment. It was a bro moment, you.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Know, as I tweeted out at the time, you know,
find somebody who looks at you the way Democrats look
at illegal alien MS thirteen gang members, like the sweet
nothings in his eyes as he looked on. And by
the way, you saw Democrat House members, you know, all
on a parade to go down there.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
They wanted to use your tax dollars to go see
the Maryland man.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
This is the face of the Democrat Party, this is
who they stand for. So look, you ought to ask
yourself at home, am I an MS thirteen gang member
who's a human trafficker, who smuggles in thousands of illegal aliens,
who smuggles in gang members. If so the Democrats of
the party, for me, if you're not, if you kind
of think we don't want human traffickers and gang members
(26:05):
in America, well then I don't know what the Democrats is.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
This like the ultimate FAFO like moment, because for Democrats,
and I want people to understand the funniest part of
the story, Democrats demanded we bring him back. He's coming back,
gonna go to jail for a long time, and then
after he serves his time, apparently we're gonna send him
right back to the country where he just came from.
But it didn't just go from bad to worse, like
(26:29):
he would have been better off just staying where he was.
Look at, Democrats actually are putting this man.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
In jail, and these facts, the facts that prove he
was a human trafficker, the facts and evidence that DJ
is gonna put on. I hope and believe the American
people need to know those facts because they need to know. Look,
we've already in this podcast cover how the guy is
allegedly a wife beater, that he has a long history
of criminality. We played the audio of him being caught
(26:56):
human trafficking, but at the time we didn't know that
there was a decade worth of thousands of people being trafficked,
including other gang members. What you wish for, right and
by the way, to understand, Look, I don't know specifically
what this gang member did, but I'll tell you MS
(27:16):
thirteen when they are human trafficking, they are raping women,
they are raping children. They are abusing women and children
that they are abusing, little boys, little girls.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
They're soulists. They do not care about human life.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Here it is MS thirteen is evil and in Texas
we see the atrocities they carry out. I fully expect
the evidence that comes out in this trial to be
nothing short of horrifying. And I got to say, if
you're a Democrat and you've decided the entire future of
your party is defending this guy, yeah, you know what's weird, Ben,
(27:56):
I'm not sure the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Are worried right now. I don't think they are.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
I mean, that's the strangest thing it is in the
face of this.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
There used to be in politics moments where you knew
you screwed up. Were even your party look, they're all
in on California and still on defending this guy.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Their position is is that one Democrat congresswoman said, law enforcement,
get the f out. That's their message. No cops, no ICEN,
open border patrol, We don't defend, we don't defend California.
We don't know America guys, but gang members and murderers europeeps.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Amazing. I want to move to one final issue, and
it's one that has gotten a lot of attention in
conservative circles. It's certainly one that the media just refuses
to talk about. And the President clearly wanted to use
the power this week of his microphone to bring up
the issue of the auto pen. When it comes to
Joe Biden investigating what did he know, when did he
(28:50):
know it? Did he have any clue what he was
signing with the autopen, was even directing the autopen to
be used? Or were there people that were literally playing
President yep that were saying, I want to hook this
political favor up, or this pardon up, or this piece
of legislature, this executive order up, and he had no
idea what was even happening.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, and President Trump did a really good job explaining
this at the Oval office this past week. Give a listen.
Speaker 9 (29:15):
The predecessor dismissed your autopin investigation.
Speaker 12 (29:18):
He said he made all the decisions during his presidency.
I'm curious a reaction to his dismissal. Well, look to
the autopen.
Speaker 13 (29:24):
I think is the big scandal outside of the rigged
election of twenty twenty. I think the biggest scandal of
the last many years is the autopen and who's using it.
I happen to think I know, okay, because I'm here
and I'm not a big odo pen person fortune I'm glad.
Speaker 12 (29:39):
I'm very glad. It's an easy way out. But it's
a very bad thing, very dangerous.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
You know.
Speaker 12 (29:45):
I sign important documents.
Speaker 13 (29:47):
Usually when they put documents in front of you, they're important,
even if you're signing ambassadorships or and I consider that important.
Speaker 12 (29:54):
I think it's inappropriate.
Speaker 13 (29:55):
You have somebody that's devoting four years of their life
or more to being an best and I think you
really deserve that person deserves to get a real signature,
not an autopen signature. And I can tell autopen easily.
I can look at it like two little pinholes. From
pulling the paper right, you will see the pinholes. It's
real easy to tell about autopen. I think it's very
(30:18):
disrespectful to people when they get an autopen signature outside.
Autopen to me are used when thousands of letters come
in from young people all over the country and you
want to get them back, and you know, people use
autopens for that to send a little signature at the
bottom of a letter.
Speaker 12 (30:35):
We have thousands of them.
Speaker 13 (30:37):
We get thousands of letters a week, and it's not
possible to you know, I'd like to do it myself,
you can't do it to me.
Speaker 12 (30:45):
That's where auto pens start and stop.
Speaker 13 (30:49):
But I don't think I'm sure that he didn't know
many of the things. Look, he was never for open borders,
he was never for transgender for everybody. He was never
for men playing in women's sports. I mean he changed,
I mean all of these things that change so radically.
I don't think he had any idea that what was Frankly,
I said it during the debate and I say it now.
Speaker 12 (31:11):
He didn't have much of an idea what was going on.
He shouldn't be.
Speaker 13 (31:15):
I mean, essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,
and that is wrong. It's illegal, it's so bad, and
it's so disrespectful.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
To our I look at what he said there, and
I go back to something that is, you've seen autopin.
Do you have the autopin? I've never asked you that. Yeah, okay.
So I've gone an office before to get a birthday
card or something done. When I worked in DC, people
would come over and say, hey, can we get this written.
It's somebody's seventieth anniversary or save you birthday, and they'll go, yeah, sure,
and they'll put it together and they'll get it autopin signed.
(31:48):
Because there's so many requests like this. But he's right,
being the president, it's America, there's a lot of If
it's being put in front of you, it probably deserves
a signature. If it's making it to be in front of.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
You, well, let's draw a distinction. First of all, let
me explain what an autopen is.
