-
Allegations of Intelligence Manipulation (Russia Hoax)
- Claims that high-level intelligence officials (James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey) deliberately rushed and politicized the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to damage Donald Trump before his inauguration.
- Tulsi Gabbard is cited as revealing declassified emails suggesting the intelligence process was compromised.
- NSA Director Mike Rogers expressed concern over insufficient time and access to intelligence data.
-
Big Tech Bias
- Accusations against Google for flagging Republican fundraising emails as spam while allowing Democratic ones through.
- References to psychologist Robert Epstein’s research on Google’s influence on elections.
- Claims that Google was the top donor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
-
Gavin Newsom and Redistricting
- Criticism of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to Texas redistricting efforts.
- Discussion of gerrymandering in Democratic states like California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
- Comparison of partisan representation in congressional delegations across states.
-
“Sandwich Gate” Incident
- A humorous but serious account of a DOJ employee allegedly assaulting a federal law enforcement officer with a Subway sandwich.
- The individual was arrested and fired, with the incident used to highlight perceived radical behavior among leftists.
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 in his verdict with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
with you. It's really nice to have you with us
wherever you are around the country, and we've got a
packed show for you, including a new shocking claim but
from the D and I director Tulca Gabbard with the
classified email, Senator, and this is really shocking what she's
(00:21):
now saying about manufactured intelligence assessment that was deliberate and
came from the very top to go after Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Well, every week we're getting new revelations about just how
corrupt the federal government in the Deep state was under
Barack Obama, how much they conspired and actively conspired to
undermine President Donald Trump when he came into office in
twenty seventeen. The latest that Tulsea Gabbert just released is
evidence that Jim Clapper pushed to compromise the normal steps
(00:54):
the intelligence community would make in order to rush out
a politically damaging attack on Trump. We're going to give
you all the details on this. This written evidence that
they were ignoring the facts to push a political narrative.
Beyond that, we also have new evidence that that big
tech continues to interfere in elections and In particular, Google
(01:17):
was caught repeatedly flagging Republican fundraising texts and emails as spam,
and and they were doing this while they were not
flagging Democrat fundraising emails as spam. We're gonna we're gonna
lay that out as well. On top of that, we
have Gavin Newsom in California and he is threatening to
(01:38):
stand up to Texas and if Texas redistricts, California is
going to as well. We're going to explain why California
is going to lose this showdown. Gavin Newsom is going
to lose this showdown. We'll give you all the facts
and all the law behind that. And finally, the DC
crime lockdown from President Trump. While one of the latest
(01:59):
men festations of the response to it is it's really
kind of funny. It's it's it's sandwich gate. It is
this this DC leftist who got very angry, began screaming
at federal law enforcement agents uh and then threw a
subway sandwich at him and and then ran away, prancing
away UH and was arrested and charged with a felony.
(02:24):
And then it was discovered he was an employee at
the Department of justice. And so he got fired and
and and and I got to say that the whole
thing embodies the great Internet slogan of f A f
O and and and and he did and he found out.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Yeah, it's a great story. We're gonna have it all
for you in just a moment. Let me also talk
to you about our great friends over at Crockett Coffee.
If you start your day with coffee, uh, I tell
you you've got to try Crockett coffee.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Look, I'm gonna save you somebody to try it. But
let me tell you why it's so special. Crocket coffee
is roasted to perfection in small batches on purpose by
experts who love the taste of amazing coffee. It's also
roasted in our nation's heartland, and then it's delivered fresh
to your home or your office. Now you're going to
(03:16):
feel like a Western settler. You're going to be drinking
amazing coffee over a morning campfire, is what you're going
to feel like. That is the best part of a
cup of Crocket coffee, the aroma. It's amazing. Now here's
the other thing you can choose between fresh Crown, Whole
Bean or k cups you choose, and if you're interested
in mushroom coffee and the positive benefits that come with
(03:37):
enjoying that each day, Crockett Coffee is now producing that
as well. They've got a dark roast, a mild roast,
a light roast, a decafed version, and the mushroom organic blend.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
You choose what you like. And here's the best part.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
This is a company that was started by two fellow Patriots,
Buck Sexton and Klay Travis. And I love that they
decide to do this because they're like, look when I
give your money to woke liberal coffee companies, and they
also get back every time you make a purchase to
you will be supporting Tunnel to Towers Foundation because at
Crockett Coffee that matters, and they say, we will never forget. Now,
(04:14):
let me save you some money and try this small
Bat's coffee. Go to Crocketcoffee dot Com. Use my name Ben.
You're gonna get twenty percent off your first order. That's
Crocketcoffee dot Com. Use my name Ben as your promo
code and get twenty percent off Crocketcoffee dot Com. Promo
code Ben for twenty percent off. All Right, So this
(04:35):
is a story that we got to start with. That's
gonna make a lot of Americans mad. You should be
furious over this. I wanted to start with that. It
infuriates me to know that our deep state was this
hardcore in to just manufacturing anything they wanted to to
go after and weaponize our government against Donald Trump and
anyone around him. And now we have even more evidence
(04:55):
of this.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, this is story Fox News Digital as published. It's
entitled Clapper allegedly pushed to quote compromised normal steps to
Rush twenty seventeen Ica, despite concerns from an NSSA director,
Gabbert de classified emails exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital
allegedly revealing that this manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and
(05:20):
came from the very top. And here's what Tulsa Gabber,
the Director of National Intelligence said, quote the leading figures
of the Russia hoax have spent years deceiving the American
public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credible intelligence.
The email released today reinforces what we already exposed, the
(05:41):
decision to compromise standards and violate protocols in the creation
of the twenty seventeen, manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and
came from the very top. And this was an email
that was sent from Mike Rogers, who was the head
of the NSSA. Was said to the director, sent to
the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was sent to
(06:04):
the CIA Director John Brennan, and was sent to the
FBI Director James Comy. It was sent on December twenty second,
twenty sixteen. Happened to be my forty sixth birthday. So
at seven am on December twenty second, twenty sixteen, here's
what the head of the NSA said quote. I've just
returned from a tdy overseas and had been updated on
(06:25):
the current status of our efforts to produce a joint
product related to Russian attribution and intent for the DNC
DCCC hacks. I know that this activity is on a
fast track and that folks have been working very hard
to put together a product that can be provided to
the President. However, I wanted to reach out to you
(06:48):
directly to let you know of some concerns that I
have with what I am hearing from my folks. Specifically,
I asked my team if they had sufficient ACTSS to
the underlying intelligence and sufficient time to review that intelligence.
On both points, my team raised concerns. They were clear
(07:10):
that at the staff level, folks have been forward leading
and trying to ensure that we have an opportunity to
review and weigh in. But I'm concerned that given the
expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren't fully comfortable
saying that they have had enough time to review all
of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.
