-
In this episode of Verdict with Ted Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz and co-host Ben Ferguson break down the dramatic rise in nationwide injunctions issued by activist judges to block President Trump’s agenda—a tactic that has surged to unprecedented levels compared to past administrations.
The episode also covers the case of Momodou Taal, a British and Gambian dual national on a student visa who has made numerous pro-Hamas and anti-American statements. Cruz and Ferguson analyze the legal and political ramifications of his visa being revoked as well as anti-Semitism on college campuses.
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
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):
Good Monday morning.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Ben Ferguson with you as always, and Senator We've got
a lot to talk about it today's show, including nationwide
injunctions against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Well, this is the latest evolution of law fair and
the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat
state attorneys general, the plan from left wing activist groups
is sue, sue, sue, and go to left wing activist judges,
particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put
on the courts, and use them to try to shut
(00:35):
down the entirety of the Trump agenda. It's not going
to succeed, and it is unprecedented. We're going to do
deep dive and explain what's going on and how it
is so far out of step from what any other
president has faced. We're also going to talk about the
fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has
(00:56):
had his student visa revoke the Trump administration. President Trump
is serious that if you are an enemy of America,
they are going to remove you from this country. You
do not have an entitlement to have a student visa
and to be here, and to threaten other students to
threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, it really is shocking. We're going to dive into
all that in just a moment. I want to talk
to you real quick though, about the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews and the work that they're doing and
the help that is needed for the people in Israel.
After more than a year of war, tear and pain
in Israel, the need for security essentials and support for
(01:32):
the first responders is still critical. Even in times of ceasefire.
Israel must be prepared for the next attack wherever it
may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on
all sides.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
That is where you.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Come in, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
is working on the ground to continue to support those
that are in need the people of Israel with life
saving security essentials are so important right now, and your
gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored
security vehicles and armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flag jackets and
(02:11):
bulletproof vests, and so much more. Your generous donation today
will help ensure the people of Visrael are safe and
secure in the days to come. So give a gift
to bless Israel. Enter people by visiting support IFCJ dot org.
That's one word support IFCJ dot org or call to
(02:32):
donate now eight at eight four eight eight IFCJ that's
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight at eight
four eight eight four three two five are SUPPORTIFCJ dot
org center. So let's remind people of how we got
to the point where this is like the new phase
(02:54):
of law fare. Democrats weaponize our government and the court
system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when
they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump,
even raiding his home in mar Lago. But now that
he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the
outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence
(03:14):
the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system
to try to subvert democracy. Understand, the four times Trump
was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy. This is
while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks claiming to be
defending democracy. But the reason they brought those indictments is
they were terrified the voters were going to do what
(03:39):
they in fact did, which was reelect Donald Trump, and
Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to
do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump,
the voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a
Republican House, and the left they don't care. They're angry.
They're angry at the voters, and so they're going to
the courts to try to prevent the President and the
(04:02):
Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now,
let me lay out some numbers to give you just
sort of a level of comparison in the entirety of
the George W. Bush administration two terms, the Barack Obama
administration two terms, and the Joe Biden administration. How many
(04:24):
times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued
since two thousand and one.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
I'm going to go like zero to one.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
No, No, there have been more than that. There have
been thirty two, thirty two against Bush, Obama, and Biden. Now,
how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been
in the first two months of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I'm gonna not even try to guess, because I know
I'm going to be wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Thirty seven.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Wow, So we've already outnumbered all those other presidencies combined
in essence.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
So two months we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight
years of Bush, eight years of Barack Obama, and four
years of Joe Biden. Now that in and of itself,
both of those are a huge shift from what it's
been historically. Now, in the entire twentieth century, how many
nationwide injunctions do you think there were? No clue? Twenty
(05:21):
seven wow. So in one hundred years there were twenty seven.
Then in twenty years of Bush, Obama and Biden there
were thirty two, and now in two months there have
been thirty seven. This is a dramatic shift. And look,
let's go back to the history before, before we had
(05:44):
a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had
the British the common law and in English equity, which
is before we had the founding of the United States,
you couldn't have injunctions against the crown. A judge could
not enjoin the crown because the Chancellor was part of
(06:04):
the crown. It was the same authority. And that continued
for the first one hundred and fifty years of the
United States. Now what happened. It used to be that
there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal,
and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those
were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect
(06:28):
to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let
me ask you something, Ben, one of the two of
us has a law. Agree. Let me let me ask
a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
An injunction is where a court steps and says you
can't do that. We are stopping you from doing what
you said you were going to do.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
So that's actually that is quite good. At injunction is
ordering someone either to do something or not to do something.
But it is an order from the court for someone
to comply with its order. And and that is in
distinction to an order for damages. So so you think
about a civil suit. You know, if if if I
(07:09):
run over your cat and you sue me, the court
can say, all right, pay Ben one thousand dollars for
his for his cat. That would be an award in damages.