Speaker 9 (32:04):
It.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
It's a machine where literally you have a mechanical arm
that holds a pan, typically a sharpie. Most most signatures
are used with sharpies. And so I've got an autopen
as far as I know, I think every member of
Congress has.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
So my birthday card you're telling me was not real
when I.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Made fun of you that that that was definitely written
by me, and uh, but but you use it for
you know, correspondence. I mean, in my time in the Senate,
I've literally gotten millions of letters from constituents and we
send out millions of letters in response. And so you
could spend literally every waking moment doing nothing but signing
(32:41):
that correspondence. And so what you do instead, Every congressional
office has a correspondence office where for a given topic,
if you ask me about illegal immigration, we have a
letter in the office where that lays out your plans,
my views on illegal immigration, and they're the policy team
helps draft those and they get approved. You know, I
suspect we'll have a letter shortly on on these these
(33:04):
la riots and and and what's happening there. Whatever the
topics are that people are writing in on. A congressional
office will prepare a letter that's response responsive to it,
and those will get auto pen That is very different
from something that requires a signature to have legal effect,
and they're really.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
That's a great distinction, a way of describing it.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
There are three category categories that are consequential here pardons,
executive orders and laws, and let me break all three
of these down, because there's real legal significance in the
in the in the question that President Trump is raising,
all right, first of all, pardons that there are a
whole bunch of folks that that Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Pardoned controversial pardons, by the way.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
So including so on the same day Joe Biden pardon
Anthony Fauci, he pardoned General Millie, former Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then he pardoned every member
of the January sixth Commission. So he pardoned Benny Thompson
and Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgram and Adam Schiff and
(34:08):
Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy and Jamie Raskin and Aline Laurier
and Adam Kinsinger.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
And by the way, they were they were begging for
these pardons.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
All nine of them got pardoned. It's being reported now
that that the one pardon that Biden signed personally was
his son Hunter Biden's pardon, but that all of the
rest of these pardons were auto penned. And here's what
President Trump tweeted out. He said, quote the pardons that
(34:38):
Sleepy Joe gave to the Unselect Committee of Political thugs
and many others. I gotta say, I love nobody writes
like Donald Trump are hereby declared void, vacant, and of
no further force or effect because of the fact that
they were done by auto pen In other words, Joe
Biden did not sign them, but more importantly, he did
not know anything about them. The necessary pardoning documents were
(35:02):
not explained to or approved by Biden. Now let's talk
about pardons first. So pardons do not have to be
in writing. Okay, if you look at the language of
the Constitution, Article two, Section two, clause one says, in
relevant part, the President shall have power to grant reprieves
(35:24):
and pardons for offenses against the United States. So the
Constitution does not specify any particular form of a pardon.
It doesn't specify it has to be in writing. It
simply says the President shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons. So with respect to pardons, whether it's signed
or not, that's not a constitutional requirement. But what is
(35:47):
a constitutional requirement is that the president granted. Interesting, and
so what President Trump alleged is Biden didn't know about this,
didn't know what he was doing. It was not his decision.
I think it is entirely possible that we will see
the Department of Justice prosecute someone who has received one
(36:10):
of these autopen pardons. Really, if they prosecute someone, it's
going to be someone for whom there is clear evidence
of a federal criminal violation. But also it will be
someone who there is evidence that Biden didn't know about it, so.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
They would have to bring to do that, they would
have to bring evidence he didn't know about it. And
then does that kick off the big grand debate and
the investigation because you bring those charges to say, okay,
let's see if you can prove that he did know
about it.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
So look, if DOJ brought an indictment against someone that
Biden had pardon using an autopen, the defense lawyer would
almost immediately seek to get the indictment dismissed because the
pard sure, and I would expect the court to litigate that.
DOJ would argue, this is not a valid pardon because
it was not issued by the president. It was issued
(37:03):
by a staffer manning the autopenner. And the question would
be did Joe Biden approve and authorize it personally or
was this just the staff.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
They just said, Hey, get my buddy or our friend
or our colleague or our ally this.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
So for example, they would look to all right, did
Biden make public statements about it? Was he interview, did
he stand at a podium? What did he say? Because
that would go to was he aware of it? And
did he approve it? Now, let's focus on statutes. Can
the president sign a law to have it become a
federal law by autopen and not by signature? And here
(37:43):
actually the question is actually pretty similar to the pardon question.
It comes down to what Biden knew. So actually, in
two thousand and five, the US Department of Justice, the
Office Legal Counsel, they issued a formal opinion whether the
president may sign a bill by directing that his signature
be affixed to it. And the summary of the conclusion
(38:06):
was the president need not personally perform the physical act
of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and
decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather,
the president may sign a bill within the meeting of
Article one, section seven by directing a subordinate to affix
the President's signature to such bill, for example, by autopen.
(38:28):
And here the statutory languages is, or rather the constitutional
language is more explicit. So here's what Article one, section
seven says. Quote, every bill which shall have passed the
House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes
a law, be presented to the President of the United States.
(38:51):
If he approves, he shall sign it. So sign it
is explicitly there. You can't orally sure sign a law.
You have to sign it.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
But that's why bill signs are such a big deal.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
What the Department of Justice concluded, and this is a
lengthy opinion, is the settled understanding of the meaning of
sign an individual can sign a document by directing that
his signature be affixed to it by another. And so
they conclude this settled understanding of the meaning of sign
leads us to conclude that Article one, section seven permits
(39:26):
the president to sign a bill by directing a subordinate
to affix the President's signature to it. Now, I've got
to say, as a legal matter, I think there's a
there's a strong case to be made that that is
accurate that you can authorize someone to sign a binding
legal document for you. If you're the decision.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Maker and you say, hey, I'm on a plane is
a great example national emergency worst case scenario, and you
say sign that right now to do what X, Y
or Z.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
And let me give you an example I have personal
experience with so as you know, when I can. I'm
out of law school. I was a law clerk for
Chief Justice William Renquist on the U. S.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
And every time there is an execution in this country,
almost without fail, there are emergency appeals that go to
the Supreme Court, and they often will go and be
concluded at midnight or one or two or three in
the morning, because typically the death warrant is carried out
right before midnight, and so the appeals are filed last minute.
