Speaker 1: Well, good Monday morning. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you and Center. We've got a lot
Speaker 1: of breaking news, including tariffs and retaliatory tariffs.
Speaker 2: On top of that, Well, this is a very big week.
Speaker 3: On Tuesday of this week, President Trump is going to
Speaker 3: impose twenty five percent tariffs on all imports from Mexico,
Speaker 3: twenty five percent tariffs on all imports from Canada except
Speaker 3: for energy, ten percent tariffs on all energy imports from Canada,
Speaker 3: and in addition to that, an additional ten percent tariffs
Speaker 3: on all imports from Canada. These are a big deal.
Speaker 3: They have already started retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico.
Speaker 3: We're going to talk about what that means. We're going
Speaker 3: to talk about how that's going to impact American farmers,
Speaker 3: American ranchers, American manufacturers, American consumers. We're going to talk
Speaker 3: about what's likely to play out in the days and
Speaker 3: weeks and months ahead. We're also going to talk about
Speaker 3: the big hearing we had last week in the Senate
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee for Cashptel. Cash Battel is nominated to be
Speaker 3: the Director of the FBI. He is one of the
Speaker 3: very top targets the Democrats are going after. They're trying
Speaker 3: to take Cashptel down. I don't think they're going to succeed.
Speaker 3: I think Cash did a very good job. We're going
Speaker 3: to break that down for you as well. And finally,
Speaker 3: we're going to talk about the status of US airlines
Speaker 3: flying directly to Israel. They have halted all flights ever
Speaker 3: since October seventh. We're going to talk about my predictions
Speaker 3: for what's going to happen there as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's going to be a very big news for
Speaker 1: a lot of people as well that are looking to
Speaker 1: get to Israel. Want to talk about Israel for a
Speaker 1: second and say thank you to so many of you
Speaker 1: that have stood up with a people in Israel and
Speaker 1: for more than a year of war, they've been dealing
Speaker 1: with it, terror and pain in Israel. There's still a
Speaker 1: great demand for basic humanitarian aid. That is where the
Speaker 1: International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has supported and continues
Speaker 1: to support those in the Holy Land still facing the
Speaker 1: lingering horrors of war and those who are They are
Speaker 1: desperate for need right now. Your gift today will provide
Speaker 1: critically needed aid to communities in the North and South
Speaker 1: that have been devastated by the ongoing war. Your generous
Speaker 1: donation will help deliver food for those in need, including
Speaker 1: evacuees and refugees from war torn areas, first responders and volunteers,
Speaker 1: wounded soldiers, elderly Holocaust survivors, and families who have lost everything,
Speaker 1: and so many more. You can give hope during a
Speaker 1: time of great uncertainty. So give a gift to bless
Speaker 1: Israel and are people by visiting SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's
Speaker 1: one word, support IFCJ dot org, or you can call
Speaker 1: them eight a eight four eight eight IFCJ that's eight
Speaker 1: eight eight four eight eight IFCJ eight a eight four
Speaker 1: eight eight four three two five or support IFCJ dot org. So, Senator,
Speaker 1: let's talk about how he even got to the prospect
Speaker 1: and the premise for tariffs. Let's start so people understand
Speaker 1: that first, because I think there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: that don't understand that basic aspect because it is complicated.
Speaker 2: Well, listen, I think these tariffs are very different.
Speaker 3: I think the Mexico and Canada tariffs stand on a
Speaker 3: very different footing from the China tariff. And President Trump
Speaker 3: uses tariffs for several different purposes. One, President Trump is
Speaker 3: quite fond of using tariffs as leverage to force other
Speaker 3: countries to do things that he wants to do unrelated
Speaker 3: to economics and trade. For example, we talked about this
Speaker 3: on last week's podcast. When the nation of Columbia refused
Speaker 3: to allow US planes to drop off illegal immigrants who
Speaker 3: had come from Columbia, President Trump responded immediately by threatening
Speaker 3: twenty five percent tariffs and then threatening to ratchet them
Speaker 3: up in a week to fifty percent. That caused Colombia
Speaker 3: to cave immediately within about eight hours. That's an example
Speaker 3: of that. I think the Mexico and Canada tariffs fall
Speaker 3: into that category. The President has explicitly tied those tariffs
Speaker 3: to border security, to stopping the flow of illegal immigration
Speaker 3: coming into this country, and also to stopping the flow
Speaker 3: of fentanyl coming into this country. We're going to talk
Speaker 3: about that a little bit more, but I want to
Speaker 3: draw a distinction between that and the tariffs against China.
