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. It is a Verdict with Ted Cruz Weekend Review.
Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the big stories
that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
The number one story we're going to start with today
deals with election interference. And if you put Donald Trump
in a courtroom on purpose on a day like for example,
Super Tuesday, so we can't campaign, is that not the
(00:21):
definition of election? Heert interference? Also story number two ray Epps.
You've heard the name, Well, he got in dieted this
week sort of. In fact, it was almost a joke.
So how did ray Epps get away with January the sixth?
And why have they been protecting him at the FBI
and the DOJ. We'll explain that. And finally, Joe Biden's
(00:43):
not getting along very well with Democratic mayors across the
country who are starting to turn on him on illegal immigration.
So what does this mean for getting a deal done
with Mayor Adams in New York. We'll have that for
you as well. It is the Weekend Review with Ted
Cruz and it starts right now. Judges getting involved in
a way that I think is pretty clear it to
(01:04):
election interference. We've seen court dates that have come out
now for Donald Trump, with all these different indictments in
different states, that could be like the days before Super Tuesday,
when any normal canate would be on the campaign trail.
You just mentioned why you guys didn't do secret service.
That's how important is to be fast and right to
be campaigning. We're seeing two things now that seem to
(01:26):
be marking the calendar. One, you could throw this guy
into courtroom.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
During dates when he desperately needs to be out campaigning,
taking away his ability to have a fair election against
Joe Biden or whoever it may be. And two, now
you may take away the president former presidents. It's America
and the leading cannate for the Republican Party's voice to
talk about the accusations against him from the leftists and
(01:51):
these people, these DA's are trying to lock him up
by putting a gag order on what he can say.
This seems on American it seems Banana Republic. Ask.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
I think it's disgusting political POI here, Yet, that's what
we're really talking about now, is that real possibility?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Look, you're exactly right.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
We have talked at length on this podcast about how
the multiple indictments against Donald Trump are election interference. Democrats
have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler, and
because they believe he's Hitler, anything, anything is justified to
stop him. The ends justify the means, and they're willing
to corrupt the legal process to turn the Department of
(02:30):
Justice into a political weapon. They're willing to do everything
they can to stop the voters from daring to make
a decision to vote in the way these angry partisan
Democrats don't want the voters to vote. We've gone over
two hundred years of our nation's history. We've never indicted
a president or a former president, or a major candidate
for president. In the last six months, Democrats have done
(02:51):
so four separate times. The US Department of Justice under
Biden is the most partisan and political we've ever seen.
And Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, we've talked to length.
He is a partisan. He has a history of abusing power,
including this is not the first presidential candidate or potential
presidential candidate he's gone After he went after Bob McDonald,
(03:13):
the governor of Virginia, was considered a credible presidential candidate.
Jack Smith indicted him destroyed his political career, destroyed his life,
and then on appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously throughout the
conviction as not being consistent with law.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
But he'd already done its job, which here out he
took him out.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
In this instance, the case in the District of Columbia
is profoundly dangerous. It's profoundly dangerous because number one, the
jury pool in the District of Columbia is over ninety
percent about ninety four percent Democrat. So you're going to
get a jury that in all likelihood hates Donald Trump
and believes he's ad Off Hitler. Now, if you believe
someone's ad Off Hitler, you're a victim.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
That's not a hard guilty for whatever the crime is.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
Yeah, it's you hate if it's Adolf Hitler. Yes, we
also have a district judge who has demonstrated and earned
a reputation as being one of the furthest left Democrat
district judges on the federal bench in DC, who is
presiding this trial is designed to directly interfere with the election.
(04:17):
But Jack Smith said this is not enough, and so
he filed a motion, a motion for a gag order.
So he's gone to this left wing district judge, and
he's asked for a gag order. He says, defendant has
repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of
the district Columbia. That's by daring to point out that
ninety four percent of DC voters vote Democrat, and that's.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Going to be the jury pool the court.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
That's by pointing out that the judge has a record
of being one of the most left wing Democrats on
the entire federal bench prosecutors. That's by pointing out that
Jack Smith is a hard core partisan Democrat whos already
abused his power repeatedly and prospective witnesses. The government therefore
requests that the court quote enter and narrowly tailored order
(05:07):
pursue into local Criminal Rule fifty seven C that restricts
certain prejudicial extra judicial statements, and in particular, what they
ask for, the government seeks this is a quote a narrow,
well defined restriction that is targeted at extra judicial statements
(05:28):
that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing
the case. The government's proposed order specifies that such statements
would include a statements regarding the identity, testimony or credibility
of prospective witnesses, and b statements about any party witness, attorney,
court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflamma
(05:54):
territory or intimidating. Now, let's be clear, who do they
mean by potential witnesses. They mean people like Bills yep,
and they mean people like Mike Pence. So Mike Pence
is literally running against Donald Trump right now for the
Republican nomination for president, and you have the Biden Department
(06:14):
of Justice asking a federal judge issue an order that
Donald Trump cannot say a critical word of Mike Pence
about one of his opponents in the primary. Like, holy crap.
If this doesn't piss you off, you're not paying attention.
I mean, it is truly breathtaking. You want to understand
(06:35):
why this is election interference? DJ believes the federal court
can order one political candidate you're not allowed to criticize
your opponent.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Just don't say a word.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
Don't say a word at all, despite the fact that
you're facing a political persecution designed to interfere with the election,
You're not allowed to say it. And if you do,
by the way. Look, a gag order is typically enforced
by content tempt and by jail. So what the Biden
doj is proposing is if Donald Trump says a negative
word about Mike Pence, that the US Department of Justice
(07:10):
will show up and arrest him and put him in
jail for saying a negative word about one of his
opponents running for president.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And by the way, they would do that, Let's be clear,
they would love to arrest.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
Him again, that's what they want, and to keep him
in jail. This is election interference. It is wildly unconstitutional.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It
is also a direct violation of the right to vote,
of our democratic process in this country. Now, the Democrat
talking hens will say, look, sometimes you have gag orders.