(40:29):
And so when that happens, there is a law clerk
from every justice that remains at the court till the
matter is resolved. And the Chief Justice had jurisdiction over
the DC Circuit, but also the Fourth Circuit, which covers
a number of states that have capital punishment. And so
when the execution occurs in the circuit that your justice
(40:52):
is the lead for, the justices will vote. They do
it by phone. So you will read the emergency appeals,
you'll summarize the emergency appeals you'll call your justice, wake
him or her up, explain the issues, and then the
justices will vote. At the end of the process. The
very last thing that happens in the process is there
(41:12):
is a form that is sent to the prison. And
there were multiple essentially death warrants that I signed, and
I would sign them WHR slash TC. WHR was William
Hubb's renquist. So I'm signing for the Chief Justice s
slash TC because the chief was home in bed, so
(41:34):
he was not physically signing it. But because I had
authorization to sign it, you'd literally put it on then
a fax machine and at the prison they'd pull it
off the fax machine and that signature that I had
signed for the Chief Justice was sufficient to carry out
an execution.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
The TC at the end is that just to clarify
that you did it on behalf of it, okay.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
And you see that sometimes secretaries when they sign for
someone will do the same thing and put with the
slash to say who is signing it? What I would
say the critical question in terms of a law. Look,
there will be an argument that the word sign in
the Constitution means sign and so it's not a frivolous
(42:15):
argument that the auto pen can't do it in any circumstance,
and I would expect that potentially made. But the more
powerful argument is did the president direct that his signature
be affixed to it?
Speaker 1 (42:31):
Or did a or did a stafford go roke?
Speaker 2 (42:34):
Did a stafford just say yep, this is our policy,
so put it in the autopen, it's signed, and listen.
White houses keep records. You've worked in a White House,
they keep meticulous.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Records, especially on this level.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
And so I fully expect there to be litigation questioning
looking for a statute where where there is not clear
indication that Biden was aware of it, that he made
a decision to sign it, but rather that simply you
had a White House staffer say Okay, this is our policy,
(43:06):
let's sign it. And if that's the case, I think
there's If the president did not direct that his signature
be affixed to it, I think there's a real argument
that is not a law that is not validly in
the United States Code, that law is null and void.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
I think that.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
And by the way, it's not sufficient for the president
at the outset to say hey, I support this law.
Speaker 1 (43:30):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
That's different from you can say you support all sorts
of law. Sure, that's different from making the decision I
am going to sign this law right now. Look, there
are all sorts of laws that you could say you support,
but the legislative process is like sausage making. You don't
even know what's in the thing till it passes. And
(43:50):
so finding early statements from Biden that I support such
and such policy is not enough. I expect the question
to be And by the way, you don't have to
wait for litigation, because Donald Trump has access to all
of the White House records that will show did Biden
(44:11):
make those decisions. That's why ordering that investigation is so strong,
because if they find a law that there is no
record of Joe Biden saying I want to sign this,
and I am directing you to sign this, then I
think there's a real argument that law is not validly enacted.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
It's incredible. We're gonna keep covering it. Don't forget. We
do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscriber
auto download button so you do not miss an episode. Also,
if you're watching this episode on YouTube, make sure you
subscribe on YouTube as well. As we put these out
so you don't miss them either, tell your family, tell
your friends about this show and the Senate, and I
will see you back here in a couple of days
Welcome. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you and Center, We've got one packed show for
people today.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Well, once again California has descended into chaos. We're seeing riots,
We're seeing cars lit on fire. We're seeing protesters waving
Mexican flags, waving flags of other countries and defying, assaulting
law enforcement. And amazingly, we're seeing a parade of Democrats
all lining up to say, we the Democrats, We're with
(00:30):
the rioters, that's the side we're on. Likewise, if you
think about the illegal alien that we saw a parade
of Democrats going down to El Salvador saying we're on
your side as well well, that particularly illegal alien has
been brought to America to be tried for human trafficking.
Is this is an amazing illustration of exactly where today's
(00:53):
Democrat party stands. And finally, we're going to talk about
Joe Biden's use of the auto pen u to the
autopen to sign legislation, use of the autopen to issue pardons.
What does that mean legally, what's the consequence of it,
and what does it mean that President Trump says he's
going to investigate it what happens next.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yeah, we're going to deal with that in a moment.
I also want to talk to you about your cell
phone service right now. How would you like to know
that every time you make a phone call, and every
time you send a text, and every time you pay
your bill, you're actually standing up for the values you
believe in. You're setting up for our First or Second
Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children, and you're also
(01:33):
supporting and advocating for our wounded warriors, our veterans, and
our first responders. Well, when you're with Patriot Mobile, that's
exactly what you do. And most of you are going
to save real money when you make the switch to
Patriot Mobile. So why are you waiting? They have cutting
edge technology just like everyone else now in twenty twenty five,
it is so easy to switch, no store visits, no hassle,
(01:57):
keep your same number and keep your phone or great
to a new one. Plus, you're gonna love the team
at Patriot Mobile. They have one hundred percent US based
customer team that can literally activate you in minutes right
over the phone and get this. Patriot Mobile is one
of a few carriers with access to all three major
US networks. That means you're gonna get amazing nationwide coverage.
(02:20):
And they can even put a second number on a
different network on your same phone. So maybe you walk
around with two phones right now, you don't have to
do that with Patriot Mobile. They've got unlimited plans, mobile hotspots,
international roaming, Internet on the go devices, They've got it all,
even home internet backup. So what are you waiting for?
(02:41):
Make a difference With every call you make, every text
you send, go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's
Patriot Mobile dot com slash vertict or call them nine
to seven to two Patriot right now, use the promo
code Verdict for a free month of service. Switch to
Patriot Mobile and defend freedom with every call and text
you make Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or nine
(03:04):
to seven to Patriot All right, So, Senator, I just
want to be clear. There's no riots in California, peaceful
protesters out there. This is completely normal. Maybe there's some
cars on fire, maybe there's some Mexican flags being fund
by people that are angry that they're getting deported. You
cannot make up what democrats will defend.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Well, look, it's tragic. It's tragic. The chaos, the violence
that that that seems more and more commonplace in California,
that seems more and more to be to be the
face of today's Democrat Party. I want you just to
watch and see what is unfolding right now in California. Uh,
in Los Angeles and and and this, this is this
(03:46):
is who today's left is.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Turning now to a Fox News alert. Anti ice protesters
are still riding in Los Angeles County and setting a
car on fire. You're looking at live pictures and a
mound California right now. In the last hour, borders are
Tom Homan told us they were sending in the National
Guard to California. You know, Lydia. The damage is just
(04:12):
striking here that we're seeing. We also have seen reports.
There's a Fox Los Angeles reporter who's just there on
seeing trying to cover this story. He said his car
was destroyed by protesters.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
You know, let's hope that no one is hurt and
no one is injured and it doesn't escalate from here.
Look at the flag yet, guy, I say.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
There it is Mexican flag, and you know.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
You know, this is this is criminal activity that I
hope is people are held accountable for And I'm talking
about the riots right here.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
Where are the cops?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Yeah? Where are they? We heard earlier that Karen Bass,
the mayor of LA and allegation that she had prevented
the LAPD from responding yesterday when there was our first
developing guy for upwards of two hours or more. To
your point, where are the police?