Speaker 3: Separate and apart from using tariff's leverage on other countries,
Speaker 3: President Trump just likes tariffs. When he sat down with
Speaker 3: all the Senate Republicans a couple of weeks ago, he
Speaker 3: went on for probably twenty minutes about it. He said,
Speaker 3: tariff is the most beautiful word in the English language,
Speaker 3: and he loves tariffs. And by the way, that has
Speaker 3: been the single most consistent policy view of Donald Trump
Speaker 3: going back to the nineteen eighties, going back to when
Speaker 3: Ronald Reagan was president, Donald Trump was advocating for TIFFs
Speaker 3: back then, you'll recall and in his inaugural address, and
Speaker 3: We're going to replace the Department of Internal Revenue with
Speaker 3: We're going to create the Department.
Speaker 2: Of External Revenue.
Speaker 3: And so, in my view, the China tariffs of ten percent,
Speaker 3: he is viewing as a long term revenue stream. He
Speaker 3: doesn't intend to lift those terraffs. He intends for those
Speaker 3: to be in place. He intends for those to decrease
Speaker 3: the production of what's being made in China. We wants
Speaker 3: that to move more production to the United States. But
Speaker 3: understand the tariffs predictably that they are attacks that consumers pay.
Speaker 3: They will drive up the prices of imports coming from China.
Speaker 3: Now they're designed to drive up the prices of imports
Speaker 3: coming from China because they are designed to make products
Speaker 3: produced in America more competitive. So the China tariff. I
Speaker 3: don't expect the president to lift it in four years.
Speaker 3: I expect that to be and in fact, he may
Speaker 3: well impose more tariffs on China. Look actually think that
Speaker 3: makes sense in a broader sense that I can tell you.
Speaker 3: The advice that I've given President Trump, the advice that
Speaker 3: I've given is incoming cabinet when it comes to tariffs,
Speaker 3: is focus in the long term on two things. Number one, China,
Speaker 3: and China has seized far too much of our critical infrastructure.
Speaker 3: We are too dependent on China, and I want to
Speaker 3: link our economy from China, and so these tariffs will
Speaker 3: accelerate that process. But number two, what I have urged
Speaker 3: the president is reciprocity. There are countries we trade with
Speaker 3: who have high tariffs on our goods and we have lower,
Speaker 3: non existent tariffs on their goods. And I think that
Speaker 3: that is us being taken advantage of. And so my
Speaker 3: hope is that he will use targeted tariffs to press reciprocity.
Speaker 3: Now I'm going to make a prediction. Ben My prediction
Speaker 3: is that the Trump administration will lift the tariffs, will
Speaker 3: end the twenty five percent tariffs on Mexican Coen Canada.
Speaker 3: I'm going to throw out a date thirty six days
Speaker 3: from now.
Speaker 1: I don't know that is clearly short term in comparison
Speaker 1: to China, is your point.
Speaker 3: I do not think we will see these tariffs in
Speaker 3: place for four years. I don't even think we'll see
Speaker 3: them in place for one year. And we can talk
Speaker 3: about the magnitude of them and why. I can tell
Speaker 3: you I met a couple of weeks ago the Canadian
Speaker 3: Energy Minister came to meet with me, and understand, we
Speaker 3: import a ton of oil from Canada. You remember the
Speaker 3: first Trump term, Remember the big, big fight over the
Speaker 3: Keystone Pipeline.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, and we were.
Speaker 3: All in favor of it. Republicans were in favor of it. Drill, Baby, drill,
Speaker 3: Keystone Pipeline. Yeah, that pipeline was to import oil from Canada.
Speaker 3: The Keystone Pipeline flew, flowed from or was going to
Speaker 3: flow from Canada down to the United States. They have
Speaker 3: massive oil reserves in Alberta, the tarsands there, and the
Speaker 3: Keystone Pipeline was to carry that oil down to the
Speaker 3: United States. Now, when the Canadian Energy Minister came to
Speaker 3: my office to weeks ago, he was pressing their internal
Speaker 3: studies that showed that a twenty five percent on Canadian
Speaker 3: oil and gas would drive up the cost of gasoline
Speaker 3: in the United States and the Midwest by eighty to
Speaker 3: eighty five.
Speaker 2: Cents a gallon.
Speaker 3: Now that's a pretty significant consequence, which is why the
Speaker 3: Trump White House did not impose a twenty five percent
Speaker 3: tax on Canadian oil and gas, but only ten percent.
