Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you, and it's so nice to have you with
Speaker 1: uespecially if you are listing on the radio around the country.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot to discuss it happened this last week,
Speaker 1: including some incredible crime stats that the media is not
Speaker 1: connecting back to the policies of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: Well, we have a big show today. We start with
Speaker 2: the numbers that were just released that show murder rates
Speaker 2: in the United States dropped more than twenty percent. That
Speaker 2: is on top of data that just came out that
Speaker 2: show drug overdose deaths dropped more than twenty percent. Both
Speaker 2: of these this year compared to last year. We're going
Speaker 2: to break down those numbers. We're going to talk about
Speaker 2: why that's happening and how literally tens of thousands of
Speaker 2: Americans are alive today because President Trump was reelected and
Speaker 2: Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress. We're also
Speaker 2: going to talk about Jack Smith's disastrous testimony before the
Speaker 2: House of Representatives. He got up and brazen lead tried
Speaker 2: to defend his abuse of power, and it did not
Speaker 2: go well. We're going to give you all the details.
Speaker 1: I want to take a quick moment and talk to
Speaker 1: you about an incredible organization and it is called Compassion
Speaker 1: International and how you can get involved. I want you
Speaker 1: to meet Maria. In fifteen years, she'll be a nurse
Speaker 1: bringing healthcare to her village. Right now, she's eight and
Speaker 1: she just needs someone to believe she can get there,
Speaker 1: someone to help her stay in school, someone to tell
Speaker 1: her she's capable of extraordinary things. I want you to
Speaker 1: meet James, a future engineer. He'll design clean water systems
Speaker 1: for his community. Today he's learning multiplication and dreaming big.
Speaker 1: But he needs more than dreams. He needs nutrition, he
Speaker 1: needs mentorship and someone who won't give up on him.
Speaker 1: Meet Sophia. She'll become the first in her family to
Speaker 1: graduate university. She'll teach dozens of children who remind her
Speaker 1: of herself. But right now, at age ten, she's at
Speaker 1: a crossroads, and your support could be what tips the balance.
Speaker 1: Through Compassion International, you're not helping a child survive poverty.
Speaker 1: You're investing in who they'll become. The teacher, the leader,
Speaker 1: the parents who will change their family's story forever, impact
Speaker 1: the world, one child at a time. Learn how at
Speaker 1: Compassion dot com. That's compassion dot Com. All right, Senator,
Speaker 1: so let's just get back to this headline. A lot
Speaker 1: of people not paying attention to it because why well,
Speaker 1: no one's covering it because it's good news. There are
Speaker 1: fewer Americans that are becoming victims of crime, fewer people
Speaker 1: in America that are being murdered. All of this because
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump's leadership and trying to go into danger
Speaker 1: cities and make them safer for all Americans.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: Let's start with crime, and what was released this week
Speaker 2: is the latest murder rates, and the murder rates across
Speaker 2: the United States decreased nationwide roughly twenty percent. And let's
Speaker 2: put that in specific numbers. If you look at January
Speaker 2: through October of twenty twenty five, and you compare it
Speaker 2: to the same time period in twenty twenty four. In
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, approximately five nine hundred and twelve murders
Speaker 2: were recorded in the US In that same time period
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, seven three hundred and sixty nine
Speaker 2: murders were recorded. In other words, there are about fourteen
Speaker 2: hundred people one thy four hundred people alive who were
Speaker 2: not murdered because of common sense law and order policies
Speaker 2: because of not releasing murderers onto the street, because of
Speaker 2: deporting murderers and violent gang members. And let's break the
Speaker 2: numbers down. Chicago the murder rate dropped thirty percent. New
Speaker 2: York City the murder rate dropped twenty percent. Birmingham, Alabama,
Speaker 2: it dropped forty nine percent. Albuquerque, New Mexico, had dropped
Speaker 2: thirty two percent, Baltimore, Maryland it dropped thirty one percent, Atlanta,
Speaker 2: Georgia twenty six percent, Oakland, California, thirty three percent, Washington,
Speaker 2: d C. Where President Trump deployed the National Guard thirty
Speaker 2: one percent. These are historic lows, and if these trends continue,
Speaker 2: the US may record its lowest murder rate since nineteen sixty,
Speaker 2: that is sixty six years ago. That is a stunning result.