Speaker 5 (04:58):
Well, the officials in this part of the country, in
Los Angeles and California are too busy tripping over themselves
to attack Donald Trump and law enforcement. I guess those
are the cops back there to actually condemn these people
doing these things. And in the intro, Alicia, you said,
these are anti ICE protesters. Yes, but if you just squint,
(05:19):
it could easily be the BLM protesters, or the Free
Palestine protesters, or the resist Doge protesters, or the resist
ICE in this case protesters.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
It is this dirt bag.
Speaker 5 (05:29):
Coalition of leftist violent so called protest that has been
a huge problem in this country for years, and they
are escalating.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Yeah, Kanch, you don't see Democrats coming out with any
sort of outrage of the destruction here. Their outrage is
the opposite. It's over the ICE officials who are out there.
Speaker 6 (05:48):
Let me give you five names where we're not hearing
a lot from right now except to attack these ICE officials,
which is leading to attacks like this. Karen Bass Los
Angeles Mayor Gavin Newsom, California Governor Adam shiff who's awfully
active on x and social media, condemning to guy's point,
Donald Trump not hearing anything from him. Eric swallwell as well,
you can't get away from this guy on social media
attacking Trump. Nancy Pelosi, the whole former House speaker, where
(06:10):
are you? This is war right now that we're seeing
in terms of our federal agents being attacked and California
officials doing nothing to stop it.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
Now, it's going to be an incredibly bad look in
the next twenty four to forty eight hours if you
don't get the governor out there, if you don't get
someone out there to at least get people to stop,
because right now you have city leaders encouraging people to
join the resistance.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
You have city leaders, let's just pick it up there,
encouraging people to go out there and do this. You
watch that video. There are a lot of Mexican flags.
So I'm just trying to get my head around this.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
So Ben, I have an idea. Let's you and me,
let's go illegally to France. Let's just break into France.
Once we get there, let's start rioting against France because
we hate France. Let's light the Eiffel Tower on fire.
Let's start waving the American flag around while we're lighting
the Eiffel Tower on fire, and let's say, don't you
(07:08):
dare send us back to America the flag we're flying,
because you have no right to decide if we get
to come into your country illegally. We can do anything
you want. And if you try to enforce your laws,
I guess we'll just light things on fire. And even better,
your elected officials would say, damn right, you keep burning.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
And we'll send you more.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
This is truly through the twilight zone and what is striking.
Let's break down several pieces of it. First of all,
let's take the media. So we saw Fox News where
they actually covered what's going on. Yes, I want to
contrast that with CNN because CNN, look, if you're a
propaganda outlet, you've got a message to get out, and
(07:54):
you know what the message is. Nothing to see here.
This is peaceful. This is fine.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I mean they are famous, famous for the police station
being on fire, remember that in the summer of rage,
and they're like, it's fiery but peace Yeah, fiery but
peaceful protests here.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
So all right, I want you to watch CNN covering
this same riot.
Speaker 7 (08:12):
Watch So there's unrest. Let's start with there's protest, lawful protest,
which is allowed in this country. There is some unrest
generally dealt with by local law enforcement, and that there
needs to be state support through state police and sometimes
even National Guard under a governor's authority. What is happening
(08:36):
tonight is unprecedent.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
I mean, I love it. She's like, it's unrest. Oh,
I can't say that. Hold on, I got to back
that up. And this is just peaceful and that is
something that is protected and we're totally fine with this.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
Like she admitted unrest and immediately had to run away
from it. Yeah, and I got to say it's striking. Also,
the video that they don't show anything on fire there,
they've learned the less and where during during the Antifa
and Black Lives Matter riots where they literally put on
If you don't remember this, they had a video to
an entire store on fire, and their chiron said, uh,
(09:12):
fiery but peaceful.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Protests as buildings are burning.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
It is they've got a message. And and and look
in the first video on Fox where the folks are talking,
they say, where are the cops? And you see way,
mister top a block a block away, and yet there
are no police officers anywhere near the protesters, no police
officers anywhere near the car that's on fire.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
And it's clear it goes back to leadership. That's the
question I want to ask you. You look at this,
you're allowing.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
You may or ordered them to stay away.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Okay, So I want to be that that was a
question I want to ask you.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Of course, of course, of course, But here you're and
my friend Dana Bash, she's got to jump in now
and really defend what's going on here here.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Give a listen.
Speaker 8 (09:58):
It's pretty bad.
Speaker 9 (10:00):
That's a different question. But I just I just want
to just stay for the record that what did happen
in nineteen ninety two was so different from what we're
seeing now. I mean that was that was a real,
a real riot that went all across the city of
Los Angeles after a verdict in the Rodney King case,
this is a situation where the La County La County Police,
(10:23):
it's not good, but they're saying that they have it
under control, and the and the President is sending national.
Speaker 8 (10:30):
Troops in a way that we can look at it. Obviously,
we see that it is not under control. It's not
under control. You and I both see that it's not
under control. And a riot is a right. They're throwing
they're throwing all types of objects at law enforcement. And
the President is absolutely right.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
By the way, you ask the people whose cars and
buildings are on fire if this is a riot or not.
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Dana told us it's not real. It's not really, it's
a fake. You know, they are familiar with fakes. They
are experts in fakes. You know, it really is striking.
This has nothing to see here, not a real riot.
It's all okay. And then she says, well, okay, it's
not good.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
But it's nothing like a real riot back in the
old days in the nineties.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
And look, there have been multiple arrests because you have
these protesters are actively aggressively trying to stop ice from
carrying out their jobs, from enforcing immigration laws. One of
the people arrested was the president of the SEIU union
who was arrested for physically actively stopping federal agents from
(11:36):
carrying out their jobs. Now what is the reaction of
Democrat politicians. Well, here, take a look.
Speaker 10 (11:42):
The reality is we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles,
and again, any violence against police officers should not be accepted.
Local authorities can handle that. But remember a lot of
these peaceful protests are being generated because the President of
the United States is so in case and confusion by
arresting people who are showing up for their immigration hearings.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
They other aren't peaceful, don't they.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
So the phrase peaceful protests, which they say repeatedly and
noticed that. So that was Corey Booker, and he's saying, well, look,
you can't commit violence against cops. Look, I'm glad he
says that in part because they've seen where these riots go.
