Speaker 1: Welcome in a verdict with Ted Cruz, we can review
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you, and my, oh my, was it
Speaker 1: a crazy week with one of the worst debates we've.
Speaker 2: Ever seen in history.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden now on defense and we're going to cover
Speaker 1: exactly what this means moving forward as Democrats are now
Speaker 1: pushing to get rid of Joe Biden altogether. Will it work?
Speaker 1: We're going to break that down. Plus another important story
Speaker 1: that you may have missed. We now have unknown the
Speaker 1: whereabouts of fifty ISIS related illegal immigrants that were smuggled
Speaker 1: into this country by an ISIS human smuggling network. The
Speaker 1: White House wants you to believe that everything's under control.
Speaker 1: Well where are these fifty people with ties to ISIS?
Speaker 1: We'll give you the details on that. And finally, the
Speaker 1: unlawful appointment of the Special Council and what this could
Speaker 1: mean for Donald Trump. It's the weekend review and it
Speaker 1: starts right now out. Let's also talk about there was
Speaker 1: two moments that I think really speak to the demise
Speaker 1: of the cognitive clin of Joe Biden. And it was
Speaker 1: subtle but significant, and I want to get your reaction
Speaker 1: to it. There was one moment when he was asked
Speaker 1: about Social Security and he gave a very very short answer,
Speaker 1: and then the moderators looked at him like, what are
Speaker 1: you doing. You still have I think they said eighty
Speaker 1: four seconds left or something like that. There was another
Speaker 1: time he was talking about African American voters, African American
Speaker 1: community and African American issues and they're like, sir, you
Speaker 1: still have like another minute and ex ember of seconds,
Speaker 1: sixty four seconds left.
Speaker 2: He couldn't even.
Speaker 3: By the way, he spent eight days at Camp David
Speaker 3: preparing and he could not fill the two minutes with
Speaker 3: it a.
Speaker 1: The two minutes on two vitally important issues like social Security.
Speaker 1: Any politician should be able to fill for two minutes.
Speaker 1: In fact, you should be able to fill that.
Speaker 3: These were not subtle, These were not gotcha's, These were
Speaker 3: obvious questions. He had nothing to say. He was scared.
Speaker 3: He was a deer in the headlights.
Speaker 1: So you said, deer in headlights. Let's go to the
Speaker 1: next conversation that's being had right now, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: it's being had at the White House, at the EO B,
Speaker 1: at the campaign headquarters. Who goes to the president first
Speaker 1: and says step down, and then you're also dealing with
Speaker 1: every guy. That's everybody very stubborn though like he can
Speaker 1: just can't. He just look at them say I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna do it.
Speaker 3: He is absolutely stubborn. I think it is BARACKO Bob.
Speaker 3: I think it is Nancy Pelosi. I think it is
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer. I think it is every leader in the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party. It's not Kamala Harris Kamo is not allowed
Speaker 3: in the room, but I think it is. And they
Speaker 3: go to him and they're pitched to him. They say, Joe,
Speaker 3: you were an historic president, you saved America from Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: You wanted to be the next FDR. I think they will.
Speaker 3: They will appeal to his vanity and say you are
Speaker 3: the next to FDR. You are consequential right now. If
Speaker 3: you stay in the race, you risk undoing your entire
Speaker 3: legacy and giving that legacy going down in history as
Speaker 3: the man who made Donald Trump president. If you stay
Speaker 3: in this race, it will be your fault that Trump
Speaker 3: is president. I think they'll appeal to his vanity and
Speaker 3: look that that is I think to Joe Biden a
Speaker 3: really powerful pitch. Look you look at the debate tonight,
Speaker 3: He said, things. At one point, he said, during Trump's presidency,
Speaker 3: we had one thousand trillionaires. By the way, there are
Speaker 3: no trillionaires on planet Earth. At another point, he said,
Speaker 3: during Donald Trump, we had fifty percent unemployment. No, that
Speaker 3: is wildly wrong. At another point, he said he created
Speaker 3: Joe Biden created hundreds of millions of jobs. Mind you,
Speaker 3: there three hundred and thirty million Americans, and apparently he's
Speaker 3: created hundreds of millions of jobs, so more jobs than
Speaker 3: there are working Americans. Like it is, every answer was
Speaker 3: a problem. At another point, he said, the Border Patrol
Speaker 3: endorsed me. Let's be clear. The Border Patrol Union immediately
Speaker 3: tweeted out, to be clear, we have never and will
Speaker 3: never endorse Biden at every stage. And what's interesting, he
Speaker 3: was also trying to insult Trump. Yeah, and Trump didn't
Speaker 3: take the bait. Yeah, and he was smart. It was
Speaker 3: really and actually when Trump poked Biden, Biden freaked out.