Speaker 2: By the way, border crime, border crime, other violent crimes
Speaker 2: also decreased in twenty five, including a twenty five percent
Speaker 2: drop in motor vehicle theft, an eighteen percent drop in robberies,
Speaker 2: and an eight percent drop in aggravated assaults. Now these
Speaker 2: data are being reported, and what is really quite interesting
Speaker 2: is the media is doing everything they can to cover
Speaker 2: it up. So Axios wrote the first story on this,
Speaker 2: and they talk about the murder rate has fallen, but
Speaker 2: they say, well, it's unclear that this has anything to
Speaker 2: do with Donald Trump or DOJ or the FBI or
Speaker 2: policies that Republicans have put in place deporting violent criminals
Speaker 2: and murderers and gang members, which is truly, it is
Speaker 2: a level of dishonesty that is incredible. And I want
Speaker 2: to give you some of the raw backgrounds that explains
Speaker 2: why the murder rate has dropped so profoundly. Here are
Speaker 2: some raw numbers, and this was put out by FBI
Speaker 2: Director Cash Betel of what has happened that would explain
Speaker 2: why is it that we've seen a twenty percent drop
Speaker 2: in murder rate in the last year. We've seen an
Speaker 2: increase in violent crime arrests. What rate do you think
Speaker 2: the increase violent crime arrest has been?
Speaker 4: What has it been? I have no clue.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent?
Speaker 4: Wow? All right?
Speaker 2: How about this? Gangs and criminal enterprises disrupted? What rate
Speaker 2: do you think that that increase has been.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna guess it's got to be significant.
Speaker 2: Two hundred and ten percent a total of one thousand,
Speaker 2: eight hundred gangs and criminal enterprises disrupted? All right, fetanyl
Speaker 2: more than two thousand kilos of fetanyl sees. That's up
Speaker 2: thirty one percent. That's enough to kill one hundred and
Speaker 2: thirty million Americans. There've also been more than six thousand
Speaker 2: child victims located. That's an increase of twenty two percent.
Speaker 2: There have been more than one thousand, seven hundred child
Speaker 2: predators arrested. That's an increase of ten percent. There have
Speaker 2: been more than three hundred human traffickers arrested. That's up
Speaker 2: fifteen percent. There's a thirty five percent increase in espionage arrests.
Speaker 2: And four of the FBI's top ten most wanted fugitives
Speaker 2: were captured. And to give you a sense of that,
Speaker 2: in one year, do you have many how many of
Speaker 2: the FBI's top ten lists were captured in the four
Speaker 2: years of the Biden presidency.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna guess it's less than five.
Speaker 2: Four So in one year they captured as many on
Speaker 2: the top ten list as Biden did in all four years.
Speaker 2: And the media want to do everything they can to say, no, no,
Speaker 2: this drop in the murder rate. It just happened magically.
Speaker 2: It's probably due to global warming or something. It has
Speaker 2: nothing to do with arresting murderers. It has nothing to
Speaker 2: do with deporting murders. It certainly has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with MS thirteen gang members being put in jail and deported,
Speaker 2: despite the fact that the way you join MS thirteen
Speaker 2: is by murdering someone. And this is real results. And
Speaker 2: then you put on top of it, put on top
Speaker 2: of it the drop in overdoses. And when we come back,
Speaker 2: we're going to give you the drop in overdoses, which
Speaker 2: is even more profound. Even more lives have been saved
Speaker 2: in the past year.
Speaker 1: We also have some incredible data when it comes to overdoses.
Speaker 1: This country saving counts lives by securing the border but
Speaker 1: also going after the cartels and doing everything we can
Speaker 1: to stop the floid drugs in this country, and it's
Speaker 1: working quickly.
Speaker 2: Well, you're right, although the one thing I'll disagree with
Speaker 2: you on, as you said countless lives, We actually can
Speaker 2: can count the lives that have been saved, and the
Speaker 2: lives that have been saved are staggering. We just discussed
Speaker 2: how the murder rate has dropped twenty percent in the
Speaker 2: first year of the Trump administration to the lowest rate
Speaker 2: since nineteen sixty The lowest rate in sixty six years.
Speaker 2: That means roughly one thy four hundred Americans are alive
Speaker 2: today who would have been murdered if Joe Biden and
Speaker 2: the Democrats soft on crime open border policies were still
Speaker 2: in effect. Now, that's a lot ony four hundred people
Speaker 2: still alive. Nobody knows who it is. It may be you,
Speaker 2: it may be me, it may be our family are
Speaker 2: loved ones. We don't know who it is that would
Speaker 2: have been murdered, but there would have been more murders.
Speaker 2: As big as that is, that's not even close to
Speaker 2: the biggest decrease in deaths because of President Trump and
Speaker 2: because of common sense policies. The biggest decrease in deaths
Speaker 2: comes from the drug overdose deaths numbers. And I want
Speaker 2: to pause for a second and ask everyone listening to this.