(07:31):
And Rogers clarified he said in the email. He said
he is quote not saying that we disagree substantively, but
I do want to make sure that when we are
asked in the future whether we can absolutely stand behind
the paper, that we don't have any reason to hesitate
because of the process. I know that you agree this
is something we need to be one hundred percent comfortable
(07:52):
with before we present it to the President. We have
one chance to get this right, and it is critical
that we do so. And he continued, quote, if the
intent is to create an integrated product that is CIA
slash FBI slash nsa joint author that we can all defend,
we need a process that allows all of us to
(08:15):
be comfortable, and I'm concerned that we are not there yet.
And the email continued quote in addition, if NSA is
intended to be a co author of this product, I
personally expect to see even the most sensitive evidence related
to the conclusion. And the email finished by saying, if
the intent is to create a CIO only or a
(08:37):
CIA FBI authored product, then I will stand down on
these concerns. I would welcome your thoughts on these points
in any adjustments we might make to the process to
ensure we have all the necessary level of confidence in
the final assessment. That's what his email said. And moments
from now you're going to hear the response from the
politicized leadership of the Obama intelligence community.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
You just read Center the email that kind of opens
all this up. The response email, though, is even more shocking.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Well, as I just read Mike Rogers, who was the
director of the National Security Agency. He said, in writing
in December of twenty sixteen, we have one chance to
get this right, and it is critical that we do so.
And he further said, we need a process that allows
all of us to be comfortable, and I'm concerned we
are not there yet. That's what he said at seven am.
(09:30):
Well later in the day at seven forty three pm,
James Clapper replied to the Roger email and he copied
Brennan and Coleman and here's what comy, And here's what
Clapper said, quote, understand your concern. It is essential that
we CIA, slash NSA, slash FBI, slash OD and I
(09:55):
be on the same page and are all supportive of
the report in the highest tradition of quote. That's our
story and we're sticking to it. He continued this evening.
CIA is provided to the NIC the complete draft generated
by the ad hoc fusion cell. We will facilitate as
(10:18):
much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report,
but more time is not negotiable. And then I want
you to listen to this next sentence. We may have
to compromise on our quote normal modalities since we must
(10:41):
do this on such a compressed schedule. And then the
email continues, quote, this is one project that has to
be a team sport. Now, Ben, that's a lot of things,
but it's not intelligence. It's not fair and objective. It's
(11:02):
not trying to get to the facts. It is saying
we must all be on the same page, because, as
he puts it, that's our story and we're sticking to it.
Everyone had to agree, and he said right up at
the front. Look, the more time is not negotiable. We
(11:23):
have to compromise the way we do things.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Why.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
He doesn't specify why, but nobody who received this email
was confused. There wasn't an intelligence mandate. There wasn't an
intelligence reason why they had to have this put out
within days. There was a political reason. They had to
have it completed politically so they can run out and
leak it to the press and do so before Donald J.
(11:47):
Trump was sworn in on January twentieth, the twenty seventeen
that was the urgency. It was a partisan political objective.
They wanted to slam the president. And look what they
said in writing, we don't care if the NSA disagrees,
if they say we're not convinced you're right, if they
say the intelligence doesn't necessarily back this up. This is
(12:10):
quote a team sport that that's what Clapper said, and
and ultimately the intelligence report they put together assessed that
quote Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC
and the d Triple c H and it failed to
(12:31):
mension that the FBI and the NSA had previously expressed
low confidence in that attribution. In other words, they reversed
the determination of the intelligence community for a political objective.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
I go back to that that we don't have the time, right,
It was all about the time. Can we talk about
how significant just that is, Like, Hey, we don't have
the time. This is a time sense of thing. AKA
to pull this off. We've got to expedite this or
we will run out of time to expedite it and
actually have it have influence and do what the ultimate
(13:11):
goal was.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah, look, for folks listening, let's just ask yourself a
simple question. Why why didn't they have the time? What
was the rush? We weren't going to war. It's not
like we needed plans. We're dropping the bombs in three days.
There was nothing that was urgent about assessing a retrospective
of what happened in the twenty sixteen election and did
(13:35):
Russia hack the election? That conclusion could have come in December,
It could have come in January. It could have come
in February, March, or April. It could have come in June.
It could have come the next year. I mean it
was a retrospective assessing something, so they had all the
time in the world. However, if you are a hardcore
partisan leftist who hates Donald Trump, who wants to corrupt
(13:57):
the intelligence community and law enforcement to attack the incoming
president who had just gotten elected by the American people,
then you have a very clear time clock, which is
January twentieth. Because once January twentieth comes, you're out of
a job. James Clapper isn't going to be there. John
Brennan isn't going to be there. Unfortunately, Comy remained there,
(14:18):
and then that was a serious mistake, one of the biggest,
if not the biggest mistake of the first term of
the Trump administration. But they're all looking at this saying,
if we are going to concoct a lie once we
get to January twentieth, the new team is in place,
the one thing they're not going to be interested in
doing is participating in a political lie to attack the
(14:42):
newly elected president of the United States. So the only
reason for urgency was a partisan political objective, and that,
at the end of the day, was the reason why
they conspired to subvert democracy. By the way, in November
twenty sixteen. Here's what the intelligence community concluded. Quote Russia
(15:07):
was probably not trying to influence the election using cyber means.
That was a month earlier, not is what they concluded
weeks before the emails were sent. On December seventh, Clapper's
talking points stated, quote, foreign adversaries did not use cyber
attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US presidential outcome.
(15:29):
That that was just just weeks before this election. On
December eighth, the presidential briefing for President Obama said, quote,
we assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact
recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against
(15:49):
the election infrastructure. That was what they were concluding until
they made a political decision, and they made it the
next day on December ninth, and a meeting in the
Situation room for partisan political reasons, they decided, we're going
to accuse Russia of electing Donald Trump because we hate
(16:10):
Trump and we want to tear down the incoming administration.
And that is, to use a term the Democrats like,
an absolute assault on democracy.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
All right, I want to switch gears center to California.
Democrats are now saying they're going to redistrict in California
to counter what Texas is doing after they waive the
right the white flag Democrats it in Texas. Now, Gavin
Newsom is, I guess trying to turn this into like
a presidential campaign issue for him, where he's like, well,
if you do acts in Texas, we're gonna we're just
(16:43):
gonna counter it out here in California. The funny part
is they've been jerrymandering in California for decades, and it's
like he's acting like this the first time they'll ever
do it.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It's pretty laughable.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Well, as we covered on Wednesday's pod, the Texas Democrats
have surrendered. They fled the date, they defeated a quorum,
and yet they were facing serious repercussions from the governor,
from the Speaker of the House that they were facing
five hundred dollars a day fines they had to pay
from their personal personal bank account, not from their campaign accounts.