An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties
of the case. So, for example, if if I keep
(07:32):
running over your cats. If you have ten cats and
I run over a cat a week, that's it.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
I have way too many one liners. Keep going, I
don't want to You're a cat guy. I gotta be
careful here.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
No, I'm a daughter guy. Let's be clear. So I
do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters,
and in particular I have my eldest daughter, so she
has three cats. And I love my daughters, and so
we have three cats in our home. You're a boy, dad,
and so cats are not a part of your life.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yes, thank you, and it's one of the best blessings
I've ever had from them.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Keep going, Well, an injunction could be let's say, a
court might order me to not drive my car within
five hundred yards of your house. That would be an
injunction against the parties of the case. Now what is different,
(08:30):
and by the way, so for example, and you would
have those injunctions against the government, but again they were
limited to the party. So for example, there were sixteen
hundred injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision,
which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
(08:52):
But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you
had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing
this statutory provision, this processing taxed on me is contrary
to law. And sixteen hundred times judges agreed and ordered
the government don't enforce the law with respect to ben.
(09:14):
But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce
that law with respect to you, doesn't mean that I
was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it,
I had to go to court too. So that used
to be the way it would happen. And then there
were judicial reforms in nineteen thirty seven that Congress took
(09:36):
a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court.
So ordinarily in the federal courts you have district judges,
single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then
you have the U. S. Supreme Court. Well, Congress created
this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court.
(09:56):
So it was three different judges, but they were a
district court, and if you were seeking injunctions against a
federal statute, you had to go to a three judge
district court, and then you had a direct appeal to
the Supreme Court, so it's skipped, it skipped the courts
of appeals altogether. However, that ended in nineteen seventy six,
(10:17):
and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court
had their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And
so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal
district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes
to a federal Court's of appeals, and then the Supreme
Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it,
(10:38):
they can that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of
a three judge district court was no longer there to
limit how often an injunction would be given. And then
it has been really it's been the activist judges that
Obama and Biden have put on the courts that has
(11:01):
led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing
to say, this party in front of me, I'm issuing
an injunction concerning the government's conduct about ben. It's another
thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do
X against any person in the United States of America.
(11:22):
That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by
one single judge.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
So you look at this expansion and it's very clear
that this is now war, and it's war that's been
declared by these judges. Then what is the remedy here.
We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges. We've
heard that this is one of those moments where it's
in essence unpressing the number of judges that are trying
(11:51):
to have nationwide power instead of and really overstepping. What
is this strategy here and what does that look like
to fight because it's very frustrating. If you're a voter
and you're voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The
majority of Americans support the agenda, and now you see
these judges who were in many cases elected by no one,
(12:13):
who are now saying, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump
in the entire country with one ruling.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Well, to be clear that the judges were not, in
many cases elected by no one, and they were in
every single case elected by no one. The mechanism that
every one of these judges became a judge is they
were appointed by the president, whoever the president was at
the time, and they were confirmed by the United States
Senate and so no federal judges elected. There are a
number of checks and balances on judges. One check and
(12:42):
balance is impeachment. However, impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to
be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell
you why. Even if so impeachment would take it actually
operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against
the president or against an executive officer, which is the
House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House.
(13:05):
So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could
impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, it is
not removing the judge. It is the equivalent of bringing charges.
It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts,
which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is
(13:26):
the same thing. And a majority of the House can
impeach any judge. If the House chose to do so,
and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge.
But the chances that any of these judges would be
removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are zero point zero
zero percent. Now why is that? The reason is because
for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial
(13:50):
occurs in the Senate, and in order to convict, whether
it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge,
you need two thirds of the Senate. Now, we do
not have sixty seven Republicans in the Senate. We only
have fifty three. That means we would need at least
fourteen Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The
(14:11):
chances of fourteen Democrats voting to convict any of these
radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump
are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate
hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there
and refused to applaud for the President, refuse to applaud
(14:31):
for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal
immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refuse to
applaud for a thirteen year old kid fighting to overcome
brain cancer. The Democrats are not going that they're cheering
on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness, and so impeachment
(14:51):
is not going to be effective now. Secondly, another remedy
is that Congress can restrict the jury urisdiction of the
federal courts, and Congress has brought authority to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually, Congress could abolish the
district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts.
(15:12):
The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme
Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts,
the district courts, and the Courts of Appeals to process
the volume of cases. But Congress has brought authority to
limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to
exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to
(15:33):
overcome the filibuster, which means you would need sixty votes.
We have fifty three Republicans. The chances of any Senate
Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued
nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero.
So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean?