(07:43):
If you're going against the mafia, bosh, you're going up
against al Capone. Courts will enter orders saying, Okay, you
can't intimidate witnesses, can't you can't say things that will
prejudice the jury. You're right, in an ordinary criminal trial,
those things can't happen in an ordinary criminal trial. The
defendant is not a leading candidate for president of the
(08:04):
United States actively running for president.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Of the United States. And my guess, I don't think
the district Court will grant this.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
I don't know that. I don't know this judge at all.
I've never met her. Her record demonstrates she's left wing.
But I think if the district court granted this order,
it would be exceptionally foolish. Why because the order would
be appealed and it would be overturned on appeal. I
do not believe there's any way the Supreme Court of
the United States would allow a leading candidate for president
(08:35):
to be enjoined, to be ordered from a court, you
are not allowed to criticize your political opponents. I mean,
if you could envision, imagine debate. Let's we have a
subsequent Republican debate. Trump shows up and Mike Pence blasts him,
and Trump turns and says, I'm sorry, I'm prevented by
court order from.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Respety, Yeah, from defending myself.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
That is not free speech, that is not democracy, that
is not how our system operates.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
And that's election interference. Exactly perfect example of what capsulates.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
And by the way, that's what they want, actually what
they want. Look, they know in that circumstance, Donald Trump
could not restrain himself, sure, and then they would arrest.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Them, and then they would arrest him.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
I mean, I mean, you can almost envision the jack
booted thugs sitting by the side of the debate and
as Trump blasts his opponents, and he'll blast all his
opponents because that's what he does. You can almost envision
them walking out in the middle of the debate and saying, sir,
you're under arrest. If that is not election interference, holy cow.
It really shows just how extreme the Democrats have gotten.
(09:41):
This is horrific. By the way, let's be clear, I
would be every bit as opposed to an order preventing
Joe Biden from criticizing his opponents, from criticizing RFK Junior
from criticizing Donald Trump. Not to be clear, Joe Biden
couldn't get up in the morning and speak without criticizing
Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
He says, good mo. Trump is the devil. That's just
how he addresses it.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
And he also demonizes every other Republican because he's in
his mental and feeblement, he's also become an even more
vicious partisan. But I would be equally and animately opposed
to any court trying to prevent Joe Biden from attacking
me or Trump or anybody else, because that's what free
speech and elections are all about. But today's Democrats, they
(10:24):
don't believe in democracy, which is why these indictments are happening.
They want to stop the voters from voting in a
way they don't like, and they don't believe in free speech,
which is why they want to muzzle their leading opponent
for president.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
It is uh. It's a brave new world we're living
in now.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
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 3 (10:48):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Let's talk about ray apps for a second and remind
people of ray apps. You and I have talked about
this on the show before. It's something that came up
obviously with director, with the director, the FBI director, also
with the Attorney General Merritt Garland. But Ray Epps out
of nowhere. Many people believe he was undercover FED. There
(11:12):
were people even chanting at January sixth fed fed fed.
He was the guy telling people were going to storm
the place the night before, caught on tape. He's a
guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a
guy that was encouraging people to break into the Capitol
on January sixth, had not been charged with anything. Now,
fast forward multiple years later, and we find out this
last week that yes, ray Epps has now officially been
(11:36):
charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to
prison that were in and around January the sixth, rounding
up people all over the country. Even just days ago
we saw another person rounded up. We put some you know,
some different people in jail for decades now for January
the sixth. But ray Epps, who clearly was a ringleader
(11:57):
at least on the day before January sixth and January sixth,
all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor. And we still
can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want
you to hear Representative Thomas Massey and his back and
forth and then your reaction.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
You're signing the Constitution. I'm going to cite it. It's
our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now in that video,
that was your answer to a question to me two
years ago when I said how many agents or assets
of the government were present on January fifth and January
sixth and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol,
and how many went into the capitol? Can you answer
(12:31):
that now?
Speaker 6 (12:32):
I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Oh, last time, you don't know how many there were
or there were none.
Speaker 6 (12:38):
I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
If there were any. I don't know how many. You've
know whether there are any.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
I think you may have just perjured yourself that you
don't know that there were any. You want to say
that again, that you don't know that there were any.
Speaker 6 (12:51):
No personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I
said the last time.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
You've had two years to find out and to day,
by the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps,
and yesterday you indicted him.
Speaker 7 (13:03):
Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, you're
sending Grandma's to prison. You're putting people away for twenty
years for merely filming.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Some people weren't even there yet.
Speaker 7 (13:14):
You got the guy on video, he's saying go into
the capitol. He's directing people to the capitol. Before the
speech ends, he's at the side of the first breach.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
You've got all the goods on.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
In ten videos, and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
The American public isn't buying it. I yielded to bounce
of my time to Chairman Geordy.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
Yeah, I answer the question.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
I'm gonna ask you one now.
Speaker 5 (13:36):
We'll let the down.
Speaker 6 (13:38):
Yeah, go ahead. But in discovery, in the cases were
filed with respect to January sixth, the Just Department prosecutors
provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking.
With respect to mister EPs, the FBI has said that
(14:00):
he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
Mister Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding, I
believe going on today on that subject.
Speaker 5 (14:12):
The charge is a joke, I yielded, Chairman.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
I love the end there, the charge of joke. I
yielded the chairman. He's right about that, based on everything
we know about Ray Epps. So who is the guy?