They were facing the governor declaring their offices vacant and
(17:18):
replacing them in the state legislature. And they were also
facing being arrested and forcibly having their bodies produced on
the floor of the House. And so the Texas House
Democrats caved and said we're coming back, We're done fighting
that that news had broken. And so then the latest
what has broken just just this week at that is
(17:39):
Gavin Newsom has left leapt forward and Ben, have you
noticed that that Gavin Newsom is just a little bit thirsty.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yes, it's I mean, this is like, I don't know
what reincarnation of his career this is. It feels like
it's like seven or eight. But he is obsessed right
now with being in the media.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I got to say a bit.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Of advice if any of you got for find yourself
in the vicinity of Gavin Newsom, under no circumstances should
you place your body between Governor Newsom and a TV camera,
he will run you over. You will be roadkill. You
will be an armadilla with a smear in the center
of the highway. Because that man, Oh, if there's a
headline to be had, he is chasing it. And so
(18:20):
he's decided he is the great liberal hope. He's going
to stand up and fight against Texas. I got to say,
as an aside, I've said more than once that I
think we should nominate Gavin Newsom as the Texas realature
of the year, because there is no human being on
planet Earth who has ever sold more homes in the
(18:42):
great State of Texas than Gavin Newsom. He sells thousands
of homes in Texas every year. It is incredible. All
he has to do is continue mucking up California and
people rent you hauls and get the heck out of
Dodge Well. His latest statement is, okay, Texas, if you redistrict,
California is going to as well, and we're going to
(19:04):
get even more Democrats. Now, let me give you some
facts that the New York Times won't tell you, that
the Washington Post won't tell you, that CNN won't tell you,
that MSNBC won't tell you that the corporate media does
not want you to know. Virtually every big Democrat state
in the Union is egregiously jerrymanner right now, massively more
(19:28):
than Republican states. And let's put some numbers to it.
So California in twenty twenty four, fifty eight percent of
California's voted Democrat. The congressional delegation in California has fifty
two members of Congress. It's currently divided forty three Democrats,
nine Republicans. That means fifty eight percent of California voters
(19:51):
get to be represented by eighty three percent of the
congressional delegation. It's a massive jerrymander. By the way, California
is not alone. If you look at New York, fifty
six percent of New Yorkers voted for Democrats, and yet
seventy three percent of the congressional delegation is Democrat. Illinois,
(20:13):
Illinois is massive. Fifty four percent of the state vote Democrat.
Illinois is not nearly as Democrat as people think, just
fifty four percent. You know how much of the congressional
delegation is Democrat eighty two percent. And I'll tell you
one of the most stunning is the state of Massachusetts.
State of Massachusetts, you have about thirty six percent of
(20:34):
the state that votes Republican. You know how many members
of Congress that thirty six percent gets.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
How many? Zero?
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, not a single one. There are nine congressional seats
in Massachusetts. All nine are Democrat, none are Republican. That's
a Democrat jerrymander. By the way, Texas, by comparison, so
Texas in twenty twenty four, fifty six percent of Texans
voted Republican, and the congressional delegation is thirty eight seats,
(21:04):
twenty four of those are Republican, fourteen or Democrat. That
means fifty six percent of Texas voters are getting sixty
three percent of the congressional delegation. So it is much
more mild. Sixty three percent in Texas eighty three percent
in California. So it is a massive gerrymander in California. Now,
what is Texas proposing doing? Well? The Texas legislatures put
(21:26):
out a map to increase the Republican representation by five seats,
so instead of twenty four to fourteen, it will be
twenty nine nine. So we'll add five Republicans, take away
five Democrats. That will take it from sixty three percent
Republican to seventy six percent Republican. Now, seventy six percent
(21:47):
Republican is an increase from sixty three but it's not
nearly as much as eighty three percent, which is where
California is. So what does Gavin Newsom say, if you
dare draw map that's not nearly as skewed as California,
what are we going to do in California? We're gonna
skew our map even more. Now. To be clear, there
(22:11):
are only nine Republicans elected in California. He has very
few seats to get rid of because it's forty three
nine to begin with. But essentially what he's threatening is,
instead of making it forty three to nine, he wants
to make it fifty two to zero. He wants to
make one hundred percent of the congressional seats in California Democrat.
(22:33):
That would mean fifty eight percent of the voters in
California get one hundred percent of the congressional delegation and
the thirty eight percent of Californians that vote Republican get zero.
I'll tell you I took on Gavin Newsom today on
Twitter and I said, look, if you want to do that,
if California is going to go one hundred percent dem,
(22:55):
why shouldn't Texas go one hundred percent Republican instead of
going right now at twenty four fourteen. The proposal is
to take it to twenty nine to nine. But if
California is going to do that, Texas ought to go
to thirty eight zero. Now I'm not advocating that. I
actually think neither state should do that. I think you
should have a congressional delegation that reflects the values and
(23:17):
views of the state. But if Democrats are going to
utterly abuse their power to disproportionately favor Democrats in Congress,
and the only response I think Republican states can have
is to counter that and to be a check in balance.
But of course the media wants you to know none
of these facts.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Let me ask you this question.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
If this does continue to go the way that Democrats
are advocating for it, where they say, hey, forget us,
just like kind of jerry mannering, We're just going to
go full blown get rid of every Republican district, what
then happens, Like, where does this stop in this insanty?
I do think it's great that the American people now
understand just how jerrymandered so many Democratic states have been.
(23:59):
For decades and decades. They didn't even realize how blatant
it was. Now it's getting the coverage it deserves. But
where does this all end? What's the best case scenario?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Well, look, Republican states have much more room. So if
this becomes an escalation, the Democrats lose because the Democrats
have already jerrymandered the hell out of their states, so
they don't have that much room to grow. And the
funniest example of that is the Democrat governor of Massachusetts.
She got all worked up and said, oh, yeah, well,
(24:31):
if Texas does this, we're going to redistrict too. Massachusetts
has already one hundred percent Democrat in their congressional delegation.
They have jerrymandered to the maximum extent possible. What exactly
can Massachusetts do to jerrymander more? There are no Republican
members of Congress. They elect by design, and it can't
(24:54):
get any worse. And so if this becomes an escalation,
the Democrats lose. Now, interestingly enough, Newsom is mostly playing politics.
He's mostly wanting headlines. He's mostly wanting to impress Democrat
presidential primary voters because it ain't complicated. Gavin is running
in twenty twenty eight. He is running full speed ahead. Now,
(25:15):
what's funny is it's like watching a rerun of Sibyl
Late on TV. He's got one hundred and forty two personalities.
So on day one he is hard left progressive social
justice warrior, on day two he is reasonable moderate, and
today he is partisan partisan gladiator. But he'll do all
(25:35):
of them. He does have a challenge in that California
state law provides that redistricting is not done by the legislature,
which is what the constitution provides, but rather by a
so called independent commission. And so Newsom is proposing putting
on the ballot changing the map. And Politico did a
(25:56):
poll that they released this week and it shows that
California voters prefer keeping an independent line drawing panel to
determine the state's House seats by nearly a two to
one margin sixty four percent, while only thirty six percent
of respondents back returning to congressional redistricting authority to state lawmakers.