(15:53):
The remedies are the remedies are number one, Sunshine drawing
attention to it and listen. I am right. I am
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts,
Oversight Agency action and federal rights, and so I am
going to be sharing hearings focusing on this, focusing on remedies,
(16:14):
and one remedy to consider, should we return to a
system where you have a three judge district court to
consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. I think
there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again,
I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing
(16:36):
on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is
important to counteract law fair. And then I think the
real remedy is nominating and confirming good principal judges to
the federal courts, to the district courts, to the court's
appeals to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these adjunctions
on appeal the legal process. It's going to take the
Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going
(16:59):
to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities
right now. But the most likely mechanism to rein in
this abuse is going to be a Pellet review because
the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
So when you look at this and there's just a
frustration and the frustration is how are they getting away
with this? And are is this going to be what
it's going to be like for the next four years?
And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on?
And why is it that they don't have to play
by the same rules, like it seems like it's just
(17:36):
law fair running back and every time the American people
stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I
hear what you're saying, but for people that it was saying, well,
is there any other option? Like how do we win
and yet we still lose?
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Well, Look, there was a recent article in the Harvard
Law Review by a professor named Samuel Bray, and he
surveyed every nationwide and junk issued from nineteen sixty three
to twenty twenty three, so sixty years. In that period,
one hundred and twenty seven injunctions nationwide. Injunctions were issued.
Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump
(18:14):
during his first term, And if you break it down,
sixty four were issued against Trump, twelve were issued against Obama,
fourteen were issued against Biden. So those are the numbers
for the first term. And then, as I said, in
the first two months we've already had thirty seven, so
the numbers are are dramatic. Now here's an interesting stat
(18:37):
from Professor Bray's article. Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions
issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many
of them do you think were issued by judges appointed
by a Republican?
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Oh, gosh, I'm going to say not as many as
the Democrats. But I could be wrong, because there's been
some Republican judges that shocked all of us recently.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Well that's true, But here the numbers are pretty encouraging.
Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies,
only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican,
Which means that ninety two zero point two percent of
injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term against
(19:22):
his policies were issued by judges put on the court
by a Democrat ninety two percent. And the pattern is
very simple. H they're going and they're forum shopping. They're
going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and
looking for radicals who will hate the president and who
(19:42):
will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact
that they're forum shopping. It's frustrating, but there's a longer
term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term
remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and
the shorter term memory it is appeals and hopefully getting
(20:03):
the Court of Appeals to reverse it. And for example,
one case that's going on right now, it is a
case called Trump versus CASA, and in January, President Trump
issued an executive order revoking birth rights citizenship for illegal
aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality
(20:26):
of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and
that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district
courts issued preliminary injunctions and response, now, where were those courts?
One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was
in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue
states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme
(20:50):
Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions,
and on March thirteenth, the Acting Solicitor General of the
United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially
stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions
were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to
the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents
(21:15):
of the states challenging the orders. So it should not
be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating and
Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor
General's request by April fourth, So this is being litigated
right now. Now. It's possible the Supreme Court will decide
(21:35):
it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where
you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait
for full merits briefing, and that could take months or
even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and
I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and
rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
So let me ask you one other question on this
just layman terms here. If there is a loss by
a judge who does with of these injunctions, does that
then have precedent over other judges around the country, or
can other judges then just say well, I'm going to
take up the torch and buy more time and be
an activist as well.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeah, no, it can definitely be the latter. And so
now it depends. It depends where the loss occurs. So
if a district judge issues an injunction and it gets
appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of
Appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district
judges in that circuit, so their circuit's all over the country.
(22:41):
So for example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and
the Fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in
the Fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case
goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues
are ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country.
So the real answer, hopefully is to get this to
the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling
limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This
(23:04):
is clearly something that is being abused and it is
crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
So do you think that in the near future there's
a what are the odds this can go to the
Supreme Court and that this can at least have some
sort of like present on the countries that the president
can do his job.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is
at the Supreme Court right now. The question is are
there five justices willing to rein it in? And we
have seen in some of these early cases sometimes the
answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. And so
it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts. It's
going to come down to Justice Amy Cony, Barrett and
(23:47):
Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanon. We'll see how how they rule.
I feel very confident that that that Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Alito are are more than ready to rein in
the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if
there are five justices or not.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Senator I want to move to the other story that
you mentioned earlier, and this goes in the category of
promises made, promises cap for Donald Trump. Another pro Haamas
protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a
college campus. This is making liberal heads explode. But this
(24:23):
is exactly what the President said he was going to do,
and he's making good on that promise yet again.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast.
You and I did at Seapack when we interviewed Pam
Bondi and we talked about the fact that the Trump
administration is going to go after these radical anti Semitic,
anti American, anti Israel protesters. And if you threaten violence
against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you
(24:49):
have no entitlement to be allowed into this country. And
it's interesting you're seeing Democrats who are suddenly discovered free speech.
