Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 1: you as always, and these were some big stories that
Speaker 1: you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 1: First up, Sendor Cruz questioned the acting Director of the
Speaker 1: Secret Service about the lack of protection for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: after the first assassination attempt. Well, his answers are even
Speaker 1: more shocking after the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: We're going to break that down for you.
Speaker 1: Also, Donald Trump had his campaign hacked by Iran. What
Speaker 1: did they do with the hacked information? They gave it
Speaker 1: to the Biden Harris campaign and also members of the media.
Speaker 1: Now they say, well, don't blame us, we didn't write
Speaker 1: them back. But did they use the information that was hacked.
Speaker 1: We'll describe those details in a moment as well. And
Speaker 1: finally Democrats come out showing their true colors in a
Speaker 1: disgusting move. This week, King ivf legislation that was brought
Speaker 1: by Senator Cruz. It's the weekend review and it starts
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 3: The acting Director of the Secret Service testified before the
Speaker 3: Senate Judiciary Committee, and I questioned him, and you know
Speaker 3: what striking is is just about every single question I
Speaker 3: asked him two months ago remains entirely salient today and
Speaker 3: even more so now that this has happened twice. So
Speaker 3: I want to go back and let's listen again to
Speaker 3: that cross examination. This is the acting director of the
Speaker 3: Secret Service, shortly after the first assassination attempt on President
Speaker 3: Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: Mister Row, thank you for being here.
Speaker 3: I agree with what you said at the outset that
Speaker 3: the individual Secret Service agents demonstrated remarkable personal courage putting
Speaker 3: their bodies in between the line of sight of the
Speaker 3: shooter and the president. That being said, the bravery of
Speaker 3: the line agents is quite different from the decisions of
Speaker 3: Secret Service leadership. Secret Service leadership committed catastrophic security failures,
Speaker 3: indeed the worst security failures for the Secret Service since
Speaker 3: nineteen eighty one, since the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 3: It is incumbent upon this committee to determine why those
Speaker 3: security failures happened. Just after the shooting, Secret Service put
Speaker 3: out an official statement from your spokesperson that says there's
Speaker 3: an untrue assertion that a member of the former president's
Speaker 3: team requested additional security resources, that those were rebuffed, This
Speaker 3: is absolutely false.
Speaker 2: In fact, we.
Speaker 3: Added protective resources and technology and capabilities as part of
Speaker 3: the increased campaign travel tempo.
Speaker 4: Was this tweet accurate with respect to Butler, Pennsylvania? It
Speaker 4: is accurate, sir.
Speaker 3: It is accurate that the Trump team had not asked
Speaker 3: for additional security and had not been rebuffed.
Speaker 4: If you're talking about Butler, Pennsylvania, all assets requested were approved.
Speaker 4: If you're talking about the media reporting of assets requested,
Speaker 4: there were times when assets were unavailable and not able
Speaker 4: to be filled, and those gaps were staffed with state
Speaker 4: and local law enforcement tactical assets.
Speaker 3: So I'm reading from the Washington Post July twentieth, twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four, Secret Service said to a denied request for
Speaker 3: more security at Trump events. The opening paragraph, top officials
Speaker 3: of the US Secret Service repeatedly denied requests for additional
Speaker 3: resources and personnel sought by Donald Trump's security detail in
Speaker 3: the two years leading up to his attempted assassination, according
Speaker 3: to four people familiar with the requests. Is that right
Speaker 3: that repeatedly the Trump detail asked for more resources and
Speaker 3: repeatedly Secret Service leadership turned that down.
Speaker 4: That is not accurate, Senator, assets are requested. There's a
Speaker 4: process that has made How.
Speaker 3: Many requests did the Trump team or the Trump Detail
Speaker 3: ask for?
Speaker 4: I can get you that number in a.
Speaker 2: Que You don't. You don't know, no, So I.
Speaker 4: Can speak to the ones that reported in the Washington
Speaker 4: Post and we can go through them if you like.
Speaker 2: But you don't know how how many requests there were
Speaker 2: in general?
Speaker 4: How many requests since twenty twenty one that the former
Speaker 4: Trump detail has made a requests for asking.
Speaker 3: You've had two weeks you had a spokesperson put something
Speaker 3: out that is false on its face. By the way,
Speaker 3: did you approve this statement when it went out?
Speaker 4: I don't know if I did or didn't.
Speaker 2: Say.
