Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you on the Super Tuesday Evening Center.
Speaker 1: It's a fun night for American democracy.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right. A lot is going on. We
Speaker 3: just had Super Tuesday. We had elections all over the country.
Speaker 3: Dominating night for Donald Trump, dominating night for Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Pretty disappointing night for every other candidate out there. I
Speaker 3: think this race is cooked, but we will analyze it
Speaker 3: in depth as we always do. Beyond that, we've got
Speaker 3: this week the blockbuster decision from the Supreme Court nine
Speaker 3: zero unanimous ruling that Donald Trump will remain on the ballot,
Speaker 3: will remain on the ballot in Colorado. That also means
Speaker 3: he'll remain on the ballot main That also means will
Speaker 3: remain on the ballot in Illinois. That is precisely what
Speaker 3: you and I predicted on Verdict two months ago. Will
Speaker 3: break that down and analyze that decision as well. And finally,
Speaker 3: a big decision out of the d C Circuit Federal
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals. That court ruled unanimously that a number
Speaker 3: of federal districts courts in DC we're improperly enhancing the
Speaker 3: sentences of January sixth defendants that the Biden Department of
Speaker 3: Justice wrongly sought an enhancement of their sentence, a sentence
Speaker 3: that the law didn't require, and so they have effectively
Speaker 3: lowered the sentences of some one hundred defendants. It's a big,
Speaker 3: big story about how the Biden Justice Department continues to
Speaker 3: abuse its power, and how the courts, even judges appointed
Speaker 3: by Democrats, are being forced to rein in their abuse
Speaker 3: of power.
Speaker 1: Big story there, obviously.
Speaker 2: I also want to tell you real quick about our
Speaker 2: friends over at Freedom Gold. If you are worried about
Speaker 2: what's going on in the economy, you're looking at inflation
Speaker 2: that's heavily eroding your purchasing power, putting your savings, your
Speaker 2: retirement accounts, and your future legacy at risk. Well, you
Speaker 2: know that you want to be diversified with your financial portfolio,
Speaker 2: and that is why I want you to know about
Speaker 2: an amazing company, Freedom Gold USA. Look at our national
Speaker 2: debt right now, it's exceeding thirty four trillion dollars. There's
Speaker 2: also this insane push for a central bank digital currency,
Speaker 2: and that is why I make sure that I have
Speaker 2: physical gold and silver in my portfolio. So I know,
Speaker 2: no matter what happens in this country, no matter what
Speaker 2: happens with inflation in the banks, I am prepared. In fact,
Speaker 2: I just got some new silver coins this week from
Speaker 2: Freedom Gold USA. Now here's the other cool part. You
Speaker 2: may qualify for up to ten thousand dollars in free silver.
Speaker 2: When you work with Freedom Gold USA. They can help
Speaker 2: you learn how to add gold and silver to your
Speaker 2: IRA or have it shipped to your home, safeguarding your
Speaker 2: wealth with physical gold and silver, and take control of
Speaker 2: your financial future today. So see if you qualify for
Speaker 2: up to ten thousand dollars in free silver one eight
Speaker 2: hundred sixty five five eight eight four to three. That's
Speaker 2: one eight hundred six five five eight eight four three
Speaker 2: one eight hundred and six y fyty five eight eight
Speaker 2: four three or online it FREEDOMGOLDUSA dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 2: That's freedom Goold USA dot com slash Verdict Center.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Super Tuesday.
Speaker 2: I gotta say I had a really fun day today
Speaker 2: because I got to take my son out of school.
Speaker 2: He's a in first grade. He went to vote for
Speaker 2: with me today. Congratulations, talk about a SmackDown.
Speaker 1: You got over eighty nine.
Speaker 2: Percent of the vote, which is awesome, but if you
Speaker 2: look at the roll numbers, that's the part that was
Speaker 2: the most exciting. One point two eight million votes for you, Senator.
Speaker 2: And then if you look on the Democratic side over
Speaker 2: there already got only three hundred and fifty seven thousand
Speaker 2: as we're recording this right now, a number of votes.
Speaker 1: That's a huge difference. That's got to feel good.
Speaker 3: Well, it was a great night. It was very gratifying.
Speaker 3: I'm glad, glad you brought him in and thank you.
Speaker 1: It was so much fun.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the overall and Super Tuesday results that happened.
Speaker 2: Nothing really that surprising except for the fact it was
Speaker 2: overwhelming victory for Donald Trump nationwide. This is I think
Speaker 2: clearly connected to the Supreme Court decision. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of really mad Republicans in this country right now.
Speaker 3: Well, look, I think saying it's overwhelming is a bit
Speaker 3: of an overstatement. Yes it's true that Trump won Iowa.
