Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Ted Cruz Weekend Review, Ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you, and these were the major stories that
Speaker 1: we chatted about this past week that you may have missed.
Speaker 1: First up, John Radcliffe being confirmed as a CIA director. Well,
Speaker 1: he then decided to release COVID info that was readily
Speaker 1: available when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were in the
Speaker 1: White House, but they deliberately chose not to share it
Speaker 1: with the American people. What is that information? I'll explain
Speaker 1: it to you in just a moment. Also tips no
Speaker 1: tax on them and no tax on Social Security? Can
Speaker 1: this idea from Donald Trump actually pass through Congress? Senator
Speaker 1: Cruz explains the real opportunity here to change things in
Speaker 1: a big way for seniors. And finally, Democrats moving to
Speaker 1: obstruct the confirmation hearings as much as they can, and
Speaker 1: they're trying to get at least one of Trump's nominees
Speaker 1: to fail. So what is going to happen next? We'll
Speaker 1: explain that for you. It is the Weekend Review and
Speaker 1: it starts right now. I want to move to this
Speaker 1: other big headline, and that deals with the CIA and
Speaker 1: releasing new analysis on the COVID origins.
Speaker 2: Doesn't matter where you read the headline.
Speaker 1: Whether it's Fox News, Politico, AP, BBC, Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: they're all writing the same article. Now, and I'll go
Speaker 1: to Politico. CIA now says COVID nineteen is more likely
Speaker 1: to have originated from a lab leak. Now, the most
Speaker 1: interesting part about this transparency that we're getting from the
Speaker 1: CIA director John Ratcliffe, a friend of both of ours,
Speaker 1: is the fact that he made it clear, Hey, I'm
Speaker 1: releasing information that they had already come to a conclusion
Speaker 1: on Center when Biden and Harris were in charge. They
Speaker 1: just didn't want the American people to know it. So
Speaker 1: if you think I'm the one giving you this intel,
Speaker 1: it's not me. This is intel from Biden and Harris
Speaker 1: that they hid from you.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So the CIA had already come to this conclusion, and
Speaker 4: for for a number of years, the CIA's public position
Speaker 4: was it could not conclude with certainty where the pandemic started.
Speaker 4: And yet two days after John Radcliffe was sworn in
Speaker 4: as the new director of the CIA, they issued a
Speaker 4: public statement that said, quote, we have low confidence in
Speaker 4: this judgment and will continue to evaluate any available, credible,
Speaker 4: new intelligence, reporting, or open source information that could change
Speaker 4: CIA's assessment. And by the way, low confidence typically when
Speaker 4: the intelligence community has a conclusion that they will report
Speaker 4: it with low confidence, with moderate confidence, or with high confidence.
Speaker 4: So they're saying that they're not convinced it's absolutely right,
Speaker 4: but they think it's correct, but it's at the lowest
Speaker 4: confidence level. And they did note CIA continues to assess
Speaker 4: that both research related in natural origin scenarios of the
Speaker 4: COVID pandemic remain plausible. It is striking striking, however, that
Speaker 4: as you just said a second ago, the CIA had
Speaker 4: concluded this some time ago. It's just under Joe Biden
Speaker 4: and Kamala Harris they didn't bother to tell the American people.
Speaker 4: Listen to John Radcliffe explaining this.
Speaker 5: Part of what we have to do is we have
Speaker 5: to restore Americans trust in our own institutions like the
Speaker 5: intelligence community and law enforcement, and that includes the CIA.
Speaker 5: And you know, one of the things that the President stress,
Speaker 5: you know that the purpose of the CIA is to
Speaker 5: protect Americans, to keep us safe from foreign threats and
Speaker 5: foreign adversaries, but we also need to be truthful with Americans.
Speaker 5: And he has stressed to me and others that you know,
Speaker 5: these aren't mutually exclusive missions. We can do both. And
Speaker 5: so in the case of the CIA, which is the
Speaker 5: best foreign intelligence service in the world, after five years,
Speaker 5: to not have a public assessment to be honest with
Speaker 5: the American people about where the likely source of a
Speaker 5: pandemic that killed millions around the world, including a million Americans,
Speaker 5: and really impacted all three hundred and forty five million
Speaker 5: Americans in some way. People lost jobs, they lost houses,
Speaker 5: they lost their health, they lost their businesses, all of that.