Speaker 3: Has this spokesperson is he still employed? Does he still
Speaker 3: have still so he lied on behalf of the Secret Service?
Speaker 2: He still has a job.
Speaker 3: Did your predecessor, the former director, does she approve the statement?
Speaker 4: Senator? Our comms team they send out statements, they do
Speaker 4: deconflict them, and they put them out. Did she approve
Speaker 4: this statement? I don't know if she did or did not, And.
Speaker 2: You don't know if you did either.
Speaker 4: I don't recall approving it.
Speaker 3: Senator, Will you commit to provide this committee writing every
Speaker 3: written request for additional resources from the Trump campaign or
Speaker 3: the Trump Detail, and every response from Secret Service.
Speaker 4: Senator, I will commit to providing responses and getting you
Speaker 4: the information that you are seeking.
Speaker 3: Me ask you something, and who makes the decision to
Speaker 3: those requests?
Speaker 2: Did you make that decision?
Speaker 4: Which requests are you talking about the ones that writ
Speaker 4: in the post?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 4: The processor is that a detail will make a request
Speaker 4: for either staffing technical assets. That is handled between the
Speaker 4: field office and the detail. It goes up to a
Speaker 4: logistics office between Okay.
Speaker 2: So there's a bureaucracy. Is there a decision maker?
Speaker 3: It's not a bureaucracy, Senator, it's the person that's the
Speaker 3: decision maker.
Speaker 4: Is there one, Senator, it's a conversation. It's not just
Speaker 4: an absolute yet. So let me tell you what I believe.
Speaker 3: I believe that the Secret Service leadership made a political
Speaker 3: decision to deny these requests, and I think the Biden
Speaker 3: administration has been suffused with partisan politics. Did the same
Speaker 3: person who denied the request for additional security to President
Speaker 3: Trump also repeatedly deny the request for security to Robert F.
Speaker 3: Kennedy Junior, whose father was murdered by an assassin and
Speaker 3: whose uncle was murdered by an assassin. Did the same
Speaker 3: person make that decision?
Speaker 4: Senator? What I will tell you is that Secret Service
Speaker 4: agents are not political.
Speaker 3: Okay, you're not answering, but you know what leader by
Speaker 3: the president.
Speaker 2: Le come appointed by the president is political. I have
Speaker 2: a simple question, yes or no.
Speaker 3: Did the same person deny the Trump requests that also
Speaker 3: denied the RFK request.
Speaker 2: That's a yes or no.
Speaker 4: Question, Senator. That is not a yes or no question. One.
Speaker 4: There is a process for a candidate nominee to receive protection.
Speaker 3: Is there a by Cameron does a bike stole body?
Speaker 4: Artisan process?
Speaker 3: That they say by cameral bipartisan process?
Speaker 4: What can candidate or not?
Speaker 2: Congress? Don't a camera?
Speaker 4: Mister Kennedy submitted a request that was referred over to
Speaker 4: the Sea Pack.
Speaker 3: Okay, you're refusing to answer the question. Let me ask
Speaker 3: because because the failures on that day were catastrophic. By
Speaker 3: the way, is it true that on the day of
Speaker 3: the of the Butler event that Secret Service transferred agent
Speaker 3: for President Trump to the first lady.
Speaker 4: No, sir, that's not true.
Speaker 2: That's been widely reported.
Speaker 4: It's not true. There was one airport agent that actually
Speaker 4: went on the MAMPI request for the Trump detail. They
Speaker 4: handled the arrival at the airport.
Speaker 3: What is the relative what was the relative size of
Speaker 3: the Trump detail compared to the detail that is assigned
Speaker 3: to the president of the first Lady.
Speaker 4: Senator, the former president travels with a full shift just
Speaker 4: like the president.
Speaker 3: What's the red so the exact same size. Is that
Speaker 3: your testimony that the President Trump had the same size
Speaker 3: detail that President Biden has.
Speaker 4: On the day of in Butler, the agent surrounding him.
Speaker 4: It is the same number of agents surrounding the president today.
Speaker 4: There is a difference between the sitting president who also
Speaker 4: not only and.
Speaker 2: You're using president that is not clear.
Speaker 3: Is it your testimony that in Butler, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump
Speaker 3: had the same number of agents protecting him that Joe
Speaker 3: Biden has at a comparable event.