Speaker 3: And I know the Trump White House Canada shared with
Speaker 3: them the very same studies they had. I don't know
Speaker 3: how true or accurate they were, but they that they
Speaker 3: claimed that was what their empirical economists were predicting. And listen,
Speaker 3: it's not crazy because there are a number of refineries,
Speaker 3: particularly serving the Midwest, that are dependent upon Canadian oil
Speaker 3: in particular. And one of the things that you know
Speaker 3: but our listeners may not, is different refineries are built
Speaker 3: and designed to refine different oil that comes from different
Speaker 3: parts of the world, whether Canada or the Permian of
Speaker 3: the Middle East, and it is very costly and very
Speaker 3: expensive for a refinery to shift from one type of
Speaker 3: oil to another. So the refineries that are right now
Speaker 3: refining Canadian oil, they don't have a whole lot of
Speaker 3: options to shift, which is one of the reasons why
Speaker 3: driving up the cost of the Canadian oil significantly I
Speaker 3: think predictably would have real effects in the gasoline market.
Speaker 3: You'll see some effects on gasoline, but at ten percent
Speaker 3: instead of twenty five, I think the effects will not
Speaker 3: be as market.
Speaker 1: So you look at that and you say, Okay, if
Speaker 1: they know this is going to be a short term thing,
Speaker 1: can't they just wait it out? And this goes back
Speaker 1: to the game because they're also retaliating with their own tariffs.
Speaker 3: Well they are, but listen, this is a game of
Speaker 3: inflicting pain, and these tariffs I believe will will inflict
Speaker 3: some pain on the United States. They will drive up
Speaker 3: cost for consumers, but you can predict they will inflict
Speaker 3: more pain on Mexico and more pain on Canada because
Speaker 3: their economies are much more dependent on exporting to the
Speaker 3: United States than our economies are dependent on importing from them,
Speaker 3: and so the levels of pain are are disproportionate. Now
Speaker 3: I'm going to share with you some analysis from an
Speaker 3: economist who I know and respect is one of the
Speaker 3: best economists who's analyzing what's going on. Here was his analysis.
Speaker 3: His analysis was that the effective tariff rate if Mexico
Speaker 3: and Canada, and these tariffs remain in effect for a year,
Speaker 3: that it would raise approximately one hundred and fifty billion
Speaker 3: dollars of new tariff revenue on an annual basis, and
Speaker 3: is the fiscal equivalent of a ten to eleven percent
Speaker 3: increase in the corporate tax rate.
Speaker 2: So that's not small.
Speaker 3: And the scale of these tariffs, this economist is continuing,
Speaker 3: is significantly large than Trump's tariff increase on China in
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen. Those tariffs in twenty eighteen
Speaker 3: and twenty nineteen were about thirty billion dollars a year
Speaker 3: in revenue. These tariffs, if they stay in effect for
Speaker 3: the entire year, projected to be four to five times
Speaker 3: larger than the twenty eighteen to twenty nineteen tariffs when
Speaker 3: fully implemented. Now here's another aspect of this, and this
Speaker 3: is the same economist who's very good, which is expectations
Speaker 3: for tiff increases happening in the Trump administrations were relatively low.
Speaker 3: Betting markets had the odds of thirty five percent for
Speaker 3: an early tariff increase, and Mexico was mostly priced in,
Speaker 3: but Canada was not. So the financial markets were pricing
Speaker 3: in some tariff increases. Treasury Secretary of Scott Descent observed
Speaker 3: recently that for every ten percent increase in tariffs, a
Speaker 3: four percent currency depreciation. So the Mexican paid so right
Speaker 3: now has a nine point four percent depreciation relative to
Speaker 3: the dollar since August first, which which suggests that a
Speaker 3: lot of the tariffs were already priced in. Canada's is
Speaker 3: about half of that. So Canada you could expect to
Speaker 3: see more depreciation of the Canadian dollar. And you know
Speaker 3: the point of that. That's one of the reasons I
Speaker 3: don't think these will remain in effect for long. As
Speaker 3: I said, my prediction is thirty six days, and here's
Speaker 3: what I'm predicting will happen in thirty six days. In
Speaker 3: thirty six days or so, that's a number picked out
Speaker 3: of the hat, but that gives you a sense of
Speaker 3: how long I think it will be. The President will
Speaker 3: announce with a lot of fanfare major concessions from Mexico
Speaker 3: and Canada that they are going to invest in a
Speaker 3: massive way in securing the border. They're going to put
Speaker 3: Mexico is going to put soldiers on their southern border.
Speaker 3: They're going to reinvigorate the remain in Mexico policy. They
Speaker 3: are going to lean in and Canada is going to
Speaker 3: as well. I can tell you when I met with
Speaker 3: the Canadian Energy Minister my advice to him. I said, listen,
Speaker 3: Trump is not bluffing. You are making a mistake if
Speaker 3: you think Trump is bluffing. And he said, well, look,
Speaker 3: we're already promising all sorts of steps to help secure
Speaker 3: the border. I said, great, whatever you're doing, make it bigger,
Speaker 3: make it bolder, do as much as you can, because
Speaker 3: this is not a bluff. And I think the end
Speaker 3: of these tariffs. I think these tariffs will be lifted,
Speaker 3: but they will be lifted only after Mexico and Canada
Speaker 3: make massive commitments to help secure the border. And I
Speaker 3: got to admit, if that's the case, listen, Texas will
Speaker 3: feel some real pain, in particular from the tariffs on Mexico.