Speaker 5: And so I had the opportunity on my first day
Speaker 5: to make public an assessment that actually took place in
Speaker 5: the Biden administration, so it can't be accused of being political,
Speaker 5: and it does assess the CIA has assessed that the
Speaker 5: most likely cause of this pandemic that has wrought so
Speaker 5: much devastation around the world was because of elaborated incident
Speaker 5: in Wuhan, and so we'll continue to investigate that moving forward.
Speaker 5: But I think it was important for the American people
Speaker 5: to see an institution like the CIA get off the
Speaker 5: sidelines and be truthful about what our intelligence shows at
Speaker 5: the same time of protecting us from adversaries like China
Speaker 5: if they caused or contributed to this.
Speaker 1: I mean, E said, wow, what else can you say?
Speaker 1: This is all intel that we already had that they
Speaker 1: hid and lif to the American people about.
Speaker 4: Well listen, and I know John Ratcliffe, well, he's a
Speaker 4: good friend of mine. He is someone I sat and
Speaker 4: spent about an hour talking with him a week ago
Speaker 4: before his confirmation. And I'll tell you one of the
Speaker 4: things I urged John to do is bring maximum transparency
Speaker 4: that's possible. Look, the nature of the CIA, you can't
Speaker 4: be transparent and everything. Obviously, we don't want the public
Speaker 4: to know the identity of covert agents or or you know,
Speaker 4: secret wiretaps or things that would jeopardize national security. But
Speaker 4: the consequences of the politicization and weaponization of both law
Speaker 4: enforcement and the intelligence community is that the public's trust
Speaker 4: in those institutions has been severely diminished. That's what John
Speaker 4: was talking about in that clip you just played, And
Speaker 4: so I urged him. By the way, it's the same
Speaker 4: thing I've urged Pam Bondy, who's been nominated to be
Speaker 4: Attorney General. It's the same thing I've urged Cash Betel,
Speaker 4: who's been nominated to be FBI director, is have the
Speaker 4: maximum transparency possible, and in particular, I've urged them with
Speaker 4: respect to COVID and the origins of COVID and by
Speaker 4: the way, any US government complicity in terms of funding
Speaker 4: the Chinese research and the gain of function research that
Speaker 4: may have created the COVID virus, that we need maximum
Speaker 4: transparency concerning that in particular, and I think John Ratcliffe
Speaker 4: is following through with that. I've also urged maximum transparency
Speaker 4: concerning January sixth and any US government informants who may
Speaker 4: have been involved who may have enticed or entrapped people
Speaker 4: into conduct on that day to make that public as well.
Speaker 4: And I'm hopeful and by the way, I'll mention Trump
Speaker 4: is also releasing the files on JFK and RFK and
Speaker 4: Martin Luther King's assassinations. I will note Ben when Trump
Speaker 4: said he was releasing the JFK files.
Speaker 2: I know where you're going with this.
Speaker 4: I did at least tweet just wondering what are the
Speaker 4: non extradition countries Again, I'm asking for a friend.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: You can't say that without telling the backstory on this one, right?
Speaker 2: Can you find people the humor here on this?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 4: During twenty sixteen, Trump accused my father of killing JFK, which,
Speaker 4: for the record, no, my dad did not kill JFK.
Speaker 4: He did kill Jimmy Hoffa. Jimmy Hoffa is buried my
Speaker 4: dad's backyard, but he didn't kill JFK.
Speaker 3: And so it's it's a thing. And so if he's
Speaker 3: releasing the the.
Speaker 4: JFK files, I got to tell you, I'm buying a
Speaker 4: plane ticket for my dad to go to Bolivia right now.
Speaker 1: Between that and the Zodiac Killer, you're just making headlines,
Speaker 1: my friend.
Speaker 3: And it was amazing.
Speaker 4: So Ben, there is actually a real poll that I
Speaker 4: have seen that show, this was a few years ago,
Speaker 4: that twenty eight percent of Floridians believe I may well
Speaker 4: be the Zodiac Killer.
Speaker 2: That's one I would frame him put on my desk.
Speaker 3: It really is.
Speaker 4: And given that the Zodiac Killer killed a number of
Speaker 4: people in northern Klifornia in the nineteen sixties before I
Speaker 4: was born, that's an amazing talent to be able to
Speaker 4: murder in Utero, to reach like back in time. That
Speaker 4: that's just you know, I'm kind of proud of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, if liberals another reason to be afraid of
Speaker 1: you just know that Center crews can time travel per
Speaker 1: per Internet report, So.
Speaker 3: As the meme says, FAFO, I.