Speaker 3: Yes it's true he won New Hampshire. Yes it's true
Speaker 3: that he won South Carolina. Yes it's true that he
Speaker 3: won Nevada. Yes it's true that he won on Super Tuesday,
Speaker 3: he won Idaho, he won Nevada, he won Colorado, he
Speaker 3: won Texas, he won Oklahoma, he won North Dakota, won Minnesota,
Speaker 3: he won Iowa, he won Missouri, he won Arkansas, he
Speaker 3: won Alabama, he won Tennessee, he won Michigan, he won
Speaker 3: South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, he won Vermont, he won Massachusetts,
Speaker 3: and he won Maine. But it's not fair to say
Speaker 3: it's overwhelming. Then, because Nicky Hayley won the district of Columbia.
Speaker 2: That's true, that swamp. She won the swamp. That's a
Speaker 2: valid point. Apologize for insulting Nicki Haley's tough campaign work
Speaker 2: in the district of Columbia with all the swampsters there.
Speaker 3: So, to quote the classic movie Dumb and Dumber, you're saying,
Speaker 3: I got a chance.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right.
Speaker 2: So so I gotta ask, at this point, if you're
Speaker 2: Nicki Haley and you're on her campaign, and you're the
Speaker 2: never and you're the the never Trumpers, and you've been
Speaker 2: feeding her cash, what's going through your head tonight? And
Speaker 2: at this point does it even matter what she does anymore?
Speaker 3: Well, listen, understand the dynamic of presidential campaigns. Virtually every
Speaker 3: candidate who drops out of a presidential campaign does so
Speaker 3: for the identical reason they go broke. They run out
Speaker 3: of money. When candidates run out of money, they drop out. Now,
Speaker 3: in Nicky's case, she has up until now had donors
Speaker 3: willing to write her checks, and as long as they
Speaker 3: keep writing her checks, she's likely to continue in the race.
Speaker 3: At some point the donors say why are we writing
Speaker 3: checks for a candidate who can't win, And when that happens,
Speaker 3: she'll drop out. Now, Listen, I don't feel the particular
Speaker 3: need to jump on the bandwagon and say you must
Speaker 3: get out, you must get out. I will say this,
Speaker 3: I think it is not productive to have Nikki or
Speaker 3: other Republican candidates just amplifying the attacks on Donald Trump
Speaker 3: that Democrats are using. And the reason is, at this point,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump is going to be our nominee.
Speaker 1: That is clear.
Speaker 3: I think that is indisputable given that, I don't think
Speaker 3: it is helpful to have Republicans being the point of
Speaker 3: the spear on attacking our nominee. Look, I've endorsed Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: I want Donald Trump to win in November. I am
Speaker 3: absolutely convinced that the Biden agenda has been a disaster
Speaker 3: for this country. And so Nicky Haley will decide to
Speaker 3: do what she wants to do, and she'll do it
Speaker 3: on her own timeframe. But I think just being a
Speaker 3: battering ram making the case that Donald Trump is the
Speaker 3: devil is only playing into the hands of Democrats, whose
Speaker 3: only argument in November is going to be Donald Trump
Speaker 3: is the devil, and they'd love to use Republican mouthpieces
Speaker 3: to say that if they can.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the Supreme Court, and I want to
Speaker 2: talk about the politics of it just for a second.
Speaker 2: The nine O ruling that came down this week predicted
Speaker 2: on the show literally months ago. You look at that,
Speaker 2: how much of an impact do you think that had
Speaker 2: on voters today wanting to show up and send a
Speaker 2: clear message that we're standing behind Donald Trump and other
Speaker 2: candidates like him.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't think the Supreme Court decision keeping Trump
Speaker 3: on the ballot impacted the results tonight. Look, I think
Speaker 3: Trump was going to win i As you'll recall, I
Speaker 3: endorsed Trump right after Iowa, right after he had a
Speaker 3: dominating night in which he won ninety eight of the
Speaker 3: ninety nine counties. He won by twenty points. It was
Speaker 3: clear then that he was going to be the nominee. Now,
Speaker 3: I do think the Supreme Court decision we ought to
Speaker 3: pause and talk about it. Because as soon as the
Speaker 3: Colorado Supreme Court made its decision, a divided four to
Speaker 3: three decision where four partisan Democrat justices ordered Trump thrown
Speaker 3: off the ballot, You and I went on this podcast
Speaker 3: immediately thereafter, and we said we said that day, we
Speaker 3: said this is not going to stand. This decision will
Speaker 3: be reversed. And indeed, I said, the chances of it
Speaker 3: being reversed, I believe are one hundred percent. Now, look,
Speaker 3: that's always dangerous to make a prediction where you're predicting
Speaker 3: one hundred percent. Sure, But but we went further because
Speaker 3: I said, not only is it one hundred percent that
Speaker 3: will be reversed, I said at the time, literally the
Speaker 3: day after the decision, I said, I think there's a
Speaker 3: very good chance the decision is unanimous. Now, at the time,
Speaker 3: there were not many people saying that. There were lots
Speaker 3: of commentators on TV saying, well, they may reverse it
Speaker 3: be partisan, it will be divide among party lines. Well
Speaker 3: that that was not the case. What is most significant
Speaker 3: about Monday's decision is that it was nine to zero,
Speaker 3: nine to zero is interesting. It was not a signed opinion.