But at the same time he's repeatedly saying what CNN
is saying, which is it's only the governor and local
(12:31):
law enforcement that can do it. Nothing federal because President
Trump has called up the National Guard, and they are
so unhappy that we're actually going to see these violent protesters.
Will be stopped from terrorizing the communities they're engaged with.
And that's a nightmare scenario for the Democrats because anytime
you have violence like this, they are on the side
(12:53):
of the violence.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Do you notice Booker also said the beginnings that we've
talked about how orchestra tray Democrats are when they do
these things on college campuses where there's people behind him
in advocacy. Booker said, this.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
You're suggesting the people who are paying for this are
also paying for the Democrats are going on TV to fin.
Speaker 1 (13:11):
I'm saying, Cory Booker seems to have some pretty good
insider information that this is the quote beginning his words,
not mine, of something big like this is the beginning.
And he said that on Sunday morning, after a weekend
of this violence, the beginning. So you got to ask
the question are they all in on it?
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Well, look, you know, you look at so much of
today's Democrat Party that's paid for by George Soros that
it kind of makes you wonder if it's now George
Zorro and it is all about go back, and they
want California to secede from America and go back to Mexico.
But look, Corey Booker was not alone. Give another Listen.
Speaker 11 (13:49):
Every single ICE agent who's engaged in this aggressive overreach,
and I'm trying to hide their identities from the American
people will be unsuccessful in doing that.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
This is America.
Speaker 11 (14:03):
It is not the Soviet Union, but not behind the
Iron curtain. This is not the nineteen thirties, And every
single one of them, no matter what it takes, no
matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
As I have a dad who's spent the majority of
his life in law enforcement. That is a threat, yes
to law enforcement. Yes, that we're going to make sure
that everyone that hates you knows who you are, where
you live, who your kids may be, who your wife is,
and we're going to make you feel in safe for
doing your job.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
Look, that is grotesque. It's one of the most grotesque
things I've ever seen.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
That's a king.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, and
he's not hiding what he's saying. He is threatening to
docks to expose, to reveal the identities of federal law
enforcement agents ICE because he wants threats, he wants violence,
he wants intimidation, he wants violence, an intimidation directed at
(15:01):
federal law enforcement. That is grotesque. By the way, the
Mayor of Boston analogized Ice to Nazis. Yeah, I mean
that is understand today's Democrat party. This is not your
grandfather's Democrat party. This is a Democrat party. Now. If
you are an illegal alien, if you are a gang member,
(15:21):
if you are a murderer, if you are a rapist,
the Democrats stand with you. If you're a police officer,
the Democrats are not with you. If you are an
ICE agent, they are not with you. If you're a
border patrol agent, they are not with you. If you
are enforcing the law, they are not with you. And
listen to what Corey Booker said. Corey Booker said, well,
Trump is causing it because he's enforcing the law.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Because yeah, because enforcing the law, it is well. And
then you got to look at Newsom. I mean, look
at Newsom. We had this very interesting rebranding. I would
call it Newsom maybe three point zero four point zero.
He's rebranded himself a lot. He's really good at it.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
He's pretending to be a he's suddenly discovered that boys
and girls exist. It's really remarkable because you know, twelve
seconds ago he didn't know that.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
And yet here's his true colors yet again. So here's
what he tweeted out.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
He says, the federal government is taking over the California
National Guard and deploying two thousand soldiers in Los Angeles,
not because there's a shortage of law enforcement, but because
they want a spectacle. Don't give them one. Never use violence,
speak out peacefully. So understand the end of that. Speak
out peacefully. He's calling for I'm the governor. I want
(16:33):
more riots. They're not enough of you out there, more
and more and more. Somebody gets sorrows online too. George,
we need more money. Can you send out more protests now?
That is his message, and they are furious, furious with
President Trump for actually defending the communities. Look, we saw
in that first video the law enforcement, the police officers
(16:55):
are ordered don't do anything about it, don't keep people safe.
We've seen, by the way, we've seen this video before.
We saw it during the Antifa in Black Lives Matter riots,
where where again Democrat mayors, Democrat governors prevented law enforcement
from doing their jobs. And by the way, look.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Well, and the word is on the street that local
I mean local law enforcement. We're told on Saturday and
Friday night stand down, like, don't get involved, let them
do what they're gonna do. If that turns out to
be like the entire policy of LA and the local
government there, doesn't that give even more credence to Wine.
(17:38):
Donald Trump should send in the National Guard.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Absolutely, And look, I will give those Democrats credit for
being the voice of reason, the voice of moderation. I
want you to listen to this, this very careful, calm
measured analysis from a Democrat California congress woman. She's assessing
(18:01):
the situation carefully. She's trying to balance competing interests, trying
to protect property and lives, and give a listen to
what she has to say.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
I skip the coality so that order defy stored there.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
It is if ICE would just leave and all the
illegal immigrants can do what they want to do. And
we've had no crime problems in California in the last
year or so.
Speaker 2 (18:21):
So understand their message. Also, they do not want federal
immigration laws enforced. She wants ICE out of the state.
And by the way, to be clear, her message also
every illegal alien in America, please come to California. Because
that's who she represents. That is and I don't even
know that congresswoman. She's one of the many left at California.
(18:44):
They blur together. You know, she has has Look I
give her credit. Apparently she's volunteering to join AOC and
ilhan Omar and the other kooks to be the face
of today Democrat party.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
This is sad. Final question on this. You look at
the present's decisions in the National Guard, and you look
at Democrats now clearly wanting a fight, They're wanting more
illegals to come out. Is this one of those things
where they think this is a positive nationwide? I mean,
how could you think that burning down cities, attacking your
neighbor's property, burning cars, attacking law enforcement somehow a political win.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
I don't understand that while you're riding a motorcycle around
a burning car, waving a Mexican flag bingo. Look at
the end of the day, apparently those individuals and we
saw Mexican flags everywhere you look. Apparently those individuals they
want America to be Mexico. What else do you And
(19:47):
by the way, look, Mexico is a beautiful country. If
you want to go to Mexico go to Mexico.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
But if you want to fly the flag, go to Mexico.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
But you don't have a right to defy federal law
to come here illegally. And yet that is, at the
end of the day, that is what today's Democrat Party
stands for. It is their core belief, it is their
reason for being. And you asked if they think this
is a winning message, Well, it depends who you're talking to.