Speaker 2: Have you seen this on the six o'clock news? Have
Speaker 2: you read this of the New York Times? Have you
Speaker 2: seen the corporate media covering this? They don't want to
Speaker 2: cover this. Here are the stats. In twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: drug overdose deaths in America dropped roughly twenty one percent.
Speaker 2: Now what does that mean? That means in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 2: there were nine twenty one thousand, six hundred and ninety
Speaker 2: four deaths from drug overdoses ninety one thousand, six hundred
Speaker 2: ninety four same time period, and that's actually a year
Speaker 2: long projected looking at the data from January to August,
Speaker 2: and this is from the CDC ninety one thousand, six
Speaker 2: hundred ninety four and twenty twenty four. What do you
Speaker 2: think they were in twenty twenty five. Well, the answer
Speaker 2: is seventy two thousand, eight hundred and thirty six. In
Speaker 2: other words, the deaths fell from ninety one thousand, six
Speaker 2: hundred ninety four to seventy two thousand, eight hundred and
Speaker 2: thirty six. That means they're about nineteen thousand people who
Speaker 2: did not die because of drug overdoses. And what are
Speaker 2: the policies that led to it? Well, Number one, securing
Speaker 2: the border. We've seen a ninety nine percent decrease in
Speaker 2: illegal crossings. Number Two, targeting the drug traffickers. All of
Speaker 2: the images you've seen of the administration taking out Venezuelan
Speaker 2: drug boats filled with drugs, those drugs are not arriving
Speaker 2: in the United States at nearly the same rate. And
Speaker 2: they're nineteen thousand Americans who are alive today. These are
Speaker 2: sons and daughters, These are husbands and wives, brothers and
Speaker 2: sisters that are alive that did not die. You combine
Speaker 2: the decrease in deaths from drug overdoses with the decrease
Speaker 2: in deaths from murders, and you're looking at more than
Speaker 2: twenty thousand Americans that are alive today. And so you
Speaker 2: may not think that government policies necessarily impact your life,
Speaker 2: but they're twenty thousand Americans, and none of us will
Speaker 2: know for sure who those twenty thousand are that are
Speaker 2: alive today because the administration is rightly focused on public safety,
Speaker 2: rightly focused on locking up violent criminals, on putting murderers
Speaker 2: in jail, on putting rapists in jail, and putting child
Speaker 2: molesters in jail, and on deporting violent criminal illegal immigrants
Speaker 2: and gang members. And America is much much safer as
Speaker 2: a result.
Speaker 1: You know what's interesting about this, Senator, and I just
Speaker 1: talk about a comparing contrast. Donald Trump comes in and
Speaker 1: we lower crime statistically nationwide, and it's in a level,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned earlier, that we haven't seen in decades.
Speaker 1: You compare that to what Democrats were doing to lower crime.
Speaker 1: They were just lying about the crime stats. Washington, DC
Speaker 1: is a prime example of this. Before the election, they
Speaker 1: want to look like crime had gone down. They straight
Speaker 1: up lied about the crime statistics. We've seen this happen
Speaker 1: in other cities around the country where they got busted
Speaker 1: lying or recategorizing certain crimes and putting them in different categories.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't be reported the same way to make it
Speaker 1: artificially look like crime had gone down. And the difference
Speaker 1: here is one party really fights crime and goes out
Speaker 1: to the criminals and wins, and the other one says,
Speaker 1: when you do a crime, will make it look safer
Speaker 1: by altering the numbers. That is a difference between the
Speaker 1: Republican the Democratic Party on the issue of crime in
Speaker 1: America today.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. And and and you also have, uh,
Speaker 2: you have the media deliberately lying. So for example, this
Speaker 2: past week, uh that there was a story that was
Speaker 2: breathlessly reported, which is that the Trump administration has arrested
Speaker 2: a five year old. Ice is targeted a five year
Speaker 2: old and there's an adorable picture of a little five
Speaker 2: year old and and and the left went crazy with that.
Speaker 2: Twitter went crazy with that that there are multiple reports
Speaker 2: it turns out that the five year old what happened
Speaker 2: is his father was an illegal immigrant. ICE showed up
Speaker 2: to arrest the illegal immigrant father, and the father abandoned
Speaker 2: the kid. He ran off, and so the ICE agents
Speaker 2: understandably stayed back with the five year old kid because
Speaker 2: the father had just left him alone. Uh And and
Speaker 2: you know, I guess the alternative, which which which the
Speaker 2: media would want want ICE to do, is just to
Speaker 2: let a five year old kid be alone on the
Speaker 2: streets and freeze to death like like it is. The
Speaker 2: level of of duplicity, the level of mendacity, the level
Speaker 2: of just flat out lying is astonishing. And why is that?