Speaker 3: It was a percurem. Percuring opinions are done. It does
Speaker 3: not have any particular justice who has authorship of the opinion.
Speaker 3: My strong suspicion is the opinion was authored by Chief
Speaker 3: Justice Roberts, but he didn't put his name on it.
Speaker 3: He made it a procureum, and percurium is can be
Speaker 3: a tool to emphasize that this is the opinion of
Speaker 3: the entire court and it is critically important. Look, we
Speaker 3: have some very liberal justices. We have Elena Kagan, we
Speaker 3: have Sonya Sotomayor, we have Katanji Brown Jackson, and all
Speaker 3: of them agreed with the outcome that the Colorado Supreme
Speaker 3: Court decision was wrong and that Donald Trump should stay
Speaker 3: on the ballot. That is a big, big deal, and
Speaker 3: I am so grateful as I sit here tonight, I
Speaker 3: am grateful it was nine zero. If we had woken up,
Speaker 3: if we had turned on the TV or picked up
Speaker 3: our phones and looked and saw that it was a
Speaker 3: six to three decision, it was just straight party lines,
Speaker 3: and the three Democrat appointees were like, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: you must throw Trump off the ballot. He's an insurrectionist.
Speaker 3: The result would have been the same, Trump would have
Speaker 3: stayed on the ballot. But I think that would have
Speaker 3: been a terrible outcome for the country, and I think
Speaker 3: it would have been a terrible outcome for the Court. Look,
Speaker 3: just about every major institution in our country, its credibility
Speaker 3: has been undermined in recent years. People have less faith
Speaker 3: in the institutions of our country, and I understand why
Speaker 3: we've seen a lot of our institutions really corrupted, and
Speaker 3: you and I talk about that a lot on this podcast.
Speaker 3: But for the Court, I think it's important for the
Speaker 3: long term rule of law in our nation. I think
Speaker 3: it's important for the protection of our constitutional liberties for
Speaker 3: the Court to have some monicum of credibility. And so
Speaker 3: I am grateful for the Democrat appointees for doing the
Speaker 3: right thing, the right thing under the law. But it
Speaker 3: was important for the Court, and I think it is
Speaker 3: important for the country. I think the statement that the
Speaker 3: unanimity makes. Look, there have been big decisions if you
Speaker 3: look back to nineteen fifty four. Nineteen fifty four was
Speaker 3: when the Supreme Court decided Brown versus Board of Education
Speaker 3: of Topeak A, Kansas. That is the decision that desegregated
Speaker 3: our public schools. Prior to Brown, the rule of law
Speaker 3: had been the rule that was articulated in case called
Speaker 3: Plessy versus Ferguson. Plessy versus Ferguson laid out a doctrine
Speaker 3: that was called separate but equal, and Plessy upheld the
Speaker 3: notion that it was okay for public schools to be
Speaker 3: segregated by law, to explicitly have classrooms that were white
Speaker 3: only and have classrooms that were black only, and they
Speaker 3: claimed the law allowed that that they were in The
Speaker 3: phrase they used was separate but equal, and they claimed
Speaker 3: that was consistent with the equal protection clause of the
Speaker 3: fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In Brown versus Board of Education,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court reversed Plessy and ordered that our schools
Speaker 3: be desegregated, that the law could not treat the races
Speaker 3: differently based on race. That was unequivocally the right.
Speaker 4: Decision.
Speaker 3: Brown versus Board of Education is one of the most important,
Speaker 3: if not the most important, decision the Supreme Court has
Speaker 3: ever issued, and Brown critically was unanimous as well. The
Speaker 3: justices understood that that ordering schools to desegregate schools that
Speaker 3: had been segregated for a long, long time schools that
Speaker 3: had a long history of racial animus, that that was
Speaker 3: going to be a controversial decision, and the court wanted
Speaker 3: to speak with one unanimous voice. I am grateful that
Speaker 3: here the Court likewise spoke with one unanimous voice. And
Speaker 3: this decision, in my view, says democracy is paramount. That
Speaker 3: it is the voters who decide that it is not partisans,
Speaker 3: whether that be partisan judges as we had in Colorado
Speaker 3: or partisan officials as we had in Maine or Illinois.
Speaker 3: It is not partisans of either party that should be
Speaker 3: in the business of saying I don't want the voters
Speaker 3: to vote for their choice. I want to throw my
Speaker 3: opponent off the ballot. Why not because they did something wrong.