Mind you, when it comes to to Americans speaking, they
don't give a damn about free speech. When it comes
to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech.
American citizens have no First Amendment rights, and the Democrats
(25:09):
bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious anti Semite,
if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and you're
not an American, well then suddenly they think you're protected.
And it is insane. So the latest radical who had
his visa revoked is a student at Cornell and he's
an individual named Mommodo Tal now Momodo Tal, according to
(25:36):
the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has
called for the destruction of the United States. Has celebrated
the October seventh attacks by Hamas and has said that
he takes his quote Q from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now,
(25:56):
who is Mammado Tal? He is a British and gam
being dual national, so he's not an American. And he
began studying in Cornell twenty twenty two on an F
one student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good
and Tall received an email from the Department of Justice
(26:18):
that said ICE invites mister Tall and his counsel to
appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at
a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice
to appear and for mister Tall to surrender to ICE custody.
And of course what did Tall do? He engaged in
law fair and wet and final lawsuits seeking to block it.
(26:39):
Now what has Tall said? Tall has said, Number one,
He's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues
from the arm resistance in Palisine, armed by the way,
not just resistance, armed resistance. He has also said, quote,
we are in solidarity with the arm resistance in Palestine
(27:02):
from the river to the sea. He also said just
after October seventh, hours after he said quote, the dialect
demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those
who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now
(27:23):
the dialect, Look, this guy is a communist, he's a Marxist.
We talked about how cultural Marxism they divide the world
into oppressors and victims, and they actively cheer on the
violent revolution of the so called victims against the so
called oppressors. Now, this is ours after October seventh. This
is as women and little girls are being raped, as
(27:45):
twelve hundred civilians are being murdered. And here is what
he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression,
you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory
to the resistance. That's not all he said. When he
applied for his student visa, he wrote quote, and this
is on Twitter, the end of the US Empire in
(28:09):
our lifetime in shallah. Months later, the idiots in the
Biden administration gave him his student visa and he wrote,
student visa issued. We are going to America, baby alham
di lula. I don't know what that means, but I'm
guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted my
(28:31):
hatred of the US Empire knows no bound Walahai. Again,
I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing again
it is celebrating against America. One other thing he posted
quote when the enemy is US imperialism, then absolutely anyone
(28:52):
the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me
be clear, this anti American, anti Semitic radical who hates
America needs to get the hell out of our country.
He has no entitlement to be here, and we have
no obligation. We have no legal obligation, We have no
constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey,
(29:18):
people who hate America, people who say quote anyone who
calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know
what if that's true, get your ass out of this country.
We don't need you here threatening Americans.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on
college campuses. And we've seen anti semitism, for example, that
is just skyrocket on college campuses, and a lot of
this is well organized. We continue to see that a
lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups
(29:52):
and pre planning this around the country, and that has
to be very concerning. I think not only for college students,
but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning
for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing
these people in and this is what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
And understand the threats. Let me read you another tweet
that he sent quote, we are actually living in an
e fing alternative reality, although he did not abbreviate fing.
Zionists living comfortably in the US and Zionist Jewish students
at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared,
(30:32):
and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in
four K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people,
and many of these same folks who claim to feel
scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF BFFR.
I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is
a sick, sick individual and there can be no path
(30:56):
forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally.
And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are
indeed the chosen people chosen for Hell. Now understand one
(31:16):
game that anti Semites play, which is many times they
use the word Zionist when what they mean is jew
and they just think it's It's like, oh, I'm pretending
to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look,
they consider an ani Actually, at one point says Zionist
slash Jewish students, This is an anti Semite who hates
(31:38):
Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism,
by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And
he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen
for Hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And
you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved
(32:00):
to deport this radical leftists were protesting in support of him.
And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat
in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa. No,
(32:20):
you had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation
on Thursday and they were chanting hands off MoMA do,
waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter
ought to ask the Democrats do you believe we have
to give student visas to people who say they're enemies
(32:40):
of America and hate America. It's there's no legal basis
for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat
explain why they cheer on pro hamas radicals. But I
got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but
(33:02):
not swept up the in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Anger.
You gotta ask why Washington Democrats when they look at
October seventh, when they look at the radicals on campuses,
why the Democrats say we stand with Amas and we
stand with the PROPOMAUS protesters. That's got to make you
wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat party.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
All right, don't forget. We do this show on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday. So hit that subscriber, that auto download
button wherever you're listening, And if you'll help us grow
by sharing this podcast anywhere you're on social media. A
lot of you been doing that. We want to say
thank you. So if you're on Facebook or x or Instagram,
wherever you are true social share this this episode behind
(33:46):
that will Ford Arrow and it'll show up and help
reach new people in the center. And I will see
you back here on Wednesday morning.