Speaker 3: He couldn't not take the bait. And so the contrast,
Speaker 3: and I'll say something else. You mentioned African American votes.
Speaker 3: Trump's numbers are surging in the black community, and I
Speaker 3: think tonight he made a very hard pitch for black
Speaker 3: voters and his most significant pitch. He had a lot
Speaker 3: of points about how bad Trump, how bad Biden has
Speaker 3: been for the African American community. He talked about inflation,
Speaker 3: how it's hammering black families, but then he also tied
Speaker 3: it to illegal immigration and he said, look that the
Speaker 3: millions and millions of illegal immigrants that are coming into
Speaker 3: this country, they're taking jobs from Black Americans. That is
Speaker 3: a powerful argument. That is an argument. And by the way,
Speaker 3: Biden had no response to that. It was silent. It
Speaker 3: was on the substance, prosecuted the case and Biden crashed
Speaker 3: and burned. And in fact, the Wall Street Journal just
Speaker 3: sent out their key takeaway, their story that they wrote tonight,
Speaker 3: and it's now ten forty seven pm, and and their
Speaker 3: headline is Biden crashed in first debate with Trump. That's
Speaker 3: not an editorial, that's the news headline in the Wall
Speaker 3: Street Journal, because it is just objectively. If you watch
Speaker 3: the Hennenburg explode, you don't say Zeppelin landed tonight.
Speaker 1: Well, let's also talk about those that have been lying.
Speaker 1: The media center has been lying, congressmen have been lying,
Speaker 1: staff members have been lying. They've been going on TV
Speaker 1: telling you that Joe Biden can run circles around me.
Speaker 1: The White House Press secretary saying over and over again,
Speaker 1: saying there's no cognitive decline here, saying that he's in
Speaker 1: perfect health. This guy is is a beast. He's you know,
Speaker 1: he's jacked up aviator Joe. Now they're all actually having
Speaker 1: to admit they're wrong. But no, no one's gonna, i think,
Speaker 1: call them accountable for that. They're just gonna run out
Speaker 1: there and say, clearly, it's time for him to step aside,
Speaker 1: step aside, step aside, which is also weird because if
Speaker 1: you're not cognitive, you don't have the cognitibility to be
Speaker 1: president in the future. Right, and they're saying he can't
Speaker 1: be the president come January again, then when does the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth and does that even come up? Because you're
Speaker 1: admitting that he's basically incapacitated.
Speaker 3: Now, Yeah, listen, we have seen reporters and we've seen
Speaker 3: Democrats lying about Joe's mental capacity for a long time,
Speaker 3: and nobody fair and objective who watched tonight could conclude
Speaker 3: anything other than this is a man who is seriously
Speaker 3: mentally diminished. You know, it's interesting Andrew Yang, he you remember,
Speaker 3: ran for president against Joe in twenty twenty. He tweeted
Speaker 3: out tonight quote, look, I debated Joe seven times in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty. He's a different guy. In twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: hashtag swap Joe out that that's from one of the
Speaker 3: alternative one of the other candidates who ran against twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: from a prominent Democrat. Two of the top trends that
Speaker 3: were trending tonight right after the debate were dementia and
Speaker 3: Michelle Obama. Now that's bad news. If that's if that's
Speaker 3: what's uh? What is trending? And all right, I want
Speaker 3: to wrap up tonight's pod with this. I'm going to
Speaker 3: do something I have rarely, if ever done. I may
Speaker 3: never have done this before. I'm going to praise CNN
Speaker 3: this morning's debate. You and I both thought Jake Tapper
Speaker 3: and Dana Bash would do a terrible job. They both
Speaker 3: hate Donald Trump, they both have become hard partisans. CNN
Speaker 3: did an excellent job tonight with this debate. Jake Tapper
Speaker 3: and Dana Bash. That was the best debate moderation they
Speaker 3: have ever done. They ask good questions, they asked substantive questions.
Speaker 3: They didn't make the debate about them. One of the
Speaker 3: interesting things no one is debating about the moderators bad
Speaker 3: debate moderators. When Chris Wallace debated moderated, the whole debate
Speaker 3: was about him because he wanted to be right in
Speaker 3: the center of the show. When Candy Crowley from CNN
Speaker 3: was the moderator between Obama and Mitt Romney, she made
Speaker 3: it all about her. Jake and Danna, they asked good questions,
Speaker 3: They moved subjects along. They would press the candidates, but
Speaker 3: not in a jerky way. They just say, I asked
Speaker 3: you the following question, you have another sixty seconds to
Speaker 3: answer it. When they didn't get their questions answered, that's
Speaker 3: a perfectly reasonable thing for a debate moderator to do.