Speaker 2: Love it all.
Speaker 1: Right, let's talk about the last thing on our list,
Speaker 1: and it is one.
Speaker 2: Were you right in your prediction? When did you get home?
Speaker 1: If you listen our last show, we were talking about
Speaker 1: our Democrats going to hold out through the weekend. Are
Speaker 1: you gonna have to stay in DC all weekend? Are
Speaker 1: you gonna get to come home? They were holding up
Speaker 1: the nomination jet again. So tell us how that went down.
Speaker 1: When did you get back? Were you right?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 3: I was right. I said I thought we'd get back Saturday.
Speaker 4: I thought the Democrats would fight tooth and nail to
Speaker 4: try to beat Pete hegg Seth. I said they'd lose,
Speaker 4: and I said when they lost, they'd give in and
Speaker 4: they want to get out of town because they want
Speaker 4: to get home, just like we do.
Speaker 3: So that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 4: So we were there, We were there late Friday night,
Speaker 4: and then we ended up finishing the vote Saturday morning,
Speaker 4: and we all flew out Saturday afternoon. So i'm you
Speaker 4: and I are recording. It is twelve eleven in the
Speaker 4: morning right now, Sunday night, Monday morning. I'm in Houston
Speaker 4: and tomorrow morning. I'll fly back to d C to
Speaker 4: go back to the Senate tomorrow. So we did get
Speaker 4: out and where are we on the confirmations? So right
Speaker 4: now four cabinet members have been confirmed. The first to
Speaker 4: be confirmed was Marco Rubio, a Secretary of State. He
Speaker 4: was confirmed on January twentieth. The vote was ninety nine
Speaker 4: to nothing. The second to be confirmed was the guy
Speaker 4: that you just played that clip from, John Ratcliffe, ats
Speaker 4: a director. The vote was seventy two to twenty six,
Speaker 4: so big bipartisan vote. And it's striking though that the
Speaker 4: Democrats delayed that several days even though there was clear
Speaker 4: bipartisan support for him. Ratcliffe should have been confirmed on
Speaker 4: January twentieth. Also, in fact, we thought he was going
Speaker 4: to and the Democrats delayed it several days just because
Speaker 4: they're engaged in obstruction.
Speaker 3: They're trying to delay everything, and.
Speaker 2: We're way behind schedule compared to other administrations.
Speaker 4: So people understand that way behind is strong, but they're
Speaker 4: dragging their feet and that's why that's why we ram through,
Speaker 4: forced them to stay through the weekend, CAPE, kept them
Speaker 4: late Friday night, kept them their Saturday.
Speaker 3: To make clear.
Speaker 4: Listen, if you delay, We'll just motor through, and so
Speaker 4: you can decide do you want it to be unpleasant
Speaker 4: or do you want to move forward. We're going to
Speaker 4: move expeditiously and confirm these nominees. The Democrats, if they want,
Speaker 4: they can abuse the procedural rules. They can drag things out,
Speaker 4: but that means they're going to be there on Fridays
Speaker 4: and Saturdays and Sundays and they're not going home. And
Speaker 4: that's the most effective way to get them to give
Speaker 4: cave in, which is what they did. And so Friday
Speaker 4: night the third cabinet member was confirmed, that was Pete Hegseith.
Speaker 4: And then on Saturday we confirmed the fourth cabinet member,
Speaker 4: which is Christy nom for Secretary of Homeland Security. He
Speaker 4: was confirmed fifty nine to thirty four, so a respectable
Speaker 4: bipartisan vote. Not overwhelming, but she got six Democrats. And
Speaker 4: next week we have teed up Scott Bessen for Secretary
Speaker 4: of Treasury, Sean Duffy for Secretary of Transportation, Chris Wright
Speaker 4: for Secretary of Energy, and Doug Bergham for Secretary of
Speaker 4: the Interior. All of them are out of committee. All
Speaker 4: of them are teed up. I think all four of
Speaker 4: them will be confirmed next week. We may have some
Speaker 4: others confirmed next week as well, but we're moving expeditiously,
Speaker 4: and as I said, my prediction is that we will
Speaker 4: confirm all of Trump's cabinet nominees within thirty days. We
Speaker 4: also have next week in Judiciary, we will vote Pam
Speaker 4: Bondi out of committee and we'll have the hearing on
Speaker 4: Cash Battel. And by the way, one of the things
Speaker 4: I did last week is participated in in a moot
Speaker 4: preparation with Cash Battel, which was very productive.