Speaker 3: And by the way, there are lots of ballot litigation
Speaker 3: where say, you've got to have fifty thousand signatures and
Speaker 3: someone fails to get fifty thousand signatures and then they
Speaker 3: get thrown off the ballot because that's pursuit to the
Speaker 3: requirements of law that you've got to do whatever it
Speaker 3: takes to qualify for the ballot. But that's not what
Speaker 3: was going on in these decisions. In these decisions, it
Speaker 3: was not any objective requirement of the law. It was
Speaker 3: simply these partisans hated Donald Trump, and fundamentally, I think
Speaker 3: they were afraid the voters, if given the chance, would
Speaker 3: vote for them. I think that's right, and I'm glad
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court said, you know what, the voters are
Speaker 3: going to decide, it's not going to be partisans.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: One of the most I think encouraging moments, and it
Speaker 2: was a moment I want to be clear about that
Speaker 2: was how the media covered the decision instantly when it
Speaker 2: came down, ABC, NBC, CBS. They actually covered it in
Speaker 2: a way that was I think genuine and authentic for
Speaker 2: that moment before the partisan hackery that, of course, they
Speaker 2: got into pretty quickly after this decision.
Speaker 1: But take a listen to ABC News.
Speaker 2: This is just one example of how they covered this
Speaker 2: right in front of the Supreme Court, a.
Speaker 5: Rare moment of unanimity on a usually divided court. Fine
Speaker 5: justices of the Supreme Court agree that states cannot kick
Speaker 5: candidates off the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause
Speaker 5: which you mentioned, which passed after the Civil War, held
Speaker 5: that people who had sworn an oath to uphold the
Speaker 5: Constitution and then engaged in insurrection are banned from holding
Speaker 5: federal office.
Speaker 1: Further, and what Supreme Court.
Speaker 5: Said is that states can't enforce that that it requires
Speaker 5: Congress to pass the law to it outline how that
Speaker 5: clause should be enforced, concluding very simply that responsibility for
Speaker 5: enforcing that part of the Constitution rests with Congress and
Speaker 5: not with the states.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court expressing real.
Speaker 5: Concern that states could go different ways. Some states would
Speaker 5: perhaps ban one candidates, some states perhaps ban another candidate.
Speaker 5: Other states keep them both on the ballot, and they
Speaker 5: express concern about the disruption that that would.
Speaker 2: I mean, Sarah, that was a moment of real journalism.
Speaker 2: It was impressive.
Speaker 3: Well, it accurately covered what happened. And I'll point out
Speaker 3: when you and I analyzed this decision, we laid out
Speaker 3: the basis and in fact, as you know, I filed
Speaker 3: an amicus brief on behalf of one hundred and seventy
Speaker 3: nine members of Congress in which I argued for the
Speaker 3: exact ground upon which the Court decided, which is that
Speaker 3: I argued and said it is not for the states
Speaker 3: to determine who violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Section three and
Speaker 3: who does not. Rather, it is for Congress that the
Speaker 3: fourteenth Amendment explicitly gives that power to Congress, and Congress
Speaker 3: can determine whether or not to see a candidate. But
Speaker 3: it is not and Congress has not created a mechanism
Speaker 3: to adjudicate this. That has been followed here, and that
Speaker 3: was the ground that earned a unanimous approval from the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: For the past ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's
Speaker 2: only Christian conservative wireless provider. And when I say only,
Speaker 2: I mean it. Patriot Mobile is a company that I use.
Speaker 2: I look down on my phone and in the top
Speaker 2: left it says Patriot Now. I I love that because
Speaker 2: it means I'm giving my money to a company that
Speaker 2: actually is fighting for the values that I believe in.
Speaker 2: You may not know this, but Big Mobile that you're
Speaker 2: with right now is probably giving massive donations to liberal causes,
Speaker 2: candidates organizations that include Plan Parenthood. If you are sick
Speaker 2: and tired of giving your money to companies that literally
Speaker 2: hate your values, will then switch your sell provider to
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile. The other thing about Patriot Mo is you
Speaker 2: get the same exact service that you're used to right
Speaker 2: now because they use all the three major networks that
Speaker 2: you're on one of them right now. That means you
Speaker 2: get the same coverage that you're used to without funding
Speaker 2: the left. And when you switch to Patriot Mobile, this
Speaker 2: is where it gets great. They actually take about five
Speaker 2: percent of your bill every month and they give it
Speaker 2: back to conservative causes and organizations that you help choose
Speaker 2: the support I'm talking about supporting free speech, religious freedom,
Speaker 2: the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, as well as
Speaker 2: our military, our veterans, and our first responder and wounded warriors.