Speaker 3: I've been in multiple debates that each of them have moderated.
Speaker 3: I think they both were incredibly sensitive to everyone laying
Speaker 3: out the facts that they have shown wild bias, and
Speaker 3: tonight tonight they didn't and they did an excellent job,
Speaker 3: and I think that was a service to the country.
Speaker 1: I have to ask you one other question, because everyone's
Speaker 1: asking it their head right now, what is the on
Speaker 1: the second.
Speaker 3: Ben You didn't respond to that, and since you're a
Speaker 3: former employee of CNN. I'm not gonna let you bet, Ben,
Speaker 3: you have sixty two seconds. The question is do you
Speaker 3: think Jake and Danna did a good job.
Speaker 1: I think they did a decent job. And here's why
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna get them as much cred as you did.
Speaker 2: You ready for this, all right, I think, But I'm
Speaker 2: gonna make you answer it.
Speaker 3: I'm not gonna let you wiggle away.
Speaker 2: Fair point. Here's what I'll say.
Speaker 1: I think they were in as much shock as we were, going,
Speaker 1: Holy crap, I'm watching an incapacitated president of the United
Speaker 1: States of America. And they were caught so off guard.
Speaker 1: They said, just stick to the script, Just stick the script,
Speaker 1: Just stick the script, like it was a default mode.
Speaker 1: Because it was such a glaring disaster with Biden that
Speaker 1: no one, none of the moderators were honestly paying attention
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Yes, but Jake and Dana were more measured than I've
Speaker 3: ever seen them. They were deliberately controlled. They knew that
Speaker 3: half the country viewed them as wild eyed partisans. Look,
Speaker 3: we played this morning Jake analogizing Trump to Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 2: Yes, and I still believe that too.
Speaker 3: I think he believes it, but tonight that didn't come out.
Speaker 3: And so if we're going to criticize him when when
Speaker 3: he's not doing a good job, I will say I think.
Speaker 1: I think that they did their job taking the biggest
Speaker 1: political train wreck in American history, and they were in
Speaker 1: it and it was like, I don't know what to do?
Speaker 1: How do you triage this? And so they got rid
Speaker 1: of some of that. I think if Joe Biden would
Speaker 1: have showed up jacked up like you did at the
Speaker 1: say of the Union, I think it would have been
Speaker 1: a complete different debate from the moderators standpoint. But I
Speaker 1: think they saw what everybody else saw, which was we
Speaker 1: have a present that is incapacitated and the whole world
Speaker 1: is watching it now and no one can stop it.
Speaker 1: There was no one to step in and lead him
Speaker 1: off the stage like Barack Obama did two weeks ago,
Speaker 1: Which brings me back to that question that everyone's asking,
Speaker 1: how quickly will we find out if the conversations with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden are going to work to get him to
Speaker 1: step aside?
Speaker 2: Number one? Okay, and number.
Speaker 1: Two, how quickly do Democrats have to fall back in
Speaker 1: line and stick with this guy if he doesn't decide
Speaker 1: to step down. And those are the two most important questions.
Speaker 1: Maybe the entire.
Speaker 3: Night, three weeks, twenty one days, this happens or doesn't happen.
Speaker 3: In three weeks, I think you're gonna have massive chaos
Speaker 3: following this debate. You're gonna have massive panic. People are
Speaker 3: going to go to Michelle Obama. People are going to
Speaker 3: go to Joe Biden. I don't think given the train
Speaker 3: wreck that happened tonight, I don't think they'll wait until
Speaker 3: after the Democrat Convention. I think they feel a panic
Speaker 3: right now. I think they're going to want Michelle Obama
Speaker 3: to be the keynote speaker at the Democrat Convention, not
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. So I think we have twenty one days
Speaker 3: for this to play out. And look over the course
Speaker 3: of the last last year, I've handicapped this. I initially
Speaker 3: laid it out as a possibility, then shifted as the
Speaker 3: Democrats and the media we're starting to get nervous about
Speaker 3: Joe Biden. I shifted to about fifty percent. As we
Speaker 3: sit here today, I put the odds at north of
Speaker 3: eighty percent that Michelle Obama is the Democrat nominee on
Speaker 3: the ballot. In November of this year.