Speaker 3: Cash.
Speaker 4: I think it's going to do a good job. The
Speaker 4: Democrats are going to go hard after Cash Battel. They're
Speaker 4: going to go hard after Tulsi Gabbard. Those are their
Speaker 4: top two targets.
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. All right,
Speaker 1: so taxes tips. It was clearly a big campaign issue.
Speaker 1: It brought in a lot of voters. A lot of
Speaker 1: people came to Donald Trump and said this couldn't have
Speaker 1: a huge impact. Now it's paying off on it, Is
Speaker 1: there a real chance?
Speaker 4: So yes, and I believe this will happen. This will
Speaker 4: happen by the end of the year. So let's rewind.
Speaker 4: In the middle of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was
Speaker 4: in Las Vegas, Nevada, and he actually told us the story.
Speaker 4: So he came by in the middle of the campaign.
Speaker 4: He had lunch with all the Republican senators and he said, listen,
Speaker 4: I was in Vegas.
Speaker 3: I had a rally that night.
Speaker 4: And he said, I was having lunch and he said,
Speaker 4: there was a waitress who came. It was serving me
Speaker 4: my meal, and he said she began like complaining about
Speaker 4: the enormous burden that the Biden administration had put on
Speaker 4: recording her tips, on paying taxes on tip.
Speaker 3: And he said, I pulled out.
Speaker 4: A piece of paper and I got out of pen
Speaker 4: and I just wrote, no taxes on tips.
Speaker 3: They said, it's just.
Speaker 4: An idea that popped in my head. And he said, look,
Speaker 4: some people, they they focus group things, they do white papers.
Speaker 4: He said, I didn't do any of that. I just
Speaker 4: wrote it down from the conversation I had with the
Speaker 4: waitress over lunch. And he said, I had that rally
Speaker 4: later the day and I had thousands of people there,
Speaker 4: and he said, I just threw it out there no
Speaker 4: taxes on tips, and he said, and they went crazy,
Speaker 4: They went absolutely crazy. And I got to say, there
Speaker 4: are times when when Trump I just think has an
Speaker 4: instinct that is a very good, gut instinct, and I
Speaker 4: think this policy makes enormous sense. And so when he
Speaker 4: announced it, He's right, the crowd went crazy.
Speaker 3: I looked at it and I said, this is this
Speaker 3: is a great idea.
Speaker 4: I immediately went to my team and I said, let's
Speaker 4: draft the legislation to make this happened. So the next
Speaker 4: week I filed federal legislation of no taxes on tips.
Speaker 4: Now what's interesting, Ben is when I filed this, it
Speaker 4: immediately became bipartisan. Both senators from Nevada, Jackie Rosen and
Speaker 4: Catherine Court's Master, both of them immediately co sponsored it.
Speaker 4: One of them said to me, she said, look in Nevada,
Speaker 4: twenty five percent of the employees in the entire state
Speaker 4: are tipped workers. And so it was bipartisan. And then
Speaker 4: shortly thereafter, Kamala Harris endorsed it and she said, this
Speaker 4: is a great idea. So it became there was enormous
Speaker 4: bipartisan support. Now, obviously Trump is won. We have a
Speaker 4: Republican Senate. At Republican House, I've refiled my legislation. Here's
Speaker 4: what I'm pressing to happen. So Trump just was back
Speaker 4: in Nevada and Las Vegas just made a huge push
Speaker 4: to pass this. I am pressing for Congress to pass
Speaker 4: the legislation right now. It doesn't have to be part
Speaker 4: of budget reconciliation. Now, for any tax bill under the Constitution,
Speaker 4: the House of Representatives has to originate it. So if
Speaker 4: that's a provision of the Constitution, the Senate cannot start
Speaker 4: a tax bill. A tax bill has to originate with House.
Speaker 4: So I am merging the Speaker of the House. I'm
Speaker 4: merging the majority leader take up my legislation no taxes
Speaker 4: on tips.
Speaker 3: Just pass it.
Speaker 4: We have the votes in the House, Republicans can pass it.
Speaker 4: If it passes and goes over to the Senate, I
Speaker 4: believe we can pass it in the Senate, and I
Speaker 4: think we'll get sixty votes, so we don't have to
Speaker 4: wait for reconciliation. Reconciliation is the process that gets around
Speaker 4: the filibuster. Lets us pass something with just fifty votes.
Speaker 4: I don't think we need that for no taxes on tips.