Speaker 2: It is because the Democrats and the media, although I
Speaker 2: repeat myself, do not want you to know that the
Speaker 2: people they're showing up and arresting are overwhelmingly violent criminals.
Speaker 2: They're not five year old kids. In this instance, the
Speaker 2: five year old child was abandoned by his father. And
Speaker 2: by the way, there are instances all over the country
Speaker 2: where if you have someone who's pulled over on the
Speaker 2: side of the road and they have a child in
Speaker 2: the car and the adult abandons the child, law enforcement
Speaker 2: will always take care of the kid. That's what your
Speaker 2: father's been in law enforcement his whole life. That's what
Speaker 2: your dad would do. It's what any law enforcement would
Speaker 2: do if a parent abandons a child, And it is
Speaker 2: fundamentally dishonest to claim, aha, what they were doing was
Speaker 2: arresting the child. That's not what they were doing, and
Speaker 2: the media knows it.
Speaker 1: The Ferguson family got bigger over the holidays with a
Speaker 1: new puppy, and I can tell you how having one
Speaker 1: dog that is over a decade old and a new
Speaker 1: dog that's just months old, there's one thing they both
Speaker 1: have in common. I want them to live a great
Speaker 1: quality life. And that is exactly why I give them
Speaker 1: rough greens. Now, I've been telling you about my older
Speaker 1: dog and some of the symptoms that he was having,
Speaker 1: slowing down and itching and having bad breath, losing interest
Speaker 1: in playtime. That is just part of the aging process,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't have to be. And after just a
Speaker 1: few weeks of rough greens we start to see a
Speaker 1: real difference. This stuff is truly amazing, and if you
Speaker 1: have a dog you love, you've got to try rough
Speaker 1: greens for your dog for life. It not only supports
Speaker 1: long term health by providing live bioavailable nutrients including essential vitamins, minerals, probiotics,
Speaker 1: and digestive enzymes, as well as omega oils. The ingredients
Speaker 1: work together to improve nutrition absorption and maintain joint and
Speaker 1: muscle health and enhance overall vitality and you can witness
Speaker 1: it happen over weeks. So if you love your dog
Speaker 1: and you are ready to get your dog back to
Speaker 1: the way maybe he used to be and was more playful,
Speaker 1: then check out Roughgreens.
Speaker 4: It's so easy.
Speaker 1: You just put it on top of your traditional dogfood
Speaker 1: and that is it, and dogs absolutely love it. Go
Speaker 1: to Roughcreens dot com. That's r u ffgreens dot com.
Speaker 1: Use the promo code verdict and you're going to get
Speaker 1: a free Jumpstart Trial bag. All you gotta do is
Speaker 1: add Roughgreens to your dog's food so you cover the shipping.
Speaker 1: That's it. Promo code verdict to claim you're free Jumpstart
Speaker 1: Trial bag at Roughcreens dot com. That's r u F
Speaker 1: F G R E E N S dot com. Promo
Speaker 1: code verdict. All right, I want to get to another
Speaker 1: big story center and it deals with Jack Smith.
Speaker 4: He was in front of Congress.
Speaker 1: I would assume ninety audience does not know that he
Speaker 1: had to testify before Congress this week, not because they're uninformed,
Speaker 1: because the media refuses to cover this.
Speaker 4: They think this is old news and just.
Speaker 1: Hashing out something had happened a long time ago, so
Speaker 1: no one should care. I think we should remind people
Speaker 1: of why accountability is still so vitally important and what
Speaker 1: Jack Smith was a part of. Can you just give
Speaker 1: a quick synopsis to people so that people remember who
Speaker 1: is Jack Smith, what was he doing to abuse power,
Speaker 1: and just how corrupt was his quote investigation to Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and.
Speaker 2: Others, Jack Smith was the point of the spear on
Speaker 2: the greatest abuse of power we have seen in modern times.
Speaker 2: And to put it in context, what Jack Smith did
Speaker 2: was orders of magnitude worse than what the Nixon administration
Speaker 2: did during Watergate. During Watergate, you had a couple of
Speaker 2: half rate burglars break into the to the headquarters of
Speaker 2: the DNC, the Democrat National Committee. In this instance, jack Smith,
Speaker 2: what he did was orders of magnitude worth. He went
Speaker 2: directly after President Trump indicted him multiple times. He did
Speaker 2: so for a very explicit reason, because he wanted to
Speaker 2: prevent the American people from re electing him. It was
Speaker 2: an effort directly to subvert democracy. It was the first
Speaker 2: time in the history of the United States that a
Speaker 2: president or former president has been indicted. Jack Smith did
Speaker 2: it twice, and then he also teamed up with his
Speaker 2: rogue Democrat local prosecutors to do it two more times.