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 onto story number two, Senata,
Speaker 1: I want to move to another shocking story, and it
Speaker 1: is one that I wish I could say I didn't
Speaker 1: think we would see. Unfortunately, you predicted it, We've talked
Speaker 1: about it, that this was going to keep happening. This one, though,
Speaker 1: is extremely concerning. The Department of Homeland Security has identified
Speaker 1: now quote over four hundred migrants brought to the US
Speaker 1: by an ISIS affiliated human smuggling network. Now they are
Speaker 1: desperately trying to find people they had caught and released.
Speaker 1: Now over one hundred and fifty of them have been arrested,
Speaker 1: but the whereabouts of over fifty remain unknown.
Speaker 3: Your reaction, Look, this is a shocking story that in
Speaker 3: some ways is not shocking because we know that this
Speaker 3: administration that Joe Biden and the Democrats have effectively rolled
Speaker 3: out the red carpet and with open borders, have given
Speaker 3: an invitation to terrorists to come into the country. But
Speaker 3: even so, the degree of naivete and reckless disregard for
Speaker 3: the safety of Americans is remarkable. So here's the story.
Speaker 3: According to NBC and I'm just going to quote NBC quote,
Speaker 3: the Department of Homeland Security has identified over four hundred
Speaker 3: immigrants from Central Asia and elsewhere who crossed into the
Speaker 3: US in the past three years as subjects of concern
Speaker 3: because they were brought by an ISIS affiliated human smuggling network,
Speaker 3: three US officials tell NBC News. While over one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty of them have been arrested, the whereabouts of
Speaker 3: over fifty remain unknown, the official said, and Immigration and
Speaker 3: Customs Enforcement is looking to arrest them on immigration charges
Speaker 3: when they are located. One of the US officials and
Speaker 3: people said people affiliated with ISIS are operating as human
Speaker 3: smugglers in Central Asia and helping people there leave their
Speaker 3: countries and travel to the West, where they are smuggled
Speaker 3: into the US. It is not known whether the human
Speaker 3: smuggling activity directly funds ISIS activities, or whether ISIS members
Speaker 3: are making personal money through human smuggling on the side,
Speaker 3: the US official said. The official added that the US
Speaker 3: has no indication that the more than four hundred migrants
Speaker 3: brought to the US by the network have plans to
Speaker 3: carry out terrorism in the US, but immigration agents are
Speaker 3: looking to arrest them out of an abundance of caution.
Speaker 3: And here's a quote from the Biden administration. Quote. In
Speaker 3: this case, it was the information that suggested a potential
Speaker 3: tie to ISIS because some of the individuals involved in
Speaker 3: smuggling migrants to the borders. That led us to want
Speaker 3: to take extra care and out of an abundance of caution,
Speaker 3: make sure that we exercised our authority in the most
Speaker 3: expansive and appropriate way to mitigate risk because of this
Speaker 3: potential connection being made. Now that's the quote, And what
Speaker 3: utter and complete garbage out of an abundance of caution. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we let four hundred people go that ISIS had smuggled
Speaker 3: into the country because we're so cautious. And then we realized,
Speaker 3: wait a second, there's an election. There's an election coming
Speaker 3: up in five months, and all these people that ISIS
Speaker 3: smuggled in if they carry out a terrorist attack and
Speaker 3: people realize we let them go, that's going to be
Speaker 3: a real problem. Oh, crapt does anyone know where they are?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 3: What an insane statement?
Speaker 1: Well, and not just insane, but it's also interesting to
Speaker 1: see now how the media is covering this. Nightly News
Speaker 1: actually ran this on the nightly news and called it
Speaker 1: an NBC investigation. Listen tonight.
Speaker 5: NBC News has learned more than fifty migrants with potential
Speaker 5: ties to an ISIS affiliated smuggling network are at large
Speaker 5: in America. Many illegally crossed the border and were released
Speaker 5: into the US by border patrol because there was no
Speaker 5: information suggesting terrortizes at the time. Now their whereabouts are
Speaker 5: unknown as immigration agents look to arrest them. US officials
Speaker 5: tell us saying they're among a group of over four
Speaker 5: hundred migrants DHS identified in the US from Tajikistan, Huzbekistan, Moldova, Kyrkistan, Georgia,
Speaker 5: and Russia as subjects of concern because they were brought
Speaker 5: to the US by an ISIS affiliated smuggling network, something
Speaker 5: the FBI director warned about earlier this year.