(20:15):
If you're talking to your radicals, if you're talking to
your zealots, if you're.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Talking to the fun the stuff.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, If you're talking to the big, big money donors, yes,
that's a winning message. If you're talking to the people
who wrote checks on the anti Israel and anti America
protests and college campuses, it's a great message.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
If you're actually.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
Talking to ordinary Americans, if you're talking to soccer moms,
if you're talking to people who would like their kids say,
if you're talking to people who don't really want to
see their neighborhoods lit on fire, I question, as Brea
Roberts said, throw me in that brier patch. Well, you know,
I question if they're gonna be happy with this decision
(20:56):
come next election.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Day, which brings me to story number two, and it's
one that is just maybe one of I laughed when
I saw the news. I thought this was a brilliant
move by the Trump administration. Democrats have been obsessed with
the Maryland father, the Maryland man who just happened to
get deported, who was an illegal immigrant, who was caught
(21:17):
human smuggling through my home state of Tennessee. And they
act like it never happened. And now all of a sudden,
we're like they were demanding you bring him home, bring
him back to America. Well, guess what, the dude's coming home.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
He is indeed, and he has been brought to be prosecuted.
He has been indicted. He has been indicted for human trafficking.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Wait, I thought he was just a Maryland dad, not
a human trafficker.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Well, I will tell you. I'm holding the indictment in
my hand and it is stunning. So how long was
he a human trafficker? Well, according to the indictment, from
in Or around twenty sixteen through inn Or around twenty
twenty five, So for nine years.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
That's a pretty good career.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Kilmar Armando Abrego, Garcia and others known and unknown to
the grand jury conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the
United States from countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador,
and elsewhere, ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas.
Very nice they came into Texas. The co conspirators knew
(22:24):
the undocumented aliens did not possess authorization to enter the
United States. They used cell phones, they used social media applications.
The indictment also allegesed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was a
citizen of El Salvador, was not a United States citizen,
was living in the United States, and was also a
(22:47):
member and associate of the transnational criminal organization MS thirteen.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
No, he's a dad. Hold on a second, you can't
say that this is just a Maryland dude, Maryland dad,
Maryland man.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
And by the way, they accurately describe MS thirteen. MS
thirteen was a criminal enterprise engaged in, among other activities,
acts and threats involving murder, extortion, narcotics, trafficking, firearms trafficking,
alien smuggling, and money laundering. MS thirteen operated throughout North
and Central America, including in El Salvador, Guatemalica, Mexico, the
(23:24):
United States, including in Texas, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, and elsewhere. Now,
how many illegal aliens do you think he's charged with smuggling?
Speaker 1 (23:34):
I'm assuming zero because he's just a Maryland man. He's
just a Maryland dad.
Speaker 2 (23:38):
He's a Maryland dad. I want to read this paragraph.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, as detailed further below, used his
status in MS thirteen to further his criminal activity.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Right, not as a father or dad, as a MS
thirteen gang member.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Over the course of the conspiracy, the co conspirators knowingly
and unlawfully transported wait for it, thousands of undocumented aliens,
many of whom were MS thirteen members and associates.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So you're bringing in people that are now a member
of a terrorist organization into the country. So not just
random buel pang. He was smuggling in members of the
Town organization in the United States America for not one year,
not two, not three, not four, five years, but nine years. Yes.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
And and look, the fact that DOJ brought this indictment
means presumably they have the evidence to prove this indictment.
They're going to put on that evidence they're gonna put
on that evidence that this guy was a gang member
for nine years, that he was part of a conspiracy
that smuggled thousands of people illegally, including other gang members.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
You think the media is gonna apologize for anither stories
or attacking Trump and saying that he just sent a
Maryland dad a Maryland man.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
And understand, this is the same the same illegal immigrant
that my colleague Chris van Holland, Democrat from Maryland, flew
down and had really what was a very sweet margarita
with I mean it was a Broman.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
It was a moment. It was a bro moment, you.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Know, as I tweeted out at the time, you know,
find somebody who looks at you the way Democrats look
at illegal alien MS thirteen gang members, like the sweet
nothings in his eyes as he looked on. And by
the way, you saw Democrat House members, you know, all
on a parade to go down there.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
They wanted to use your tax dollars to go see
the Maryland man.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
This is the face of the Democrat Party, this is
who they stand for. So look, you ought to ask
yourself at home, am I an MS thirteen gang member
who's a human trafficker, who smuggles in thousands of illegal aliens,
who smuggles in gang members. If so the Democrats of
the party, for me, if you're not, if you kind
of think we don't want human traffickers and gang members
(26:05):
in America, well then I don't know what the Democrats is.
Speaker 1 (26:08):
This like the ultimate FAFO like moment, because for Democrats,
and I want people to understand the funniest part of
the story, Democrats demanded we bring him back. He's coming back,
gonna go to jail for a long time, and then
after he serves his time, apparently we're gonna send him
right back to the country where he just came from.
But it didn't just go from bad to worse, like
(26:29):
he would have been better off just staying where he was.
Look at, Democrats actually are putting this man.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
In jail, and these facts, the facts that prove he
was a human trafficker, the facts and evidence that DJ
is gonna put on. I hope and believe the American
people need to know those facts because they need to know. Look,
we've already in this podcast cover how the guy is
allegedly a wife beater, that he has a long history
of criminality. We played the audio of him being caught
(26:56):
human trafficking, but at the time we didn't know that
there was a decade worth of thousands of people being trafficked,
including other gang members. What you wish for, right and
by the way, to understand, Look, I don't know specifically
what this gang member did, but I'll tell you MS
(27:16):
thirteen when they are human trafficking, they are raping women,
they are raping children. They are abusing women and children
that they are abusing, little boys, little girls.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
They're soulists. They do not care about human life.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Here it is MS thirteen is evil and in Texas
we see the atrocities they carry out. I fully expect
the evidence that comes out in this trial to be
nothing short of horrifying. And I got to say, if
you're a Democrat and you've decided the entire future of
your party is defending this guy, yeah, you know what's weird, Ben,
(27:56):
I'm not sure the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Are worried right now. I don't think they are.
Speaker 2 (27:59):
I mean, that's the strangest thing it is in the
face of this.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
There used to be in politics moments where you knew
you screwed up. Were even your party look, they're all
in on California and still on defending this guy.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Their position is is that one Democrat congresswoman said, law enforcement,
get the f out. That's their message. No cops, no ICEN,
open border patrol, We don't defend, we don't defend California.