Speaker 3: Understand that Texas and Mexico engage in hundreds of billions
Speaker 3: of dollars of trade back and forth cars many many
Speaker 3: cars and trucks sold in the United States. The cars
Speaker 3: on the supply chain go back and forth from Texas
Speaker 3: to Mexico, to Texas to Mexico, sometimes four or five
Speaker 3: times in the construction of a car.
Speaker 2: If these tariffs.
Speaker 3: Remain in place for a long time, you can expect
Speaker 3: significant upward pressure on the price of a car. That's
Speaker 3: not good and it's not good for Texas farmers and
Speaker 3: ranchers in the long term. If this ends up being
Speaker 3: a relatively short term tariff and the effect is to
Speaker 3: produce a massive change of behavior from Mexico especially, but
Speaker 3: also Canada to help secure the borders and to help
Speaker 3: stop the fentanyl flow, it will be a huge victory.
Speaker 3: But that is dependent upon Mexico and Canada now stepping
Speaker 3: up and acting, and I think the pain inflicted will
Speaker 3: accelerate that process well.
Speaker 1: And then this goes back to the practicality aspect of this.
Speaker 1: And for people that are listening, what Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: saying is it is worth this short term rise in
Speaker 1: some things for us to get a secure border where
Speaker 1: we're not letting in millions of people and rapists and
Speaker 1: sex trafficking and fetnyl and everything else that's been flooding
Speaker 1: our border, because there's a clear mandate there and this
Speaker 1: is the way to use leverage to get that done.
Speaker 3: So that's true, But let me give another benefit of this,
Speaker 3: And there was actually a quote of a national security
Speaker 3: analyst in the New York Times who who who says
Speaker 3: Trump quote will need to kill a chicken to scare
Speaker 3: the monkeys. Now, what that quote means is is showing
Speaker 3: the world that he's serious about tariffs, that his threats
Speaker 3: are credible and listen. I think it says a lot
Speaker 3: that these tariffs were announced right at the same time
Speaker 3: that Trump said a Secretary of State Marc Rubio down
Speaker 3: to Panama. I think these tariffs are speaking very clearly
Speaker 3: to Greenland and Denmark, and these tariffs are speaking to
Speaker 3: people around the globe that that Trump is perfectly willing
Speaker 3: when he says he'll impose tariffs, he'll do that. And
Speaker 3: that deterrent effect, I think is enormously valuable. So it's
Speaker 3: not just the change of behavior from Mexico and Canada,
Speaker 3: but it's the rest of the world saying, holy cow,
Speaker 3: this guy will really do this, and so we need
Speaker 3: to act accordingly.
Speaker 2: That's a big deal.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Panama, and this broke on Sunday afternoon, and
Speaker 1: is this one of those victories that comes out of
Speaker 1: these tariffs? And that is the fact that we heard
Speaker 1: from the president of Panama that they could have decided
Speaker 1: not to renew the twenty seventeen memorandum of Understanding with
Speaker 1: China regarding the Belt and Rote initiative, like immediately following
Speaker 1: that meeting with Marco Rubio.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, that is a significant victory. And look, we predicted.
Speaker 3: We did a podcast immediately right at the beginning of
Speaker 3: the Trump administration talking about Panama, green Land, and Canada,
Speaker 3: and at the time I said, listen to Canada is
Speaker 3: not going to become the fifty first state. That what
Speaker 3: Trump's talking about Canada becoming a state, I believe was
Speaker 3: just trolling Justin Trudeau, and it remains the most epic
Speaker 3: troll in history. It literally caused Trudeau to announce his
Speaker 3: resignation within days, and I think he was just yanked
Speaker 3: his chain.
Speaker 2: Greenland we've talked about before.