Speaker 4: I'm telling you the shift, the close protection shift surrounded Yes,
Speaker 4: or you asked me, Senator, and I'm trying to answer it.
Speaker 2: You are not answering it. Is it the same number
Speaker 2: of agents or not?
Speaker 4: Senator? There is a difference between the sitting president of
Speaker 4: the United States.
Speaker 2: And what's the difference the difference two x.
Speaker 4: Three x five Acational command authority to launch a nuclear strike.
Speaker 2: I'm not over assets. How many more will the president?
Speaker 2: That's our former president.
Speaker 3: You were refusing to answer a number of secret servers.
Speaker 2: Stop interruption, Stop interrupting me, Go ahead.
Speaker 3: You are refusing to answer clear and direct questions. I
Speaker 3: am asking the relative difference in the number of agents
Speaker 3: between those assigned to Donald Trump and those assigned to
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. I'm not asking why you assign more to
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. I'm asking is the difference?
Speaker 2: Is it two X? Is it three X? Is it
Speaker 2: five X? Is it ten X?
Speaker 4: Senator? I will get you that number so you can
Speaker 4: see it with your own eyes.
Speaker 1: It's sad, Senator, but this seems now more relevant than
Speaker 1: it was after the first assassination attempt. The lack of answers,
Speaker 1: and by the way, you asked these questions on seven
Speaker 1: point thirty, if I'm not mistaken, so did you ever
Speaker 1: actually get the answers to all the questions where he
Speaker 1: said I will get that for you.
Speaker 3: Nothing, nothing whatsoever? He provided absolutely nothing. I asked the
Speaker 3: Secret Service in writing. They have not responded to my
Speaker 3: questions in writing. I assume they'll do it sometime within
Speaker 3: the next century. But what he said in that hearing,
Speaker 3: I will get that information to you. We are sitting
Speaker 3: here in mid September and he has still not gotten it.
Speaker 3: And it is a sense of a complete lack of accountability. Now, look,
Speaker 3: what they're doing right now is a massive cya. They're
Speaker 3: trying to cover their own rear ends. But the problem
Speaker 3: is with the senior decision making, and I believe the
Speaker 3: partisan politics that has been infused into the senior decision making.
Speaker 3: That is why I want to reiterate my call today
Speaker 3: the Biden Harris administration should announce that they are assigning
Speaker 3: a full presidential Secret Service detail to Donald J.
Speaker 2: Trump.
Speaker 3: And by the way, let me be clear on a
Speaker 3: little a sleight of hand that the acting director tried
Speaker 3: to try to pull in that hearing. When I asked,
Speaker 3: are the same number of agents assigned or what was
Speaker 3: the relative number of agents? He said, oh, the same
Speaker 3: number of agents are in the close protective shift. And
Speaker 3: he was trying to be really clever there. I think
Speaker 3: he thought he was clever. So the close protective shift
Speaker 3: are the agents that are assigned immediately on the body
Speaker 3: of the protectee. Soume he was accurate that both Biden
Speaker 3: and Trump the immediate circle around him is the same
Speaker 3: number of agents. What is different is the way the
Speaker 3: Secret Service works is in concentric circles perimeters of protection.
Speaker 3: So there's a close detail of a number of agents
Speaker 3: around the protect teem, but then with a full presidential protection,
Speaker 3: there's an intermediate perimeter that they locked down and there's
Speaker 3: a broader perimeter.
Speaker 2: The broader perimeter.
Speaker 3: Presumably would have caught this sniper on the golf course
Speaker 3: who was.
Speaker 2: Trying to assassinate President Trump.
Speaker 3: And so the Acting Director was trying to be cute
Speaker 3: by saying, well, well, the immediate shift, the close protective
Speaker 3: details identical. And look, everyone understands right now that there
Speaker 3: are markedly fewer Secret Service agents protecting Donald Trump than
Speaker 3: are protecting Joe Biden, which is amazing because as best
Speaker 3: I can tell, all Joe Biden was asleep on the
Speaker 3: beach in Delaware. But nonetheless we still don't know. And
Speaker 3: you know, Ben, there was a reason I did not
Speaker 3: ask at that hearing. I didn't ask the acting director
Speaker 3: how many agents were assigned to Trump, and the reason
Speaker 3: I didn't ask that, and I didn't ask how many
Speaker 3: are assigned to Biden? And the reason I didn't is
Speaker 3: he would have reasonably declined to answer that that that
Speaker 3: giving that information could compromise the security that protect Tee.