Speaker 2: They have one hundred percent US based customer service team
Speaker 2: that makes switching easy and you can keep your same
Speaker 2: cell phone number you have right now, So don't wait,
Speaker 2: make a difference with every phone call and get away
Speaker 2: from woke big companies. Go to Patriotmobile dot com slash
Speaker 2: verdict that's Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict, or call them
Speaker 2: nine to seven to two Patriot that's nine seven to
Speaker 2: two Patriot and get free activation when you use the
Speaker 2: promo code Verdict Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict or nine
Speaker 2: to seven to two Patriot Now Center. I said a
Speaker 2: moment ago that you know this is a great moment
Speaker 2: of journalism, and it happened, and then they decided, all right,
Speaker 2: we're done with that. Let's go back to the partisan hackery.
Speaker 2: Take a list to this montage of the media losing
Speaker 2: their minds over a nine.
Speaker 1: Zero decision from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: We've learned that it was a nine to nothing decision
Speaker 6: ruling it Donald Trump can be on the ballot in
Speaker 6: Colorado and other states.
Speaker 5: I'm not confident that that will produce a result that's
Speaker 5: good for American democracy.
Speaker 7: This is actually what I had been concerned about. I
Speaker 7: had been concerned that it should it go to the
Speaker 7: Supreme Court, they would rule this way.
Speaker 1: I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.
Speaker 8: My next guest says, Donald Trump is still an oath
Speaker 8: breaking insurrectionist. Do you have confidence in the Supreme Court
Speaker 8: using this court as partisan?
Speaker 1: The Court itself may have overstepped the court win way
Speaker 1: further than it needed to go.
Speaker 2: Our colleague Melissa Murray has called this Supreme Court the
Speaker 2: Yolo Court.
Speaker 8: The criticism of the court is that they're playing interference.
Speaker 8: Not since Bush by Gore, but we've seen a court
Speaker 8: has had this many opportunities to interfere in the election
Speaker 8: The headline here is that this is a unanimous ruling.
Speaker 8: But if you scratch the surface just a little, this is.
Speaker 1: A five to four ruling.
Speaker 5: I'm part of it. This is actually a five to
Speaker 5: four decision.
Speaker 1: It's five to four.
Speaker 7: Trump will take this, spin it, spread them in information
Speaker 7: disinformation on it, so it's a win for them.
Speaker 6: He's on the ballot and voters will vote, and he
Speaker 6: looks like he's headed to become the Republican nominee for president.
Speaker 4: You can't save a people from themselves.
Speaker 2: If they're determined to re elect him after he organized
Speaker 2: that insurrection, then there's nothing to stop the people from
Speaker 2: doing that. Wow, that is your media right after this,
Speaker 2: saying it's somehow five to four decision, and this is
Speaker 2: just laying the groundwork for what they want to do.
Speaker 2: If the Supreme Court hasn't do with the left warrants,
Speaker 2: they just want to pack the quarter, say it's an
Speaker 2: illegitimate courter, get rid of it all together.
Speaker 3: Well, look, those are partisan hacks in the media who
Speaker 3: are losing their minds. And you know, my favorite coming
Speaker 3: in that montage was are the Supreme Court just partisans?
Speaker 3: And understand what they're saying. They're saying Elena Kagan, appointed
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court by a Democrat president, is a partisan Republican.
Speaker 3: They're saying Sony Soda Mayor appointed by this to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court by a Democrat president, is a Republican partisan.
Speaker 3: And my favorite is they're saying Katanji Brown Jackson a
Speaker 3: point of the Supreme Court by Joe Biden is a
Speaker 3: partisan in the tank for Donald Trump. That's what they
Speaker 3: just said, and it's truly absurd. Look, was there a
Speaker 3: disagreement over some of the grounds of the decision. Yes,
Speaker 3: But but I actually want to read from a portion
Speaker 3: of Amy Cony. Barrett wrote a very short concurrence, and
Speaker 3: I want to read from her final paragraph. The majority's
Speaker 3: choice of a different path leaves the remaining justices with
Speaker 3: a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this
Speaker 3: is not the time to amplify disagreements with stridency. The
Speaker 3: Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile
Speaker 3: season of a presidential election, Particularly in this circumstance, writings
Speaker 3: on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not
Speaker 3: up for present purposes. Our differences are far less important
Speaker 3: than our unanimity. All nine justices agree on the outcome
Speaker 3: of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.
Speaker 3: I think Amy Cony Barrett was exactly right. The fact
Speaker 3: that it was unanimous is an important victory for the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court. It's an important victory for the rule of law,
Speaker 3: it's an important victory for the country, and it's an
Speaker 3: important victory for democracy.
Speaker 2: You know, I've said this for a while, and I
Speaker 2: keep saying I think the Democratic Party, for all intents
Speaker 2: and purposes, is dead. I think they're masquerading as Democrats
Speaker 2: and they're really communists. And Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin immediately
Speaker 2: went on CNN Center and said this, and I want
Speaker 2: to get your reaction to it.