We don't know America guys, but gang members and murderers europeeps.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
Amazing. I want to move to one final issue, and
it's one that has gotten a lot of attention in
conservative circles. It's certainly one that the media just refuses
to talk about. And the President clearly wanted to use
the power this week of his microphone to bring up
the issue of the auto pen. When it comes to
Joe Biden investigating what did he know, when did he
(28:50):
know it? Did he have any clue what he was
signing with the autopen, was even directing the autopen to
be used? Or were there people that were literally playing
President yep that were saying, I want to hook this
political favor up, or this pardon up, or this piece
of legislature, this executive order up, and he had no
idea what was even happening.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Well, and President Trump did a really good job explaining
this at the Oval office this past week. Give a listen.
Speaker 9 (29:15):
The predecessor dismissed your autopin investigation.
Speaker 12 (29:18):
He said he made all the decisions during his presidency.
I'm curious a reaction to his dismissal. Well, look to
the autopen.
Speaker 13 (29:24):
I think is the big scandal outside of the rigged
election of twenty twenty. I think the biggest scandal of
the last many years is the autopen and who's using it.
I happen to think I know, okay, because I'm here
and I'm not a big odo pen person fortune I'm glad.
Speaker 12 (29:39):
I'm very glad. It's an easy way out. But it's
a very bad thing, very dangerous.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
You know.
Speaker 12 (29:45):
I sign important documents.
Speaker 13 (29:47):
Usually when they put documents in front of you, they're important,
even if you're signing ambassadorships or and I consider that important.
Speaker 12 (29:54):
I think it's inappropriate.
Speaker 13 (29:55):
You have somebody that's devoting four years of their life
or more to being an best and I think you
really deserve that person deserves to get a real signature,
not an autopen signature. And I can tell autopen easily.
I can look at it like two little pinholes. From
pulling the paper right, you will see the pinholes. It's
real easy to tell about autopen. I think it's very
(30:18):
disrespectful to people when they get an autopen signature outside.
Autopen to me are used when thousands of letters come
in from young people all over the country and you
want to get them back, and you know, people use
autopens for that to send a little signature at the
bottom of a letter.
Speaker 12 (30:35):
We have thousands of them.
Speaker 13 (30:37):
We get thousands of letters a week, and it's not
possible to you know, I'd like to do it myself,
you can't do it to me.
Speaker 12 (30:45):
That's where auto pens start and stop.
Speaker 13 (30:49):
But I don't think I'm sure that he didn't know
many of the things. Look, he was never for open borders,
he was never for transgender for everybody. He was never
for men playing in women's sports. I mean he changed,
I mean all of these things that change so radically.
I don't think he had any idea that what was Frankly,
I said it during the debate and I say it now.
Speaker 12 (31:11):
He didn't have much of an idea what was going on.
He shouldn't be.
Speaker 13 (31:15):
I mean, essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,
and that is wrong. It's illegal, it's so bad, and
it's so disrespectful.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
To our I look at what he said there, and
I go back to something that is, you've seen autopin.
Do you have the autopin? I've never asked you that. Yeah, okay.
So I've gone an office before to get a birthday
card or something done. When I worked in DC, people
would come over and say, hey, can we get this written.
It's somebody's seventieth anniversary or save you birthday, and they'll go, yeah, sure,
and they'll put it together and they'll get it autopin signed.
(31:48):
Because there's so many requests like this. But he's right,
being the president, it's America, there's a lot of If
it's being put in front of you, it probably deserves
a signature. If it's making it to be in front of.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
You, well, let's draw a distinction. First of all, let
me explain what an autopen is.
Speaker 9 (32:04):
It.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
It's a machine where literally you have a mechanical arm
that holds a pan, typically a sharpie. Most most signatures
are used with sharpies. And so I've got an autopen
as far as I know, I think every member of
Congress has.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
So my birthday card you're telling me was not real
when I.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Made fun of you that that that was definitely written
by me, and uh, but but you use it for
you know, correspondence. I mean, in my time in the Senate,
I've literally gotten millions of letters from constituents and we
send out millions of letters in response. And so you
could spend literally every waking moment doing nothing but signing
(32:41):
that correspondence. And so what you do instead, Every congressional
office has a correspondence office where for a given topic,
if you ask me about illegal immigration, we have a
letter in the office where that lays out your plans,
my views on illegal immigration, and they're the policy team
helps draft those and they get approved. You know, I
suspect we'll have a letter shortly on on these these
(33:04):
la riots and and and what's happening there. Whatever the
topics are that people are writing in on. A congressional
office will prepare a letter that's response responsive to it,
and those will get auto pen That is very different
from something that requires a signature to have legal effect,
and they're really.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
That's a great distinction, a way of describing it.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
There are three category categories that are consequential here pardons,
executive orders and laws, and let me break all three
of these down, because there's real legal significance in the
in the in the question that President Trump is raising,
all right, first of all, pardons that there are a
whole bunch of folks that that Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Pardoned controversial pardons, by the way.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
So including so on the same day Joe Biden pardon
Anthony Fauci, he pardoned General Millie, former Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then he pardoned every member
of the January sixth Commission. So he pardoned Benny Thompson
and Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgram and Adam Schiff and
(34:08):
Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy and Jamie Raskin and Aline Laurier
and Adam Kinsinger.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
And by the way, they were they were begging for
these pardons.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
All nine of them got pardoned. It's being reported now
that that the one pardon that Biden signed personally was
his son Hunter Biden's pardon, but that all of the
rest of these pardons were auto penned. And here's what
President Trump tweeted out. He said, quote the pardons that
(34:38):
Sleepy Joe gave to the Unselect Committee of Political thugs
and many others. I gotta say, I love nobody writes
like Donald Trump are hereby declared void, vacant, and of
no further force or effect because of the fact that
they were done by auto pen In other words, Joe
Biden did not sign them, but more importantly, he did
not know anything about them. The necessary pardoning documents were
(35:02):
not explained to or approved by Biden. Now let's talk
about pardons first. So pardons do not have to be
in writing. Okay, if you look at the language of
the Constitution, Article two, Section two, clause one says, in
relevant part, the President shall have power to grant reprieves
(35:24):
and pardons for offenses against the United States. So the
Constitution does not specify any particular form of a pardon.
It doesn't specify it has to be in writing. It
simply says the President shall have power to grant reprieves
and pardons. So with respect to pardons, whether it's signed
or not, that's not a constitutional requirement. But what is
(35:47):
a constitutional requirement is that the president granted. Interesting, and
so what President Trump alleged is Biden didn't know about this,
didn't know what he was doing. It was not his decision.