Speaker 1: Some of the overseas facilitators of the smuggling network have
Speaker 1: ISIS ties that were very concerned.
Speaker 5: About ice IS located and arrested over one hundred fifty
Speaker 5: d of the four hundred migrants so far, with some
Speaker 5: already deported from the US. Officials say, adding authorities are
Speaker 5: not panicking because their ties to ISIS are not certain,
Speaker 5: but they're prioritizing their arrest out of an abundance of caution.
Speaker 4: The problem is the volume of people coming across the
Speaker 4: southern border. Individuals from ISIS and other affiliated groups have
Speaker 4: recognized it as a weak point in our defense, and
Speaker 4: they're using this opportunity to try to sneak in.
Speaker 5: NBC News was first to report on a similar arrest
Speaker 5: of a newsback man in Baltimore whose country alerted the
Speaker 5: US he was affiliated with ISIS. That man, like the
Speaker 5: others apprehended so far, was arrested on immigration charges, not
Speaker 5: terrorism related charges. ISIS K has claimed responsibility for deadly
Speaker 5: terror attacks in Russia and Iran in the past year,
Speaker 5: and recently the DHS Inspector General sharply criticizing vetting at
Speaker 5: the US southern border, saying DHS is at risk of
Speaker 5: admitting dangerous persons into the country or enabling a side
Speaker 5: seekers who may post significant threats to public safety and
Speaker 5: national security to continue to reside in the United States.
Speaker 5: Two senior law enforcement officials told NBC News they are
Speaker 5: not tracking a terror plot from this group of migrants,
Speaker 5: but their arrest on immigration charges come out of an
Speaker 5: abundance of caution cluster.
Speaker 1: They sure do you like that word center, abundance of caution?
Speaker 1: I also love in there that one line that really
Speaker 1: just made me laugh is quote authorities are quote not panicking.
Speaker 2: Really, that's supposed to make me feel better.
Speaker 3: Well remarkably, though, what they're not panicking about is not
Speaker 3: the actual public safety threat. It's not keeping Americans safe.
Speaker 3: It's the political exposure. They're freaked out because there's an
Speaker 3: election in a few months and they realize, oh no,
Speaker 3: this could look really bad for us. It has been
Speaker 3: the consistent pattern of this White House that they do
Speaker 3: not prioritize national security, everything, everything, everything as partisan politics.
Speaker 3: And Okay, what I'm about to say, it's not hyperbole.
Speaker 3: It is accurate. Day after day, week after week, month
Speaker 3: after month. For three and a half years, Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: the Democrats have released illegal immigrants who are murderers, who
Speaker 3: are rapists, who are child molesters, who are gang members,
Speaker 3: and who are being smuggled in by isis K, a
Speaker 3: known terrorist organization, and they're letting them go. They're letting
Speaker 3: them go the four hundred notice notice. In that NBC report,
Speaker 3: they said they were released by the Biden administration. So
Speaker 3: we apprehended them said, oh, look, isis k bringing someone in?
Speaker 3: All right, let's let them go? Like that is it
Speaker 3: defies words. And if there were not an election in
Speaker 3: five months, I don't think the Biden administration would be
Speaker 3: doing anything at all about it. This is all about
Speaker 3: cover it up until after election day and then we
Speaker 3: can let them go again. And I don't get Actually,
Speaker 3: I do not understand the thought process. If you're Alejandro
Speaker 3: Mayorcus help me on this, Ben, Seriously, if you're Alejandro Mayorcis,
Speaker 3: you're like, hey, four hundred people, isis case smuggled in?
Speaker 3: Should we let them go? Like? What is? How do
Speaker 3: the brain synapses fire for your answer to be yep,
Speaker 3: let them go?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And the scary part is I think they just say
Speaker 1: this is just part of that. You got to take
Speaker 1: the bad with the good, and their definition of good
Speaker 1: is letting millions in. So, hey, we know there's gonna
Speaker 1: be bad actors in those millions. We can't check them
Speaker 1: all out fast enough as we're allowing them to flood
Speaker 1: into this country. So that's just our policy. There may
Speaker 1: be terrorists to get in here. Oh wait, there are
Speaker 1: terrorists to get in here. We know there's people on
Speaker 1: the terrorists watch list, and we're just gonna do it anyway.
Speaker 1: But right before the election, we're going to clean it
Speaker 1: up a little bit and look like we're being proactive.