Speaker 9: I am working with a number of my colleagues, including W.
Speaker 9: Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swawell, to revive legislation that we
Speaker 9: had to set up a process by which we could
Speaker 9: determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section
Speaker 9: three the fourteenth Amendment. And the House of Representatives already
Speaker 9: impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it.
Speaker 9: So the House is already pronounced upon that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you hear him there.
Speaker 2: These people are psycho They're obsessed with taking away the
Speaker 2: rights of the American people decide who they want to
Speaker 2: be president of the United States of America. And even
Speaker 2: after the Liberals smacked them down in a nine to
Speaker 2: nothing decision protecting democracy, they immediately like, nope, we're going
Speaker 2: to go right back to the House. We're going to
Speaker 2: do what we can to make sure you can't vote
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Well, and I'll give you a couple of additional facts.
Speaker 3: Number One, Jamie Raskin was a constitutional law professor, So
Speaker 3: he's actually a very smart, very well respected law professor
Speaker 3: and lawyer. But yet his partisan extremism is overwhelming. Number Two,
Speaker 3: here's an amazing thing. So Jamie Raskin was elected, and
Speaker 3: you know, one of the very first things he did
Speaker 3: when he's elected to the House, what was that He
Speaker 3: showed up on the floor of the House on January sixth,
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen, and he stood up and objected to the
Speaker 3: election and certification of the election of Donald J. Trump.
Speaker 1: So, you go, what he calls.
Speaker 3: Insurrection is actually one of the very first acts Jamie
Speaker 3: Raskin ever did in Congress. And yet look, today's Democrat Party,
Speaker 3: they're so consumed by hate that they really have convinced
Speaker 3: themselves that Trump Trump is the devil, that Trump is Hitler,
Speaker 3: that Trump is so horrible, that anything, anything, anything is justifiable.
Speaker 3: And the irony is every one of those Democrats still
Speaker 3: puffs out their chests and says, we must defend democracy.
Speaker 3: And in their telling, we must defend democracy by stopping
Speaker 3: the damn voters from voting for someone we don't want
Speaker 3: them to vote for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's no there's no accepting that they may be wrong,
Speaker 2: or that they can that they lose, whether it be
Speaker 2: an election or ruling. I mean, you look at Keith Oberman.
Speaker 2: He called for the court to be dissolved in response
Speaker 2: to ruling. And it's not like, I know, he's crazy,
Speaker 2: but the number of people that retweeted him and advocated
Speaker 2: for this the democratic world after he said it, they're like,
Speaker 2: all right, we don't get away, all right, well, then
Speaker 2: just get rid of the Supreme Court altogether.
Speaker 1: That's not normal.
Speaker 3: No, it's extremism, and it is one of the saddest things. Listen,
Speaker 3: when I first arrived in the Senate twelve years ago,
Speaker 3: there were moderate Democrats that there are none left in
Speaker 3: the US Senate. They are only two even arguable moderate Democrats,
Speaker 3: and they are Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema. And as
Speaker 3: of this week, we now know that the chances of
Speaker 3: either of them being in the Senate next year are
Speaker 3: zero percent. Joe Manchin is announced he's not running again,
Speaker 3: and then just today Kirsten Cinnamon announced she's not running again.
Speaker 3: So we know to an absolute certainty that come next year,
Speaker 3: there will be zero moderate Democrats left. They will all
Speaker 3: be extreme partisans. They have all become Bernie Sanders, they
Speaker 3: have all become Elizabeth Warren, they have all become AOC
Speaker 3: and look much that is a reaction to Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: I've said many times I think he broke the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3: He got in their head and he shattered their brains.
Speaker 3: But I got to tell you, Ben, I think it's
Speaker 3: really bad for the country. I don't like seeing the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party this extreme. Listen, it is healthy for democracy
Speaker 3: to have two normal parties, to have two somewhat mainstream
Speaker 3: parties who have disagreements but are not deranged. And what
Speaker 3: Trump has done, and look, Trump bears some responsibility. He
Speaker 3: takes great joy in jabbing his thumb in the eyes
Speaker 3: of the Democrats, but the effect of it is their
Speaker 3: brains have exploded out their ears.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great point, and you go back to
Speaker 2: you move from just a Supreme Court ruling to what
Speaker 2: we also found out this week, and it goes back
Speaker 2: to corruption. You know, we have a judicial system that's
Speaker 2: trying to lock up Donald Trump everywhere they can, going
Speaker 2: after him, trying to bankrupt him, bankrupt his family, basically
Speaker 2: sending warning shots across about any other conservatives singing about
Speaker 2: running for office. But then we also have learned a
Speaker 2: lot more about what happened on January sixth to those
Speaker 2: that were there in January sixth that were sentenced to jail,
Speaker 2: there was major corruption within the Biden Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: And I think it's really this has been underreported, and
Speaker 2: I think it's an extremely important story that I would
Speaker 2: challenge everyone listening right now take this part of the
Speaker 2: podcast and put it on social media because what we're
Speaker 2: about to explain to you, it tells you just how
Speaker 2: corrupt the Biden Department of Justice when they come against conservatives.
