1. Criticism of Jake Tapper and the Media
- The Ben and the Senator strongly criticize CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson for their book Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.
- They accuse Tapper and mainstream media of knowingly covering up President Biden’s cognitive decline for years.
- The book is portrayed as hypocritical, with Tapper allegedly profiting from a situation he helped conceal.
2. American Bar Association (ABA) and Judicial Nominees
- The Trump Justice Department’s decision to remove the ABA from its formal role in vetting judicial nominees is discussed.
- The ABA is described as a biased, left-wing advocacy group.
- Examples are given of highly qualified conservative judges being rated “not qualified” by the ABA.
- The hosts celebrate the move as a win for conservative judicial transparency.
3. Kamala Harris’s Book and Media Appearances
- Harris’s book 107 Days is mocked as lacking authenticity and reflection.
- Her appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert is criticized for being scripted and evasive.
- Her comments on democracy, the Supreme Court, and the Department of Education are portrayed as incoherent and ideologically driven.
4. Democratic Party Leadership and Direction
- Kamala Harris’s inability to name a clear leader of the Democratic Party is used to argue that the party is “rudderless.”
- The hosts claim the party is dominated by its far-left wing, including figures like AOC and Ilhan Omar.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
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.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is Verdict with Ted Cruz Weekend Review, Ben Ferguson
with you, and here are some big stories you may
have missed that we've been talking about recently. First up,
Joe Biden's decline was nothing but a full blown cover up.
We're talking about that cognitive decline and guess what the
media was in on it. We'll explain exactly just how
(00:23):
corrupt the media was and now how they're being held accountable. Also,
in a big move, the American Bar Association is finally
going to have no role in judicial nominations. Why well, corruption,
and we'll explain that as well. And finally, Kamala Harris
has written a book explaining how Trump is a threat
(00:44):
to democracy and where did she do it? On a
show that's been canceled, we'll have the highlights of what
she had to say. It's the Weekend Review and it
starts right now, Senator. It is a very big week
for putting out books that are full of craft.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
It truly is stunning. So Jake Tapper from CNN has
a book along with Alex Thompson from Axios. The book
is entitled Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, Its cover Up
and his disastrous choice to run again. And when you
talk about full of crap, I really don't think you're
(01:21):
being fair to crap like this is. This is like
a book Arsonist discovers a fire he started. This is
like a book Tony Montana, the drug dealer says cocaine
is bad for you. Like, yes, Jake, there was a
cover up, an absolute, complete, total cover up. It was knowing,
(01:44):
it was deliberate, and you did it. You, Jake Tapper
and CNN were twenty four to seven engage in the
cover up. You knew about his mental decline, and you
refuse to tell anybody.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
All Right, So let's go back to this lie that
I think the part that boys in mind the most
is the fact that Tapper is actually probably gonna get
the best seller out of this. Everyone in the media
is praising him for this incredible reporting. And this is
the guy that literally helped cover up the cognitive decline
and dismissed anyone who brought it up on a show.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
So look, the book, as I understand it was originally
written by Alex Thompson. Alex Thompson is not nearly as
well known as Jake Tapper, yep, and he had a
contract with the book publishing company. He wrote the book,
and then the book publishing company decided to cancel it
and said, no, we're not going to publish this book
after all. In other words, the book publishing company engaged
in yet another cover up because they didn't want anyone
(02:39):
to know. And so Thompson sought out Tapper and convinced Tapper, hey,
join with me. You're a big famous guy. They'll publish
it if your name's on it. And Tapper said yes.
And I got to say, so, there are lots of.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Never got a crisis, go to waste, right, that's.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Exact looking particularly a chance to make some good money.
I mean, hey, what's journalism all about if not monetizing
your own hypocrisy in your own cover up. Look, Tapper,
some of the facts that are coming out in this book.
In twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four, Tapper and
Thompson report Biden's physical deterioration was so severe that his
advisers discussed the possibility he would need to use a
(03:16):
wheelchair if he won reelection. That's how bad it was.
And yet every time anyone tried to bring up those facts,
Jake Tapper and the rest of the corporate media covered
it up. But don't take my word for it. Listen
to Jake Tapper in his own words. This is a
collection of Tapper over the years.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And this goes back to twenty twenty. The very beginning
is him talking to one of the Trump family members,
Laura Trump, and he actually like ends the interview like,
you can't even say this on my show.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
So this montage starts in twenty twenty, then goes to
twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and then twenty four.
All throughout. Listen, Tapper for five years covered this up aggressively.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Give a listen.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
How do you think it makes little kids with stutters
feel when they see you make a comment like that.
It is very clearly a cognitive decline.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable. You
are view of age. Think it's so amazing.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
It's so amazing to me that trying to figure out
an answer cognitive declineative Biden embraces his stutter talking about it,
while Trump mocks it, exaggerates it, belittles it. He's sharp physically,
I mean mentally, Yeah, I think the question is physically right, right,
or so right, right, and the guy who's his chief
opponent is only three or four years younger than him.
Speaker 6 (04:32):
Maybe.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
I mean, you have questioned President Biden's age, mental fitness,
ability to lead. Of those supporting Biden, you said, quote,
shame on all of you pretending everything is okay. You're
leading us and him into a disaster. Do you worry
that you damaged.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
Him at all?
Speaker 5 (04:45):
I don't doubt that you got hugs and handshakes behind
closed doors today and maybe even publicly, some of them
because they like you personally. But I've heard a lot
of really nasty stuff about you from your Democratic College.
I mean, just like, what is he thinking? Exercise in narcissism?
I mean false claims to the Wall Street Journal about
(05:05):
President Biden's mental fitness and acuity. He's eighty one and
his memory. You know, it doesn't seem great. It's not horrible,
but I don't understand the outrage quote behind closed doors,
Biden shows signs of slipping quote. The Wall Street Journal
is owned by NewsCorp, which is run by the Murdocks.
Beyond the headline, there is some critical nuance here. The
article is mostly based on observations of Republicans with former
(05:28):
Speaker Kevin McCarthy the only one going on the record.
They do note in the article that most of the
criticism comes from Republicans. Have you heard any concerns from
anyone who has met with President Biden about seeming a
little slower Now the Russians are trying to do to
make us in the public not trust the our election integrity.