Speaker 3: I've said this multiple times times, but I very much
Speaker 3: believe it. We are today at a greater risk of
Speaker 3: a major terrorist attack than we have been any time
Speaker 3: since September eleventh, and the director of the FBI has
Speaker 3: been saying that over and over and over again in
Speaker 3: congressional testimony. What the FBI is looking at, I'm confident
Speaker 3: is even worse than what we're talking about, and that
Speaker 3: is the direct consequence of utterly reckless policies of open borders.
Speaker 3: And to tie this to what we started at the beginning,
Speaker 3: I think this should be front and center what Trump
Speaker 3: is talking about tonight at the debate.
Speaker 1: I was going to ask you that was gonna be
Speaker 1: my final question for you is if CNN doesn't bring
Speaker 1: it up, do you force the issue? Because I have
Speaker 1: a feeling they're going to be playing defense for Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: So does the President go all in on these type
Speaker 1: of issues even if they don't bring them up.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, absolutely, Yes.
Speaker 2: As before. If you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 2: this conversation on.
Speaker 1: This topic, you can go back and dow the podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week to hear the entire thing. I
Speaker 1: want to get back to the big story number three
Speaker 1: of the week. You may have missed.
Speaker 2: It brings us to story number three.
Speaker 1: It's an important one, and that's the unlawful appointment argument
Speaker 1: that's been made about the special counsel Jack Smith. I
Speaker 1: want you to walk us through this because it is complicated,
Speaker 1: and I want you to make the argument that is,
Speaker 1: why is there a possibility that this may work for
Speaker 1: Trump's legal team? They're the ones that are basically raising
Speaker 1: the argument about this special the unlawful appointment of Jack Smith.
Speaker 1: Walk us through the argument that his legal team is
Speaker 1: making and why they're making it.
Speaker 3: Now, well, let me start by watch and listen to
Speaker 3: how it was laid out in a TV interview with
Speaker 3: Andy McCarthy, and then we'll talk about it as soon
Speaker 3: as we listen to this.
Speaker 6: Look, Jackie, I think it's deceptive coverage. The difference between
Speaker 6: the issue about Smith's status that's been raised in this
Speaker 6: case that distinguishes it from other cases is that prior
Speaker 6: independent councils were appointed under a congressional statute. This independent council,
Speaker 6: Jack Smith, has been appointed under a Justice Department regulation.
Speaker 6: And what the Constitution says is that when you're talking
Speaker 6: about an officer of the United States carrying out these
Speaker 6: kinds of duties, either the person has to be nominated
Speaker 6: by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or has
Speaker 6: to occupy a position that Congress has established by law.
Speaker 3: So this actually is.
Speaker 6: A pretty novel and important argument, which is why people
Speaker 6: like former Attorneys General Edwin mess and Michael Mukasey have
Speaker 6: filed briefs saying that Smith doesn't have adequate legal constitutional
Speaker 6: basis to proceed with this case. It's not at all
Speaker 6: a frivolous argument, and I think the rap on Judge
Speaker 6: Cannon is just ridiculous. This is a classified information case.
Speaker 6: They're very hard to get to trial. She could have
Speaker 6: satisfied the media and said, you know, we'll have an
Speaker 6: August first trial date that everyone would have known was illusory. Instead,
Speaker 6: she's trying to move through a massive pre trial work
Speaker 6: that has to be done so that she can set
Speaker 6: a realistic trial date, and for that she's being accused
Speaker 6: I think falsely of postponing the case because she's trying
Speaker 6: to help Trump's electoral effort.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about Mees and these others
Speaker 1: that have filed these amicus briefs. But before we do that,
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about her incredible organization
Speaker 1: called Preborn.
Speaker 2: For two years, it has now been since Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade was overturned, and over sixty five million babies have fallen,
Speaker 1: with thousands more taken. Every day Preborn honors these precious
Speaker 1: souls who never had a chance to take their first breath.
Speaker 1: Who would they have become? Is the question we should
Speaker 1: all ask. Every one of them was special. We lost
Speaker 1: a generation. With the abortion pill now accounting for over
Speaker 1: sixty three percent of abortions, ending a baby's life is
Speaker 1: all too convenient. That's why every day Preborn's networks of
Speaker 1: clinics stand strong with these little defenseless babies, offering love,
Speaker 1: support and a free ultrasound to introduce mothers with unplanned
Speaker 1: pregnancies to the life growing inside of them. Once a
Speaker 1: mother sees her baby and here's their heartbeat, she is
Speaker 1: twice as likely to choose life. So that's why I
Speaker 1: want you to join with me and preborn in defense
Speaker 1: of these babies. One ultrasound costs just twenty eight dollars
Speaker 1: and one hundred and forty dollars helps to rescue five babies. Now,
Speaker 1: giving is easy. You just dial pound two fifty and
Speaker 1: say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty, say the
Speaker 1: keyword baby. Or you can go online to preborn dot com,
Speaker 1: slash verdict. That's preborn dot com slash verdict and rest
Speaker 1: assured that one of your taxeductible donation will actually go
Speaker 1: directly towards saving babies and mothers. That's preborn dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict or Pound two fifty say the keyword baby
Speaker 1: to give today, Senator, I want to get your reaction
Speaker 1: to the point he said about these briefs that were filed.