Speaker 3: So I can tell you in my written questions, I
Speaker 3: have asked that specific question, how many agents give me
Speaker 3: the number? And I've said that answer can be given
Speaker 3: as law enforcement confidential, so that it will not be
Speaker 3: made public because that shouldn't be made public. There's there's
Speaker 3: some details about security that should not be in the
Speaker 3: public domain. That's why I asked the question. I did
Speaker 3: give me the relative order of magnitude? Is it twice
Speaker 3: as many?
Speaker 2: Is it three X? Is it five X? Is it ten?
Speaker 3: And he adamantly refused to answer that question, and to
Speaker 3: this day he has not answered.
Speaker 2: That question sooner.
Speaker 1: Finally, I want to just talk about the media coverage
Speaker 1: of this second assassination attempt, and I can't even believe
Speaker 1: that it's gotten to this point. In fact, let's just
Speaker 1: look over the last like three days. This morning on
Speaker 1: Jensaki Show on MSNBC, you had a congresswoman that said, quote,
Speaker 1: Trump is the guy that stokes domestic terrorism. The problem
Speaker 1: isn't the people coming in but this guy. You then
Speaker 1: add MSNBC's Alex Witt argue, quote, the Trump campaign needs
Speaker 1: to turn down the rhetoric now that Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: been shot at for the second time in three months,
Speaker 1: blaming Donald Trump for this. There's another example, and that's
Speaker 1: not enough for you. You also had people on TV referring
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump and implying that he was, you know,
Speaker 1: basically kind of like Hitler. And so this MSNBC guests said, quote,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is exactly like Hitler. Just quote it like
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be quoted. This is the rhetoric that's
Speaker 1: on TV right now. And they even say today, well,
Speaker 1: maybe Donald Trump needs to stop playing golf outside for
Speaker 1: a while. Somehow, I'm plying, what's his fault, He's exposing
Speaker 1: himself to assassins.
Speaker 3: Well, we are, unfortunately in a horribly divided time. But
Speaker 3: I do think that that that personal rhetoric, the demonization
Speaker 3: of the left, but by the left of Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: has reached a level that that that we'd never seen before.
Speaker 3: And I think that kind of vicious rhetoric. It it
Speaker 3: bears fruit. People listen to the rhetoric when they hear
Speaker 3: people people describe him as another Hitler. Unfortunately, it increases
Speaker 3: the chances that some lunatic is going.
Speaker 2: To act on that.
Speaker 3: And and listen, I want to close this this podcast
Speaker 3: the way we opened by by giving thanks to God,
Speaker 3: giving thanks that that God protected Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: I talked with you at in Milwaukee and at the
Speaker 3: at the Republican Convention. How I visited with Trump right
Speaker 3: right after the the shooting. And Butler, yeah, and and
Speaker 3: and he he said to me there very quietly and
Speaker 3: in in he just said, God saved me for a reason.
Speaker 3: And and there was there was a quiet introspection about
Speaker 3: it that I would say is not typical of how
Speaker 3: President Trump behaves. And I think for the second time
Speaker 3: in just over two months, Uh, president Trump has been protected.
Speaker 3: I am grateful for for that protection. I'm grateful for him,
Speaker 3: but I'm also grateful for the country.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: To to have a presidential election decided by an assassin,
Speaker 3: decided by murder is the ultimate affront to democracy. It
Speaker 3: is and it is an attack at the very essence
Speaker 3: of our constitution and the rule of law and the
Speaker 3: sovereignty of the We we the people to choose our leaders.
Speaker 3: And and so you know, today I'm just I'm grateful
Speaker 3: for God's protection on President Trump. And let me be clear,
Speaker 3: I'm grateful for God's protection on Joe Biden and Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris and and on our leaders in both parties. You
Speaker 3: and I are both Christians, and the Bible commands us
Speaker 3: to pray for our leaders, and so I pray for
Speaker 3: our leaders, even even if I disagree with them strongly.
Speaker 3: I'm grateful for that protection. And I'm grateful for God's
Speaker 3: protection over our nation. This is a time, especially when
Speaker 3: when when we need to be one nation under God.