Good Monday morning.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Ben Ferguson with you as always, and Senator We've got
a lot to talk about it today's show, including nationwide
injunctions against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Well, this is the latest evolution of law fair and
the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat
state attorneys general, the plan from left wing activist groups
is sue, sue, sue, and go to left wing activist judges,
particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put
on the courts, and use them to try to shut
(00:35):
down the entirety of the Trump agenda. It's not going
to succeed, and it is unprecedented. We're going to do
deep dive and explain what's going on and how it
is so far out of step from what any other
president has faced. We're also going to talk about the
fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has
(00:56):
had his student visa revoke the Trump administration. President Trump
is serious that if you are an enemy of America,
they are going to remove you from this country. You
do not have an entitlement to have a student visa
and to be here, and to threaten other students to
threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, it really is shocking. We're going to dive into
all that in just a moment. I want to talk
to you real quick though, about the International Fellowship of
Christians and Jews and the work that they're doing and
the help that is needed for the people in Israel.
After more than a year of war, tear and pain
in Israel, the need for security essentials and support for
(01:32):
the first responders is still critical. Even in times of ceasefire.
Israel must be prepared for the next attack wherever it
may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on
all sides.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
That is where you.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
Come in, and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
is working on the ground to continue to support those
that are in need the people of Israel with life
saving security essentials are so important right now, and your
gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored
security vehicles and armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flag jackets and
(02:11):
bulletproof vests, and so much more. Your generous donation today
will help ensure the people of Visrael are safe and
secure in the days to come. So give a gift
to bless Israel. Enter people by visiting support IFCJ dot org.
That's one word support IFCJ dot org or call to
(02:32):
donate now eight at eight four eight eight IFCJ that's
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight at eight
four eight eight four three two five are SUPPORTIFCJ dot
org center. So let's remind people of how we got
to the point where this is like the new phase
(02:54):
of law fare. Democrats weaponize our government and the court
system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when
they were in the White House to go after Donald Trump,
even raiding his home in mar Lago. But now that
he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the
outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence
(03:14):
the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system
to try to subvert democracy. Understand, the four times Trump
was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy. This is
while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks claiming to be
defending democracy. But the reason they brought those indictments is
they were terrified the voters were going to do what
(03:39):
they in fact did, which was reelect Donald Trump, and
Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to
do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump,
the voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a
Republican House, and the left they don't care. They're angry.
They're angry at the voters, and so they're going to
the courts to try to prevent the President and the
(04:02):
Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now,
let me lay out some numbers to give you just
sort of a level of comparison in the entirety of
the George W. Bush administration two terms, the Barack Obama
administration two terms, and the Joe Biden administration. How many
(04:24):
times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued
since two thousand and one.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
I'm going to go like zero to one.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
No, No, there have been more than that. There have
been thirty two, thirty two against Bush, Obama, and Biden. Now,
how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been
in the first two months of the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
I'm gonna not even try to guess, because I know
I'm going to be wrong.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Thirty seven.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Wow, So we've already outnumbered all those other presidencies combined
in essence.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
So two months we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight
years of Bush, eight years of Barack Obama, and four
years of Joe Biden. Now that in and of itself,
both of those are a huge shift from what it's
been historically. Now, in the entire twentieth century, how many
nationwide injunctions do you think there were? No clue? Twenty
(05:21):
seven wow. So in one hundred years there were twenty seven.
Then in twenty years of Bush, Obama and Biden there
were thirty two, and now in two months there have
been thirty seven. This is a dramatic shift. And look,
let's go back to the history before, before we had
(05:44):
a constitution, before we had our legal system, we had
the British the common law and in English equity, which
is before we had the founding of the United States,
you couldn't have injunctions against the crown. A judge could
not enjoin the crown because the Chancellor was part of
(06:04):
the crown. It was the same authority. And that continued
for the first one hundred and fifty years of the
United States. Now what happened. It used to be that
there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal,
and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those
were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect
(06:28):
to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let
me ask you something, Ben, one of the two of
us has a law. Agree. Let me let me ask
a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?
Speaker 1 (06:40):
An injunction is where a court steps and says you
can't do that. We are stopping you from doing what
you said you were going to do.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
So that's actually that is quite good. At injunction is
ordering someone either to do something or not to do something.
But it is an order from the court for someone
to comply with its order. And and that is in
distinction to an order for damages. So so you think
about a civil suit. You know, if if if I
(07:09):
run over your cat and you sue me, the court
can say, all right, pay Ben one thousand dollars for
his for his cat. That would be an award in damages.