(26:20):
So Newsom's got a problem because if this goes to
the ballot right now, at least he's got to convince
the voters to allow his partisan power grab. I don't
think actually Candusom is focused on winning. I think he
just is trying to show off in Peacock for the
Democrat primary voters.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Center.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
It's time we talk a little bit about Google, and
it is another bombshell that's come out showing massive bias
with Google their search engines. Also the emails that make
it to your inbox and those they decide purposely to
send a spam. There's even shocking revelations now that sending
(26:58):
a firm that sent the same email the same exact wording,
one with a link to a conservative group went to spam,
but if it had a link to a hardcore lefty group,
it went straight to the top of your inbox.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
How the hell are they getting away with this?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Well, unfortunately it appears to be blatant by us. And listen,
I have long believed that big tech censorship in bias
poses the single greatest threat we have to free speech
in America and the single greatest threat we have to
free and fair elections in America. And big tech, the
giant tech oligarchs have been hardcore leftists, and they have
(27:36):
abused their monopoly power to try to elect Democrats. And
by far the worst actor in this historically has been Google.
Google openly censors conservative speech, it skews its search results
to favor Democrats. In the twenty sixteen election, the employer
for the largest amount of campaign contributions to Hillary Clint
(28:00):
was Google. And so they are all in.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
With the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Hold on, hold on, say that again, so people really
understand how biased they are say that one more time.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Okay, in twenty sixteen, think of all of the people
that made campaign contributions to Donald Trump and to Hillary Clinton.
So when you make a campaign contribution, you report on
the FEC. You put your name, you put your address,
you put your employer, and any contribution two hundred dollars
and above gets reported. And so then they make reports
and you can see, all right, where does the most
(28:32):
money come from? The number one source, not number two,
not number three, number one source for campaign contributions hard
money contributions to Hillary Clinton was Google. Actually technically was Alphabet,
which is which is Google's parent company, But that's Google.
They were her number one donor. And and by the way,
there is a psychologist, Robert Epstein, who I've had testify
(28:56):
in front of my committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, who
did empirical research on Google and found that Google skewed
search results and moved millions of votes from Donald Trump
to Hillary Clinton. And by the way, doctor Epstein was
a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary. He was still
horrified at the results. Well, the latest report I'm going
to read from the New York Post quote Google caught
(29:18):
flagging gop fundraiser emails as suspicious, sending them directly to spam.
Google is added again the GOP campaign donations could be
a casualty. The search giant has been caught this summer
flagging Republican fundraising emails as quote dangerous spam, keeping them
from hitting Gmail users' inboxes, while leaving similar solicitations from
(29:41):
Democrats untouched. A consulting firm warned that's despite repeatedly sparking
headlines and lawsuits in recent years over this allegedly partisan practice.
This is something, this has been a pattern, it's been
a problem, it's been going on for a long time,
and it appears Google is doubling down and continuing to
(30:02):
block Republican fundraising emails while green lighting Democrat fundraising emails.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
It really is incredible, and this just goes, I think,
to the radicalness of the left, whether it's Google or
We now have a guy that is apparently he was
in the Department of Justice who just decided, I got
a subway, Salwench, I'm gonna throw it at police officers.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
And run away. And now we find out even.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
The people that are still working the deep state are
willing to do things like this. We've now found out
who he is. He's lost his job, and he's been arrested.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Well, listen, we've talked a lot on this podcast about
how the Democrats have lost their ever loving mind. They
hate Donald Trump so much that they've just gone to
crazy town that they've taken just about every eighty twenty
issue in America. They've decided to embrace the twenty percent side.
So when it comes to immigration, there for open borders.
(30:58):
When it comes to sports, they want boys girls sports.
When it comes to kids, they want children being sterilized
and having gender mutilating surgeries. And when it comes to criminals,
they're in favor of them. They're in favor of releasing
murderers and rapists and Venezuelan gang members. And the left
right now is losing their mind about d C and
(31:20):
the fact that Donald Trump is exercising clear constitutional authority,
clear statutory authority to ensure law and order in d
C and to keep people safe. DC has the fourth
highest murder rate in America. It has a higher murder
rate than Bogota, Colombia, has a higher murder rate than
(31:40):
Mexico City. The murder rate in Washington, d C is
six times the murder rate in New York. And yet
leftists are furious that Trump is saying we're going to
stop murderers. And so what happened this week is you
had a leftist on the streets who saw a federal
lawforcement officers and in this case, the Customs and Border
(32:02):
Patrol agent. And this leftist began jumping up and down
and screaming, screaming and cursing at him and calling him
a fascist, calling him a fascist. And you, if you
haven't seen the video, you got a picture. This guy
is jumping up and down, jumping up and down. He's
wearing a pink polo shirt and these incredibly tight shorts that,
(32:22):
let me just say it looks like a costume. And
he's jumping up and down. He's behaving like a five
year old, and he's screaming and screaming at this federal
law enforcement agent. And then he's holding in his hand
a subway sandwich and he turns to walk away, and
then he turns around and he just throws as hard
as he can the subway sandwich into the chest of
(32:44):
the federal law enforcement officer. And then suddenly he realizes, oh,
maybe that was a mistake and he turns around and
runs away. Well, federal law enforcement pursues him, they catch him,
and they arrest him. Now this is when the story changes.
Under Joe Biden, nothing would have happened. Under Barack Obama,
(33:05):
nothing would have happened. Well, under Donald Trump, he's being prosecuted.
He's being prosecuted for a felony. It is assault to
throw anything at someone. You don't have the right to
throw something. And even if it is a sandwich, which
looks a sandwich is not a deadly item, but it
is assault to throw it. And what Pambondi, the Attorney
(33:25):
General said, and what the US Attorney Jeanine Piro said
is is we're going to protect law enforcement. If you
assault a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted, you
will go to jail. And then this is where the
case took a strange turn that this pink polo clad
jumping up and down nutcase turns out he was actually
an employee of the Department of Justice, a current employee,
(33:49):
not now. Ben I used to work at the DOJ.
I've worked a lot of years in law enforcement. It
is not complicated if you're an employee at the Department
of Justice to learn to treat federal law enforcement agencies
with respect. I gotta say, I'm fifty four years old.
I've never had to restrain myself once from a desire
(34:10):
to assault a federal law enforcement officer. And yet the left,
they are so radicalized, they're so that their their worldview
is so full of rage and anger that that when
they see a federal law enforcement officer, they're to stop murderers, there,
to stop crime. This DOJ employee entered into sandwich gait,
(34:35):
and I will say I did laugh out loud at
Janeine Pero when she put out a video saying, well,
he may have to stick that sandwich somewhere else instead,
which it was. It was not subtle what she was saying,
as they might say in the South, you know, stick
it somewhere the sun don't shine.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
Yeah, it's nice to see that in Washingt d C.