(05:49):
Joe Biden has dimension all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Let's just stop there and give the title of the
book again, Senator, so people understand what they just and
now what he's writing, because if you just look at
the title of the book, you understand the debauchery of
journalistic scumbaggery.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
The title of the book is original sin President Biden's decline,
its cover up, and his disastrous choice to run again.
And understand Jake Tapper when he was saying that he
was lying, he knew he was lying. Everyone else on
CNN knew he was lying. They knew they were lying.
Everyone on MSNBC knew they were lying. Everyone on ABCNBCCBS
(06:33):
knew they were lying. Everyone at the New York Times
knew they were lying. Everyone at the Washington Post knew
they were lying. Everyone knew this look. One of the
facts in his book, he says, at a fundraiser in
Jude of twenty twenty four, Joe Biden didn't recognize George Clooney,
who he's known for decades. He had to Clooney by
the way. He had to be introduced like Ocean's eleven.
What is there, casino?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
You're robbing?
Speaker 3 (06:55):
I don't understand, like Biden had no idea. This is
the same fundraiser you remember where broad back Obama had
to lead Biden off the stage because he was just
confused and staring out in space, and Tapper and the
rest of them just lied to us and said, aokay,
no problems here.
Speaker 6 (07:10):
Now.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
All right, Sata, so let's dive into this other issue
that really is an interesting one. You've got a lot
to say about the Trump Justice Department telling the American
Bar Association that it will no longer comply with ratings
for judicial nominees.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Now explain the politics behind this.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
The ABA has had a lot of power and they're
basically now saying we're not going to let you guys
have that power because there's been a lot of bias
coming out of the American Bar Association.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Well, the American Bar Association, it's a national organization of lawyers,
and it is a left wing advocacy group. It is
not fair, it is not in part it is a
radical left organization. And the ABA has had a formal
role in judicial selection for seventy five years. It started
(08:11):
rating judicial nominees in nineteen fifty three and until two
thousand and one, the ABA actually had a formal role
evaluating judicial nominees before they were nominated. So a president,
a Department of Justice and Administration would would share with
the ABA, hey, we're thinking of nominating Ben Ferguson to
(08:33):
be a federal judge, and they'd go and research and
interview former clients. And at some point people would say, wait,
Ben's not even a lawyer, how the hell is he
going to be a judge? Like, like, you probably should
go to law school first, and and by the way,
that that point is not crazy. But they engaged that
they would do a formal role and they would rate
(08:55):
the qualifications of judicial nominees. Now here's the problem for decades,
the ABA's qualification measures were wildly biased. So, for example,
Robert Bork, Robert Borke. Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Borke to
the Supreme Court in nineteen eighty seven. Robert Borke was,
(09:16):
by any measure, one of the most qualified federal judicial
nominees in the history of this country. Robert Bork had
been the Solicitor General of the United States, the chief
lawyer for the United States in front of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Robert Bork had been one
of the most renowned and respected law professors for decades.
Robert Bork had been a federal judge on the US
(09:39):
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
And so a remarkable career.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
And yet the ABA, when they evaluated Robert Borke, they
concluded he was quote not qualified to be a judge.
They also concluded the same thing for Frank Easterbrook. Again, brilliant,
brilliant judge, brilliant professor, one of the greatest judges to
have serve on the Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook, the
ABA concluded he was not qualified.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Also Edith Jones.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Edith Jones is a judge on the Fifth Circuit Federal
Court of Appeals down in Texas. I know Judge Jones well,
she's a phenomenal jurist, one of the best and most
conservative judges in the entire country.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
The ABA rated her not qualified. Well.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
The breaking news is this week the Trump Justice Department
announced the ABA will no longer have a role in
judicial selection. They will no longer have a role in vetting.
They're out. And the Department of Justice said, you know what,
they can chime in like any other left wing advocacy group,
but they don't have a role in this process.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
This is going to have, like I think, a big
impact on the quality Bondi informing the ABA that they'll
no longer enjoy the special access to judicial nominees and
the left, by the way, when that news came out,
they totally freaked out. And I think that also shows
just how much they were depending on the ABA to
get rid of good candidates that were maybe more conservative.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, and and and so Pambondi sent a letter to
the president of the a B A and and and
she said, quote, while the a BA is free to
come in on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations,
there is no justification for treating the A B A
differently from such other activist organizations, and the Department of
Justice will not do so. And so previously the Office
(11:28):
Illegal Policy, which is the office within the Department of
Justice that handles judicial selections, they changed. They had previously
directed judicial nominees to provide a waiver to the A
B A to let the A B A access non
public information, including bar records. And so no longer is
(11:50):
the Department of Justice going to tell judicial nominees give
the a BA special access. That is over and moreover,
uh Pambondi says, quote nominees will also not respond to
questionnaires prepared by the a BA and will not sit
for interviews with the ABA. In other words, you can
be like every other whack job organization on the left,
(12:11):
but but you're not going to have any special access whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
This is something I've called for a long time.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
I have for years, for more than a decade, advocated
that the A B a BA is wildly biased and
it should it should not have a special role in
the process. And I want to commend President Trump and Pambondy.
It's the right thing to do.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Senater.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
We hear a lot about bias and and biased against conservatives.
But my other question is were they also bias and
advocating for liberals?
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Absolutely, they are a hard left advocacy organization masquerading as
a non partisan professional organization. And Joe Biden over the
last four years nominated over and over again radicals and zealots,
many of whom were wildly unqualified, and the ABA was
more than happy to stamp them with a rating of qualified.
(13:02):
And one example is is Charnette Charnelle Bagel Congrin, who
was wildly unqualified, and yet the ABA happily deemed her
qualified and rather than me layout how bad she was.
I want you to listen to this, this cross examination
from my colleague John Kennedy to this judicial nominee and
the Senate Judiciary Committee here give listen.
Speaker 6 (13:25):
Thank you, mister chairman, and congratulations to all of you.
Judge on the far end, tell me what Article five
of the Constitution does.
Speaker 7 (13:41):
Article five is not coming to mind at the moment.
Speaker 6 (13:44):
Okay. How about Article two?
Speaker 7 (13:46):
Neither is article two?
Speaker 6 (13:48):
Okay? Do you know what proposivism is?