Speaker 3: I think there are very strong national security and economic
Speaker 3: reasons why acquiring Greenland makes sense.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: I don't think it should be done through force. I
Speaker 3: think it should be done through negotiations. I think we
Speaker 3: should offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark. I think it's
Speaker 3: in Denmark's interest to do so. I had a long
Speaker 3: conversation with the Danish ambassador about exactly this, and I said, listen,
Speaker 3: Denmark is a friend, you're an ally, but friends and
Speaker 3: allies can talk honestly with each other. And I think
Speaker 3: it's in your interest, in our interest for America to
Speaker 3: acquire Greenland. I think it would also take a referendum
Speaker 3: of the Greenlanders. But they're only about fifty thousand Greenlanders
Speaker 3: number one. If Greenland became in an American territory, US
Speaker 3: citizenship is an incredibly valuable inducement we have, and for
Speaker 3: the Greenlanders the opportunity to become American citizens is a
Speaker 3: big deal. Not only that. Look, I could imagine a
Speaker 3: scenario where the Greenlanders get a direct payment. If you
Speaker 3: can imagine Greenlanders getting fifty grand each for fifty thousand
Speaker 3: of them, that'd be pretty durn compelling if you had
Speaker 3: a referendum, and the upside of being acquired is that
Speaker 3: you get some direct form of compensation. And beyond that,
Speaker 3: if Greenland was an American territory, I think the American
Speaker 3: investment that would flow into Greenland both for its geopolitical
Speaker 3: location on the Arctic for national security and defense, but
Speaker 3: also because of the vast critical minerals and resources. I
Speaker 3: think that investment would be in the billions of dollars,
Speaker 3: and that if you're a Greenlander, I could think of
Speaker 3: an awful lot of reasons why you say, hey, we're
Speaker 3: not getting much from being part of Denmark, but if
Speaker 3: we could be part of America, that's a big step forward.
Speaker 1: So you look at that, and then you go back
Speaker 1: to this broader question and you see what President Trump's
Speaker 1: strategy is He's taking on a lot of these issues.
Speaker 1: I've heard people say, well, he's just going to be
Speaker 1: stretch just too thin, too quickly. It doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be the case at all. In reality. It seems that
Speaker 1: a lot of this was planned out, and the people
Speaker 1: are in place, and the people aroun him to see
Speaker 1: these things through.
Speaker 3: Look, border security is the clearest and most direct mandate
Speaker 3: from this election, and I think almost any step he
Speaker 3: takes to secure the border is good and beneficial. It's
Speaker 3: why Columbia made a lot of sense. They're leaning in
Speaker 3: hard on that, and that is very positive.
Speaker 2: We need to keep doing.
Speaker 1: That final question on this one for people that are saying, well,
Speaker 1: the prices is something that I care about more than
Speaker 1: the border security, and I don't. I don't want to
Speaker 1: pay ten cents more gallon or whatever the number is.
Speaker 1: Is that something you say, This is where you have
Speaker 1: to decide what's more important in general.
Speaker 3: Well, look, it also comes down to whether this is
Speaker 3: short term or long term. If this is, if the
Speaker 3: Canada and Mexico tariffs are a matter of weeks or
Speaker 3: a month or so, and it induces a significant change
Speaker 3: in behavior that secures the border and results in a
Speaker 3: lot less murderers and gang bangers and rapists coming into
Speaker 3: this country and a lot less fentanyl coming into this country,
Speaker 3: that's an unambiguous win. If the result of this tariffs
Speaker 3: is just ongoing tariffs driving up prices for a long
Speaker 3: long time, then that is not nearly as beneficial, and
Speaker 3: so the outcome is significant. And as I said before,
Speaker 3: I think the Mexico and Canada tariffs are very, very
Speaker 3: different from the China tariffs. I expect the China tariffs
Speaker 3: to stay in place all four years of the Trump administration,
Speaker 3: and I think they're serving a very different function.
Speaker 1: I want to move on to another big issue, and
Speaker 1: that is confirmation hearings. Cash pattels was at the end
Speaker 1: of last week as well, and we are now seeing
Speaker 1: a lot of people that are getting their audios. See
Speaker 1: you later. Thanks for serving. You're out of a job
Speaker 1: in the deep state. This is another reason why we
Speaker 1: need to get cash hotel in there quickly. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about where that is. And also you had a very
Speaker 1: interesting back and forth with him over some of the
Speaker 1: things that the left is trying to attack him on.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: The hearing, the Democrats went after cash Patel furiously. As
Speaker 3: I said on Hannity last week, the hearing reminded me
Speaker 3: of Shakespeare's Macbeth. It was a tale told by an idiot,
Speaker 3: full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. The Democrats
Speaker 3: did not get any traction. They were foaming at the mouth,
Speaker 3: they were coming after him ferociously, and yet I don't
Speaker 3: think they moved a single vote. I think cash Patel
Speaker 3: will get confirmed. Now every Democrat on the Committe's going
Speaker 3: to vote no, and my guess is every Democrat in
Speaker 3: the Senate is going to vote no on him. But
Speaker 3: I think we will get We might get to fifty three,
Speaker 3: but we will at a minimum get to fifty with
Speaker 3: jd Vance breaking the tie. And I don't think the
Speaker 3: hearing moved a single vote when my questioning occurred. You know,
Speaker 3: the week before I had spent a couple of hours
Speaker 3: helping moot cash battel, helping get him ready. I actually
Speaker 3: got to play Sheldon Whitehouse, who's a very liberal senator
Speaker 3: in the moot, and I got to say it was
Speaker 3: fun just raving at him, screaming at him.