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Well, look, it's a very good question.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
And you see the Attorney General once again dodging and
and you know, one of the most telling moments of
that exchange is is when the when Merrick Garland says, well,
I don't even know if there were any FBI agents there?
And and and I think I think the point was
made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was
almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look an earlier Verdict we
(14:50):
did actually before you and I teamed up, back when
it was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire
episode of Verdict that was entitled who is ray Epps?
And and you ought to go on YouTube, and it
was episode one oh four of Verdict, Who Is ray Epps?
And it followed questioning that I had done in the
Judiciary committee of senior officials at the Department of Justice
(15:13):
and the FBI, where I asked them who Ray Epps was,
and if he had been, if he was an employee
of the FBI, if he was a confidential informant. They
refused to answer, They stonewalled. I asked the question, did
you have agents there? They refused to answer. They stonewalld
I asked whether federal agents incited violence? They refused to answer.
(15:34):
They stonewalled. And so this has been a pattern for
a long time. And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance
that he has no idea what the Department of Justice's
involvement was in incite violence or criminality. On January sixth,
I can tell you this is also in the wake
of the Department of Justice losing the case they brought
(15:58):
against the individual rules that were charged with a plot
to kidnap and murder the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And
the basis of their losing was that the FBI had
engaged in entrapment, that they had incited the criminality.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
And so can you explain a little bit more what
that means in citing criminality so people understand it well.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime. In
other words, if the police send an undercover agent to
you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a car parked
on the street. It's got the keys in it. Why
don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you can
do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there,
turn the keys and take it. If they do that,
(16:45):
that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones, they're
the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality, and you
might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were
not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you
to do it, and so it's a defense that a
criminal defendant can give is look, this was the government's idea.
(17:07):
They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis, the
central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover
informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested
the plot, They're the ones who.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Drove it forward.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
And these guys were acquitted, the charges were thrown out.
And the fact that the Biden DOJ is caught with
absolute misconduct, it is really stunning, and of course the
corporate the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's
(17:44):
exactly relevant to the question that was just raised about
January sixth, which is, to what degree did the criminal
conduct that occurred, the violence that occur on that day,
to what degree did law enforcement agents incite it or
prompted And the reason there's so much focus on Rey
Epps is he was caught on tape repeatedly saying let's
(18:06):
go into the capitol, not just up to the capital,
into the capitol. And there's one point where his behavior
was so odd that the entire crowd begins chanting fed, fed, fed, fed,
and so That's why I asked a senior leader at
the FBI if ray Epps was a FED, and she
refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is pleading
(18:27):
complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on January
six except for the fact that he has told Congress
repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals involved
with January sixth than any other matter in DJ's history,
which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's
(18:47):
yet another example of how the Biden DOJ is about
politics all of the time, and if you can target
your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Center Finally, there was one part that I really thought
wrapped up just how bad this back and forth was
this testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight, when
Merrick Garland has asked a pretty simple question, and that's, hey,
why do you act like you're the president's lawyer. That's
not your job.
Speaker 6 (19:19):
Our job is not to do what is politically convenient.
Our job is not to take orders from the President,
from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what
to criminally investigate. As the president himself has said, and
I reaffirmed today, I am not the president's lawyer. I
(19:41):
will add I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department
works for the American people. Our job is to follow
the facts and the law, and that is what we do.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar
at this point. I don't think he can be trusted.
And I think he's weaponized a DOJ and turn it
into a weapon of the President of the United States
of America. No matter what he says with his rhetoric
there in those prescripted clear talking points, they knew this
was a problem for them, and so that's why they
(20:15):
had him say it this way.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John
Mitchell was Richard Nixon's attorney general. He was indicted, he
was prosecuted, He served twenty two months in jail for
his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen
as Merrick Garland.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Merrick Garland look.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
In The New York Times reported that Joe Biden quote
told confidence that he wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to
stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action.
Joe Biden knew exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland.
He was getting someone willing to use the weaponry of
(20:57):
the Department of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously
willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the President,
to protect Hunter Biden, to protect Democrats. And I will
underscore again, we've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the
IRS who've come forward, two different whistleblowers to say what
(21:18):
Merrick Garland just said there is flat out false because
the Department of Justice has consystematically obstructed justice, obstructed the
investigation into Hunter Biden, and especially into Joe Biden. And
so he can say over and over again, I'm not
the president's lawyer, and yet he behaves exactly like he's
(21:38):
the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Should this be an election year issue, just the way
that the DOJ has been weaponizing, specifically, should Republicans be
targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of
the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think
is a major election issue, a major reason to throw
these clowns out, because it has done more to undermine
the rule of law that than anything that we have
seen in decades.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
If ever, as before, if you want to hear the
rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go
back and down the podcasts from earlier this week to
hear the entire thing. I want to get back to
the big story number three of the week. You may
have missed center. There was also something else that happened
a year ago, if you go backwards, Uh, the President
(22:33):
of the United States of America was in New York City,
and when he was there, he was at the UN
addressing the UN. He had meetings with Mayor Adams, the
mayor of New York City, and even did fundraisers with
the Mayor of New York City. This year, things are
a little different. He's not going to sit down and
meet with Mayor Adams because Mayor Adams has been critical
(22:54):
of the migrant crisis, the illegal immigrant crisis that is,
you know, destroying, in his words, his city. And he's
not even going to go to the migrant center that's
just two blocks away.
Speaker 8 (23:07):
Listen to this, despite the UN being just four avenues
away from the Roosevelt Hotel, which is the Migrant Intake
Center here in New York City. The President has no
plans to visit or address the migrant crisis here in
New York. In fact, he has no plans to meet
with Mayor Adams during his three day visit, a departure
from last year when the two met and attended fundraisers together.