Certainly in the Trum administration, they're messing around anymore. They're
going after these criminals and.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Invest your dad was a cop. I mean, how glad
are you to see an administration that defends cops and
says you can't assault them.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
Absolutely, And it's long overdue for an administration to do this.
Don't forget we do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Makes you download Vertic with Ted Cruise wherever you get
your podcasts and the Senat and I will see you
on the podcast all week. Thanks for listening to Vertic
with Ted Cruise. Ben Ferguson with you have a safe week.
Welcome in his verdict with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
with you. It's really nice to have you with us
wherever you are around the country, and we've got a
packed show for you, including a new shocking claim but
from the D and I director Tulca Gabbard with the
classified email, Senator, and this is really shocking what she's
(00:21):
now saying about manufactured intelligence assessment that was deliberate and
came from the very top to go after Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Well, every week we're getting new revelations about just how
corrupt the federal government in the Deep state was under
Barack Obama, how much they conspired and actively conspired to
undermine President Donald Trump when he came into office in
twenty seventeen. The latest that Tulsea Gabbert just released is
evidence that Jim Clapper pushed to compromise the normal steps
(00:54):
the intelligence community would make in order to rush out
a politically damaging attack on Trump. We're going to give
you all the details on this. This written evidence that
they were ignoring the facts to push a political narrative.
Beyond that, we also have new evidence that that big
tech continues to interfere in elections and In particular, Google
(01:17):
was caught repeatedly flagging Republican fundraising texts and emails as spam,
and and they were doing this while they were not
flagging Democrat fundraising emails as spam. We're gonna we're gonna
lay that out as well. On top of that, we
have Gavin Newsom in California and he is threatening to
(01:38):
stand up to Texas and if Texas redistricts, California is
going to as well. We're going to explain why California
is going to lose this showdown. Gavin Newsom is going
to lose this showdown. We'll give you all the facts
and all the law behind that. And finally, the DC
crime lockdown from President Trump. While one of the latest
(01:59):
men festations of the response to it is it's really
kind of funny. It's it's it's sandwich gate. It is
this this DC leftist who got very angry, began screaming
at federal law enforcement agents uh and then threw a
subway sandwich at him and and then ran away, prancing
away UH and was arrested and charged with a felony.
(02:24):
And then it was discovered he was an employee at
the Department of justice. And so he got fired and
and and and I got to say that the whole
thing embodies the great Internet slogan of f A f
O and and and and he did and he found out.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Yeah, it's a great story. We're gonna have it all
for you in just a moment. Let me also talk
to you about our great friends over at Crockett Coffee.
If you start your day with coffee, uh, I tell
you you've got to try Crockett coffee.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Now.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Look, I'm gonna save you somebody to try it. But
let me tell you why it's so special. Crocket coffee
is roasted to perfection in small batches on purpose by
experts who love the taste of amazing coffee. It's also
roasted in our nation's heartland, and then it's delivered fresh
to your home or your office. Now you're going to
(03:16):
feel like a Western settler. You're going to be drinking
amazing coffee over a morning campfire, is what you're going
to feel like. That is the best part of a
cup of Crocket coffee, the aroma. It's amazing. Now here's
the other thing you can choose between fresh Crown, Whole
Bean or k cups you choose, and if you're interested
in mushroom coffee and the positive benefits that come with
(03:37):
enjoying that each day, Crockett Coffee is now producing that
as well. They've got a dark roast, a mild roast,
a light roast, a decafed version, and the mushroom organic blend.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
You choose what you like. And here's the best part.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
This is a company that was started by two fellow Patriots,
Buck Sexton and Klay Travis. And I love that they
decide to do this because they're like, look when I
give your money to woke liberal coffee companies, and they
also get back every time you make a purchase to
you will be supporting Tunnel to Towers Foundation because at
Crockett Coffee that matters, and they say, we will never forget. Now,
(04:14):
let me save you some money and try this small
Bat's coffee. Go to Crocketcoffee dot Com. Use my name Ben.
You're gonna get twenty percent off your first order. That's
Crocketcoffee dot Com. Use my name Ben as your promo
code and get twenty percent off Crocketcoffee dot Com. Promo
code Ben for twenty percent off. All Right, So this
(04:35):
is a story that we got to start with. That's
gonna make a lot of Americans mad. You should be
furious over this. I wanted to start with that. It
infuriates me to know that our deep state was this
hardcore in to just manufacturing anything they wanted to to
go after and weaponize our government against Donald Trump and
anyone around him. And now we have even more evidence
(04:55):
of this.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well, this is story Fox News Digital as published. It's
entitled Clapper allegedly pushed to quote compromised normal steps to
Rush twenty seventeen Ica, despite concerns from an NSSA director,
Gabbert de classified emails exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital
allegedly revealing that this manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and
(05:20):
came from the very top. And here's what Tulsa Gabber,
the Director of National Intelligence said, quote the leading figures
of the Russia hoax have spent years deceiving the American
public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credible intelligence.
The email released today reinforces what we already exposed, the
(05:41):
decision to compromise standards and violate protocols in the creation
of the twenty seventeen, manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and
came from the very top. And this was an email
that was sent from Mike Rogers, who was the head
of the NSSA. Was said to the director, sent to
the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was sent to
(06:04):
the CIA Director John Brennan, and was sent to the
FBI Director James Comy. It was sent on December twenty second,
twenty sixteen. Happened to be my forty sixth birthday. So
at seven am on December twenty second, twenty sixteen, here's
what the head of the NSA said quote. I've just
returned from a tdy overseas and had been updated on
(06:25):
the current status of our efforts to produce a joint
product related to Russian attribution and intent for the DNC
DCCC hacks. I know that this activity is on a
fast track and that folks have been working very hard
to put together a product that can be provided to
the President. However, I wanted to reach out to you
(06:48):
directly to let you know of some concerns that I
have with what I am hearing from my folks. Specifically,
I asked my team if they had sufficient ACTSS to
the underlying intelligence and sufficient time to review that intelligence.
On both points, my team raised concerns. They were clear
(07:10):
that at the staff level, folks have been forward leading
and trying to ensure that we have an opportunity to
review and weigh in. But I'm concerned that given the
expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren't fully comfortable
saying that they have had enough time to review all
of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.
(07:31):
And Rogers clarified he said in the email. He said
he is quote not saying that we disagree substantively, but
I do want to make sure that when we are
asked in the future whether we can absolutely stand behind
the paper, that we don't have any reason to hesitate
because of the process. I know that you agree this
is something we need to be one hundred percent comfortable
(07:52):
with before we present it to the President. We have
one chance to get this right, and it is critical
that we do so. And he continued, quote, if the
intent is to create an integrated product that is CIA
slash FBI slash nsa joint author that we can all defend,
we need a process that allows all of us to
(08:15):
be comfortable, and I'm concerned that we are not there yet.