Speaker 2: He also subpoenaed the phone records of roughly twenty percent
Speaker 2: of the Republicans in the Senate in a fishing expedition,
Speaker 2: he targeted over four hundred Republicans. It was a political persecution.
Speaker 2: If you're a fan of lame is, Jack Smith would
Speaker 2: make Javert blush. He was out of control and he
Speaker 2: continues to be brazen. And I will tell you his testimony.
Speaker 2: He testified for the House of Representatives. It was a disaster.
Speaker 2: Jim Jordan your friend of mine. He's been again on
Speaker 2: the Verdict podcast. Before Jim Jordan shaired the hearing. He
Speaker 2: opened the hearing by pointed out that the FBI when
Speaker 2: it rated mar A Lago, that it searched Melania's closet
Speaker 2: because apparently her clothing and underwear is a matter of
Speaker 2: national security, according to Jack Smith and the Biden doj
Speaker 2: and it searched Baron Trump's bedroom, because you know, going
Speaker 2: after a teenager is really the best use for the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice, and I guess it is if you're
Speaker 2: willing to abuse your power. I want you to listen
Speaker 2: to Jim Jordan talking about Jack Smith at the hearing. Here,
Speaker 2: give a listen.
Speaker 3: Jenal yields back.
Speaker 5: Mister Smith, is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar. She was their
Speaker 5: star witness January sixth Committee, their star witness in one
Speaker 5: of those staged and choreographed hearings they paid the former
Speaker 5: president of ABC News to put together. She was in
Speaker 5: fact the only witness at this special prime time hearing Tuesday,
Speaker 5: June twenty eighth, twenty twenty two, eight o'clock in the evening,
Speaker 5: and she told some stories. I mean, these were these
Speaker 5: were some stories she talked about President lunsed across the
Speaker 5: back seat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried to drive the
Speaker 5: car to the Capitol.
Speaker 3: And I just want to know you think she was lying.
Speaker 6: Chairman Jordan.
Speaker 7: My assessment of that particular issue is that with respect
Speaker 7: to the testimony about someone lunge of the president lunging
Speaker 7: towards the driver, my recollection of her testimony about that
Speaker 7: is that it was secondhand. She said she'd heard that
Speaker 7: from somebody.
Speaker 5: You familiar with the name Tony Ornado. I'm sorry, you
Speaker 5: familiar with the name Tony Ornado? Yes, White House Deputy
Speaker 5: chief of Operations, Deputy chief of staff for operations. Right.
Speaker 3: You remember what he said about it?
Speaker 6: As I said here right now, I do not.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he said it didn't happen. How about Bobby Ingle?
Speaker 5: Are you familiar with that name? Yes, I am Secret
Speaker 5: Service agent who was actually in the car that day.
Speaker 3: You know what he said?
Speaker 5: He said it didn't happen. And they both said the
Speaker 5: first time they ever heard this story was when miss
Speaker 5: Hutchinson testified in the prime time hearing as their star
Speaker 5: witness of the January sixth committee.
Speaker 3: By the way, do you.
Speaker 5: Ever confirm her testimony about this particular incident?
Speaker 7: We conducted, as I said, before, our own independent investigation
Speaker 7: of all aspects of the case that we thought was relevant.
Speaker 6: We attorneys from my office.
Speaker 3: Did you ever confirm it? That's a simple question.
Speaker 7: We interviewed her, I should say, attorneys in my office.
Speaker 5: But did you ever confirm the president leaping across the seat,
Speaker 5: grabbing the steering wheel. This whole concoctions she brought up
Speaker 5: in the January sixth hearing, do you ever confirm that.
Speaker 7: We interviewed another firsthand witness who was in the car
Speaker 7: who did not confirm that that happened.
Speaker 5: But also your deposition to the committee last month, mister Smith,
Speaker 5: you said this my recollection with miss Hutchinson was a
Speaker 5: number of the things that she gave evidence on we're
Speaker 5: second hand hearsay. Your remembers making that statement to us
Speaker 5: last month in the deposition.
Speaker 7: I did, and I was referring particularly to what we're
Speaker 7: talking about now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And you also said miss Hutchinson, regarding this particular claim,
Speaker 5: was a second or even third hand witness. We ask you,
Speaker 5: if you were a defense attorney, how would you handle
Speaker 5: cross examining her if she was on the witness stand?
Speaker 5: And you said, if I were a defense attorney, miss
Speaker 5: Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do
Speaker 5: was seek to preclude her testimony because it was here
Speaker 5: say you remember saying all that.
Speaker 6: Yes, that's correct, so that's correct.
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: Were you gonna put her on the witness stand if
Speaker 5: you ever got to trial.