Speaker 2: I tried to insult him. I was a total jerk
Speaker 2: in the moot, which which if you're doing to moot, well.
Speaker 1: You explained for here that don't know how this works.
Speaker 1: You get people, and I've gotten to do this a
Speaker 1: couple of times. It's really fun. You get somebody ready
Speaker 1: for a confirmation hearing, and many people like you just described,
Speaker 1: you play the other side. You try to get them
Speaker 1: ready for what they're going to face. And the setting
Speaker 1: that you do it in. Was this more relaxed or
Speaker 1: was it more formal?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: It was done exactly like a hearing. He was sitting
Speaker 3: at a table, we were around him, like, firing questions
Speaker 3: at him. And sometimes you do it this way, sometimes
Speaker 3: you don't. But in this instance, they gave me the
Speaker 3: role of Sheldon white House, who's one of the most
Speaker 3: partisan Democrats on the committee. I've served with Sheldon thirteen years.
Speaker 3: I know him well, and so you know, I mean,
Speaker 3: I was screaming at him, and yeah, I mean, and
Speaker 3: my questions were wildly unfair, but you got to get
Speaker 3: ready for wildly unfair questions. I was not trying to
Speaker 3: be nice to him in the mood, because that if
Speaker 3: you're doing that, you're not doing your job in a mood.
Speaker 2: And I got to say he did.
Speaker 3: So it was interesting in the mood A couple of
Speaker 3: times like Cash would try to pop back and we
Speaker 3: would stop and say, look, it's not your job to
Speaker 3: punch the Democrats of the face in this hearing. My advice,
Speaker 3: by the way, to every hearing nominee is be boring.
Speaker 3: Right now today you've got the votes to be confirmed.
Speaker 3: From the Democrats perspective. The only way they can change
Speaker 3: that is get you to say something in the hearing
Speaker 3: where you you you step on a landmine and blow
Speaker 3: yourself up. If you don't do that, you will be
Speaker 3: confirmed and you will go do the job the president
Speaker 3: has asked you to do.
Speaker 2: And and so.
Speaker 3: A good role of a hearing, you know someone you
Speaker 3: know very well is is is John Ashcroft. So when
Speaker 3: I was a young baby lawyer. I was part of
Speaker 3: the team that that that helped prepare John Ashcroft for
Speaker 3: his confirmation hearing to be Attorney General. And I was,
Speaker 3: you know, thirty years old, a baby lawyer, but I'd
Speaker 3: been on the Bush campaign and Ashcroft gets nominated bag
Speaker 3: So I remember we're prepping him and and just like
Speaker 3: with cash Ptel, we were asking horrible questions. We were
Speaker 3: asking uh, I mean, we were just just and in
Speaker 3: the prep session, Ashcroft would get pissed and he yelled at.
Speaker 2: Us and and and and.
Speaker 3: We'd say, we'd say, Senator, you're exactly right that that
Speaker 3: that question was terrible. It was it was unfair, it
Speaker 3: was dishonest, it was abusive. Senator, can we remind you
Speaker 3: you have the votes right now? Like they want you
Speaker 3: to get pissed? And so I was glad he yelled
Speaker 3: at me, and he yelled at the other people in
Speaker 3: the mood because that it got it off his chest.
Speaker 3: And I still remember. You go back and watch Ashcroft's
Speaker 3: confirmation hearing, and there was one exchange and I'm paraphrasing,
Speaker 3: and it was twenty four years ago, but he had
Speaker 3: given a speech about the Second Amendment and he had
Speaker 3: talked about the Second Amendment that the Framers had intended
Speaker 3: us a second amendment as a check on tyranny from
Speaker 3: the government, and Ted Kennedy, who was questioning him, goes,
Speaker 3: tyranny from our government, the American government. You know what
Speaker 3: that is?
Speaker 2: Treason?
Speaker 3: Man, I say, you're a trader, and he like screams
Speaker 3: at the top of his lungs calling Ashcroft a trader.
Speaker 3: And at the actual hearing, Ashcroft, I don't think his
Speaker 3: heart beat exceeded sixty five beats a minute, and he
Speaker 3: very calmly said, Senator, if I'm affirmed as Attorney General, I.
Speaker 2: Will follow the law and I will enforce the law.
Speaker 2: And he got confirmed.
Speaker 3: So Cash Pattel likewise, he got some of his yelling
Speaker 3: out at the motors. Actually, no, not much. He did
Speaker 3: a good job of not losing his cool in the
Speaker 3: moot and then in the hearing. I think he did
Speaker 3: an excellent job. When it came to my turn, they
Speaker 3: had been beating him up a lot on January sixth,
Speaker 3: and so I wanted to give him a chance to
Speaker 3: get out some basic facts. So give a listen to
Speaker 3: my cross examination of Cash Patel this past week on
Speaker 3: his confirmation hearing for Director of the FBI. You will
Speaker 3: be and have been accused of just about everything they can.