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week now understory number two. Finally, I
Speaker 1: want to move to another story, and it deals with
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and the Iranian hack of the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: We already knew that the Iranians had hacked the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and stole a variety of materials, but now the
Speaker 1: FBI has announced that the Iranian hackers stole information from
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and send it to people with Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's campaign. We also know that they also sent the
Speaker 1: information to journalists, and the alibis of what people did
Speaker 1: with this information are hysterical. This from CNN covering their
Speaker 1: ABS's listen.
Speaker 5: There's new information into CNN on foreign efforts to interfere
Speaker 5: to try to interfere with the US election. Federal law
Speaker 5: enforcement officials now say Arian hackers not only stole information
Speaker 5: from Donald Trump's presidential campaign over the summer, but also
Speaker 5: now adding that they sent it unsolicited to people associated
Speaker 5: with the Biden campaign. Law enforcement saying there's no indication
Speaker 5: the Biden team ever did anything with the information. That detail, though,
Speaker 5: did not stop Donald Trump from leaning on conspiracy without evidence.
Speaker 1: It's amazing, right, Well, we didn't we didn't respond to Iran.
Speaker 1: So we're good. We didn't share the information. Well, if
Speaker 1: you read it, you know what it said, it's gonna
Speaker 1: you're gonna be able to use it. This is such
Speaker 1: an amazing word salad of like, hey, we'll say we
Speaker 1: didn't respond. Well, anyone that gets us out assume would
Speaker 1: know not to respond to Iran, and by the way,
Speaker 1: they would know not to forward it to anybody else.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean that you didn't take the material and use
Speaker 1: it to your advantage.
Speaker 3: And look at how CNN ended that little segment where
Speaker 3: they attacked Trump for they say, pointing to conspiracy without evidence. Now,
Speaker 3: no that's there's a technical word for that. That's called
Speaker 3: a lie. Here's the evidence. This was released from the
Speaker 3: federal government. As we know, the Iranians hacked Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: That's there's evidence of that. That is a fact. There's
Speaker 3: hard evidence of that. We know the Iranians then took
Speaker 3: the stolen materials and forwarded it to the Biden campaign.
Speaker 3: There's hard evidence of that. And yet what does CNN
Speaker 3: say It's conspiracy without evidence. That is an utter lie.
Speaker 3: Let me read from ABC. Quote. The FBI and other
Speaker 3: US intelligence agencies released findings that the Iranian hackers have
Speaker 3: continued efforts to influence the twenty twenty four presidential election,
Speaker 3: with stolen information from former President Donald Trump's campaign being
Speaker 3: sent to individuals associated with President Joe Biden's campaign before
Speaker 3: he left the race.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 3: Iranian militious cyber actors in late June and early July
Speaker 3: sent unsolicited emails to individuals then associated with President Biden's
Speaker 3: campaign that contained an excerpt from stolen non public material
Speaker 3: from former President Trump's campaign as text in the emails.
Speaker 3: US intelligence agency said in the statement Wednesday, quote, there
Speaker 3: is currently no information indicating those recipients applied, so that's
Speaker 3: their attempt to defend the Biden administration. They didn't reply.
Speaker 3: You know what they haven't said, did the Biden administration?
Speaker 3: Did the Biden campaign read the emails? Did they learn
Speaker 3: anything that was politically useful in the emails? Did they
Speaker 3: call up their friends in the media and leak the
Speaker 3: information that was in the emails to their friends in
Speaker 3: the media. Did the media then publish the information in
Speaker 3: the emails? To mind you, they didn't forward it and
Speaker 3: they didn't reply, because they're not complete blithering idiots.
Speaker 2: But did they read it? Did they use it?
Speaker 3: We don't have an answer to that, and I'm not
Speaker 3: aware of any reporters asking that question. They're just saying, well,
Speaker 3: they didn't reply, so it's all good. Look Caroline Levitt,
Speaker 3: who's the Trump campaign's press secretary, here's what she said,
Speaker 3: quote Kamalin Biden must come clean on whether they used
Speaker 3: the hacked materials given to them by the Iranians to
Speaker 3: hurt President Trump. What did they know and when did
Speaker 3: they know it? That is a very good question. Is
Speaker 3: their any journalist in the country willing to ask it?
Speaker 3: If there is, I haven't seen it, but this would
Speaker 3: be a good opportunity for someone to actually pretend to
Speaker 3: be a real journalist.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you one final question about this,
Speaker 1: and that is, Look, when Trump was in office, there
Speaker 1: was maximum pressure put on Iran, sanctions that made Iran
Speaker 1: weak and poor, which meant they were not able to
Speaker 1: sponsor near as much terrorist activity as they are now.