Speaker 7 (13:53):
In my twelve years as an Assistant Attorney General and
my nine years serving as AGI, I was not faced
with that precise question. We are the highest trial court
in Washington State, so I'm frequently faced with issues that
I'm not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law,
(14:14):
our research, and apply the law to the facts presented
to me.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Well, you're going to be faced with it as if
you're confirmed. I can assure you of that.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
He was dumbfounded at the end there, like, I can't
believe you don't know this well.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
And let me underscore how simple the first two questions
are that he asked. So, the Constitution has seven articles.
It's not a very long document. Article five is the
article through that lays out the process for amending the Constitution.
It's fairly basic. That was his opening question. She had
(14:52):
no idea what Article five was. Article two is even
more fundamental. So the first three articles the constitution. Article
one create it's the Congress, Article two creates the President
and the executive branch, and Article three creates the federal Judiciary.
To not know what Article two is is stunning to
give you a sense you will flunk constitutional law and
(15:14):
not graduate law school if you don't know what Article
two is. She was being nominated to be what is
called an article three judge. I assumed she had no
idea what Article three was, and nevertheless the ABA said
she's qualified to be an Article three judge even though
she has no idea what it is. I'm very glad
the ABA no longer has a role in making those
(15:36):
determinations as before.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number
three of the week.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
You may have.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Missed Kamala Harris. Now she's coming out on her book tour.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Not a joke.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
She kicked it off and joined The Late Show with
Stephen Colbert to do it. Harris coming out swinging, blasting
the Scotus for forgetting what quote democracy in the rule
of law is quote unquote supposed to be. She also
talked about her new book and the quote Horrors of
January sixth on The Late Show at Colbert as well.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
I mean, this is one play a little bit from
her announcement video on her new book, because I have
to say, it's almost like a Saturday Night Live skin
Give it a play.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Yeah, it is This is her real announcement of her
real book launch.
Speaker 8 (16:30):
Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for
President of the United States, one hundred and seven days,
traveling the country, fighting for our future, the shortest presidential
campaign in modern history. It was intense, high stakes, and
deeply personal for me and for so many of you.
(16:51):
Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting
on those days, talking with my team, my family, my friends,
and pulling my thoughts together, in essence, writing a journal
that is this book one hundred and seven days. With
candor and reflection, I've written a behind the scenes account
(17:12):
of that journey. I believe there's value in sharing what
I saw, what I learned, and what I know it
will take to move forward. In writing this book, one
truth kept coming back to me. Sometimes the fight takes
a while, but I remain full of hope and I
(17:33):
remain clear eyed. I will never stop fighting to make
our country reflect the very best of its ideals, always
on behalf of the people. So thank you for being
in this fight with me. I am forever grateful, and
I cannot wait for you to read this, and I'll
see you out there. Take care.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
I mean it. Is Saturday Live worthy.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
It's also one of the funniest things ever because she's
she's saying, oh, by the way, I'm not gonna run
for governor in California. That came up as well, and
it's like, here's my book on how bad my campaign sucked,
but I'll rewrite the history and that and oh, by
the way, I'm basically saying I'm probably gonna run again.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Well, you know the script that she's reading there, that's
clearly a script she's reading from a telepropter. And I
just sort of love with candor and reflection, a behind
the scenes tale. And look, it's so clearly written by
a book publicist. The chances that there is anything resembling
candor or reflection in this book are zero point zero percent.
Speaker 4 (18:36):
There is not.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
This is a a sanitized, whitewashed version of how you know,
the good ship Lollipop was was derailed by by evil
Donald J. Trump, by by evil voters.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Oh those voters.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
And I gotta say, it's interesting how candor and reflection
Kamala has. I want you to listen to her with
Stephen Colbert and if there is an even less gracious, kind, balanced,
normal person on TV than Stephen Colbert. I don't know
(19:15):
who that is. This is one partisan shrill to another.
But listen to how neither one of them has learned
anything from the twenty twenty four election. Give a listen.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
This is a time for people to you know, I mean, look,
we designed our democracy with three independent, co equal branches
of government. I mean, when you see that the President
of the United States is trying to get rid of
the Department of Education, and Congress has the role and
responsibility to stand in the way of that, and they're
(19:48):
just sitting on their hands, and then they go on
recess because they don't want to deal with transparency.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
And the Supreme Court says, and the Supreme Court says
that he can ignore law that established it.
Speaker 8 (19:59):
Yeah, but the we knew what they were doing. Remember
I talked about it in one hundred and seven days.
I don't put that in the book, by the way,
is but about this is an exclusive for the Stephen
Colbert Show. But the Supreme Court basically gave whoever would
be president. When I was in the campaign, I talking immunity.
(20:22):
Immunity we talked about So we're not surprised what the
Supreme Court is doing. And God thanked those members of
the Court who write brilliant thessents and remind us of
what the democracy and the rule of law is supposed
to be.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
You know, you hear that, and it's like, what are
you even talking about?
Speaker 3 (20:46):
There's so much in what she's saying that is incoherent
and wrong. Let's start off where she's saying. Okay, the
President is trying to abolish the Department of Education and
Hungress is refusing to do its jobs. No, we actually
agree with abolishing the Department of Education. This was something
(21:07):
that the President campaigned on. And the reason the American
people agree with abolishing the federal Department of Education is
not because education doesn't matter, but precisely the opposite, because
it matters so much that people are ticked off that
a bunch of left wing, woke bureaucrats that you and
Joe Biden appointed tried to take over schools, tried to
indoctrinate kids, tried to push Marxist ideology in our children,
(21:30):
and tried to convince them the boys were girls and
girls were boys, and tried to let boys compete in
girls sports and force this on schools. And the red
Tape and the bureaucracy and the waste and the ideology
from the Department of Education is precisely why President Trump
is working to abolish it. And I've actually had Democrat
(21:50):
senators say to me very much what Kamala is, Well,
we're just the Senate is irrelevant because you're not stopping this.
It's like, no, the Senate is relevant. In fact, we're
vote on it. At one senator say this to me
when we voted to shut down NPR and PBS. She
was like, how can you be doing this? The Senate's
not doing our job. I'm like, no, we're precisely doing
(22:11):
our job. The American people are not interested in spending
billions of dollars to fund left wing propaganda. The irony
is Kamala frames what she's saying as a defensive democracy.
What she's mad at is democracy. What she's mad at
is the American people elected Donald Trump. What she's mad
at is the American people elected a Republican House. What
(22:31):
she's mad at is the American people elected a Republican Senate.