Speaker 4: If the House passes it. What I'm merging, John Thune,
Speaker 4: the Senate majority leaders put it on the Senate floor.
Speaker 4: I think we'll get sixty votes, and that means we
Speaker 4: could pass it. It would be a big bipartisan win,
Speaker 4: and we'll put it on President Trump's desk. He can
Speaker 4: sign it into law as a huge victory. And by
Speaker 4: the way, it's a win win man. If we put
Speaker 4: it on the floor and Democrats decide to be partisan,
Speaker 4: they decide, Okay, we're going to oppose it because we
Speaker 4: just oppose any tax cut, we oppose anything Trump wants. Okay,
Speaker 4: that's not the end of the day. If Democrats defeat
Speaker 4: it in the Senate because we can't get to sixty,
Speaker 4: that's fine. Then we'll stick it in budget reconciliation. We
Speaker 4: can get it done with fifty. But it's a win
Speaker 4: win because every Democrat senator who votes know that is
Speaker 4: an ugly issue in two years to go face the
Speaker 4: voters and say, hey, I voted against no taxes on tips.
Speaker 4: Even though every waiter, every waitress, every bartender, every taxi driver,
Speaker 4: every uber driver, every barber, every hairstylist, every nail salon person,
Speaker 4: everyone who is relying on tips cares a lot about this,
Speaker 4: So if the Democrats all want to vote against it, look,
Speaker 4: I think this policy is an incredible embodiment of the
Speaker 4: most important political transformation of the last decade, which is
Speaker 4: that Republicans have become a blue collar party. We are
Speaker 4: the party of waiters and waitresses and working men and women.
Speaker 4: And so Democrats can decide where they stand, but I
Speaker 4: think we ought to get this passed, and one way
Speaker 4: or another, my prediction is this will get done before
Speaker 4: the end of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Is this one of those issues where people should call
Speaker 2: their congressmen their sinners? I mean we talk about this, Yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 2: I mean yes, And what do you say?
Speaker 1: This is good for my state, this is good for
Speaker 1: my city, this is good for hourly workers.
Speaker 4: It's the best argument. Just pass no taxes on tips.
Speaker 4: So look, one of the things to understand when you
Speaker 4: call your hungers, when you call your senator, if you
Speaker 4: make a detailed, subtle argument, that doesn't get through. So
Speaker 4: every member of Congress gets what I get every day,
Speaker 4: which is I get an email. So all right, let
Speaker 4: me find my email from today.
Speaker 3: Call totals.
Speaker 4: So on t eight twenty five, today there were one thousand,
Speaker 4: three hundred and seventy two calls to my office. There
Speaker 4: were seven hundred and fifty four to DC, there were
Speaker 4: six hundred and eighteen to Texas. There are four hundred
Speaker 4: and eighty two live calls, so we had interns and
Speaker 4: staff assistants who answered four hundred and eighty two calls. Today,
Speaker 4: there were eight hundred ninety calls that went to voicemails.
Speaker 4: Of those calls, oney three hundred and twenty two Texans called,
Speaker 4: fifty non Texans called, so overwhelmingly the calls were Texans.
Speaker 4: So let's break it down casework. So that's I've got
Speaker 4: an issue with Social Security, I've got an issue with
Speaker 4: the VA, I've got an issue with government. Forty five
Speaker 4: of those calls were casework, and I've got a whole
Speaker 4: team that works to help Texans deal with the government
Speaker 4: every day. Twenty four dealt with the academy, so young
Speaker 4: men and women in high school students that want to
Speaker 4: go to service academy. So twenty four of them. Eight
Speaker 4: concerned the campaign. I don't know what they concerned. Ninety
Speaker 4: one concerned scheduling, so people calling and saying, hey, can
Speaker 4: you come and do this event or this other event
Speaker 4: now of the breakdown. Eighteen called in support of me,
Speaker 4: twenty eight called in opposition to me. So people called
Speaker 4: and said, I can't stand Cruise, He's terrible. Okay, that
Speaker 4: gets recorded. Ten people called in support a President Trump,
Speaker 4: Seventy nine people called in opposition to President Trump. Now nominations,
Speaker 4: seventy five people called in support of President Trump's nominees.