Speaker 3: But I want to focus on what several Democrats have
Speaker 3: done recently, which is trying to blame you for the
Speaker 3: violence that occurred on January sixth, which even in the
Speaker 3: annals of ridiculous attacks, this one really takes the cake.
Speaker 2: So let's just focus on some facts. Let me ask
Speaker 2: you a question.
Speaker 3: What role did you occupy in the days immediately before January.
Speaker 4: Sixth, chief of staff of the Department of Defense?
Speaker 3: You were the chief of staff at the Department of Defense, yes, sir,
Speaker 3: So to be clear, you were not rioting at the Capitol, No, sir.
Speaker 3: Where were you physically on January.
Speaker 4: Sixth in the office of the Secretary of Defense in
Speaker 4: the Pentagon?
Speaker 2: And what were you doing on that day?
Speaker 5: On that day specifically responding to preparing to mobilize and
Speaker 5: deploy the National Guard once we got the lawful request
Speaker 5: from the local governing authority, which was the Mayor of
Speaker 5: DC and the Speaker of the House.
Speaker 3: Now, how many days in advance were you working to
Speaker 3: prepare the Department of Defense to help secure the Capitol
Speaker 3: on January sixth?
Speaker 5: Days in advanced Senator, we were in the Oval Office
Speaker 5: on an unrelated national security matter with the President of
Speaker 5: the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of
Speaker 5: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and myself and the Asident
Speaker 5: authorized up to twenty thousand plus National guardsmen and women
Speaker 5: to secure any security measures necessarily related to the Capitol.
Speaker 5: So we were moving to the fullest extent of the
Speaker 5: law before the requisite request came from a local governing
Speaker 5: authority days ahead of time.
Speaker 3: And while you were chief of Staff at DoD. How
Speaker 3: many times did DoD approach Capitol police and ask if
Speaker 3: they needed National Guard assistants?
Speaker 5: I believe those letters are well documented, numerous instances, and
Speaker 5: numerous of those instances, those requests were shut down.
Speaker 2: Now, am I correct?
Speaker 3: At the capital sergeant at arms said assistance was unnecessary?
Speaker 4: That's correct, Senator.
Speaker 3: Who did the sergeant at arms report to the Speaker
Speaker 3: of the House That would.
Speaker 2: Have been Nancy Pelosi at the time.
Speaker 4: Is that correct, yes, Senator?
Speaker 3: And would that also be Chuck Schumer than the Senate
Speaker 3: Majority leader.
Speaker 4: The sergeant at arms, yes, Senator reports up there.
Speaker 3: Did Mayor Bowser, the Democrat elected mayor in d C
Speaker 3: either request or allow National Guard assistants.
Speaker 5: She put in writing on the days leading up to
Speaker 5: January sixth a declination for National Guard additional support.
Speaker 4: And that letter is available publicly to the world.
Speaker 3: So and just to speak English for folks at home,
Speaker 3: a declination meant she said, no, don't send national Guard.
Speaker 2: Is that right?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir?
Speaker 3: Let me ask you a simple question, because from the
Speaker 3: questioning from a Democrat colleagues they might think otherwise.
Speaker 2: Do you condemn violence against law enforcement? All of it?
Speaker 3: And by the way, is that true whether the violence
Speaker 3: is right wing or left wing or anywhere else?
Speaker 5: There is no discriminating between types of violence against law enforce?
Speaker 3: And do you believe those who assault and commit violence
Speaker 3: against law enforcement should be prosecuted and should be.
Speaker 4: Sent to jail, especially those that kill them?
Speaker 2: Me ask you how many years have you worked in
Speaker 2: public service?
Speaker 4: About sixteen, senator?
Speaker 3: And how many years have you worked, in particular in
Speaker 3: law enforcement and prosecution and national.
Speaker 4: Security over a decade? Senator?
Speaker 2: You know, I have to say it is.
Speaker 3: Ludicrous but sadly predictable that Democrats are endeavoring to tarnish you,
Speaker 3: to paint.
Speaker 2: A false caricature.
Speaker 3: Based on innuendo and smoke, and so you're working to
Speaker 3: protect the Capitol on January sixth, and yet they're trying
Speaker 3: to blame you for the violence that occurred.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you to this, just as a straightforward matter,
Speaker 2: what is.
Speaker 3: The job of the FBI and what will the FBI's
Speaker 3: role be if and when you are confirmed as its director?