And she's really really mad that President Trump and the
Republican Senate and the Republican House are doing what they
said they would do. In other words, they are honoring
and respecting democracy by carrying out the campaign promises they
told the American people, and that infuriates them. And the
(22:52):
irony of her claiming that she believes in democracy. This
wasn't admitted the Biden Harris administration that repeatedly indicted her
political opponent, Donald Trump. This was an administration. Democrats across
the country try to remove Trump's name from the ballot
(23:12):
because nothing says protecting democracy like stopping the voters from
voting for your opponent. This is an administration. Kamala Harris
has demonstrated utter and complete contempt for democracy. And so
when she says, well, gosh, we must defend democracy, what
she means is we need radical left wing policies and
(23:36):
if the voters don't like them, to hell with the voters.
We want them anyway. That's what she's saying. And by
the way, when she's denouncing the courts, what she's really
saying is she wants radical unelected judges to ignore the
will of the voters, to ignore democracy, and to force
her very unpopular policies on the American people anyway, doing
(23:57):
things like she doesn't want illegal immigrants Venezuelan gang members,
murderers and rapists and child molester. She doesn't want them arrested,
she doesn't want them deported, and she wants these radical
judges that she was responsible along with Joe Biden for appointing,
to stand up and say, we don't care what the
American people voted for. We are going to decreate release
(24:21):
more illegal immigrants into your neighborhood because that's who the
Democrat Party represents today.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
By the way, you mentioned represent the Democratic Party. Kama
Harris was asked a question by Stephen Colbert and it's
one that went viral. It is the biggest question that's
being asked in the political world right now. Who is
in charge of the Democratic Party? And I want you
to hear this word, salad and get your take on it.
Speaker 4 (24:47):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Who's leaving the Democratic Party. I'm just curious.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
There are lots of leaders, and he was generally.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
A leader of the Democratic Party, you know, like, oh,
that's the leader donative party.
Speaker 8 (24:59):
Who comes to my I think there are a lot
of I'm not going to go through names because then
I'm gonna leave somebody out and then I'm gonna hear
about it.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
But just let me say this.
Speaker 8 (25:09):
I think it is a mistake for us who want
to figure out how to get out and through this
and get out of it, to put it on the
shoulders of any one person. It's really on all of
our shoulders.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
It really is.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
All of our shoulders. It's not a great answer, is it.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Well, Look, look, I actually have a little bit of
sympathy for her, because there's no way to answer that.
The real answer is there is no leader of the
Democrat Party. They are leaderless. They are rudderless. They are
running around like chickens with their.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Heads cut off.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Look, who would you say? You could say Chuck Schumer.
But Chuck Schumer's not leading anything. He's utterly terrified of AOC.
Whatever AOC in the squad demands, that's what Schumer does.
So she's not gonna say Chuck Schumer because the audience
would laugh if she said Chuck Schumer. They'd laugh if
she said a Keen Jeffries. Most of them would say,
who's that? Like, he's not leading anything, he's just in
(26:06):
the House, and in both the Senate and House. Schumer
and Jeffries are essentially just embodying rage and hatred to
Donald Trump. They don't have an agenda beyond open borders
and lawlessness and hatred to Donald Trump. That's the entirety
of the Democrat Party. And then beyond that you've got
all their ambitious governors. You know, Gavin Newsom is desperately
(26:26):
trying to be super liberal and supermoderate whatever you want,
and slick it all around. And suddenly he knows boys
aren't girls until tomorrow and then boys are girls. But
she can't say him either, and so there is no
answer she can give because this is a rudderless party.
And to the extent there is a leader, it is
the pro Hamas contingent. It is AOC, it is ilhan Omar.
(26:49):
It is the extreme left wing squad that is driving
the rest of the party and that everyone else in
the party is terrified of.
Speaker 4 (27:00):
Yeah, it's amazing, it is.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
It is actually fun for once to watch the Democratic
Party from top to bottom being just complete and utter disarray.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
Because let's be.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Honest, one more clip. You got to play the clip
when when when Colbert asked if she was running for governor.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
Yeah, this is amazing. Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
Today you made an announcement that you're not running for
the governor of California.
Speaker 7 (27:25):
Correct, you said you're going to set this one out.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
Why are you saying this?
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Are you saving yourself for a different office?
Speaker 5 (27:34):
Obviously people will project onto.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
And honestly that it's more perhaps basic than that. I
am Listen, I am a devout public servant. I have
spent my entire career in service of the people. But
to be very candid with you, I had to defend
my decision to become a prosecutor with my family is
(27:57):
why is it then, when we think we want to
improve a or change it, that we're always on the outside,
on bend dedne or trying to break down the door.
Shouldn't we also be inside the system? And that has
been my career. Recently, I made the decision that I
just for now, I don't want to go back in
the system. I think it's broken.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
I think it's broken. You can't make that up either.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
But you know what's broken about it?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
What is the head that she lost?
Speaker 3 (28:25):
That's her whole definition of whether the system is working
or it's broken. It is broken because the American people
voted for Donald Trump and not for Kamala Harris. It
is broken because the American people voted for a Republican Senate,
not a Democrat Senate. It is broken and in her
view because the American people voted for a Republican House
and not a Democrat house. In her view, democracy the
(28:48):
system only works when she and other left wing lunatics
are in power. That's how she defines whether it's working
or whether it's broken. It is purely it is one
hundred percent about power. And look, look part of why,
to be honest, you and I we don't listen to
(29:08):
Stephen Colbert, and we very rarely listen.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
To Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
The reason why we're playing this exchange is because it
really does show that there's not a moment of reflection.
You know what she had in her book promo about
candor and whatever, There's.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
None of that.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
She continues four years of a disastrous agenda, open borders,
twelve million illegal immigrants, the worst illegal immigration in our
nation's history. She takes no responsibility for that, doesn't acknowledge that,
abandoning all of our friends and allies, going from peace
and prosperity to two simultaneous wars across the globe. She
(29:45):
takes no responsibility for that. The Democrat Party becoming rabidly
anti Semitic, her funders funding violent anti Semitic riots on
college campuses. She takes no responsibility for that. That there's
not at all an acknowledgment of Gosh, people voted for
(30:06):
Donald Trump in significant part because they were really, really,
really unhappy with the radical policies that Joe Biden Kamala
Harris put in place. No acknowledgment of that at all.