(23:29):
The federal government also making no indication that they intend
to increase funding to New York City FEMA, providing one
hundred and four million dollars for contact that covers just
thirteen days of the crisis here. The Biden administration, frustrated
with Adam's response and his inability to stop the crisis,
also putting the finger at Congress to do more.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
I mean, it's amazing how your best friend, in the
guy that you're campaigning with and fundraising with a year ago,
now you won't even give him the time of day
because he won't get in line and say what you're saying. Yet,
the real coward here, Centaer, seems to be Adams and
every other Democrat, whether it's in San Diego, whether it's
on the border, or whether it's in New York City,
who refused to say out loud President Joe Biden, do
(24:15):
your job and close the border, secure the border. They
will not say those words.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Nope, none of them will. And they still claim to
be sanctuary cities that they say it's destroying their city,
but there's still a sanctuary city. You know the fact
that Mayor Adams uses the phrase that madman in Texas
and blames it all on Greg Adams, on Greg Abbott.
Look from his perspective, he knows it's the Democrats who've
(24:42):
caused this, but at this point his partisan loyalty is
just greater. So he's not willing to call out Joe Biden.
He's not willing to call out Kamala Harris. He's certainly
not willing to call out Chuck Schumer or any of
the Senate Democrats or congressional Democrats. He's not calling out
AOC although you know, as he talked about, when AOC
and Jerry Nadler and other Congressional Democrats recently had a
(25:05):
press conference in New York, even New Yorkers were fed
up and screaming at them.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
And yet.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
At the end of the day, the hypocrisy is so massive,
but even acknowledging it's a problem is too much for
Joe Biden, and so now Mayor Adams is persona non
grata because he acknowledges that it's a problem. You're supposed
to utterly ignore it and just let people suffer, and
(25:32):
it is. You know, I get asked a question over
and over again, why would the Democrats do this? And
I don't know for sure. Listen, I'm not a psychiatrist,
I'm not Sigmund Freud, so I don't know what's going
on in their head. I know, number one, they don't care.
And the reason I know they don't care because if
they cared, they would do something about it. They would
stop the policy decisions that are causing it to happen,
(25:55):
that are causing people to be killed, that are causing
children to be brutalized, that are causing women to be
actually assaulted. If they cared, they would behave differently tomorrow.
And they don't. Biden doesn't, Kamala Harris doesn't, Alejandro Mayorcis doesn't.
But the only explanation I can come up with is
really twofold number one, that they've handed the policy agenda
(26:17):
over to the real radicals, to the open border nuts
on the extreme left of the Democrat Party and They've
done that in almost every single issue. But number two
is I think the Democrats rationalized to themselves there's a
long term political benefit. They see that they view every
one of the seven two point two million illegal immigrants,
(26:38):
they view them as likely future Democrat voters, and their
view is, well, if we stay in power, the ends
justify the means. If some people have to die for
Democrats to stay in power, well that's okay with them.
And it's it looks saying that that sounds horrendously callous
(26:58):
and heartless. But I guess, Ben, what I would say
is if I'm wrong, if I'm ascribing too callous and
heartless a motive, what other explanation is there besides that,
because I don't know of one.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Yeah, great point. I want to end with what you mentioned,
the reporting that's being done down at the border by
Fox reporter Bill Malujin, and he said this on Fox,
and I think perfectly wraps up the last seventy two hours.
Speaker 9 (27:29):
I'm artha, Well, these surging border numbers are really put
into context when you think about the fact that New
York City Mayor Eric Adams said his city can't handle
ten thousand migrants per month. Well, they're getting nine thousand
a day down here at the southern border. A lot
of them crossing right here in Eagle Pass. Take a
look at this video our fantastic drone team shot showing
a massive illegal crossing in the river right behind where
(27:50):
I'm standing. You'll see a human chain in the water
as they're trying to get across the river. Very dangerous spot.
A ten year old boy drowned in this area last week.
The port of entry is right next to these people,
just one hundred yards away. They don't care though, they
want to cross illegally because they feel if they can
step foot in the United States, they're going to be
(28:10):
released into the country. You also want to show you
human smuggling pursuit. Take a look at this video Texas
DPS chasing a human smuggler in Kinney County, high speed chase.
The driver an illegal immigrant driving a stolen truck loaded
with illegal immigrants. They spike his tires, he goes off
road into the brush, loses control, and then you'll see
on the thermal camera everybody goes bailing out of that vehicle,
(28:32):
running off in all different directions. Texas DPS arrested the
driver and six illegal immigrants lasting to show you down
in the Rio Grand Valley with Texas DPS troopers in
the brush as they are arresting illegal immigrants trying to
evade capture from border patrol. Several of them were wearing
cartel wristbands indicating they had paid a cartel to get
across illegally. And back out here live mark the concerning
(28:54):
border patrol agents reporting that right here in Egle Pass
they just arrested an illegal immigrant with a conviction and
another illegal immigrant with a conviction for sexual assault of
a child. Send it back to you.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
No big deal, right, No big deal. Yeah, just people
that are killing people, and people with it are raping children.
That's who we're catching when we do catch them crumbing
coming across the border. And you heard him mention those wristbands,
the same RITS bands that the man who's in charge
of the border said he didn't know what they were
when you showed him to him before Congress.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
No, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (29:26):
That Bill Blugen is actually down on the border who's
reporting on what's happening. He knows what the wristbands are.
They're color coded for how many thousands of dollars they
owe the cartels, and yet the Secretary of Homeland Security
told me under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee he
had no idea what they were because he simply doesn't care,
and neither do his political superiors.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
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 search to again the Ben Ferguson Podcast,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome. It is a Verdict with Ted Cruz Weekend Review.
Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the big stories
that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
The number one story we're going to start with today
deals with election interference. And if you put Donald Trump
in a courtroom on purpose on a day like for example,
Super Tuesday, so we can't campaign, is that not the
(00:21):
definition of election? Heert interference? Also story number two ray Epps.
You've heard the name, Well, he got in dieted this
week sort of. In fact, it was almost a joke.
So how did ray Epps get away with January the sixth?
And why have they been protecting him at the FBI
and the DOJ. We'll explain that. And finally, Joe Biden's
(00:43):
not getting along very well with Democratic mayors across the
country who are starting to turn on him on illegal immigration.
So what does this mean for getting a deal done
with Mayor Adams in New York. We'll have that for
you as well. It is the Weekend Review with Ted
Cruz and it starts right now. Judges getting involved in
a way that I think is pretty clear it to
(01:04):
election interference. We've seen court dates that have come out
now for Donald Trump, with all these different indictments in
different states, that could be like the days before Super Tuesday,
when any normal canate would be on the campaign trail.
You just mentioned why you guys didn't do secret service.
That's how important is to be fast and right to
be campaigning. We're seeing two things now that seem to
(01:26):
be marking the calendar. One, you could throw this guy
into courtroom.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
During dates when he desperately needs to be out campaigning,
taking away his ability to have a fair election against
Joe Biden or whoever it may be. And two, now
you may take away the president former presidents. It's America
and the leading cannate for the Republican Party's voice to
talk about the accusations against him from the leftists and
(01:51):
these people, these DA's are trying to lock him up
by putting a gag order on what he can say.
This seems on American it seems Banana Republic. Ask.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
I think it's disgusting political POI here, Yet, that's what
we're really talking about now, is that real possibility?
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Look, you're exactly right.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
We have talked at length on this podcast about how
the multiple indictments against Donald Trump are election interference. Democrats
have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler, and
because they believe he's Hitler, anything, anything is justified to
stop him. The ends justify the means, and they're willing
to corrupt the legal process to turn the Department of
(02:30):
Justice into a political weapon. They're willing to do everything
they can to stop the voters from daring to make
a decision to vote in the way these angry partisan
Democrats don't want the voters to vote. We've gone over
two hundred years of our nation's history. We've never indicted
a president or a former president, or a major candidate
for president. In the last six months, Democrats have done
(02:51):
so four separate times. The US Department of Justice under
Biden is the most partisan and political we've ever seen.
And Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, we've talked to length.
He is a partisan. He has a history of abusing power,
including this is not the first presidential candidate or potential
presidential candidate he's gone After he went after Bob McDonald,
(03:13):
the governor of Virginia, was considered a credible presidential candidate.
Jack Smith indicted him destroyed his political career, destroyed his life,
and then on appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously throughout the
conviction as not being consistent with law.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
But he'd already done its job, which here out he
took him out.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
In this instance, the case in the District of Columbia
is profoundly dangerous. It's profoundly dangerous because number one, the
jury pool in the District of Columbia is over ninety
percent about ninety four percent Democrat. So you're going to
get a jury that in all likelihood hates Donald Trump
and believes he's ad Off Hitler. Now, if you believe
someone's ad Off Hitler, you're a victim.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
That's not a hard guilty for whatever the crime is.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
Yeah, it's you hate if it's Adolf Hitler. Yes, we
also have a district judge who has demonstrated and earned
a reputation as being one of the furthest left Democrat
district judges on the federal bench in DC, who is
presiding this trial is designed to directly interfere with the election.
(04:17):
But Jack Smith said this is not enough, and so
he filed a motion, a motion for a gag order.
So he's gone to this left wing district judge, and
he's asked for a gag order. He says, defendant has
repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of
the district Columbia. That's by daring to point out that
ninety four percent of DC voters vote Democrat, and that's.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Going to be the jury pool the court.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
That's by pointing out that the judge has a record
of being one of the most left wing Democrats on
the entire federal bench prosecutors. That's by pointing out that
Jack Smith is a hard core partisan Democrat whos already
abused his power repeatedly and prospective witnesses. The government therefore
requests that the court quote enter and narrowly tailored order
(05:07):
pursue into local Criminal Rule fifty seven C that restricts
certain prejudicial extra judicial statements, and in particular, what they
ask for, the government seeks this is a quote a narrow,
well defined restriction that is targeted at extra judicial statements
(05:28):
that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing
the case. The government's proposed order specifies that such statements
would include a statements regarding the identity, testimony or credibility
of prospective witnesses, and b statements about any party witness, attorney,
court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflamma
(05:54):
territory or intimidating. Now, let's be clear, who do they
mean by potential witnesses. They mean people like Bills yep,
and they mean people like Mike Pence. So Mike Pence
is literally running against Donald Trump right now for the
Republican nomination for president, and you have the Biden Department
(06:14):
of Justice asking a federal judge issue an order that
Donald Trump cannot say a critical word of Mike Pence
about one of his opponents in the primary. Like, holy crap.
If this doesn't piss you off, you're not paying attention.
I mean, it is truly breathtaking. You want to understand
(06:35):
why this is election interference? DJ believes the federal court
can order one political candidate you're not allowed to criticize
your opponent.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Just don't say a word.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
Don't say a word at all, despite the fact that
you're facing a political persecution designed to interfere with the election,
You're not allowed to say it. And if you do,
by the way. Look, a gag order is typically enforced
by content tempt and by jail. So what the Biden
doj is proposing is if Donald Trump says a negative
word about Mike Pence, that the US Department of Justice
(07:10):
will show up and arrest him and put him in
jail for saying a negative word about one of his
opponents running for president.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And by the way, they would do that, Let's be clear,
they would love to arrest.
Speaker 4 (07:21):
Him again, that's what they want, and to keep him
in jail. This is election interference. It is wildly unconstitutional.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It
is also a direct violation of the right to vote,
of our democratic process in this country. Now, the Democrat
talking hens will say, look, sometimes you have gag orders.