Speaker 1: They're important briefs that are being filed, and yet for
Speaker 1: many Americans they can still sound very overwhelming to understand.
Speaker 2: So what's the goal here?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and let me say, by the way, we just
Speaker 3: played a clip for Mandy McCarthy. Andy's a Goo friend
Speaker 3: of mine. One question I'd be interested from Verdict listeners.
Speaker 3: We could certainly have Andy as a guest on this podcast.
Speaker 3: We could also have law professor Jonathan Turley as a
Speaker 3: guest on this podcast. Both of them I know very well.
Speaker 3: So if y'all think those would be good guests to
Speaker 3: have a detailed discussion about these issues, let us know
Speaker 3: on Twitter. Let let us know, reach out to Ben
Speaker 3: and me and let us know and either of both
Speaker 3: of them we could have on and it could be
Speaker 3: a very interesting discussion. Listen. So, the judge in Florida
Speaker 3: has set an oral argument on the question of whether
Speaker 3: Jack Smith's appointment is legal and constitutional, and that's going
Speaker 3: to be argued by Gene Cher and Josh Blackman. Josh
Speaker 3: Blackman is a law professor. Gen Chaer is a very
Speaker 3: very well respected Supreme Court litigator. Shares the name partner
Speaker 3: in share Jaffe. Jaffe is Eric Jaffey, who clerked with me.
Speaker 3: He was a Clarence Thomas clerk the same year I
Speaker 3: clerk for Chief Justice Renquist. I've known both of them
Speaker 3: a very very long time. Ed Meese, former Attorney General,
Speaker 3: is who has brought brought this arguments, filed an amicus
Speaker 3: brief arguing that that Jack Smith is not appointed legally
Speaker 3: and and the argument. First of all, they say there's
Speaker 3: no federal statute that establishes an office of Special Counsel
Speaker 3: in a Department of Justice, So there's not a statutory
Speaker 3: basis for creating this this role. Secondly, they argue that
Speaker 3: even if you ignore that there isn't a statute, there
Speaker 3: is also no statute authorizing the Attorney General rather than
Speaker 3: the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
Speaker 3: to appoint such a special council. The special counsel, the
Speaker 3: way it's structured right now, has more power than any
Speaker 3: of the ninety four US attorneys who prosecute cases across
Speaker 3: the country. So all across the country, they're ninety four
Speaker 3: US attorneys. Every single one of them has been nominated
Speaker 3: by the President of the United States, and every single
Speaker 3: one of them has been confirmed by the Senate. That's
Speaker 3: the structure. When you have a prosecutor with that level
Speaker 3: of power, you go through the checks and balances. Well,
Speaker 3: Jack Smith was not confirmed by the Senate, and their
Speaker 3: authority is limited to the jurisdictions where they're appointed. So
Speaker 3: if you are confirmed to be the US Attorney in
Speaker 3: the Southern District of New York, you can't prosecute someone
Speaker 3: in California. You don't have the authority to bring any
Speaker 3: case outside of whatever district you're confirmed to. Jack Smith
Speaker 3: has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions anywhere in the
Speaker 3: country he wants, and he's indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions,
Speaker 3: in DC and in Florida. He was not nominated by
Speaker 3: the President, he was not confirmed by the Senate, and
Speaker 3: that the amicust brief argues violates the requirements of the Constitution.
Speaker 3: General mess also acknowledges quote there are times when the
Speaker 3: appointment of a special Council is appropriate, but federal statutes
Speaker 3: in the Constitution only allow such appointments through the use
Speaker 3: of existing United States attorneys. So it's worth noting there
Speaker 3: have been other special councils, but they were sitting US attorneys. So,
Speaker 3: for example, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as a special Council,
Speaker 3: he was a sitting US attorney. Rod Rosenstein was appointed
Speaker 3: as a special council. He was a sitting US attorney.