And the email continued quote in addition, if NSA is
intended to be a co author of this product, I
personally expect to see even the most sensitive evidence related
to the conclusion. And the email finished by saying, if
the intent is to create a CIO only or a
(08:37):
CIA FBI authored product, then I will stand down on
these concerns. I would welcome your thoughts on these points
in any adjustments we might make to the process to
ensure we have all the necessary level of confidence in
the final assessment. That's what his email said. And moments
from now you're going to hear the response from the
politicized leadership of the Obama intelligence community.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
You just read Center the email that kind of opens
all this up. The response email, though, is even more shocking.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Well, as I just read Mike Rogers, who was the
director of the National Security Agency. He said, in writing
in December of twenty sixteen, we have one chance to
get this right, and it is critical that we do so.
And he further said, we need a process that allows
all of us to be comfortable, and I'm concerned we
are not there yet. That's what he said at seven am.
(09:30):
Well later in the day at seven forty three pm,
James Clapper replied to the Roger email and he copied
Brennan and Coleman and here's what comy, And here's what
Clapper said, quote, understand your concern. It is essential that
we CIA, slash NSA, slash FBI, slash OD and I
(09:55):
be on the same page and are all supportive of
the report in the highest tradition of quote. That's our
story and we're sticking to it. He continued this evening.
CIA is provided to the NIC the complete draft generated
by the ad hoc fusion cell. We will facilitate as
(10:18):
much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report,
but more time is not negotiable. And then I want
you to listen to this next sentence. We may have
to compromise on our quote normal modalities since we must
(10:41):
do this on such a compressed schedule. And then the
email continues, quote, this is one project that has to
be a team sport. Now, Ben, that's a lot of things,
but it's not intelligence. It's not fair and objective. It's
(11:02):
not trying to get to the facts. It is saying
we must all be on the same page, because, as
he puts it, that's our story and we're sticking to it.
Everyone had to agree, and he said right up at
the front. Look, the more time is not negotiable. We
(11:23):
have to compromise the way we do things.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Why.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
He doesn't specify why, but nobody who received this email
was confused. There wasn't an intelligence mandate. There wasn't an
intelligence reason why they had to have this put out
within days. There was a political reason. They had to
have it completed politically so they can run out and
leak it to the press and do so before Donald J.
(11:47):
Trump was sworn in on January twentieth, the twenty seventeen
that was the urgency. It was a partisan political objective.
They wanted to slam the president. And look what they
said in writing, we don't care if the NSA disagrees,
if they say we're not convinced you're right, if they
say the intelligence doesn't necessarily back this up. This is
(12:10):
quote a team sport that that's what Clapper said, and
and ultimately the intelligence report they put together assessed that
quote Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC
and the d Triple c H and it failed to
(12:31):
mension that the FBI and the NSA had previously expressed
low confidence in that attribution. In other words, they reversed
the determination of the intelligence community for a political objective.
Speaker 1 (12:50):
I go back to that that we don't have the time, right,
It was all about the time. Can we talk about
how significant just that is, Like, Hey, we don't have
the time. This is a time sense of thing. AKA
to pull this off. We've got to expedite this or
we will run out of time to expedite it and
actually have it have influence and do what the ultimate
(13:11):
goal was.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Yeah, look, for folks listening, let's just ask yourself a
simple question. Why why didn't they have the time? What
was the rush? We weren't going to war. It's not
like we needed plans. We're dropping the bombs in three days.
There was nothing that was urgent about assessing a retrospective
of what happened in the twenty sixteen election and did
(13:35):
Russia hack the election? That conclusion could have come in December,
It could have come in January. It could have come
in February, March, or April. It could have come in June.
It could have come the next year. I mean it
was a retrospective assessing something, so they had all the
time in the world. However, if you are a hardcore
partisan leftist who hates Donald Trump, who wants to corrupt
(13:57):
the intelligence community and law enforcement to attack the incoming
president who had just gotten elected by the American people,
then you have a very clear time clock, which is
January twentieth. Because once January twentieth comes, you're out of
a job. James Clapper isn't going to be there. John
Brennan isn't going to be there. Unfortunately, Comy remained there,
(14:18):
and then that was a serious mistake, one of the biggest,
if not the biggest mistake of the first term of
the Trump administration. But they're all looking at this saying,
if we are going to concoct a lie once we
get to January twentieth, the new team is in place,
the one thing they're not going to be interested in
doing is participating in a political lie to attack the
(14:42):
newly elected president of the United States. So the only
reason for urgency was a partisan political objective, and that,
at the end of the day, was the reason why
they conspired to subvert democracy. By the way, in November
twenty sixteen. Here's what the intelligence community concluded. Quote Russia
(15:07):
was probably not trying to influence the election using cyber means.
That was a month earlier, not is what they concluded
weeks before the emails were sent. On December seventh, Clapper's
talking points stated, quote, foreign adversaries did not use cyber
attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US presidential outcome.
(15:29):
That that was just just weeks before this election. On
December eighth, the presidential briefing for President Obama said, quote,
we assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact
recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against
(15:49):
the election infrastructure. That was what they were concluding until
they made a political decision, and they made it the
next day on December ninth, and a meeting in the
Situation room for partisan political reasons, they decided, we're going
to accuse Russia of electing Donald Trump because we hate
(16:10):
Trump and we want to tear down the incoming administration.
And that is, to use a term the Democrats like,
an absolute assault on democracy.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
All right, I want to switch gears center to California.
Democrats are now saying they're going to redistrict in California
to counter what Texas is doing after they waive the
right the white flag Democrats it in Texas. Now, Gavin
Newsom is, I guess trying to turn this into like
a presidential campaign issue for him, where he's like, well,
if you do acts in Texas, we're gonna we're just
(16:43):
gonna counter it out here in California. The funny part
is they've been jerrymandering in California for decades, and it's
like he's acting like this the first time they'll ever
do it.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
It's pretty laughable.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Well, as we covered on Wednesday's pod, the Texas Democrats
have surrendered. They fled the date, they defeated a quorum,
and yet they were facing serious repercussions from the governor,
from the Speaker of the House that they were facing
five hundred dollars a day fines they had to pay
from their personal personal bank account, not from their campaign accounts.