Speaker 1: And under Harris, Iran is extremely rich, extremely strong, and
Speaker 1: more in bolden than ever. That's why they're trying to
Speaker 1: influence the outcome of this selection, because they want a
Speaker 1: Kama Harris administration so they can do whatever the hell
Speaker 1: they want to do in the Middle East and honestly
Speaker 1: around the world. I mean Biden Harris's appeasement campaign with them,
Speaker 1: and they're proxy. He has given them tens of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars and even the sanctions that we have on them,
Speaker 1: apparently we're not enforcing them. And this is the appeasement
Speaker 1: towards Iran has happened. The attacks have resulted in the
Speaker 1: death of US service members.
Speaker 3: Look, of course, you know, as you know I've said
Speaker 3: many times about this election, the classic question in any
Speaker 3: election is are you better off now than you were
Speaker 3: four years ago? And I've said tongue in cheek unless
Speaker 3: you're a Mexican drug lord.
Speaker 2: The answers no.
Speaker 3: By the way, if you're a Mexican drug lord, Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris and Joe Biden have given you billions of dollars
Speaker 3: and frankly, you ought to vote for Kamala Harris. She's
Speaker 3: been great. Well, I now need to amend that and say,
Speaker 3: unless you're a Mexican drug lord, or unless you're the
Speaker 3: Ayatola kameenee, because actually Kamala Harris has given even more
Speaker 3: money to Iran's Ayatola than she's given to the Mexican
Speaker 3: drug lords. The Mexican drug lords made roughly thirteen billion
Speaker 3: dollars from human trafficking courtesy of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris,
Speaker 3: and Congressional Democrats. In the last four years, Joe Biden
Speaker 3: and Kamala Harris have flowed over one hundred billion dollars
Speaker 3: to the Iyatola and to the Mullahs in Iran, even
Speaker 3: while Iran's the leading state sponsor of terrorism, Even while
Speaker 3: Iran provides ninety percent of the funding to Hamas and
Speaker 3: ninety percent of the funding to Hesbela one hundred billion dollars,
Speaker 3: no wonder, the Iranian government is hacking Trump's campaign and
Speaker 3: giving it to the Biden campaign. They're trying to give
Speaker 3: a campaign contribution. And if someone gives you a hundred
Speaker 3: billion dollars, you would be motivated to do a campaign contribution.
Speaker 3: But you know what, the American people have a right
Speaker 3: to be deeply upset about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the media, the question they should ask is this,
Speaker 1: what did Kamala know? It's an old question, and when
Speaker 1: did she know it? Don't worry they won't ask her
Speaker 1: that question.
Speaker 3: He ran Ben, not just what did Kamala know? What
Speaker 3: did her campaign know? Who received the email, who read it,
Speaker 3: Who did they show it to? Who else read it?
Speaker 3: Who did they give it to? Did they leak any
Speaker 3: of the information, did they use any of the information?
Speaker 3: Don't give Kamala a bailout of Oh no, no, we
Speaker 3: kept her in the dark. She had plausible deniability. If
Speaker 3: her apparatchiics she used it, she's responsible as well. So
Speaker 3: it's not just her, it's or the members of her
Speaker 3: campaign or the Biden campaign.
Speaker 1: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 1: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 1: down the podcasts from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 1: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 1: story number three of the week. You may have missed, Senator,
Speaker 1: there's another really important story, and it's not getting as
Speaker 1: much press as it should. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: many people actually listen to the show because they get
Speaker 1: info like this. You may remember, if you go backwards,
Speaker 1: there was a big fake controversy by virtually every Democratic operative,
Speaker 1: the people running for office, congressmen, senators on the left,
Speaker 1: and it was over IVF. Conservatives have been in favor
Speaker 1: of IVF and protecting IVF for I mean, as long
Speaker 1: as I can remember. My kids are in vitro fertilization kids.
Speaker 1: Without it, I probably wouldn't have kids. And I'm so
Speaker 1: thankful for the technology. And so when this controversy happened
Speaker 1: in Alabama, you teamed up with Katie Britt to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to put our money where our mouth is
Speaker 1: and make sure that we protect IVF. And there was
Speaker 1: an opportunity to do that in Congress and the Democrats
Speaker 1: stopped it.