An injunction historically has been with respect to the parties
of the case. So, for example, if if I keep
(07:32):
running over your cats. If you have ten cats and
I run over a cat a week, that's it.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
I have way too many one liners. Keep going, I
don't want to You're a cat guy. I gotta be
careful here.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
No, I'm a daughter guy. Let's be clear. So I
do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters,
and in particular I have my eldest daughter, so she
has three cats. And I love my daughters, and so
we have three cats in our home. You're a boy, dad,
and so cats are not a part of your life.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yes, thank you, and it's one of the best blessings
I've ever had from them.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Keep going, Well, an injunction could be let's say, a
court might order me to not drive my car within
five hundred yards of your house. That would be an
injunction against the parties of the case. Now what is different,
(08:30):
and by the way, so for example, and you would
have those injunctions against the government, but again they were
limited to the party. So for example, there were sixteen
hundred injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision,
which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
(08:52):
But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you
had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing
this statutory provision, this processing taxed on me is contrary
to law. And sixteen hundred times judges agreed and ordered
the government don't enforce the law with respect to ben.
(09:14):
But just because you got an injunction saying don't enforce
that law with respect to you, doesn't mean that I
was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it,
I had to go to court too. So that used
to be the way it would happen. And then there
were judicial reforms in nineteen thirty seven that Congress took
(09:36):
a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court.
So ordinarily in the federal courts you have district judges,
single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then
you have the U. S. Supreme Court. Well, Congress created
this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court.
(09:56):
So it was three different judges, but they were a
district court, and if you were seeking injunctions against a
federal statute, you had to go to a three judge
district court, and then you had a direct appeal to
the Supreme Court, so it's skipped, it skipped the courts
of appeals altogether. However, that ended in nineteen seventy six,
(10:17):
and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court
had their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And
so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal
district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes
to a federal Court's of appeals, and then the Supreme
Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it,
(10:38):
they can that shift, that shift meant the mechanism of
a three judge district court was no longer there to
limit how often an injunction would be given. And then
it has been really it's been the activist judges that
Obama and Biden have put on the courts that has
(11:01):
led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing
to say, this party in front of me, I'm issuing
an injunction concerning the government's conduct about ben. It's another
thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do
X against any person in the United States of America.
(11:22):
That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by
one single judge.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
So you look at this expansion and it's very clear
that this is now war, and it's war that's been
declared by these judges. Then what is the remedy here.
We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges. We've
heard that this is one of those moments where it's
in essence unpressing the number of judges that are trying
(11:51):
to have nationwide power instead of and really overstepping. What
is this strategy here and what does that look like
to fight because it's very frustrating. If you're a voter
and you're voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The
majority of Americans support the agenda, and now you see
these judges who were in many cases elected by no one,
(12:13):
who are now saying, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump
in the entire country with one ruling.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Well, to be clear that the judges were not, in
many cases elected by no one, and they were in
every single case elected by no one. The mechanism that
every one of these judges became a judge is they
were appointed by the president, whoever the president was at
the time, and they were confirmed by the United States
Senate and so no federal judges elected. There are a
number of checks and balances on judges. One check and
(12:42):
balance is impeachment. However, impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to
be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell
you why. Even if so impeachment would take it actually
operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against
the president or against an executive officer, which is the
House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House.
(13:05):
So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could
impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, it is
not removing the judge. It is the equivalent of bringing charges.
It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts,
which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is
(13:26):
the same thing. And a majority of the House can
impeach any judge. If the House chose to do so,
and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge.
But the chances that any of these judges would be
removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are zero point zero
zero percent. Now why is that? The reason is because
for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial
(13:50):
occurs in the Senate, and in order to convict, whether
it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal judge,
you need two thirds of the Senate. Now, we do
not have sixty seven Republicans in the Senate. We only
have fifty three. That means we would need at least
fourteen Democrats, and that's assuming every Republican stood together. The
(14:11):
chances of fourteen Democrats voting to convict any of these
radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump
are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate
hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there
and refused to applaud for the President, refuse to applaud
(14:31):
for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal
immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refuse to
applaud for a thirteen year old kid fighting to overcome
brain cancer. The Democrats are not going that they're cheering
on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness, and so impeachment
(14:51):
is not going to be effective now. Secondly, another remedy
is that Congress can restrict the jury urisdiction of the
federal courts, and Congress has brought authority to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually, Congress could abolish the
district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts.
(15:12):
The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme
Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts,
the district courts, and the Courts of Appeals to process
the volume of cases. But Congress has brought authority to
limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to
exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to
(15:33):
overcome the filibuster, which means you would need sixty votes.
We have fifty three Republicans. The chances of any Senate
Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges issued
nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero.
So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean?
(15:53):
The remedies are the remedies are number one, Sunshine drawing
attention to it and listen. I am right. I am
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts,
Oversight Agency action and federal rights, and so I am
going to be sharing hearings focusing on this, focusing on remedies,
(16:14):
and one remedy to consider, should we return to a
system where you have a three judge district court to
consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes. I think
there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again,
I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing
(16:36):
on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is
important to counteract law fair. And then I think the
real remedy is nominating and confirming good principal judges to
the federal courts, to the district courts, to the court's
appeals to the Supreme Court, and then reversing these adjunctions
on appeal the legal process. It's going to take the
Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going
(16:59):
to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities
right now. But the most likely mechanism to rein in
this abuse is going to be a Pellet review because
the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
So when you look at this and there's just a
frustration and the frustration is how are they getting away
with this? And are is this going to be what
it's going to be like for the next four years?