And their view the system is broken. Why because the
democracy is functioning. To her mind, if the voters can
(30:26):
vote her out, the system is broken. That is the
essence of the contempt that today's Democrat party has for
big D democracy.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dial
with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
have you as a listener to again Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is Verdict with Ted Cruz Weekend Review, Ben Ferguson
with you, and here are some big stories you may
have missed that we've been talking about recently. First up,
Joe Biden's decline was nothing but a full blown cover up.
We're talking about that cognitive decline and guess what the
media was in on it. We'll explain exactly just how
(00:23):
corrupt the media was and now how they're being held accountable. Also,
in a big move, the American Bar Association is finally
going to have no role in judicial nominations. Why well, corruption,
and we'll explain that as well. And finally, Kamala Harris
has written a book explaining how Trump is a threat
(00:44):
to democracy and where did she do it? On a
show that's been canceled, we'll have the highlights of what
she had to say. It's the Weekend Review and it
starts right now, Senator. It is a very big week
for putting out books that are full of craft.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
It truly is stunning. So Jake Tapper from CNN has
a book along with Alex Thompson from Axios. The book
is entitled Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, Its cover Up
and his disastrous choice to run again. And when you
talk about full of crap, I really don't think you're
(01:21):
being fair to crap like this is. This is like
a book Arsonist discovers a fire he started. This is
like a book Tony Montana, the drug dealer says cocaine
is bad for you. Like, yes, Jake, there was a
cover up, an absolute, complete, total cover up. It was knowing,
(01:44):
it was deliberate, and you did it. You, Jake Tapper
and CNN were twenty four to seven engage in the
cover up. You knew about his mental decline, and you
refuse to tell anybody.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
All Right, So let's go back to this lie that
I think the part that boys in mind the most
is the fact that Tapper is actually probably gonna get
the best seller out of this. Everyone in the media
is praising him for this incredible reporting. And this is
the guy that literally helped cover up the cognitive decline
and dismissed anyone who brought it up on a show.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
So look, the book, as I understand it was originally
written by Alex Thompson. Alex Thompson is not nearly as
well known as Jake Tapper, yep, and he had a
contract with the book publishing company. He wrote the book,
and then the book publishing company decided to cancel it
and said, no, we're not going to publish this book
after all. In other words, the book publishing company engaged
in yet another cover up because they didn't want anyone
(02:39):
to know. And so Thompson sought out Tapper and convinced Tapper, hey,
join with me. You're a big famous guy. They'll publish
it if your name's on it. And Tapper said yes.
And I got to say, so, there are lots of.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Never got a crisis, go to waste, right, that's.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Exact looking particularly a chance to make some good money.
I mean, hey, what's journalism all about if not monetizing
your own hypocrisy in your own cover up. Look, Tapper,
some of the facts that are coming out in this book.
In twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four, Tapper and
Thompson report Biden's physical deterioration was so severe that his
advisers discussed the possibility he would need to use a
(03:16):
wheelchair if he won reelection. That's how bad it was.
And yet every time anyone tried to bring up those facts,
Jake Tapper and the rest of the corporate media covered
it up. But don't take my word for it. Listen
to Jake Tapper in his own words. This is a
collection of Tapper over the years.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And this goes back to twenty twenty. The very beginning
is him talking to one of the Trump family members,
Laura Trump, and he actually like ends the interview like,
you can't even say this on my show.
Speaker 3 (03:48):
So this montage starts in twenty twenty, then goes to
twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and then twenty four.
All throughout. Listen, Tapper for five years covered this up aggressively.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Give a listen.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
How do you think it makes little kids with stutters
feel when they see you make a comment like that.
It is very clearly a cognitive decline.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
That's what I'm referring to. It makes me uncomfortable. You
are view of age. Think it's so amazing.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
It's so amazing to me that trying to figure out
an answer cognitive declineative Biden embraces his stutter talking about it,
while Trump mocks it, exaggerates it, belittles it. He's sharp physically,
I mean mentally, Yeah, I think the question is physically right, right,
or so right, right, and the guy who's his chief
opponent is only three or four years younger than him.
Speaker 6 (04:32):
Maybe.
Speaker 5 (04:33):
I mean, you have questioned President Biden's age, mental fitness,
ability to lead. Of those supporting Biden, you said, quote,
shame on all of you pretending everything is okay. You're
leading us and him into a disaster. Do you worry
that you damaged.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
Him at all?
Speaker 5 (04:45):
I don't doubt that you got hugs and handshakes behind
closed doors today and maybe even publicly, some of them
because they like you personally. But I've heard a lot
of really nasty stuff about you from your Democratic College.
I mean, just like, what is he thinking? Exercise in narcissism?
I mean false claims to the Wall Street Journal about
(05:05):
President Biden's mental fitness and acuity. He's eighty one and
his memory. You know, it doesn't seem great. It's not horrible,
but I don't understand the outrage quote behind closed doors,
Biden shows signs of slipping quote. The Wall Street Journal
is owned by NewsCorp, which is run by the Murdocks.
Beyond the headline, there is some critical nuance here. The
article is mostly based on observations of Republicans with former
(05:28):
Speaker Kevin McCarthy the only one going on the record.
They do note in the article that most of the
criticism comes from Republicans. Have you heard any concerns from
anyone who has met with President Biden about seeming a
little slower Now the Russians are trying to do to
make us in the public not trust the our election integrity.
(05:49):
Joe Biden has dimension all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Let's just stop there and give the title of the
book again, Senator, so people understand what they just and
now what he's writing, because if you just look at
the title of the book, you understand the debauchery of
journalistic scumbaggery.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
The title of the book is original sin President Biden's decline,
its cover up, and his disastrous choice to run again.
And understand Jake Tapper when he was saying that he
was lying, he knew he was lying. Everyone else on
CNN knew he was lying. They knew they were lying.
Everyone on MSNBC knew they were lying. Everyone on ABCNBCCBS
(06:33):
knew they were lying. Everyone at the New York Times
knew they were lying. Everyone at the Washington Post knew
they were lying. Everyone knew this look. One of the
facts in his book, he says, at a fundraiser in
Jude of twenty twenty four, Joe Biden didn't recognize George Clooney,
who he's known for decades. He had to Clooney by
the way. He had to be introduced like Ocean's eleven.