(07:43):
If you're going against the mafia, bosh, you're going up
against al Capone. Courts will enter orders saying, Okay, you
can't intimidate witnesses, can't you can't say things that will
prejudice the jury. You're right, in an ordinary criminal trial,
those things can't happen in an ordinary criminal trial. The
defendant is not a leading candidate for president of the
(08:04):
United States actively running for president.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
Of the United States. And my guess, I don't think
the district Court will grant this.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
I don't know that. I don't know this judge at all.
I've never met her. Her record demonstrates she's left wing.
But I think if the district court granted this order,
it would be exceptionally foolish. Why because the order would
be appealed and it would be overturned on appeal. I
do not believe there's any way the Supreme Court of
the United States would allow a leading candidate for president
(08:35):
to be enjoined, to be ordered from a court, you
are not allowed to criticize your political opponents. I mean,
if you could envision, imagine debate. Let's we have a
subsequent Republican debate. Trump shows up and Mike Pence blasts him,
and Trump turns and says, I'm sorry, I'm prevented by
court order from.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Respety, Yeah, from defending myself.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
That is not free speech, that is not democracy, that
is not how our system operates.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
And that's election interference. Exactly perfect example of what capsulates.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
And by the way, that's what they want, actually what
they want. Look, they know in that circumstance, Donald Trump
could not restrain himself, sure, and then they would arrest.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Them, and then they would arrest him.
Speaker 4 (09:18):
I mean, I mean, you can almost envision the jack
booted thugs sitting by the side of the debate and
as Trump blasts his opponents, and he'll blast all his
opponents because that's what he does. You can almost envision
them walking out in the middle of the debate and saying, sir,
you're under arrest. If that is not election interference, holy cow.
It really shows just how extreme the Democrats have gotten.
(09:41):
This is horrific. By the way, let's be clear, I
would be every bit as opposed to an order preventing
Joe Biden from criticizing his opponents, from criticizing RFK Junior
from criticizing Donald Trump. Not to be clear, Joe Biden
couldn't get up in the morning and speak without criticizing
Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
He says, good mo. Trump is the devil. That's just
how he addresses it.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
And he also demonizes every other Republican because he's in
his mental and feeblement, he's also become an even more
vicious partisan. But I would be equally and animately opposed
to any court trying to prevent Joe Biden from attacking
me or Trump or anybody else, because that's what free
speech and elections are all about. But today's Democrats, they
(10:24):
don't believe in democracy, which is why these indictments are happening.
They want to stop the voters from voting in a
way they don't like, and they don't believe in free speech,
which is why they want to muzzle their leading opponent
for president.
Speaker 3 (10:37):
It is uh. It's a brave new world we're living
in now.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
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 3 (10:48):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Let's talk about ray apps for a second and remind
people of ray apps. You and I have talked about
this on the show before. It's something that came up
obviously with director, with the director, the FBI director, also
with the Attorney General Merritt Garland. But Ray Epps out
of nowhere. Many people believe he was undercover FED. There
(11:12):
were people even chanting at January sixth fed fed fed.
He was the guy telling people were going to storm
the place the night before, caught on tape. He's a
guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a
guy that was encouraging people to break into the Capitol
on January sixth, had not been charged with anything. Now,
fast forward multiple years later, and we find out this
last week that yes, ray Epps has now officially been
(11:36):
charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to
prison that were in and around January the sixth, rounding
up people all over the country. Even just days ago
we saw another person rounded up. We put some you know,
some different people in jail for decades now for January
the sixth. But ray Epps, who clearly was a ringleader
(11:57):
at least on the day before January sixth and January sixth,
all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor. And we still
can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want
you to hear Representative Thomas Massey and his back and
forth and then your reaction.
Speaker 5 (12:11):
You're signing the Constitution. I'm going to cite it. It's
our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now in that video,
that was your answer to a question to me two
years ago when I said how many agents or assets
of the government were present on January fifth and January
sixth and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol,
and how many went into the capitol? Can you answer
(12:31):
that now?
Speaker 6 (12:32):
I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 5 (12:34):
Oh, last time, you don't know how many there were
or there were none.
Speaker 6 (12:38):
I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
If there were any. I don't know how many. You've
know whether there are any.
Speaker 5 (12:44):
I think you may have just perjured yourself that you
don't know that there were any. You want to say
that again, that you don't know that there were any.
Speaker 6 (12:51):
No personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I
said the last time.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
You've had two years to find out and to day,
by the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps,
and yesterday you indicted him.
Speaker 7 (13:03):
Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, you're
sending Grandma's to prison. You're putting people away for twenty
years for merely filming.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Some people weren't even there yet.
Speaker 7 (13:14):
You got the guy on video, he's saying go into
the capitol. He's directing people to the capitol. Before the
speech ends, he's at the side of the first breach.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
You've got all the goods on.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
In ten videos, and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor.
Speaker 5 (13:28):
The American public isn't buying it. I yielded to bounce
of my time to Chairman Geordy.
Speaker 6 (13:32):
Yeah, I answer the question.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
I'm gonna ask you one now.
Speaker 5 (13:36):
We'll let the down.
Speaker 6 (13:38):
Yeah, go ahead. But in discovery, in the cases were
filed with respect to January sixth, the Just Department prosecutors
provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking.
With respect to mister EPs, the FBI has said that
(14:00):
he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
Mister Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding, I
believe going on today on that subject.
Speaker 5 (14:12):
The charge is a joke, I yielded, Chairman.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
I love the end there, the charge of joke. I
yielded the chairman. He's right about that, based on everything
we know about Ray Epps. So who is the guy?