Speaker 4: Seventy people called in opposition to President Trump's nominees. Now,
Speaker 4: it's interesting. FK Junior got a bunch of calls. One
Speaker 4: hundred and eighty seven people this is yesterday called in
Speaker 4: support of RFK Junior for HHS Secretary. Ninety three people
Speaker 4: called in opposition to RFK Junior, so about two to one,
Speaker 4: Bobby Kennedy, the calls were coming in. Nineteen people called
Speaker 4: in support of Cash Battel for FBI director. Four hundred
Speaker 4: and thirty two people called in opposition to cash Battel
Speaker 4: as FBI director. And I think there probably were some
Speaker 4: liberal groups stirring up calls, because that number is big enough,
Speaker 4: four hundred and thirty.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, when you see days like that,
Speaker 1: you got to be thinking somebody went on an email
Speaker 1: campaign or a Callboitz campaign and said, yeah, target this
Speaker 1: member today specifically, because if it doesn't match the day before,
Speaker 1: the day after, that's when that's kind of the tel right.
Speaker 3: And that happens.
Speaker 4: There are groups that will focus and say make these calls.
Speaker 4: And I think those calls the four hundred and thirty two,
Speaker 4: that's a big enough number. That's where that probably came from. Now,
Speaker 4: in a day, forty eight people called in support of
Speaker 4: Tulsa Gabbard, twenty two people called in opposition.
Speaker 3: To Tulsa Gabbard.
Speaker 4: On legislative issues, thirteen people called in support a border
Speaker 4: of security, two people called in opposition to border security,
Speaker 4: and interestingly enough, four hundred and seventy four people called
Speaker 4: in opposition to the omb pause of federally appropriated funds.
Speaker 4: So look that's the sort of report. I get that
Speaker 4: report every day and I read it every day. Now,
Speaker 4: look what we get over the course of the year,
Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands of calls. So I can't listen to
Speaker 4: every voicemail that comes in. I could literally spend all
Speaker 4: day long doing nothing but listening to voicemails and not
Speaker 4: do any hearings, not do any legislation, and I still
Speaker 4: wouldn't have enough time. So the way I consume that
Speaker 4: data is through report like that. I just read you
Speaker 4: the report that came today. Every other member consumes that
Speaker 4: this same way. What I'm saying is, if you want
Speaker 4: Congress to pass no taxes on tips, you don't need
Speaker 4: to present a long, detailed, subtle argument as to all
Speaker 4: of the pros and cons. Just pick up the phone
Speaker 4: and call your member and say, pass no taxes on tips.
Speaker 4: If you say that sentence, it will get recorded in
Speaker 4: a report just like that to the House member of
Speaker 4: the senator you're calling. That's how the information gets consumed.
Speaker 2: That's encouraging.
Speaker 1: By the way you said, everybody looks at their call
Speaker 1: this like the same way you do.
Speaker 3: It, I hope.
Speaker 4: So I don't know that there may be some people
Speaker 4: that don't give a damn.
Speaker 3: I look at it every day.
Speaker 4: I can't promise that all five hundred and thirty five
Speaker 4: members of Congress do, but I certainly look at it
Speaker 4: every day because I work for thirty one million Texans,
Speaker 4: and so I want to see what issues people are
Speaker 4: engaged on and what they care about.
Speaker 1: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 1: this conversation on this topic. You can go back and
Speaker 1: dow the podcast from early this week to hear the
Speaker 1: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 1: story number three of the week.
Speaker 2: You may have.
Speaker 1: Missed that obviously means the pace is moving up. When
Speaker 1: you look at so far what's happened there does seem
Speaker 1: to be a little bit of a change.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: We're noticing it with the Democrats in the media especially,
Speaker 1: it seems like there's a real appetite to just get
Speaker 1: a nominee whatever when they get their hands on to
Speaker 1: not pass.
Speaker 2: Is that part of the gainsmanship that we're witnessing. Am
Speaker 2: I reading the room the right way?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Look, I still believe, and I've said this a number
Speaker 4: of times, that all of Trump's cabinet nominees are going
Speaker 4: to be confirmed, and I think they'll be confirmed within
Speaker 4: thirty days.
Speaker 3: That we are leaning in.
Speaker 4: We're putting the pedal to the medal under the Senate
Speaker 4: rules that the Democrats can delay some, but I think
Speaker 4: within thirty days we'll get them all through. Now, the
Speaker 4: three that they are going after hardest are in terms
Speaker 4: of cabinet nominees, Tulca Gabbert for Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 4: Bobby Kennedy for Health and Human Services. And then it's
Speaker 4: not a cabinet position, but Cash Pateel for Director of
Speaker 4: the FBI, which it's a sub cabinet position, but a
Speaker 4: very very important law enforcement position. Those are the three.