Speaker 3: Why so, look that this story is incredibly revealing of
Speaker 3: everything that's wrong with Washington and how corrupt on a
Speaker 3: lot of politics is.
Speaker 2: Let's start with IVF.
Speaker 3: You and I both strongly and unequivocally support in vitro fertilization.
Speaker 3: I think IVF is an incredible medical miracle. It has enabled.
Speaker 2: Millions of parents, moms, and dads to have kids that
Speaker 2: could otherwise have kids. Two percent of all live births.
Speaker 3: In America come from IVF. There are over eight million
Speaker 3: children born via IVF, including your kids. Yeah, that is
Speaker 3: an amazing A very close staffer of mine who is
Speaker 3: with me most days, we were talking about this issue
Speaker 3: as I was fighting to defend IVF, and he told me,
Speaker 3: much to my surprise, he said, you know what, I
Speaker 3: was born via IVF. I'm an IVF kid.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: Like, that's amazing, and I think IVF is extraordinary. Now,
Speaker 3: following a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court concerning IVF,
Speaker 3: there was enormous uncertainty. There was enormous fear and enormous
Speaker 3: concern that IVF would be in jeopardy to be clear,
Speaker 3: in Alabama. When that concern was raised, the state legislature
Speaker 3: acted incredibly quickly to pass legislation making clear that IVF
Speaker 3: would be protected in Alabama. So, as a real practical matter,
Speaker 3: I believe there is zero threat to IVF in America. Why, well,
Speaker 3: let's take the US Senate. In the US Senate, there
Speaker 3: a one hundred senators. To the best of my knowledge,
Speaker 3: all one hundred senators support IVF. I do not know
Speaker 3: of a single senator in either party who opposes IVF.
Speaker 3: But yet there was genuine concern, there was confusion that
Speaker 3: IVF might be in jeopardy. And this is where Democrats
Speaker 3: and the corporate media had an intense political interest to
Speaker 3: flame that fear and and to encourage that confusion. And
Speaker 3: so as that was happening, I saw that I was dismayed.
Speaker 3: And I will tell you so. When the Senate's in session,
Speaker 3: Republican senators we have lunch every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday together,
Speaker 3: so all the Republican senators together. And Katie brit the
Speaker 3: senator from Alabama, has become a good friend. She's been
Speaker 3: a guest on this podcast. She stood up at one
Speaker 3: lunch and she gave an impassion speech to the other
Speaker 3: Republican senators about how important IVF was and how she
Speaker 3: was hearing from from women and men, although mostly women,
Speaker 3: but parents and would be parents across Alabama who were
Speaker 3: incredibly concerned IVF was in jeopardy, and he said. She said,
Speaker 3: we've got to protect that. I listened to what she said,
Speaker 3: and so I went to her an approach her and said, listen,
Speaker 3: U sport IVF ice sport IVF. Let's draft legislation that
Speaker 3: puts a clear, unequivocal protection into federal statutory law to
Speaker 3: make clear that no state and no local government can
Speaker 3: ban IVF. Let's find common grounds.
Speaker 2: She agreed. I drafted the legislation, we did it together,
Speaker 2: we filed it.
Speaker 3: Now, the Democrats want to fearmonger on IVF. So there's
Speaker 3: a different bill that they call an IVF bill is
Speaker 3: that is introduced by Tammy Duckworth, the very liberal Democrat
Speaker 3: for Illinois. The Tammy Duckworth quote IVF bill is not
Speaker 3: an IVF bill. It's a radical abortion bill. It would
Speaker 3: give the Secretary of HHS Health and Human Services broad
Speaker 3: authority to, under that bill protect abortion in a vast
Speaker 3: variety of circumstances.
Speaker 2: Also, the Duckworth bill.
Speaker 3: Explicitly overturns the protections of religious liberty under the Religious
Speaker 3: Freedom Restoration Act. I support IVF, but I certainly don't
Speaker 3: want to force a physician to participate in IVF if
Speaker 3: it's against their religious faith. It's not against my religious faith.
Speaker 3: But if it's against theirs, I respect everyone's religious liberty
Speaker 3: to decide, Okay, I don't want to personally participate in it.
Speaker 3: And yet the Democrats they do want to force, let's
Speaker 3: someone to potentially violate their own religious faith to participate
Speaker 3: in something that they have moral concerns about.
Speaker 2: And so.