Speaker 3: Well, unfortunately, that's exactly right. In the past few days,
Speaker 3: there was a decision from the d C Circuit Court
Speaker 3: of Appeals. Now the d C Circuit Court of Appeals
Speaker 3: of the Federal Court of Appeals in DC. It is
Speaker 3: considered the second highest court in the land, second only
Speaker 3: to the US Supreme Court. There are total of thirteen
Speaker 3: different courts of Appeals, but the d C Circuit is
Speaker 3: the most prestigious. Judges from the d C Circuit regularly
Speaker 3: become Supreme Court justices afterwards. And this was a unanimous
Speaker 3: decision from a panel, and it's a panel that the
Speaker 3: full d C Circuit is one of the most liberal
Speaker 3: circuits in the country. But this panel was three judges
Speaker 3: appointed by Democrats. The opinion was authored by Patty Millett,
Speaker 3: who was an appointee of Barack Obama. It was joined
Speaker 3: by Cornelia Pillard, who was an appointee of Barack Obama.
Speaker 3: And it was joined by Judith Rogers, who was an
Speaker 3: appointee of Bill Clinton. So you have three Democrat appointees.
Speaker 3: And they concluded that the Department of Justice was wrong
Speaker 3: when they enhanced the sentences of individuals convicted of rioting
Speaker 3: or storminting the Capitol on January sixth. And they used
Speaker 3: an enhancement called the Administration of Justice enhancement. And here's
Speaker 3: what Judge Millett wrote for the Unanimous Opinion, quote, the
Speaker 3: phrase administration of justice does not encompass Congress's role in
Speaker 3: the electoral certification process. Quote, text, context and commentary show
Speaker 3: that the administration of justice refers to judicial, quasi judicial,
Speaker 3: and adjunct investigated proceedings, but does not extend to the
Speaker 3: unique congressional function of certifying electoral College votes.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 3: Administration of Justice enhancements are typically reserved for defendants who
Speaker 3: disrupt judicial proceedings, such as a courtroom trial or a
Speaker 3: grand jury investigation. More than one hundred of the defendants
Speaker 3: have had administration of Justice enhancements applied to their sentences.
Speaker 1: Wow, and every.
Speaker 3: One of them now is going to go and seek
Speaker 3: and presumably receive a lower sentence and potentially a significantly
Speaker 3: lower sentence. And what is striking is the Biden Justice
Speaker 3: Department sought the enhancement contrary to the law over and
Speaker 3: over and over again because they are engaged in a jahad.
Speaker 3: They are like Javert going after Jean Valjean. It is
Speaker 3: their quest.
Speaker 1: Look.
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland has absurdly said the Department of Justice has
Speaker 3: devoted more resources to going after the January sixth protests
Speaker 3: than any other event in our nation's history, and by
Speaker 3: the way, that includes September eleventh. What an absurd statement.
Speaker 3: And to be clear, individuals who engaged in violence on
Speaker 3: January sixth, and there were certainly individuals who engaged in
Speaker 3: violence who assaulted police officers. If you engage in violence,
Speaker 3: you should be prosecuted and go to jail. But what
Speaker 3: the Biden Justice Department has done is use the excuse
Speaker 3: of the violence of a limited number of individuals to
Speaker 3: persecute hundreds and even thousands of individuals who engaged in
Speaker 3: peaceful protests, who spoke, who expressed their passionate First Amendment views,
Speaker 3: but did not engage in violence. And this enhancement was
Speaker 3: an effort that they wanted to go after you even
Speaker 3: if you engage in no violence. They wanted to lock
Speaker 3: you up. They wanted to lock you up a long
Speaker 3: time for the crime of being a Donald Trump supporter.
Speaker 3: And it is striking to have a unanimous decision from
Speaker 3: three judges, all three appointed by Democrat presidents, saying no,
Speaker 3: this is not the law. And of course, sadly the
Speaker 3: corporate media has not covered this virtually at all.
Speaker 2: They haven't and it's not just that it's also journalists
Speaker 2: that are involved, and there's still harassment that's going on
Speaker 2: from January sixth, which I mean this was January sixth, was,
Speaker 2: you know, several years ago.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Blaize News investigative writer Steve Baker, who had been reporting
Speaker 2: on January six was charged. He was by the FBI,
Speaker 2: handcuffed by the FBI. And this is another example of
Speaker 2: the abuse of power here. I think this is a writer,
Speaker 2: a guy who's been reporting on January the sixth, and
Speaker 2: it's like they went after him because they don't like
Speaker 2: what he was actually reporting on. And he said this
Speaker 2: after he was arrested by the FBI.