Speaker 4: It's not complicated or subtle. Those three are the top
Speaker 4: targets of the Democrats.
Speaker 3: Today.
Speaker 4: In the Senate Judiciary Committee, we had Cash Betel's hearing.
Speaker 4: I was vigorous at the hearing defending him. I will
Speaker 4: tell you I think I think Cash did very well.
Speaker 4: I think he acquitted himself in an excellent way. This
Speaker 4: evening I was on Sean Hannity, and as I put it,
Speaker 4: I said, my assessment of the Democrats' behavior at Cash
Speaker 4: Betel's hearing reminded me of the quote from Shakespeare's Macbeth.
Speaker 4: It was a tale told by an idiot, full of
Speaker 4: sound and fury and signifying nothing.
Speaker 2: That is a great.
Speaker 1: Accurate way of describing I mean, it was, you know
Speaker 1: what show is how I was going.
Speaker 2: To put it.
Speaker 4: But they didn't land any material blows. And look, the
Speaker 4: point on Cash what they're attacking him on not that
Speaker 4: he's not qualified.
Speaker 3: He's clearly qualified. He has.
Speaker 4: Over a decade of experience in law enforcement, national security,
Speaker 4: including having been a federal public defender, including having been
Speaker 4: a federal prosecutor, having worked in the National Security Division
Speaker 4: of the Department of Justice, having worked in the White
Speaker 4: House and the National Security Council, having been a senior
Speaker 4: intelligence staffer on Capitol Hill, and having been the chief
Speaker 4: of staff at the United States Defense Department. They're not
Speaker 4: arguing he's unqualified. What they're arguing is they're terrified he
Speaker 4: will do exactly what President Trump promised he would do,
Speaker 4: which is eliminate the politicization and weaponization of the FBI
Speaker 4: and get it back to its core function. I believe
Speaker 4: Cash Bettel will do that, and I think the Democrats
Speaker 4: are freaking out because they don't want him to do that.
Speaker 4: But I think Cash will make it through. We also
Speaker 4: had hearings this week for both Bobby Kennedy and Tulsea Gabbert.
Speaker 4: I don't know, it is not impossible that one of
Speaker 4: those nominees is defeated, but I think they all make
Speaker 4: it through.
Speaker 1: Right now, when you look at the Republicans, when Democrats
Speaker 1: are pushing this obstructionism the way that they are doing
Speaker 1: it and trying to slow things down, does that unify
Speaker 1: the Republican base more because it's like, all right, come on, guys,
Speaker 1: does that make it actually easier to get the votes
Speaker 1: you need because you realize what you're up against.
Speaker 4: A Look, potentially, you had Pete hag Seth, who is
Speaker 4: the one they went after the hardest so far, and
Speaker 4: that vote was fifty to fifty. We lost three Republicans.
Speaker 4: We lost Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell. Because
Speaker 4: we have a fifty three to forty seven majority, losing
Speaker 4: three made it fifty to fifty, and that meant the
Speaker 4: Vice President jd Vance could break the tie.
Speaker 3: I am glad we have fifty three.
Speaker 4: If we had a fifty one vote majority, I would
Speaker 4: not be nearly so saying, and I would not be
Speaker 4: saying every Trump Cabinet nominee is going to be confirmed
Speaker 4: if we had a fifty one vote majority. But because
Speaker 4: we have fifty three, we can lose up to three,
Speaker 4: and so I think all of these make it through. Listen, Tulsi.
Speaker 4: Tulsi was a Democrat for most of her career. She
Speaker 4: is perceived if you look at Republican foreign policy, they're
Speaker 4: interventionists and isolationists. There are many who perceive Tulsi as
Speaker 4: much more of an isolationist, So there are Republicans who
Speaker 4: have real concerns with her. Will that play out into
Speaker 4: no votes? I don't know. I think the President deserves
Speaker 4: a considerable amount of deference in naming his cabinet members,
Speaker 4: and he has decided to name Tulci Gabbert. I'm going
Speaker 4: to vote yes, but I don't know. It's not impossible
Speaker 4: that we get four no votes, which would take down
Speaker 4: the nomination. Likewise, Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy's a complicated situation.
Speaker 4: Both Kennedy and Tulsi, until like twelve minutes ago, they
Speaker 4: were both Democrats. Yeah, and so Bobby Kennedy obviously a
Speaker 4: scion of one of the great Democrat royalty families, Camelot.