What is there, casino?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
You're robbing?
Speaker 3 (06:55):
I don't understand, like Biden had no idea. This is
the same fundraiser you remember where broad back Obama had
to lead Biden off the stage because he was just
confused and staring out in space, and Tapper and the
rest of them just lied to us and said, aokay,
no problems here.
Speaker 6 (07:10):
Now.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
All right, Sata, so let's dive into this other issue
that really is an interesting one. You've got a lot
to say about the Trump Justice Department telling the American
Bar Association that it will no longer comply with ratings
for judicial nominees.
Speaker 4 (07:36):
Now explain the politics behind this.
Speaker 2 (07:39):
The ABA has had a lot of power and they're
basically now saying we're not going to let you guys
have that power because there's been a lot of bias
coming out of the American Bar Association.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Well, the American Bar Association, it's a national organization of lawyers,
and it is a left wing advocacy group. It is
not fair, it is not in part it is a
radical left organization. And the ABA has had a formal
role in judicial selection for seventy five years. It started
(08:11):
rating judicial nominees in nineteen fifty three and until two
thousand and one, the ABA actually had a formal role
evaluating judicial nominees before they were nominated. So a president,
a Department of Justice and Administration would would share with
the ABA, hey, we're thinking of nominating Ben Ferguson to
(08:33):
be a federal judge, and they'd go and research and
interview former clients. And at some point people would say, wait,
Ben's not even a lawyer, how the hell is he
going to be a judge? Like, like, you probably should
go to law school first, and and by the way,
that that point is not crazy. But they engaged that
they would do a formal role and they would rate
(08:55):
the qualifications of judicial nominees. Now here's the problem for decades,
the ABA's qualification measures were wildly biased. So, for example,
Robert Bork, Robert Borke. Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Borke to
the Supreme Court in nineteen eighty seven. Robert Borke was,
(09:16):
by any measure, one of the most qualified federal judicial
nominees in the history of this country. Robert Bork had
been the Solicitor General of the United States, the chief
lawyer for the United States in front of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Robert Bork had been one
of the most renowned and respected law professors for decades.
Robert Bork had been a federal judge on the US
(09:39):
Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
And so a remarkable career.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
And yet the ABA, when they evaluated Robert Borke, they
concluded he was quote not qualified to be a judge.
They also concluded the same thing for Frank Easterbrook. Again, brilliant,
brilliant judge, brilliant professor, one of the greatest judges to
have serve on the Court of Appeals, Frank Easterbrook, the
ABA concluded he was not qualified.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Also Edith Jones.
Speaker 3 (10:06):
Edith Jones is a judge on the Fifth Circuit Federal
Court of Appeals down in Texas. I know Judge Jones well,
she's a phenomenal jurist, one of the best and most
conservative judges in the entire country.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
The ABA rated her not qualified. Well.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
The breaking news is this week the Trump Justice Department
announced the ABA will no longer have a role in
judicial selection. They will no longer have a role in vetting.
They're out. And the Department of Justice said, you know what,
they can chime in like any other left wing advocacy group,
but they don't have a role in this process.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
This is going to have, like I think, a big
impact on the quality Bondi informing the ABA that they'll
no longer enjoy the special access to judicial nominees and
the left, by the way, when that news came out,
they totally freaked out. And I think that also shows
just how much they were depending on the ABA to
get rid of good candidates that were maybe more conservative.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, and and and so Pambondi sent a letter to
the president of the a B A and and and
she said, quote, while the a BA is free to
come in on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations,
there is no justification for treating the A B A
differently from such other activist organizations, and the Department of
Justice will not do so. And so previously the Office
(11:28):
Illegal Policy, which is the office within the Department of
Justice that handles judicial selections, they changed. They had previously
directed judicial nominees to provide a waiver to the A
B A to let the A B A access non
public information, including bar records. And so no longer is
(11:50):
the Department of Justice going to tell judicial nominees give
the a BA special access. That is over and moreover,
uh Pambondi says, quote nominees will also not respond to
questionnaires prepared by the a BA and will not sit
for interviews with the ABA. In other words, you can
be like every other whack job organization on the left,
(12:11):
but but you're not going to have any special access whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
This is something I've called for a long time.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
I have for years, for more than a decade, advocated
that the A B a BA is wildly biased and
it should it should not have a special role in
the process. And I want to commend President Trump and Pambondy.
It's the right thing to do.
Speaker 4 (12:32):
Senater.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
We hear a lot about bias and and biased against conservatives.
But my other question is were they also bias and
advocating for liberals?
Speaker 3 (12:41):
Absolutely, they are a hard left advocacy organization masquerading as
a non partisan professional organization. And Joe Biden over the
last four years nominated over and over again radicals and zealots,
many of whom were wildly unqualified, and the ABA was
more than happy to stamp them with a rating of qualified.
(13:02):
And one example is is Charnette Charnelle Bagel Congrin, who
was wildly unqualified, and yet the ABA happily deemed her
qualified and rather than me layout how bad she was.
I want you to listen to this, this cross examination
from my colleague John Kennedy to this judicial nominee and
the Senate Judiciary Committee here give listen.
Speaker 6 (13:25):
Thank you, mister chairman, and congratulations to all of you.
Judge on the far end, tell me what Article five
of the Constitution does.
Speaker 7 (13:41):
Article five is not coming to mind at the moment.
Speaker 6 (13:44):
Okay. How about Article two?
Speaker 7 (13:46):
Neither is article two?
Speaker 6 (13:48):
Okay? Do you know what proposivism is?
Speaker 7 (13:53):
In my twelve years as an Assistant Attorney General and
my nine years serving as AGI, I was not faced
with that precise question. We are the highest trial court
in Washington State, so I'm frequently faced with issues that
I'm not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law,
(14:14):
our research, and apply the law to the facts presented
to me.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Well, you're going to be faced with it as if
you're confirmed. I can assure you of that.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
He was dumbfounded at the end there, like, I can't
believe you don't know this well.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
And let me underscore how simple the first two questions
are that he asked. So, the Constitution has seven articles.
It's not a very long document. Article five is the
article through that lays out the process for amending the Constitution.
It's fairly basic. That was his opening question. She had
(14:52):
no idea what Article five was. Article two is even
more fundamental. So the first three articles the constitution. Article
one create it's the Congress, Article two creates the President
and the executive branch, and Article three creates the federal Judiciary.