And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on?
And why is it that they don't have to play
by the same rules, like it seems like it's just
(17:36):
law fair running back and every time the American people
stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I
hear what you're saying, but for people that it was saying, well,
is there any other option? Like how do we win
and yet we still lose?
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Well, Look, there was a recent article in the Harvard
Law Review by a professor named Samuel Bray, and he
surveyed every nationwide and junk issued from nineteen sixty three
to twenty twenty three, so sixty years. In that period,
one hundred and twenty seven injunctions nationwide. Injunctions were issued.
Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump
(18:14):
during his first term, And if you break it down,
sixty four were issued against Trump, twelve were issued against Obama,
fourteen were issued against Biden. So those are the numbers
for the first term. And then, as I said, in
the first two months we've already had thirty seven, so
the numbers are are dramatic. Now here's an interesting stat
(18:37):
from Professor Bray's article. Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions
issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many
of them do you think were issued by judges appointed
by a Republican?
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Oh, gosh, I'm going to say not as many as
the Democrats. But I could be wrong, because there's been
some Republican judges that shocked all of us recently.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Well that's true, But here the numbers are pretty encouraging.
Of the sixty four nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies,
only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican,
Which means that ninety two zero point two percent of
injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term against
(19:22):
his policies were issued by judges put on the court
by a Democrat ninety two percent. And the pattern is
very simple. H they're going and they're forum shopping. They're
going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and
looking for radicals who will hate the president and who
(19:42):
will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact
that they're forum shopping. It's frustrating, but there's a longer
term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term
remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and
the shorter term memory it is appeals and hopefully getting
(20:03):
the Court of Appeals to reverse it. And for example,
one case that's going on right now, it is a
case called Trump versus CASA, and in January, President Trump
issued an executive order revoking birth rights citizenship for illegal
aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality
(20:26):
of that order is contested. People disagree on that, and
that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district
courts issued preliminary injunctions and response, now, where were those courts?
One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was
in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue
states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme
(20:50):
Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions,
and on March thirteenth, the Acting Solicitor General of the
United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially
stay the preliminary injunctions, and she argued the nationwide injunctions
were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to
the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents
(21:15):
of the states challenging the orders. So it should not
be nationwide, it should only apply to those litigating and
Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor
General's request by April fourth, So this is being litigated
right now. Now. It's possible the Supreme Court will decide
(21:35):
it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where
you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait
for full merits briefing, and that could take months or
even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and
I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and
rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
So let me ask you one other question on this
just layman terms here. If there is a loss by
a judge who does with of these injunctions, does that
then have precedent over other judges around the country, or
can other judges then just say well, I'm going to
take up the torch and buy more time and be
an activist as well.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeah, no, it can definitely be the latter. And so
now it depends. It depends where the loss occurs. So
if a district judge issues an injunction and it gets
appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of
Appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district
judges in that circuit, so their circuit's all over the country.
(22:41):
So for example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and
the Fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in
the Fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case
goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues
are ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country.
So the real answer, hopefully is to get this to
the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling
limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This
(23:04):
is clearly something that is being abused and it is
crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
So do you think that in the near future there's
a what are the odds this can go to the
Supreme Court and that this can at least have some
sort of like present on the countries that the president
can do his job.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is
at the Supreme Court right now. The question is are
there five justices willing to rein it in? And we
have seen in some of these early cases sometimes the
answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. And so
it's going to come down to Chief Justice Roberts. It's
going to come down to Justice Amy Cony, Barrett and
(23:47):
Neil Gorsich and Brett Kavanon. We'll see how how they rule.
I feel very confident that that that Clarence Thomas and
Samuel Alito are are more than ready to rein in
the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if
there are five justices or not.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Senator I want to move to the other story that
you mentioned earlier, and this goes in the category of
promises made, promises cap for Donald Trump. Another pro Haamas
protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a
college campus. This is making liberal heads explode. But this
(24:23):
is exactly what the President said he was going to do,
and he's making good on that promise yet again.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast.
You and I did at Seapack when we interviewed Pam
Bondi and we talked about the fact that the Trump
administration is going to go after these radical anti Semitic,
anti American, anti Israel protesters. And if you threaten violence
against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you
(24:49):
have no entitlement to be allowed into this country. And
it's interesting you're seeing Democrats who are suddenly discovered free speech.
Mind you, when it comes to to Americans speaking, they
don't give a damn about free speech. When it comes
to big tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech.