Speaker 3: It is a curious dynamic.
Speaker 4: It's not clear to me any Democrat is going to
Speaker 4: vote for him, which is an interesting situation.
Speaker 3: Listen, there's some conservatives.
Speaker 4: Bobby Kennedy, until recently, on many policies is his views
Speaker 4: were quite left of center. I'm going to vote for
Speaker 4: Bobby Kennedy because I think he's a change agent, because
Speaker 4: I think he has courage to take on I think
Speaker 4: some of the corruption that we have at HHS, particularly
Speaker 4: with big Pharma, that gets in bed with the career
Speaker 4: bureaucrats there and stifles competition and drives up costs. I
Speaker 4: think if you have a terrible disease, you should have
Speaker 4: a right to access.
Speaker 3: Life saving medication.
Speaker 4: And I'm one of the original sponsors of the right
Speaker 4: to Try legislation. I think that's very important and and
Speaker 4: I think Bobby Kennedy is going to shake up the
Speaker 4: the cronyism that that that that has characterized HHS.
Speaker 3: What's not clear to me.
Speaker 4: Is I don't if any Democrats want that cronyism shaken up,
Speaker 4: and to be honest, there may be some Republicans that don't.
Speaker 3: Let's play this exchange.
Speaker 4: So this is Bobby Kennedy responding to Bernie Sanders Bernie's
Speaker 4: going to vote now. When Bertie was attacking him like crazy,
Speaker 4: but I got to say, Bobby Kennedy popped him back
Speaker 4: pretty hard.
Speaker 3: Listen to this exchange.
Speaker 6: I'm going to make America healthier than other countries in
Speaker 6: the world. Right now, will you guarantee do what every
Speaker 6: other major countries. It's a simple question and by the way, Bernie,
Speaker 6: you know, the problem of corruption is not just in
Speaker 6: the federal agents, is in Congress too. Almost all the
Speaker 6: members of this panel are accepting, including yourself, are accepting
Speaker 6: millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical And.
Speaker 2: I did no interest. Oh, I thought that that would no.
Speaker 6: I ran for president like you. I got millions, millions
Speaker 6: of contributions. They did not come from the executives, not
Speaker 6: one nickel of pack money from the pharmaceuticals, and they
Speaker 6: came to twenty twenty. In twenty twenty, you were the
Speaker 6: single largest because I receiver comminations from workers all over
Speaker 6: this country. Workers. You were this not a nickel from
Speaker 6: corporate You was the single largest pharmaceutical dollars from workers
Speaker 6: in poor three five million.
Speaker 2: Yeah, out of two hundred million.
Speaker 3: All right, but.
Speaker 2: You have not answered last question.
Speaker 1: I mean that you want to talk about a beatdown
Speaker 1: with the facts there, Bernie, you've accepted millions of dollars
Speaker 1: in the pharmaceutical industry. In twenty twenty, you were the
Speaker 1: single largest receiver of pharmacual dollars one point five millions.
Speaker 2: Like, let's just move on here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he did not like that exchange.
Speaker 4: By the way, I've never seen a confirmation hearing where
Speaker 4: the nominee refers to the senator by his first name.
Speaker 3: He keeps calling him Bernie.
Speaker 4: Like it's clear Bobby Kennedy and Bernie Sanders they know
Speaker 4: each other well. I mean, they've got a long history there.
Speaker 4: Because that's that that that's quite unusual too. But I
Speaker 4: gotta say Bernie was not anticipating that pop back. We'll
Speaker 4: see how it plays out, but I think Kennedy's gonna
Speaker 4: get confirmed. I want him to get confirmed. I like
Speaker 4: Bobby Kennedy, and I also think there are a lot
Speaker 4: of Americans, a lot of Americans who are not even
Speaker 4: very political, a lot of moms who are worried about
Speaker 4: the garbage that that our kids are are consuming, are
Speaker 4: worried about the rise in in in in chronic illness.
Speaker 4: That that that that I think Bobby Kennedy is a
Speaker 4: very good person to take that on.
Speaker 2: As always. Thank you for listening to Verdict.
Speaker 1: Was center Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget
Speaker 1: to deal with my podcast, and you can listen to
Speaker 1: my podcast every other day.
Speaker 2: Hey, you're not listening to Verdict or each day when
Speaker 2: you
Speaker 1: Listen to verdict afterwards, I'd love to have you as
Speaker 1: a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and we
Speaker 1: will see you back here on Monday morning.