To not know what Article two is is stunning to
give you a sense you will flunk constitutional law and
(15:14):
not graduate law school if you don't know what Article
two is. She was being nominated to be what is
called an article three judge. I assumed she had no
idea what Article three was, and nevertheless the ABA said
she's qualified to be an Article three judge even though
she has no idea what it is. I'm very glad
the ABA no longer has a role in making those
(15:36):
determinations as before.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number
three of the week.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
You may have.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Missed Kamala Harris. Now she's coming out on her book tour.
Speaker 4 (15:56):
Not a joke.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
She kicked it off and joined The Late Show with
Stephen Colbert to do it. Harris coming out swinging, blasting
the Scotus for forgetting what quote democracy in the rule
of law is quote unquote supposed to be. She also
talked about her new book and the quote Horrors of
January sixth on The Late Show at Colbert as well.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
I mean, this is one play a little bit from
her announcement video on her new book, because I have
to say, it's almost like a Saturday Night Live skin
Give it a play.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
Yeah, it is This is her real announcement of her
real book launch.
Speaker 8 (16:30):
Just over a year ago, I launched my campaign for
President of the United States, one hundred and seven days,
traveling the country, fighting for our future, the shortest presidential
campaign in modern history. It was intense, high stakes, and
deeply personal for me and for so many of you.
(16:51):
Since leaving office, I've spent a lot of time reflecting
on those days, talking with my team, my family, my friends,
and pulling my thoughts together, in essence, writing a journal
that is this book one hundred and seven days. With
candor and reflection, I've written a behind the scenes account
(17:12):
of that journey. I believe there's value in sharing what
I saw, what I learned, and what I know it
will take to move forward. In writing this book, one
truth kept coming back to me. Sometimes the fight takes
a while, but I remain full of hope and I
(17:33):
remain clear eyed. I will never stop fighting to make
our country reflect the very best of its ideals, always
on behalf of the people. So thank you for being
in this fight with me. I am forever grateful, and
I cannot wait for you to read this, and I'll
see you out there. Take care.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
I mean it. Is Saturday Live worthy.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
It's also one of the funniest things ever because she's
she's saying, oh, by the way, I'm not gonna run
for governor in California. That came up as well, and
it's like, here's my book on how bad my campaign sucked,
but I'll rewrite the history and that and oh, by
the way, I'm basically saying I'm probably gonna run again.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Well, you know the script that she's reading there, that's
clearly a script she's reading from a telepropter. And I
just sort of love with candor and reflection, a behind
the scenes tale. And look, it's so clearly written by
a book publicist. The chances that there is anything resembling
candor or reflection in this book are zero point zero percent.
Speaker 4 (18:36):
There is not.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
This is a a sanitized, whitewashed version of how you know,
the good ship Lollipop was was derailed by by evil
Donald J. Trump, by by evil voters.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Oh those voters.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
And I gotta say, it's interesting how candor and reflection
Kamala has. I want you to listen to her with
Stephen Colbert and if there is an even less gracious, kind, balanced,
normal person on TV than Stephen Colbert. I don't know
(19:15):
who that is. This is one partisan shrill to another.
But listen to how neither one of them has learned
anything from the twenty twenty four election. Give a listen.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
This is a time for people to you know, I mean, look,
we designed our democracy with three independent, co equal branches
of government. I mean, when you see that the President
of the United States is trying to get rid of
the Department of Education, and Congress has the role and
responsibility to stand in the way of that, and they're
(19:48):
just sitting on their hands, and then they go on
recess because they don't want to deal with transparency.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
And the Supreme Court says, and the Supreme Court says
that he can ignore law that established it.
Speaker 8 (19:59):
Yeah, but the we knew what they were doing. Remember
I talked about it in one hundred and seven days.
I don't put that in the book, by the way,
is but about this is an exclusive for the Stephen
Colbert Show. But the Supreme Court basically gave whoever would
be president. When I was in the campaign, I talking immunity.
(20:22):
Immunity we talked about So we're not surprised what the
Supreme Court is doing. And God thanked those members of
the Court who write brilliant thessents and remind us of
what the democracy and the rule of law is supposed
to be.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
You know, you hear that, and it's like, what are
you even talking about?
Speaker 3 (20:46):
There's so much in what she's saying that is incoherent
and wrong. Let's start off where she's saying. Okay, the
President is trying to abolish the Department of Education and
Hungress is refusing to do its jobs. No, we actually
agree with abolishing the Department of Education. This was something
(21:07):
that the President campaigned on. And the reason the American
people agree with abolishing the federal Department of Education is
not because education doesn't matter, but precisely the opposite, because
it matters so much that people are ticked off that
a bunch of left wing, woke bureaucrats that you and
Joe Biden appointed tried to take over schools, tried to
indoctrinate kids, tried to push Marxist ideology in our children,
(21:30):
and tried to convince them the boys were girls and
girls were boys, and tried to let boys compete in
girls sports and force this on schools. And the red
Tape and the bureaucracy and the waste and the ideology
from the Department of Education is precisely why President Trump
is working to abolish it. And I've actually had Democrat
(21:50):
senators say to me very much what Kamala is, Well,
we're just the Senate is irrelevant because you're not stopping this.
It's like, no, the Senate is relevant. In fact, we're
vote on it. At one senator say this to me
when we voted to shut down NPR and PBS. She
was like, how can you be doing this? The Senate's
not doing our job. I'm like, no, we're precisely doing
(22:11):
our job. The American people are not interested in spending
billions of dollars to fund left wing propaganda. The irony
is Kamala frames what she's saying as a defensive democracy.
What she's mad at is democracy. What she's mad at
is the American people elected Donald Trump. What she's mad
at is the American people elected a Republican House. What
(22:31):
she's mad at is the American people elected a Republican Senate.
And she's really really mad that President Trump and the
Republican Senate and the Republican House are doing what they
said they would do. In other words, they are honoring
and respecting democracy by carrying out the campaign promises they
told the American people, and that infuriates them. And the
(22:52):
irony of her claiming that she believes in democracy. This
wasn't admitted the Biden Harris administration that repeatedly indicted her
political opponent, Donald Trump. This was an administration. Democrats across
the country try to remove Trump's name from the ballot
(23:12):
because nothing says protecting democracy like stopping the voters from
voting for your opponent. This is an administration. Kamala Harris
has demonstrated utter and complete contempt for democracy. And so
when she says, well, gosh, we must defend democracy, what
she means is we need radical left wing policies and
(23:36):
if the voters don't like them, to hell with the voters.