American citizens have no First Amendment rights, and the Democrats
(25:09):
bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious anti Semite,
if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and you're
not an American, well then suddenly they think you're protected.
And it is insane. So the latest radical who had
his visa revoked is a student at Cornell and he's
an individual named Mommodo Tal now Momodo Tal, according to
(25:36):
the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has
called for the destruction of the United States. Has celebrated
the October seventh attacks by Hamas and has said that
he takes his quote Q from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now,
(25:56):
who is Mammado Tal? He is a British and gam
being dual national, so he's not an American. And he
began studying in Cornell twenty twenty two on an F
one student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good
and Tall received an email from the Department of Justice
(26:18):
that said ICE invites mister Tall and his counsel to
appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at
a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice
to appear and for mister Tall to surrender to ICE custody.
And of course what did Tall do? He engaged in
law fair and wet and final lawsuits seeking to block it.
(26:39):
Now what has Tall said? Tall has said, Number one,
He's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues
from the arm resistance in Palisine, armed by the way,
not just resistance, armed resistance. He has also said, quote,
we are in solidarity with the arm resistance in Palestine
(27:02):
from the river to the sea. He also said just
after October seventh, hours after he said quote, the dialect
demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those
who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now
(27:23):
the dialect, Look, this guy is a communist, he's a Marxist.
We talked about how cultural Marxism they divide the world
into oppressors and victims, and they actively cheer on the
violent revolution of the so called victims against the so
called oppressors. Now, this is ours after October seventh. This
is as women and little girls are being raped, as
(27:45):
twelve hundred civilians are being murdered. And here is what
he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression,
you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory
to the resistance. That's not all he said. When he
applied for his student visa, he wrote quote, and this
is on Twitter, the end of the US Empire in
(28:09):
our lifetime in shallah. Months later, the idiots in the
Biden administration gave him his student visa and he wrote,
student visa issued. We are going to America, baby alham
di lula. I don't know what that means, but I'm
guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted my
(28:31):
hatred of the US Empire knows no bound Walahai. Again,
I don't know what that means, but I'm guessing again
it is celebrating against America. One other thing he posted
quote when the enemy is US imperialism, then absolutely anyone
(28:52):
the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me
be clear, this anti American, anti Semitic radical who hates
America needs to get the hell out of our country.
He has no entitlement to be here, and we have
no obligation. We have no legal obligation, We have no
constitutional obligation, and we certainly have no moral obligation to say, hey,
(29:18):
people who hate America, people who say quote anyone who
calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know
what if that's true, get your ass out of this country.
We don't need you here threatening Americans.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on
college campuses. And we've seen anti semitism, for example, that
is just skyrocket on college campuses, and a lot of
this is well organized. We continue to see that a
lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups
(29:52):
and pre planning this around the country, and that has
to be very concerning. I think not only for college students,
but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning
for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing
these people in and this is what they're doing.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
And understand the threats. Let me read you another tweet
that he sent quote, we are actually living in an
e fing alternative reality, although he did not abbreviate fing.
Zionists living comfortably in the US and Zionist Jewish students
at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared,
(30:32):
and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in
four K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people,
and many of these same folks who claim to feel
scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF BFFR.
I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is
a sick, sick individual and there can be no path
(30:56):
forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally.
And then he tweets a little bit later, Zionists are
indeed the chosen people chosen for Hell. Now understand one
(31:16):
game that anti Semites play, which is many times they
use the word Zionist when what they mean is jew
and they just think it's It's like, oh, I'm pretending
to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look,
they consider an ani Actually, at one point says Zionist
slash Jewish students, This is an anti Semite who hates
(31:38):
Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism,
by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And
he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen
for Hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And
you know what was happening after the Trump administration moved
(32:00):
to deport this radical leftists were protesting in support of him.
And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat
in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa. No,
(32:20):
you had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation
on Thursday and they were chanting hands off MoMA do,
waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter
ought to ask the Democrats do you believe we have
to give student visas to people who say they're enemies
(32:40):
of America and hate America. It's there's no legal basis
for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat
explain why they cheer on pro hamas radicals. But I
got to say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but
(33:02):
not swept up the in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome. Anger.
You gotta ask why Washington Democrats when they look at
October seventh, when they look at the radicals on campuses,
why the Democrats say we stand with Amas and we
stand with the PROPOMAUS protesters. That's got to make you
wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat party.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
All right, don't forget. We do this show on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday. So hit that subscriber, that auto download
button wherever you're listening, And if you'll help us grow
by sharing this podcast anywhere you're on social media. A
lot of you been doing that. We want to say
thank you. So if you're on Facebook or x or Instagram,
wherever you are true social share this this episode behind
(33:46):
that will Ford Arrow and it'll show up and help
reach new people in the center. And I will see
you back here on Wednesday morning.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.