Speaker 7: We had not made final determinations as to who we
Speaker 7: were going to call as a witness. We had a
Speaker 7: large were still considering her. We had a large choice
Speaker 7: of witnesses in this.
Speaker 5: Are you familiar what Washington Post reporters Carol Lenning and
Speaker 5: Aaron Davis said in their book? They did his book
Speaker 5: three hundreds on pages book on chronicle and the whole
Speaker 5: investigation of the Justice Department, And here's what they said.
Speaker 5: On page three ten, they said Jack Smith had wondered
Speaker 5: whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon a trial. Still,
Speaker 5: at one point, Smith told the elections team he wasn't
Speaker 5: ready to give up on Hutchinson's account. Ultimately, however, Trump
Speaker 5: administration officials uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath. Prosecutors
Speaker 5: on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use
Speaker 5: Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed. Are
Speaker 5: Caro Lenning and Aaron Davis who wrote this or they lion?
Speaker 7: My recollection is that I certainly had not made any
Speaker 7: final determinations about.
Speaker 6: In who we were going to call.
Speaker 3: Well, that's the point.
Speaker 5: That is the point, the fact that they used her
Speaker 5: in a primetime hearing, and you won't rule out using her,
Speaker 5: didn't rule out using her putting on the witness stand
Speaker 5: when everybody knows she wasn't telling the truth.
Speaker 6: That says it all.
Speaker 5: That's the degree the Left and Democrats were willing to
Speaker 5: go to get President Trump putting on the witness stand
Speaker 5: someone everybody knows is making it up.
Speaker 6: Everybody knows that, and.
Speaker 3: You were willing to do.
Speaker 5: By the way, you know how many times Cassidy Hutchinson
Speaker 5: was mentioned in their report, the January sixth report, Any idea,
Speaker 5: mister Smith, I do know one hundred and eighty five
Speaker 5: times someone that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth,
Speaker 5: and you were still considering putting her on the witness
Speaker 5: stand because you had to get President Trump. And everybody
Speaker 5: can see that.
Speaker 4: Senator.
Speaker 1: You listened to that line of questioning, and that's just
Speaker 1: five minutes of pure facts and gold from Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: reminding people what they were trying to do on the left,
Speaker 1: even when they knew that things were being made up,
Speaker 1: that lies were being told. And this is no different
Speaker 1: than Russian collusion. Back in sixteen, when the FBI had
Speaker 1: already declared that they thought that the Stele dossier was
Speaker 1: quote user generated, and they used it anyway that's exactly
Speaker 1: what was happening here with a special counsel. It was
Speaker 1: weaponize and do whatever you want to do to try
Speaker 1: to stop Donald Trump from becoming president again.
Speaker 2: Well, and what Jim Jordan did there was also highlight
Speaker 2: the willingness to rely on people that were lying, that
Speaker 2: were obviously lying. I will say it's interesting Cassidy Hutchison.
Speaker 2: I don't know her personally. Before she worked in the
Speaker 2: White House, she was apparently an intern in my office.
Speaker 2: I have no recollection of her. We have lots of
Speaker 2: interns who come in and out of the office. We
Speaker 2: tend to have interns in the spring semester and the
Speaker 2: fall semester and also during the summer, and typically I
Speaker 2: will sit down with the group of interns that are
Speaker 2: with us for like a twenty minute meeting in my office,
Speaker 2: and I'll talk with him a little bit. So I
Speaker 2: assume I met her when she interned, but I don't
Speaker 2: remember her. She wrote a book right after her star testimony.
Speaker 2: She wrote a book of all of her stories, and
Speaker 2: in it she describes this exchange with me, this conversation
Speaker 2: that she says happened with me. That is truly fantastic
Speaker 2: because it never occurred, and it was an exchange that
Speaker 2: she said occurred after she went to the White House,
Speaker 2: and the dialogue back and forth she makes up has
Speaker 2: me kind of like tugging on her shirt sleeve and
Speaker 2: asking for her help, and it has her like strongly
Speaker 2: like sticking it to the Senator. And I have to admit,
Speaker 2: so I didn't read her book, and I think very
Speaker 2: few people actually did. I did what's called the Washington
Speaker 2: read when someone writes something about you that's sort of
Speaker 2: making a little bit of news, which is I went
Speaker 2: and read the page where she talks about it, and
Speaker 2: I literally laughed out loud at the exchange because it
Speaker 2: it was truly fiction. And the fact that she was
Speaker 2: willing to fictionalize a conversation with me that that did
Speaker 2: not occur tells me that the other pages of the
Speaker 2: book are quite likely to be fiction as well. And
Speaker 2: it speaks volumes that both Jack Smith and the Democrats
Speaker 2: running the January sixth Commission were perfectly happy to rely
Speaker 2: upon a fabulous whom they knew was not telling the truth.