Speaker 3: Yesterday Chuck Schumer teed up a vote. It's the second
Speaker 3: time in a couple of months on the Tammy Duckworth bill. Now,
Speaker 3: the reason he teed up the vote is because he
Speaker 3: knew it would fail, and it was written in such
Speaker 3: a way as to be filled with poison pills as
Speaker 3: to force any publican with principles who believes in life
Speaker 3: to vote against it, because this would empower a Joe
Speaker 3: Bidener Kamala Harris administration to go after laws protecting unborn
Speaker 3: children in states across this country. This was an abortion bill,
Speaker 3: it was not an IVF bill, and it was again
Speaker 3: designed to trample religious liberty. So yesterday on the Senate floor,
Speaker 3: I went to the Senate floor along with Katie Britton.
Speaker 3: We tried to pass our IVF bill, and I stood
Speaker 3: up and gave a speech in support of it. Katy
Speaker 3: Britt stood up and gave a speech in support of it,
Speaker 3: and I asked for unanimous consent to pass our bill.
Speaker 2: And what happened.
Speaker 3: The Democrats stood up and objected. They said no, we
Speaker 3: will not allow this to pass. And we had a
Speaker 3: debate back and forth. And I want to encourage you,
Speaker 3: if you care about this issue, go listen to the debate,
Speaker 3: Listen to my speech, listen to Katy Britt's speech, and
Speaker 3: then listen to Patty Murray, the Democrat from Washington State
Speaker 3: who objected. Because the entire point of what the Democrats
Speaker 3: were doing was a purely political exercise. If they actually
Speaker 3: wanted to protect IVF, all they had to do was
Speaker 3: very simple. Not say two words, not say the words
Speaker 3: I object. If they had not said those two words,
Speaker 3: today the Senate would have unanimously passed my legislation protecting IVF.
Speaker 3: But from the Democrat's perspective, that would have been a
Speaker 3: catastrophic disaster because if we actually pass a strong statutory
Speaker 3: protection for IVF, then they can't run millions of dollars
Speaker 3: to campaign ads scaring voters into saying the mean Republicans
Speaker 3: want to take away IVF. So they objected to Katie
Speaker 3: Britz and my legislation because they don't want to protect IVF.
Speaker 3: And a point that I made in the debate, I said, listen,
Speaker 3: the Democrat bill was drafted deliberately with poison pills.
Speaker 2: They're objective.
Speaker 3: They wanted to Republicans to vote no because they don't
Speaker 3: actually want to pass their bill.
Speaker 2: What they want to.
Speaker 3: Do is force Republicans to vote no so they can
Speaker 3: run ads say, oh, Republicans are opposed to IVF.
Speaker 2: That is a lie. Not a single Republican as appost IVF.
Speaker 3: A couple of months ago when we had this debate,
Speaker 3: one of the people who joined Katie and me on
Speaker 3: the Senate floor was Roger Marshall. Roger Marshall, Republican senator
Speaker 3: from Kansas, is a physician. He is an obgyn who
Speaker 3: has delivered thousands of babies, and he actually has performed
Speaker 3: IVF procedures for hundreds of parents. He literally was an
Speaker 3: IVF doctor. And yet the Democrat's talking point is an
Speaker 3: IVF doctor is opposed to IVF. It's absurd. So understand,
Speaker 3: they drafted their bill with poison pills because their objective
Speaker 3: was to make Republicans vote against it, and all but
Speaker 3: two of us did. My bill, and Katie's bill has
Speaker 3: no poison pills in it. Every Democrat agrees with every
Speaker 3: word of our bill. There's not a war in it
Speaker 3: that they disagree with. Their problem is if it passes,
Speaker 3: the issue they want to run against goes away, and
Speaker 3: they don't want the issue to go away, and so
Speaker 3: sadly they objected it. And I got to tell you
Speaker 3: this is an example of where the corrupt corporate media matters.
Speaker 3: When I was giving my speech, when Katie was giving
Speaker 3: her speech, there were no reporters in the gallery. If
Speaker 3: you read any of the press coverage, the reporters all said.
Speaker 3: The headlines today were Republicans block bill to protect IVF.
Speaker 3: And you know what, the corporate media virtually none of
Speaker 3: them covered the fact that we had a bill to
Speaker 3: protect IVF the Democrats blocked. Part of the reason the
Speaker 3: Democrats are willing to do that is they know the
Speaker 3: media will not cover what they're doing.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dealt
Speaker 1: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict, or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.