We want them anyway. That's what she's saying. And by
the way, when she's denouncing the courts, what she's really
saying is she wants radical unelected judges to ignore the
will of the voters, to ignore democracy, and to force
her very unpopular policies on the American people anyway, doing
(23:57):
things like she doesn't want illegal immigrants Venezuelan gang members,
murderers and rapists and child molester. She doesn't want them arrested,
she doesn't want them deported, and she wants these radical
judges that she was responsible along with Joe Biden for appointing,
to stand up and say, we don't care what the
American people voted for. We are going to decreate release
(24:21):
more illegal immigrants into your neighborhood because that's who the
Democrat Party represents today.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
By the way, you mentioned represent the Democratic Party. Kama
Harris was asked a question by Stephen Colbert and it's
one that went viral. It is the biggest question that's
being asked in the political world right now. Who is
in charge of the Democratic Party? And I want you
to hear this word, salad and get your take on it.
Speaker 4 (24:47):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (24:49):
Who's leaving the Democratic Party. I'm just curious.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
There are lots of leaders, and he was generally.
Speaker 5 (24:55):
A leader of the Democratic Party, you know, like, oh,
that's the leader donative party.
Speaker 8 (24:59):
Who comes to my I think there are a lot
of I'm not going to go through names because then
I'm gonna leave somebody out and then I'm gonna hear
about it.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
But just let me say this.
Speaker 8 (25:09):
I think it is a mistake for us who want
to figure out how to get out and through this
and get out of it, to put it on the
shoulders of any one person. It's really on all of
our shoulders.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
It really is.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
All of our shoulders. It's not a great answer, is it.
Speaker 3 (25:33):
Well, Look, look, I actually have a little bit of
sympathy for her, because there's no way to answer that.
The real answer is there is no leader of the
Democrat Party. They are leaderless. They are rudderless. They are
running around like chickens with their.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Heads cut off.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
Look, who would you say? You could say Chuck Schumer.
But Chuck Schumer's not leading anything. He's utterly terrified of AOC.
Whatever AOC in the squad demands, that's what Schumer does.
So she's not gonna say Chuck Schumer because the audience
would laugh if she said Chuck Schumer. They'd laugh if
she said a Keen Jeffries. Most of them would say,
who's that? Like, he's not leading anything, he's just in
(26:06):
the House, and in both the Senate and House. Schumer
and Jeffries are essentially just embodying rage and hatred to
Donald Trump. They don't have an agenda beyond open borders
and lawlessness and hatred to Donald Trump. That's the entirety
of the Democrat Party. And then beyond that you've got
all their ambitious governors. You know, Gavin Newsom is desperately
(26:26):
trying to be super liberal and supermoderate whatever you want,
and slick it all around. And suddenly he knows boys
aren't girls until tomorrow and then boys are girls. But
she can't say him either, and so there is no
answer she can give because this is a rudderless party.
And to the extent there is a leader, it is
the pro Hamas contingent. It is AOC, it is ilhan Omar.
(26:49):
It is the extreme left wing squad that is driving
the rest of the party and that everyone else in
the party is terrified of.
Speaker 4 (27:00):
Yeah, it's amazing, it is.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
It is actually fun for once to watch the Democratic
Party from top to bottom being just complete and utter disarray.
Speaker 4 (27:11):
Because let's be.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
Honest, one more clip. You got to play the clip
when when when Colbert asked if she was running for governor.
Speaker 4 (27:19):
Yeah, this is amazing. Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
Today you made an announcement that you're not running for
the governor of California.
Speaker 7 (27:25):
Correct, you said you're going to set this one out.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
Why are you saying this?
Speaker 7 (27:29):
Are you saving yourself for a different office?
Speaker 5 (27:34):
Obviously people will project onto.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
And honestly that it's more perhaps basic than that. I
am Listen, I am a devout public servant. I have
spent my entire career in service of the people. But
to be very candid with you, I had to defend
my decision to become a prosecutor with my family is
(27:57):
why is it then, when we think we want to
improve a or change it, that we're always on the outside,
on bend dedne or trying to break down the door.
Shouldn't we also be inside the system? And that has
been my career. Recently, I made the decision that I
just for now, I don't want to go back in
the system. I think it's broken.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
I think it's broken. You can't make that up either.
Speaker 1 (28:19):
But you know what's broken about it?
Speaker 4 (28:22):
What is the head that she lost?
Speaker 3 (28:25):
That's her whole definition of whether the system is working
or it's broken. It is broken because the American people
voted for Donald Trump and not for Kamala Harris. It
is broken because the American people voted for a Republican Senate,
not a Democrat Senate. It is broken and in her
view because the American people voted for a Republican House
and not a Democrat house. In her view, democracy the
(28:48):
system only works when she and other left wing lunatics
are in power. That's how she defines whether it's working
or whether it's broken. It is purely it is one
hundred percent about power. And look, look part of why,
to be honest, you and I we don't listen to
(29:08):
Stephen Colbert, and we very rarely listen.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
To Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
The reason why we're playing this exchange is because it
really does show that there's not a moment of reflection.
You know what she had in her book promo about
candor and whatever, There's.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
None of that.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
She continues four years of a disastrous agenda, open borders,
twelve million illegal immigrants, the worst illegal immigration in our
nation's history. She takes no responsibility for that, doesn't acknowledge that,
abandoning all of our friends and allies, going from peace
and prosperity to two simultaneous wars across the globe. She
(29:45):
takes no responsibility for that. The Democrat Party becoming rabidly
anti Semitic, her funders funding violent anti Semitic riots on
college campuses. She takes no responsibility for that. That there's
not at all an acknowledgment of Gosh, people voted for
(30:06):
Donald Trump in significant part because they were really, really,
really unhappy with the radical policies that Joe Biden Kamala
Harris put in place. No acknowledgment of that at all.
And their view the system is broken. Why because the
democracy is functioning. To her mind, if the voters can
(30:26):
vote her out, the system is broken. That is the
essence of the contempt that today's Democrat party has for
big D democracy.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dial
with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
have you as a listener to again Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!