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Well, look, it's a very good question.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
And you see the Attorney General once again dodging and
and you know, one of the most telling moments of
that exchange is is when the when Merrick Garland says, well,
I don't even know if there were any FBI agents there?
And and and I think I think the point was
made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was
almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look an earlier Verdict we
(14:50):
did actually before you and I teamed up, back when
it was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire
episode of Verdict that was entitled who is ray Epps?
And and you ought to go on YouTube, and it
was episode one oh four of Verdict, Who Is ray Epps?
And it followed questioning that I had done in the
Judiciary committee of senior officials at the Department of Justice
(15:13):
and the FBI, where I asked them who Ray Epps was,
and if he had been, if he was an employee
of the FBI, if he was a confidential informant. They
refused to answer, They stonewalled. I asked the question, did
you have agents there? They refused to answer. They stonewalld
I asked whether federal agents incited violence? They refused to answer.
(15:34):
They stonewalled. And so this has been a pattern for
a long time. And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance
that he has no idea what the Department of Justice's
involvement was in incite violence or criminality. On January sixth,
I can tell you this is also in the wake
of the Department of Justice losing the case they brought
(15:58):
against the individual rules that were charged with a plot
to kidnap and murder the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And
the basis of their losing was that the FBI had
engaged in entrapment, that they had incited the criminality.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
And so can you explain a little bit more what
that means in citing criminality so people understand it well.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
Law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime. In
other words, if the police send an undercover agent to
you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a car parked
on the street. It's got the keys in it. Why
don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you can
do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there,
turn the keys and take it. If they do that,
(16:45):
that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones, they're
the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality, and you
might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were
not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you
to do it, and so it's a defense that a
criminal defendant can give is look, this was the government's idea.
(17:07):
They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis, the
central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover
informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested
the plot, They're the ones who.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Drove it forward.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
And these guys were acquitted, the charges were thrown out.
And the fact that the Biden DOJ is caught with
absolute misconduct, it is really stunning, and of course the
corporate the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's
(17:44):
exactly relevant to the question that was just raised about
January sixth, which is, to what degree did the criminal
conduct that occurred, the violence that occur on that day,
to what degree did law enforcement agents incite it or
prompted And the reason there's so much focus on Rey
Epps is he was caught on tape repeatedly saying let's
(18:06):
go into the capitol, not just up to the capital,
into the capitol. And there's one point where his behavior
was so odd that the entire crowd begins chanting fed, fed, fed, fed,
and so That's why I asked a senior leader at
the FBI if ray Epps was a FED, and she
refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is pleading
(18:27):
complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on January
six except for the fact that he has told Congress
repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals involved
with January sixth than any other matter in DJ's history,
which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's
(18:47):
yet another example of how the Biden DOJ is about
politics all of the time, and if you can target
your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Center Finally, there was one part that I really thought
wrapped up just how bad this back and forth was
this testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight, when
Merrick Garland has asked a pretty simple question, and that's, hey,
why do you act like you're the president's lawyer. That's
not your job.
Speaker 6 (19:19):
Our job is not to do what is politically convenient.
Our job is not to take orders from the President,
from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what
to criminally investigate. As the president himself has said, and
I reaffirmed today, I am not the president's lawyer. I
(19:41):
will add I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department
works for the American people. Our job is to follow
the facts and the law, and that is what we do.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar
at this point. I don't think he can be trusted.
And I think he's weaponized a DOJ and turn it
into a weapon of the President of the United States
of America. No matter what he says with his rhetoric
there in those prescripted clear talking points, they knew this
was a problem for them, and so that's why they
(20:15):
had him say it this way.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John
Mitchell was Richard Nixon's attorney general. He was indicted, he
was prosecuted, He served twenty two months in jail for
his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen
as Merrick Garland.
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Merrick Garland look.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
In The New York Times reported that Joe Biden quote
told confidence that he wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to
stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action.
Joe Biden knew exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland.
He was getting someone willing to use the weaponry of
(20:57):
the Department of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously
willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the President,
to protect Hunter Biden, to protect Democrats. And I will
underscore again, we've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the
IRS who've come forward, two different whistleblowers to say what
(21:18):
Merrick Garland just said there is flat out false because
the Department of Justice has consystematically obstructed justice, obstructed the
investigation into Hunter Biden, and especially into Joe Biden. And
so he can say over and over again, I'm not
the president's lawyer, and yet he behaves exactly like he's
(21:38):
the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Should this be an election year issue, just the way
that the DOJ has been weaponizing, specifically, should Republicans be
targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting.
Speaker 4 (21:51):
The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of
the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think
is a major election issue, a major reason to throw
these clowns out, because it has done more to undermine
the rule of law that than anything that we have
seen in decades.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
If ever, as before, if you want to hear the
rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go
back and down the podcasts from earlier this week to
hear the entire thing. I want to get back to
the big story number three of the week. You may
have missed center. There was also something else that happened
a year ago, if you go backwards, Uh, the President
(22:33):
of the United States of America was in New York City,
and when he was there, he was at the UN
addressing the UN. He had meetings with Mayor Adams, the
mayor of New York City, and even did fundraisers with
the Mayor of New York City. This year, things are
a little different. He's not going to sit down and
meet with Mayor Adams because Mayor Adams has been critical
(22:54):
of the migrant crisis, the illegal immigrant crisis that is,
you know, destroying, in his words, his city. And he's
not even going to go to the migrant center that's
just two blocks away.
Speaker 8 (23:07):
Listen to this, despite the UN being just four avenues
away from the Roosevelt Hotel, which is the Migrant Intake
Center here in New York City. The President has no
plans to visit or address the migrant crisis here in
New York. In fact, he has no plans to meet
with Mayor Adams during his three day visit, a departure
from last year when the two met and attended fundraisers together.