They were facing the governor declaring their offices vacant and
(17:18):
replacing them in the state legislature. And they were also
facing being arrested and forcibly having their bodies produced on
the floor of the House. And so the Texas House
Democrats caved and said we're coming back, We're done fighting
that that news had broken. And so then the latest
what has broken just just this week at that is
(17:39):
Gavin Newsom has left leapt forward and Ben, have you
noticed that that Gavin Newsom is just a little bit thirsty.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yes, it's I mean, this is like, I don't know
what reincarnation of his career this is. It feels like
it's like seven or eight. But he is obsessed right
now with being in the media.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I got to say a bit.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
Of advice if any of you got for find yourself
in the vicinity of Gavin Newsom, under no circumstances should
you place your body between Governor Newsom and a TV camera,
he will run you over. You will be roadkill. You
will be an armadilla with a smear in the center
of the highway. Because that man, Oh, if there's a
headline to be had, he is chasing it. And so
(18:20):
he's decided he is the great liberal hope. He's going
to stand up and fight against Texas. I got to say,
as an aside, I've said more than once that I
think we should nominate Gavin Newsom as the Texas realature
of the year, because there is no human being on
planet Earth who has ever sold more homes in the
(18:42):
great State of Texas than Gavin Newsom. He sells thousands
of homes in Texas every year. It is incredible. All
he has to do is continue mucking up California and
people rent you hauls and get the heck out of
Dodge Well. His latest statement is, okay, Texas, if you redistrict,
California is going to as well, and we're going to
(19:04):
get even more Democrats. Now, let me give you some
facts that the New York Times won't tell you, that
the Washington Post won't tell you, that CNN won't tell you,
that MSNBC won't tell you that the corporate media does
not want you to know. Virtually every big Democrat state
in the Union is egregiously jerrymanner right now, massively more
(19:28):
than Republican states. And let's put some numbers to it.
So California in twenty twenty four, fifty eight percent of
California's voted Democrat. The congressional delegation in California has fifty
two members of Congress. It's currently divided forty three Democrats,
nine Republicans. That means fifty eight percent of California voters
(19:51):
get to be represented by eighty three percent of the
congressional delegation. It's a massive jerrymander. By the way, California
is not alone. If you look at New York, fifty
six percent of New Yorkers voted for Democrats, and yet
seventy three percent of the congressional delegation is Democrat. Illinois,
(20:13):
Illinois is massive. Fifty four percent of the state vote Democrat.
Illinois is not nearly as Democrat as people think, just
fifty four percent. You know how much of the congressional
delegation is Democrat eighty two percent. And I'll tell you
one of the most stunning is the state of Massachusetts.
State of Massachusetts, you have about thirty six percent of
(20:34):
the state that votes Republican. You know how many members
of Congress that thirty six percent gets.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
How many? Zero?
Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, not a single one. There are nine congressional seats
in Massachusetts. All nine are Democrat, none are Republican. That's
a Democrat jerrymander. By the way, Texas, by comparison, so
Texas in twenty twenty four, fifty six percent of Texans
voted Republican, and the congressional delegation is thirty eight seats,
(21:04):
twenty four of those are Republican, fourteen or Democrat. That
means fifty six percent of Texas voters are getting sixty
three percent of the congressional delegation. So it is much
more mild. Sixty three percent in Texas eighty three percent
in California. So it is a massive gerrymander in California. Now,
what is Texas proposing doing? Well? The Texas legislatures put
(21:26):
out a map to increase the Republican representation by five seats,
so instead of twenty four to fourteen, it will be
twenty nine nine. So we'll add five Republicans, take away
five Democrats. That will take it from sixty three percent
Republican to seventy six percent Republican. Now, seventy six percent
(21:47):
Republican is an increase from sixty three but it's not
nearly as much as eighty three percent, which is where
California is. So what does Gavin Newsom say, if you
dare draw map that's not nearly as skewed as California,
what are we going to do in California? We're gonna
skew our map even more. Now. To be clear, there
(22:11):
are only nine Republicans elected in California. He has very
few seats to get rid of because it's forty three
nine to begin with. But essentially what he's threatening is,
instead of making it forty three to nine, he wants
to make it fifty two to zero. He wants to
make one hundred percent of the congressional seats in California Democrat.
(22:33):
That would mean fifty eight percent of the voters in
California get one hundred percent of the congressional delegation and
the thirty eight percent of Californians that vote Republican get zero.
I'll tell you I took on Gavin Newsom today on
Twitter and I said, look, if you want to do that,
if California is going to go one hundred percent dem,
(22:55):
why shouldn't Texas go one hundred percent Republican instead of
going right now at twenty four fourteen. The proposal is
to take it to twenty nine to nine. But if
California is going to do that, Texas ought to go
to thirty eight zero. Now I'm not advocating that. I
actually think neither state should do that. I think you
should have a congressional delegation that reflects the values and
(23:17):
views of the state. But if Democrats are going to
utterly abuse their power to disproportionately favor Democrats in Congress,
and the only response I think Republican states can have
is to counter that and to be a check in balance.
But of course the media wants you to know none
of these facts.
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Let me ask you this question.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
If this does continue to go the way that Democrats
are advocating for it, where they say, hey, forget us,
just like kind of jerry mannering, We're just going to
go full blown get rid of every Republican district, what
then happens, Like, where does this stop in this insanty?
I do think it's great that the American people now
understand just how jerrymandered so many Democratic states have been.
(23:59):
For decades and decades. They didn't even realize how blatant
it was. Now it's getting the coverage it deserves. But
where does this all end? What's the best case scenario?
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Well, look, Republican states have much more room. So if
this becomes an escalation, the Democrats lose because the Democrats
have already jerrymandered the hell out of their states, so
they don't have that much room to grow. And the
funniest example of that is the Democrat governor of Massachusetts.
She got all worked up and said, oh, yeah, well,
(24:31):
if Texas does this, we're going to redistrict too. Massachusetts
has already one hundred percent Democrat in their congressional delegation.
They have jerrymandered to the maximum extent possible. What exactly
can Massachusetts do to jerrymander more? There are no Republican
members of Congress. They elect by design, and it can't
(24:54):
get any worse. And so if this becomes an escalation,
the Democrats lose. Now, interestingly enough, Newsom is mostly playing politics.
He's mostly wanting headlines. He's mostly wanting to impress Democrat
presidential primary voters because it ain't complicated. Gavin is running
in twenty twenty eight. He is running full speed ahead. Now,
(25:15):
what's funny is it's like watching a rerun of Sibyl
Late on TV. He's got one hundred and forty two personalities.
So on day one he is hard left progressive social
justice warrior, on day two he is reasonable moderate, and
today he is partisan partisan gladiator. But he'll do all
(25:35):
of them. He does have a challenge in that California
state law provides that redistricting is not done by the legislature,
which is what the constitution provides, but rather by a
so called independent commission. And so Newsom is proposing putting
on the ballot changing the map. And Politico did a
(25:56):
poll that they released this week and it shows that
California voters prefer keeping an independent line drawing panel to
determine the state's House seats by nearly a two to
one margin sixty four percent, while only thirty six percent
of respondents back returning to congressional redistricting authority to state lawmakers.