Speaker 5: The simple motto on the side of the FBI's homepages
Speaker 5: to protect American citizens and uphold the Constitution. If I
Speaker 5: am confirmed as the next director of the FBI, that's
Speaker 5: what we're going to do and redirect resources and making
Speaker 5: sure that occurs every single day.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your willingness to do so, and this
Speaker 3: committee we'll hold you to account on restoring integrity at
Speaker 3: the FBI. And I thank you also for your commitment
Speaker 3: to transparency. I think that is incredibly important to bringing
Speaker 3: back integrity and I'm grateful for it.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it be nice if the media would fact check
Speaker 1: the Democrats on the committee that we're trashing him, trying
Speaker 1: to connect him to January sixth, like he was an
Speaker 1: insurrectionist in their words, and just tell the story of
Speaker 1: what he was actually doing. I'm so thankful that you
Speaker 1: asked those questions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, don't hold your breath on that. The media has
Speaker 3: their story to tell and they're not going to get
Speaker 3: let facts get in the way.
Speaker 1: So last question on this, This is a really important
Speaker 1: position being in charge of the FBI. When are you
Speaker 1: guys going to actually get to vote on this?
Speaker 3: So we will vote on Cash Betel in a week,
Speaker 3: so this week they'll be a markup. But the way
Speaker 3: the Senate Judiciary Committee works is the minority has a
Speaker 3: right on any vote to hold it over for a
Speaker 3: week and delay it for a week. So they will
Speaker 3: do that this week, and so they'll delay that.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: Pambondi will be confirmed on the floor of the Senate
Speaker 3: this week, so by the end of this week she'll
Speaker 3: be Attorney General. Next week we'll vote on Cash Betel
Speaker 3: and Judiciary Committee and then I'll go to the Senate
Speaker 3: floor after that.
Speaker 1: All right, lastly, you during the Panama hearing brought up
Speaker 1: something that was interesting and I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about it. We mentioned it earlier, and that was talking
Speaker 1: about the flights going back into Israel. Give everybody an
Speaker 1: update on this one because it really is important.
Speaker 3: Well, the reason I brought it up is one of
Speaker 3: the witnesses we had at that hearing. It was an
Speaker 3: international law professor who was an expert on treaties and
Speaker 3: who testified about the Panama Canal treaty, who was in Israel,
Speaker 3: and we had asked him to come back to DC
Speaker 3: to testify in person. But there are no direct flights
Speaker 3: right now from the United States to and from Israel,
Speaker 3: and so it would have taken him, I think over
Speaker 3: thirty hours to get here.
Speaker 2: It was very expensive.
Speaker 3: So we ended up having him testify via video conference,
Speaker 3: which is a general matter I don't want to have
Speaker 3: happened in the Commerce Committee, but I made an exception
Speaker 3: because it was so time consuming, inexpensive for him to
Speaker 3: get back to the United States, and his testimony was
Speaker 3: particularly valuable. All three major US carriers suspended air flights
Speaker 3: to and from Israel following October seventh, and they had
Speaker 3: been suspended the entire time. Now Delta has announced publicly
Speaker 3: it intends to resume service to and from Israel.
Speaker 2: That's a very good step.
Speaker 3: To date, neither United nor American has done so. I predicted,
Speaker 3: in fact, I predicted the week of inauguration all three
Speaker 3: US carriers will resume air flights, will announce that they're
Speaker 3: resuming air flights to and from Israel within thirty days.
Speaker 2: I think it is time for that to happen.
Speaker 3: You used to have Delta, United American all flying to
Speaker 3: and from Tel Aviv. I think within thirty days all
Speaker 3: three were in we'll announce their resuming air flights to
Speaker 3: and from Tel Aviv. By the way, to be clear,
Speaker 3: European airlines are flying into Israel. Regional airlines are flying
Speaker 3: into Israel. You can get there, but you gotta fly
Speaker 3: go to somewhere in Europe and then cut down. You
Speaker 3: got to connect through somewhere else. If the other airlines
Speaker 3: of the world can fly to and from Israel, there's
Speaker 3: no reason for the United States airlines not to do so.
Speaker 3: And I think within thirty days you'll see all three
Speaker 3: of them. Delta's already done it, but I think you'll
Speaker 3: see United American follow suit very soon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well done for them to be the first ones
Speaker 1: to do it. It's always good news.
Speaker 2: Don't forget.
Speaker 1: We did the show Monday, Wednesday Friday. We're going to
Speaker 1: keep you up to date on the confirmation hearings, the votes,
Speaker 1: and the breaking news obviously on these tariffs. So hit
Speaker 1: that subscribe or auto download button. On those in between days,
Speaker 1: grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcast. I will keep
Speaker 1: you up day on the breaking news in between and
Speaker 1: the Senate, and I will see you back here on
Speaker 1: Wednesday morning.