Speaker 1: Senner, one of our good friends, actually did a great
Speaker 1: back and forth in this hearing. Brandangil, a guy who
Speaker 1: his tone is demeanor is always cool and calm and
Speaker 1: kind of quiet, but very direct, and it's a personality
Speaker 1: that I love watching because of the way that he
Speaker 1: asks questions and gets answers. And he did a really
Speaker 1: fabulous job in this situation as well.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: As you know, Brandon Gill is a good friend. He's
Speaker 2: a freshman representative from Texas. He's someone I supported when
Speaker 2: he ran in a very crowded primary. He had a
Speaker 2: big win, and I told the voters of Texas if
Speaker 2: they elected him, he was going to be a leader
Speaker 2: in Washington, and already, just in his first year plus
Speaker 2: on Capitol Hill, he's already proven to be a leader
Speaker 2: in Washington. Here he's cross examining Jack Smith about Arctic
Speaker 2: frost and in particular his willingness to trample on the
Speaker 2: Constitution to target both the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker 2: and also roughly twenty percent of the Republicans in the
Speaker 2: United States Senate. Give a listen to this exchange and
Speaker 2: how ridiculous Jack Smith's responses are to Brandon Gill's questions.
Speaker 5: The gentleman from Texas, mister Gill was recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 8: Mister Smith in January of twenty twenty three, did you
Speaker 8: subpoena then Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's toll records?
Speaker 6: Yes, sir, we.
Speaker 3: Did, Yes, you did.
Speaker 8: And the subpoena covered the time period between November twenty
Speaker 8: twenty and January twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, sir. Could you say that again?
Speaker 3: We're not going to delay like this.
Speaker 8: The subpoena covered the time period between November of twenty
Speaker 8: twenty and January twenty twenty one. How many days after
Speaker 8: Kevin McCarthy was sworn in his speaker did you subpoena
Speaker 8: his records?
Speaker 6: I don't recall, but those two things had nothing.
Speaker 8: It was sixteen days after becoming the highest ranking Republican
Speaker 8: in the House of Representatives, usubpoenaed his toll records. Do
Speaker 8: you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation
Speaker 8: of the speech or debate clause?
Speaker 6: I do not, and I want to be clear that
Speaker 6: the till.
Speaker 8: We were collecting months worth of phone data on the
Speaker 8: Republicans Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition,
Speaker 8: right after he got sworn in as speaker, all around
Speaker 8: the time of a major vote that sounds like a
Speaker 8: flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me,
Speaker 8: and I think most people agree with me. And Speaker
Speaker 8: McCarthy had no recourse, did he? Because you issued a
Speaker 8: non disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of
Speaker 8: the American people knew about the subpoenas.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 7: The toll record, the non content toll record subpoena is
Speaker 7: we did secure non disclosure orders for those subpoenas.
Speaker 3: You did.
Speaker 8: And let me ask you, mister Smith, at the time
Speaker 8: you secured those non disclosure orders.
Speaker 3: Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?
Speaker 7: The non disclosure order was based on concerns about it.
Speaker 3: Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risks?
Speaker 6: Was not?
Speaker 3: He was not?
Speaker 8: Then why did your non disclosure order refer to him
Speaker 8: as a flight risk? It says right here the court
Speaker 8: finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result
Speaker 8: in flight from prosecution.
Speaker 7: Sir, When securing a non disclosure order, the risks don't
Speaker 7: have to be associated.
Speaker 8: I think that the Speaker of the House is risks
Speaker 8: this question, No, this is not your time, this is
Speaker 8: my time. You think the Speaker of the House is
Speaker 8: a flight risk? You think he's going to hop on
Speaker 8: a plane and leave the country.
Speaker 7: No. What I was trying to explain is, with respect
Speaker 7: to a non disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated
Speaker 7: with the subscriber to the phone, the risks to okay mitigation.
Speaker 8: I think that you were using this is clearly in
Speaker 8: reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false
Speaker 8: information to secure a non disclosure order to hide from
Speaker 8: Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that
Speaker 8: you were spying on his toll records.
Speaker 3: But I've got more more, so let's move on.
Speaker 8: In May of twenty twenty three, you also issued subpoenas
Speaker 8: for toll records of nine US senators and an additional representative.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 6: In May of twenty three, we did issues.
Speaker 8: You did, and there were non disclosure orders in conjunction
Speaker 8: with those subpoenas as well.
Speaker 7: Right, that's correct, consistent with Department policy, right law.
Speaker 3: So again, nobody would know what you were doing.