Speaker 3: John Huber was appointed as a special council. He was
Speaker 3: a sitting US attorney. John Durham was appoint to a
Speaker 3: Special Council. He was a sitting US attorney. Every one
Speaker 3: of them had been nominated by the President, had been
Speaker 3: confirmed by the Senate at the time of their appointments,
Speaker 3: and so what they argue is, you can't just make
Speaker 3: an appointment as Attorney General and create a roving US
Speaker 3: attorney with national authority greater than any US attorney without
Speaker 3: the Senate having the right to engage in advice and
Speaker 3: consent that argument.
Speaker 2: Is that a legitimate argument?
Speaker 1: I mean, you're obviously a guy that did this for
Speaker 1: a very long time and that role is a lawyer.
Speaker 1: So the question I ask you is, when you hear
Speaker 1: this argument, you see names like mess and others that
Speaker 1: are getting involved, and you hear the argument you're making,
Speaker 1: is it a legitimate one.
Speaker 3: It's a real argument and a serious argument. It doesn't
Speaker 3: mean it will necessarily prevail. Doesn't mean it'll be a
Speaker 3: slam dunk. There are real arguments on the other side.
Speaker 3: But look, I think there is a possibility this argument prevails.
Speaker 3: There's a long history dealing with special counsels, and before
Speaker 3: that there was there was something called the Independent Council.
Speaker 3: There was a statute that allowed independent counsels to be
Speaker 3: appointed and that was created by Congress. So you'll recall
Speaker 3: ken Starr was appointed as an independent counsel to prosecute
Speaker 3: Bill Clinton, and at the time, so there was a
Speaker 3: there was a case that was brought challenging the constitutionality
Speaker 3: of the Independent Council Statute. It was a case called
Speaker 3: Morrison versus Olson. The Olson was Ted Olsen, who at
Speaker 3: the time was the head of the Office Legal Council
Speaker 3: in the Department of Justice. He later became the Solicitor
Speaker 3: General of the United States under George W. Bush. Ted
Speaker 3: is a good friend. That case went to the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court and and eight to one the Supreme Court upheld
Speaker 3: the constitutionality of the Independent Council Statute. The dissent was
Speaker 3: authored by Justice Scalia, and Justice Scalia laid out an
Speaker 3: argument why having an independent council who was not subject
Speaker 3: subject to the authority of the Attorney General, not subject
Speaker 3: to the authority of the President is contrary to Article
Speaker 3: two of the Constitution and exceptionally dangerous. What's interesting is
Speaker 3: the view of Scalia's descent a loan descent eight to one.
Speaker 3: I think has been vindicated over the years. And over
Speaker 3: the decades, more and more people realized Scalia made some
Speaker 3: very effective points, so much so that when the Independent
Speaker 3: Council Statute expired, so it was written so it would expire.
Speaker 3: I don't remember if it was ten years or twenty years,
Speaker 3: but it had a date certain where it expired. When
Speaker 3: it expired, Congress didn't reauthorize it, so it is no
Speaker 3: longer the law. The Independent Council Statute is no longer
Speaker 3: the law, and neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted to authorize it.
Speaker 3: I think Democrats were really unhappy with the job Ken
Speaker 3: Starr had done going after Bill Clinton, so they didn't
Speaker 3: want that to happen again. Republicans had seen it abused
Speaker 3: going after Republicans, and so both parties said, let's let
Speaker 3: this statute expire, which means you don't have a special
Speaker 3: statute authorizing Jack Smith the way you would otherwise. So
Speaker 3: I think this is a real argument. We'll see what
Speaker 3: Judge Cannon does, but but these are serious arguments that
Speaker 3: deserve to be considered seriously. On the man find out.
Speaker 3: I think we'll get a decision relatively quickly. My suspicion
Speaker 3: is that we'll get it within the next few months.
Speaker 1: Best case scenario for Trump, what would that look like.
Speaker 3: Well, if Judge Cannon rules that Jack Smith is illegally appointed,
Speaker 3: that he does not have the authority to bring the case.
Speaker 3: That would that decision presumably would be appealed, but that
Speaker 3: would permanently put on hold the case in Florida. But
Speaker 3: it would have a naturally have an implication on the
Speaker 3: DC case because Jack Smith is the prosecutor who's brought
Speaker 3: the DC case as well. Now, technically speaking, the DC
Speaker 3: judge would not be bound by the decision of the
Speaker 3: Florida judge. Nonetheless, how those two interact, it would become
Speaker 3: an issue in every case, both cases being brought by
Speaker 3: Jack Smith.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
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.