I think it is entirely possible that we will see
the Department of Justice prosecute someone who has received one
(36:10):
of these autopen pardons. Really, if they prosecute someone, it's
going to be someone for whom there is clear evidence
of a federal criminal violation. But also it will be
someone who there is evidence that Biden didn't know about it, so.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
They would have to bring to do that, they would
have to bring evidence he didn't know about it. And
then does that kick off the big grand debate and
the investigation because you bring those charges to say, okay,
let's see if you can prove that he did know
about it.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
So look, if DOJ brought an indictment against someone that
Biden had pardon using an autopen, the defense lawyer would
almost immediately seek to get the indictment dismissed because the
pard sure, and I would expect the court to litigate that.
DOJ would argue, this is not a valid pardon because
it was not issued by the president. It was issued
(37:03):
by a staffer manning the autopenner. And the question would
be did Joe Biden approve and authorize it personally or
was this just the staff.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
They just said, Hey, get my buddy or our friend
or our colleague or our ally this.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
So for example, they would look to all right, did
Biden make public statements about it? Was he interview, did
he stand at a podium? What did he say? Because
that would go to was he aware of it? And
did he approve it? Now, let's focus on statutes. Can
the president sign a law to have it become a
federal law by autopen and not by signature? And here
(37:43):
actually the question is actually pretty similar to the pardon question.
It comes down to what Biden knew. So actually, in
two thousand and five, the US Department of Justice, the
Office Legal Counsel, they issued a formal opinion whether the
president may sign a bill by directing that his signature
be affixed to it. And the summary of the conclusion
(38:06):
was the president need not personally perform the physical act
of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and
decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather,
the president may sign a bill within the meeting of
Article one, section seven by directing a subordinate to affix
the President's signature to such bill, for example, by autopen.
(38:28):
And here the statutory languages is, or rather the constitutional
language is more explicit. So here's what Article one, section
seven says. Quote, every bill which shall have passed the
House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes
a law, be presented to the President of the United States.
(38:51):
If he approves, he shall sign it. So sign it
is explicitly there. You can't orally sure sign a law.
You have to sign it.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
But that's why bill signs are such a big deal.
Speaker 2 (39:04):
What the Department of Justice concluded, and this is a
lengthy opinion, is the settled understanding of the meaning of
sign an individual can sign a document by directing that
his signature be affixed to it by another. And so
they conclude this settled understanding of the meaning of sign
leads us to conclude that Article one, section seven permits
(39:26):
the president to sign a bill by directing a subordinate
to affix the President's signature to it. Now, I've got
to say, as a legal matter, I think there's a
there's a strong case to be made that that is
accurate that you can authorize someone to sign a binding
legal document for you. If you're the decision.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
Maker and you say, hey, I'm on a plane is
a great example national emergency worst case scenario, and you
say sign that right now to do what X, Y
or Z.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
And let me give you an example I have personal
experience with so as you know, when I can. I'm
out of law school. I was a law clerk for
Chief Justice William Renquist on the U. S.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
And every time there is an execution in this country,
almost without fail, there are emergency appeals that go to
the Supreme Court, and they often will go and be
concluded at midnight or one or two or three in
the morning, because typically the death warrant is carried out
right before midnight, and so the appeals are filed last minute.
(40:29):
And so when that happens, there is a law clerk
from every justice that remains at the court till the
matter is resolved. And the Chief Justice had jurisdiction over
the DC Circuit, but also the Fourth Circuit, which covers
a number of states that have capital punishment. And so
when the execution occurs in the circuit that your justice
(40:52):
is the lead for, the justices will vote. They do
it by phone. So you will read the emergency appeals,
you'll summarize the emergency appeals you'll call your justice, wake
him or her up, explain the issues, and then the
justices will vote. At the end of the process. The
very last thing that happens in the process is there
(41:12):
is a form that is sent to the prison. And
there were multiple essentially death warrants that I signed, and
I would sign them WHR slash TC. WHR was William
Hubb's renquist. So I'm signing for the Chief Justice s
slash TC because the chief was home in bed, so
(41:34):
he was not physically signing it. But because I had
authorization to sign it, you'd literally put it on then
a fax machine and at the prison they'd pull it
off the fax machine and that signature that I had
signed for the Chief Justice was sufficient to carry out
an execution.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
The TC at the end is that just to clarify
that you did it on behalf of it, okay.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
And you see that sometimes secretaries when they sign for
someone will do the same thing and put with the
slash to say who is signing it? What I would
say the critical question in terms of a law. Look,
there will be an argument that the word sign in
the Constitution means sign and so it's not a frivolous
(42:15):
argument that the auto pen can't do it in any circumstance,
and I would expect that potentially made. But the more
powerful argument is did the president direct that his signature
be affixed to it?
Speaker 1 (42:31):
Or did a or did a stafford go roke?
Speaker 2 (42:34):
Did a stafford just say yep, this is our policy,
so put it in the autopen, it's signed, and listen.
White houses keep records. You've worked in a White House,
they keep meticulous.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Records, especially on this level.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
And so I fully expect there to be litigation questioning
looking for a statute where where there is not clear
indication that Biden was aware of it, that he made
a decision to sign it, but rather that simply you
had a White House staffer say Okay, this is our policy,
(43:06):
let's sign it. And if that's the case, I think
there's If the president did not direct that his signature
be affixed to it, I think there's a real argument
that is not a law that is not validly in
the United States Code, that law is null and void.
Speaker 1 (43:21):
I think that.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
And by the way, it's not sufficient for the president
at the outset to say hey, I support this law.
Speaker 1 (43:30):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
That's different from you can say you support all sorts
of law. Sure, that's different from making the decision I
am going to sign this law right now. Look, there
are all sorts of laws that you could say you support,
but the legislative process is like sausage making. You don't
even know what's in the thing till it passes. And
(43:50):
so finding early statements from Biden that I support such
and such policy is not enough. I expect the question
to be And by the way, you don't have to
wait for litigation, because Donald Trump has access to all
of the White House records that will show did Biden
(44:11):
make those decisions. That's why ordering that investigation is so strong,
because if they find a law that there is no
record of Joe Biden saying I want to sign this,
and I am directing you to sign this, then I
think there's a real argument that law is not validly enacted.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
It's incredible. We're gonna keep covering it. Don't forget. We
do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscriber
auto download button so you do not miss an episode. Also,
if you're watching this episode on YouTube, make sure you
subscribe on YouTube as well. As we put these out
so you don't miss them either, tell your family, tell
your friends about this show and the Senate, and I
will see you back here in a couple of days
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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.
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.