Speaker 1: This is what he said.
Speaker 4: I probably don't have a lot to say right now.
Speaker 4: I need to process for a little while. I'm actually
Speaker 4: still shaking a little bit. I don't like what I
Speaker 4: just went through. I don't like the deliberate humiliation that
Speaker 4: they put me through. There was no reason to do that.
Speaker 4: There was no reason to march me into a courtroom
Speaker 4: in the leg chains. Today there was somebody there answering
Speaker 4: for a felony and they weren't in chains, Mike, charges
Speaker 4: are misdemeanors. It's just it's mind boggling. But that is
Speaker 4: unfortunately the type of selective persecution that January sixth defendants
Speaker 4: are facing, and ultimately, what we are looking at here,
Speaker 4: and probably the only only reason that many of the
Speaker 4: January sixth defendants have had to go through what they've
Speaker 4: had to go through is because of what I've talked
Speaker 4: about so many times and what I've written about so
Speaker 4: many times. It's called scary words. It doesn't matter if
Speaker 4: it's Stuart Rhodes, it doesn't matter if it's the grandmother
Speaker 4: who chanted Usa Usa in the Capital. It's the scary
Speaker 4: words that were said. If you don't say the right
Speaker 4: thing at the right time and comport to the right narrative,
Speaker 4: that's what they're going to do, is they're going to
Speaker 4: come after us. And that's exactly what's happened. It's not
Speaker 4: these charges have nothing to do with my behavior at
Speaker 4: the Capitol. These charges are reflective of what I said
Speaker 4: before and after my speech, what I thought about things,
Speaker 4: what I joked about. That's what this is reflective of.
Speaker 4: And so that's what we're up against right now.
Speaker 2: I mean, you hear him, and it's not what he
Speaker 2: did on January sixth, to what he said before and
Speaker 2: after he talked about that grandmother that was charged when
Speaker 2: she chanted Usa Usa USA. I mean they went after
Speaker 2: anyone that was in and around January sixth, even if
Speaker 2: you were not violent, and if you report it on
Speaker 2: it and they don't like your narrative, they came after
Speaker 2: you and they put this guy in leg change just
Speaker 2: to prove a point.
Speaker 1: We are bigger than you.
Speaker 3: Well, it is selective persecution, and it's not prosecution. It
Speaker 3: is persecution. It is targeting the enemies of the regime.
Speaker 3: And I have to say it is sad. You know,
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland used to be a judge, actually a judge
Speaker 3: on the DC Circuit. It was his old colleagues who
Speaker 3: slapped him down. Understand there's a personal element to this.
Speaker 3: They all served with Merrick Garland for years. He was
Speaker 3: very well respected when he was on the d C Circuit.
Speaker 3: And yet three of his Democrat appointed colleagues just unanimously
Speaker 3: reversed what his department is doing because it was contrary
Speaker 3: to the law. And it's sad to see Merrick Garland
Speaker 3: turning the Department of Justice into just a partisan enforcement arm.
Speaker 3: It's doing enormous damage to the rule of law and
Speaker 3: two decision within days of each other, doesn't seem to
Speaker 3: have caused them even a moment of pause, a moment
Speaker 3: of hesitation to say, hey, maybe we should change our course.
Speaker 3: And I will say also more broadly, we're going to
Speaker 3: discuss in a later pod the persecution of the media
Speaker 3: that the Biden Justice Department is engaged in. And you
Speaker 3: just gave a good example. But this is all about
Speaker 3: not the fair and even handed administration of justice. This
Speaker 3: is about abusing power to go after the political enemies
Speaker 3: of the White House. And today the d C Circuit
Speaker 3: decision that just came down a few days ago is
Speaker 3: a big victory for the rule of law against the
Speaker 3: political abuse of power by the Biden Justice Department.
Speaker 1: No doubt about it.
Speaker 2: We will talk about the media, like you said, in
Speaker 2: future episodes. There was one headline, just to put an
Speaker 2: exclamation point on the absurdity of what's happening to journalists.
Speaker 2: It says, breaking January sixth journalist Steve Baker arrested for
Speaker 2: reporting on January the sixth. There's a headline for you.
Speaker 2: Let that sink in. Don't forget. We do this podcast Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 2: and Friday. We'll also have a lot to say after
Speaker 2: the Stay of the Union that's coming up this week
Speaker 2: as well, so make sure you stay with us all
Speaker 2: week long and on the in between days download my podcast,
Speaker 2: The Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and I'll keep you updated on
Speaker 2: the latest breaking news on those days and the Center.
Speaker 2: I will see you back here after the Stay of
Speaker 2: the Union on Friday morning.