Speaker 8: The senators would, and the representatives would, and the American
Speaker 8: people wouldn't know what you were doing.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 7: The toll records that we secured in the non disclosure
Speaker 7: orders were consistent with policy, and.
Speaker 8: You knew whenever you were doing that that there was
Speaker 8: a risk you were violating the speechure debate clause.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 7: The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the
Speaker 7: concurrence of the public context.
Speaker 8: Your own analysis says that you knew there was a
Speaker 8: risk you were violating the speech or debate clause.
Speaker 3: I have it right here.
Speaker 8: This is an email from John Keller at Public Integrity
Speaker 8: Section to your team. As you are aware quote, as
Speaker 8: you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether
Speaker 8: compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls
Speaker 8: violates the speechure debate clause in the DC circuit. That's
Speaker 8: from your own analysis right there. So you did know,
Speaker 8: didn't you.
Speaker 7: So with respect to the item you just put up
Speaker 7: on the screen, the last sentence states.
Speaker 8: Uh, oh, we're going to get to the last sentence. Okay,
Speaker 8: We're going to get to the last sentence, and you
Speaker 8: cite case Lawn here. Quote the bar on compelled disclosure
Speaker 8: is absolute?
Speaker 3: Is right? Is that right? Or do you think that
Speaker 3: you didn't have to abide by that precedent?
Speaker 7: To be clear, this is not this statement is not
Speaker 7: from my office. This is the statement.
Speaker 8: This is this is your justification for those subpoenas and
Speaker 8: indios that you ordered. This was part of your analysis.
Speaker 8: It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting. Well,
Speaker 8: let's get to that last sentence then, quote, given my
Speaker 8: understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members
Speaker 8: listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be
Speaker 8: minimal here. In other words, you're using a novel legal theory,
Speaker 8: which you knew was novel, has never been tested by
Speaker 8: any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's
Speaker 8: going to know about it because you issued indio. Nobody's
Speaker 8: going to sue about it, So sue this.
Speaker 3: So who cares? We're going to do it.
Speaker 8: Anyways, You walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire
Speaker 8: product ven the Gentleman's Times sighclared members of Congress, and
Speaker 8: you know it.
Speaker 3: It's absolutely disgraceful.
Speaker 1: It's incredible when you when you hear just how out
Speaker 1: of control our government was under the direction of the
Speaker 1: Biden administration and Jack Smith and the unlimited powers that
Speaker 1: clearly he believed he had to just do and create
Speaker 1: whatever he wanted to try to bring down Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and anyone around him.
Speaker 2: Well, Jack Smith knew that what he was doing was illegal,
Speaker 2: that it violated the Constitution, that had violated the speech
Speaker 2: and debate clause. But as that email exchange indicates that
Speaker 2: that Brandon Gill read, he was counting on the fact
Speaker 2: that no one would ever know about it, that it
Speaker 2: would stay secret, that it would never be made public,
Speaker 2: so he could violate the law. And his objective was
Speaker 2: to prevent the American people from re electing President Trump.
Speaker 2: And let's be clear, if Kamala Harris is DOJ we
Speaker 2: were in office, we wouldn't know about this. Nobody would
Speaker 2: know about this. He would have succeeded. You know, he's
Speaker 2: like the villain and Scooby Doo. You know, he would
Speaker 2: have gotten away with it if it weren't for those
Speaker 2: meddling kids. And by the way, by the meddling kids,
Speaker 2: he means the voters of America who decided, no, we've
Speaker 2: had enough of this dumpster fire. We'd like to get
Speaker 2: back to common sense. And I got to say, Jack
Speaker 2: Smith is just calmly telling Congress that he went but
Speaker 2: went before the judge, and he lied, he lied over
Speaker 2: and over again. I thought the exchange. Is Kevin McCarthy
Speaker 2: a flight risk? He says no, Well, then why did
Speaker 2: you tell the judge he was a flight risk? And
Speaker 2: he has no good answer. Well, well, you know we're
Speaker 2: not referring to the actual target of the subpoena. It's
Speaker 2: complete nonsense. He also told told the judge that every
Speaker 2: Republican that he subpoenaed was was likely to destroy evidence,
Speaker 2: completely made up, false statements, and it's an abuse of power.
Speaker 2: And and Jack Smith is completely unapologetic, incredible.
Speaker 4: Don't forget.
Speaker 1: We do this show as a podcast three days a week,
Speaker 1: so make sure you hit that subscribe or auto download
Speaker 1: button wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 4: So that you don't miss a single episode.
Speaker 1: And the Center and I will see you back here
Speaker 1: on this radio station next week and on your phone
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts as well this week,
Speaker 1: all week long,