(26:20):
So Newsom's got a problem because if this goes to
the ballot right now, at least he's got to convince
the voters to allow his partisan power grab. I don't
think actually Candusom is focused on winning. I think he
just is trying to show off in Peacock for the
Democrat primary voters.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
Center.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
It's time we talk a little bit about Google, and
it is another bombshell that's come out showing massive bias
with Google their search engines. Also the emails that make
it to your inbox and those they decide purposely to
send a spam. There's even shocking revelations now that sending
(26:58):
a firm that sent the same email the same exact wording,
one with a link to a conservative group went to spam,
but if it had a link to a hardcore lefty group,
it went straight to the top of your inbox.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
How the hell are they getting away with this?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Well, unfortunately it appears to be blatant by us. And listen,
I have long believed that big tech censorship in bias
poses the single greatest threat we have to free speech
in America and the single greatest threat we have to
free and fair elections in America. And big tech, the
giant tech oligarchs have been hardcore leftists, and they have
(27:36):
abused their monopoly power to try to elect Democrats. And
by far the worst actor in this historically has been Google.
Google openly censors conservative speech, it skews its search results
to favor Democrats. In the twenty sixteen election, the employer
for the largest amount of campaign contributions to Hillary Clint
(28:00):
was Google. And so they are all in.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
With the Democrats.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Hold on, hold on, say that again, so people really
understand how biased they are say that one more time.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
Okay, in twenty sixteen, think of all of the people
that made campaign contributions to Donald Trump and to Hillary Clinton.
So when you make a campaign contribution, you report on
the FEC. You put your name, you put your address,
you put your employer, and any contribution two hundred dollars
and above gets reported. And so then they make reports
and you can see, all right, where does the most
(28:32):
money come from? The number one source, not number two,
not number three, number one source for campaign contributions hard
money contributions to Hillary Clinton was Google. Actually technically was Alphabet,
which is which is Google's parent company, But that's Google.
They were her number one donor. And and by the way,
there is a psychologist, Robert Epstein, who I've had testify
(28:56):
in front of my committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, who
did empirical research on Google and found that Google skewed
search results and moved millions of votes from Donald Trump
to Hillary Clinton. And by the way, doctor Epstein was
a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary. He was still
horrified at the results. Well, the latest report I'm going
to read from the New York Post quote Google caught
(29:18):
flagging gop fundraiser emails as suspicious, sending them directly to spam.
Google is added again the GOP campaign donations could be
a casualty. The search giant has been caught this summer
flagging Republican fundraising emails as quote dangerous spam, keeping them
from hitting Gmail users' inboxes, while leaving similar solicitations from
(29:41):
Democrats untouched. A consulting firm warned that's despite repeatedly sparking
headlines and lawsuits in recent years over this allegedly partisan practice.
This is something, this has been a pattern, it's been
a problem, it's been going on for a long time,
and it appears Google is doubling down and continuing to
(30:02):
block Republican fundraising emails while green lighting Democrat fundraising emails.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
It really is incredible, and this just goes, I think,
to the radicalness of the left, whether it's Google or
We now have a guy that is apparently he was
in the Department of Justice who just decided, I got
a subway, Salwench, I'm gonna throw it at police officers.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
And run away. And now we find out even.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
The people that are still working the deep state are
willing to do things like this. We've now found out
who he is. He's lost his job, and he's been arrested.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Well, listen, we've talked a lot on this podcast about
how the Democrats have lost their ever loving mind. They
hate Donald Trump so much that they've just gone to
crazy town that they've taken just about every eighty twenty
issue in America. They've decided to embrace the twenty percent side.
So when it comes to immigration, there for open borders.
(30:58):
When it comes to sports, they want boys girls sports.
When it comes to kids, they want children being sterilized
and having gender mutilating surgeries. And when it comes to criminals,
they're in favor of them. They're in favor of releasing
murderers and rapists and Venezuelan gang members. And the left
right now is losing their mind about d C and
(31:20):
the fact that Donald Trump is exercising clear constitutional authority,
clear statutory authority to ensure law and order in d
C and to keep people safe. DC has the fourth
highest murder rate in America. It has a higher murder
rate than Bogota, Colombia, has a higher murder rate than
(31:40):
Mexico City. The murder rate in Washington, d C is
six times the murder rate in New York. And yet
leftists are furious that Trump is saying we're going to
stop murderers. And so what happened this week is you
had a leftist on the streets who saw a federal
lawforcement officers and in this case, the Customs and Border
(32:02):
Patrol agent. And this leftist began jumping up and down
and screaming, screaming and cursing at him and calling him
a fascist, calling him a fascist. And you, if you
haven't seen the video, you got a picture. This guy
is jumping up and down, jumping up and down. He's
wearing a pink polo shirt and these incredibly tight shorts that,
(32:22):
let me just say it looks like a costume. And
he's jumping up and down. He's behaving like a five
year old, and he's screaming and screaming at this federal
law enforcement agent. And then he's holding in his hand
a subway sandwich and he turns to walk away, and
then he turns around and he just throws as hard
as he can the subway sandwich into the chest of
(32:44):
the federal law enforcement officer. And then suddenly he realizes, oh,
maybe that was a mistake and he turns around and
runs away. Well, federal law enforcement pursues him, they catch him,
and they arrest him. Now this is when the story changes.
Under Joe Biden, nothing would have happened. Under Barack Obama,
(33:05):
nothing would have happened. Well, under Donald Trump, he's being prosecuted.
He's being prosecuted for a felony. It is assault to
throw anything at someone. You don't have the right to
throw something. And even if it is a sandwich, which
looks a sandwich is not a deadly item, but it
is assault to throw it. And what Pambondi, the Attorney
(33:25):
General said, and what the US Attorney Jeanine Piro said
is is we're going to protect law enforcement. If you
assault a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted, you
will go to jail. And then this is where the
case took a strange turn that this pink polo clad
jumping up and down nutcase turns out he was actually
an employee of the Department of Justice, a current employee,
(33:49):
not now. Ben I used to work at the DOJ.
I've worked a lot of years in law enforcement. It
is not complicated if you're an employee at the Department
of Justice to learn to treat federal law enforcement agencies
with respect. I gotta say, I'm fifty four years old.
I've never had to restrain myself once from a desire
(34:10):
to assault a federal law enforcement officer. And yet the left,
they are so radicalized, they're so that their their worldview
is so full of rage and anger that that when
they see a federal law enforcement officer, they're to stop murderers, there,
to stop crime. This DOJ employee entered into sandwich gait,
(34:35):
and I will say I did laugh out loud at
Janeine Pero when she put out a video saying, well,
he may have to stick that sandwich somewhere else instead,
which it was. It was not subtle what she was saying,
as they might say in the South, you know, stick
it somewhere the sun don't shine.
Speaker 1 (34:55):
Yeah, it's nice to see that in Washingt d C.
Certainly in the Trum administration, they're messing around anymore. They're
going after these criminals and.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Invest your dad was a cop. I mean, how glad
are you to see an administration that defends cops and
says you can't assault them.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
Absolutely, And it's long overdue for an administration to do this.
Don't forget we do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Makes you download Vertic with Ted Cruise wherever you get
your podcasts and the Senat and I will see you
on the podcast all week. Thanks for listening to Vertic
with Ted Cruise. Ben Ferguson with you have a safe week.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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!