(23:29):
The federal government also making no indication that they intend
to increase funding to New York City FEMA, providing one
hundred and four million dollars for contact that covers just
thirteen days of the crisis here. The Biden administration, frustrated
with Adam's response and his inability to stop the crisis,
also putting the finger at Congress to do more.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
I mean, it's amazing how your best friend, in the
guy that you're campaigning with and fundraising with a year ago,
now you won't even give him the time of day
because he won't get in line and say what you're saying. Yet,
the real coward here, Centaer, seems to be Adams and
every other Democrat, whether it's in San Diego, whether it's
on the border, or whether it's in New York City,
who refused to say out loud President Joe Biden, do
(24:15):
your job and close the border, secure the border. They
will not say those words.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Nope, none of them will. And they still claim to
be sanctuary cities that they say it's destroying their city,
but there's still a sanctuary city. You know the fact
that Mayor Adams uses the phrase that madman in Texas
and blames it all on Greg Adams, on Greg Abbott.
Look from his perspective, he knows it's the Democrats who've
(24:42):
caused this, but at this point his partisan loyalty is
just greater. So he's not willing to call out Joe Biden.
He's not willing to call out Kamala Harris. He's certainly
not willing to call out Chuck Schumer or any of
the Senate Democrats or congressional Democrats. He's not calling out
AOC although you know, as he talked about, when AOC
and Jerry Nadler and other Congressional Democrats recently had a
(25:05):
press conference in New York, even New Yorkers were fed
up and screaming at them.
Speaker 3 (25:09):
And yet.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
At the end of the day, the hypocrisy is so massive,
but even acknowledging it's a problem is too much for
Joe Biden, and so now Mayor Adams is persona non
grata because he acknowledges that it's a problem. You're supposed
to utterly ignore it and just let people suffer, and
(25:32):
it is. You know, I get asked a question over
and over again, why would the Democrats do this? And
I don't know for sure. Listen, I'm not a psychiatrist,
I'm not Sigmund Freud, so I don't know what's going
on in their head. I know, number one, they don't care.
And the reason I know they don't care because if
they cared, they would do something about it. They would
stop the policy decisions that are causing it to happen,
(25:55):
that are causing people to be killed, that are causing
children to be brutalized, that are causing women to be
actually assaulted. If they cared, they would behave differently tomorrow.
And they don't. Biden doesn't, Kamala Harris doesn't, Alejandro Mayorcis doesn't.
But the only explanation I can come up with is
really twofold number one, that they've handed the policy agenda
(26:17):
over to the real radicals, to the open border nuts
on the extreme left of the Democrat Party and They've
done that in almost every single issue. But number two
is I think the Democrats rationalized to themselves there's a
long term political benefit. They see that they view every
one of the seven two point two million illegal immigrants,
(26:38):
they view them as likely future Democrat voters, and their
view is, well, if we stay in power, the ends
justify the means. If some people have to die for
Democrats to stay in power, well that's okay with them.
And it's it looks saying that that sounds horrendously callous
(26:58):
and heartless. But I guess, Ben, what I would say
is if I'm wrong, if I'm ascribing too callous and
heartless a motive, what other explanation is there besides that,
because I don't know of one.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Yeah, great point. I want to end with what you mentioned,
the reporting that's being done down at the border by
Fox reporter Bill Malujin, and he said this on Fox,
and I think perfectly wraps up the last seventy two hours.
Speaker 9 (27:29):
I'm artha, Well, these surging border numbers are really put
into context when you think about the fact that New
York City Mayor Eric Adams said his city can't handle
ten thousand migrants per month. Well, they're getting nine thousand
a day down here at the southern border. A lot
of them crossing right here in Eagle Pass. Take a
look at this video our fantastic drone team shot showing
a massive illegal crossing in the river right behind where
(27:50):
I'm standing. You'll see a human chain in the water
as they're trying to get across the river. Very dangerous spot.
A ten year old boy drowned in this area last week.
The port of entry is right next to these people,
just one hundred yards away. They don't care though, they
want to cross illegally because they feel if they can
step foot in the United States, they're going to be
(28:10):
released into the country. You also want to show you
human smuggling pursuit. Take a look at this video Texas
DPS chasing a human smuggler in Kinney County, high speed chase.
The driver an illegal immigrant driving a stolen truck loaded
with illegal immigrants. They spike his tires, he goes off
road into the brush, loses control, and then you'll see
on the thermal camera everybody goes bailing out of that vehicle,
(28:32):
running off in all different directions. Texas DPS arrested the
driver and six illegal immigrants lasting to show you down
in the Rio Grand Valley with Texas DPS troopers in
the brush as they are arresting illegal immigrants trying to
evade capture from border patrol. Several of them were wearing
cartel wristbands indicating they had paid a cartel to get
across illegally. And back out here live mark the concerning
(28:54):
border patrol agents reporting that right here in Egle Pass
they just arrested an illegal immigrant with a conviction and
another illegal immigrant with a conviction for sexual assault of
a child. Send it back to you.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
No big deal, right, No big deal. Yeah, just people
that are killing people, and people with it are raping children.
That's who we're catching when we do catch them crumbing
coming across the border. And you heard him mention those wristbands,
the same RITS bands that the man who's in charge
of the border said he didn't know what they were
when you showed him to him before Congress.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
No, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (29:26):
That Bill Blugen is actually down on the border who's
reporting on what's happening. He knows what the wristbands are.
They're color coded for how many thousands of dollars they
owe the cartels, and yet the Secretary of Homeland Security
told me under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee he
had no idea what they were because he simply doesn't care,
and neither do his political superiors.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
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 search to again the Ben Ferguson Podcast,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.