Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you and Center. I can't believe that I'm actually getting
Speaker 2: to say this because it's just so funny, but it's real.
Speaker 2: The President of the United States elect, Donald Trump is
Speaker 2: going to get a an apology from ABC News and
Speaker 2: George Stepanopolis. On top of the fact they're now forced
Speaker 2: to pay fifteen million dollars to settle a defamation lawsuit,
Speaker 2: the fact Lady's singing, the pigs are flying, Hell's freezing over.
Speaker 1: It is truly astonishing.
Speaker 3: ABC News apologizing to Donald Trump and ABC News writing
Speaker 3: a fifteen million dollar check to Trump's presidential library, all
Speaker 3: to settle a defamation case because George Stephanopolis went on
Speaker 3: National TV and defamed Donald Trump and they're writing a
Speaker 3: check because of it. And if you never thought it
Speaker 3: would happen, well it is. We are in a brave
Speaker 3: and extraordinary new world. We're gonna break it down and
Speaker 3: what it means also going to go back to the
Speaker 3: amazing and really sad spectacle of leftist celebrating the cold
Speaker 3: blooded murder of a healthcare CEO Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders
Speaker 3: aoc all gleefully celebrating it and sadly encouraging more. We're
Speaker 3: going to break that down as well. And finally, we're
Speaker 3: going to talk about what may have been the single
Speaker 3: most decisive factor in the twenty twenty four election, the
Speaker 3: left's utter hypocrisy on the border and the serious suffering
Speaker 3: that open borders cause. We're going to break down that
Speaker 3: hypocrisy and what may have turned the entire election, all
Speaker 3: of that on today's verdict.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really going to be a good one. I
Speaker 2: want to tell you about our friends over Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: real quick. And if you have a cell phone and
Speaker 2: your cell phone is a Big Mobile, then you need
Speaker 2: to know where your money's going. Big Mobile has been
Speaker 2: giving big donations to democratic causes, candidates and organizations radic organizations,
Speaker 2: including organizations that are fining to defund the police, organizations
Speaker 2: that are fighting to abort babies, and even paying for
Speaker 2: abortion on demand. If you don't want your money going there,
Speaker 2: then you can switch now to Patriot Mobile. They've been
Speaker 2: doing this for over a decade. And Patriot Mobile not
Speaker 2: only are they on the front lines fighting for your
Speaker 2: First and Second Amendment rights, but they also take a
Speaker 2: part of your bill every month, and they give it
Speaker 2: back to the organizations they are doing exactly that. They
Speaker 2: give it to organizations they're fighting to protect the sanctity
Speaker 2: of life, and organizations that support and defend our military,
Speaker 2: our first responders, and our wounded warrior heroes.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 2: Every time you make a call, every time you send
Speaker 2: a text, every time you pay your bill, you're actually
Speaker 2: proudly sending up for the values you believe in. So
Speaker 2: take a stand for conservative causes and put America first.
Speaker 2: By switching to Patriot Mobile today, you'll get the same
Speaker 2: nationwide coverage is the big providers because Patriot Mobile operates
Speaker 2: across all three major networks, plus they back their service
Speaker 2: with a coverage guarantee. They have one hundred percent US
Speaker 2: based customer service team as well that can help you
Speaker 2: with everything. You keep your same number, keep your same phone,
Speaker 2: or upgrade to a new one. Now, let me give
Speaker 2: you a free month of service and when you switch
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile, you will love it. I've been using them
Speaker 2: now for years and I can tell you it is
Speaker 2: great coverage nationwide. Go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict
Speaker 2: It's Patriot Mobile dot com slash vertict or call them
Speaker 2: nine to seven to two Patriot right now, and you're
Speaker 2: going to get a free month when you use the
Speaker 2: offer code verdict Patriot Mobile dot com slash Verdict or
Speaker 2: nine seven to two Patriot and get a free month
Speaker 2: of service use the offer code vertict. So let's talk
Speaker 2: about how all this started from the very beginning for
Speaker 2: people that may not have been following this, because this
Speaker 2: was something that was said by George Stepanopolos on ABC
Speaker 2: News and they realize, I think pretty quick, Okay, we
Speaker 2: screwed up here because Trump won.
Speaker 1: So now we got to deal with the consequences of this.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure they would have done it the same
Speaker 2: way if we would have lost, but obviously ABC News
Speaker 2: now saying yeah, all right, we're gonna admit that we
Speaker 2: did something that was really stupid.
Speaker 3: Well, this stems back to March of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: and in particular March tenth on ABC News with George Stefanopolis,
Speaker 3: and as part of this settlement, ABC News wrote a
Speaker 3: committed to write a fifteen million dollar check a charitable
Speaker 3: contribution to Trump's presidential library, and also to pay a
Speaker 3: million dollars in Trump's lawyer's fees so, all told, sixteen
Speaker 3: million dollars is what ABC is out of pocket. And
Speaker 3: they also had to apologize. They had to issue a
Speaker 3: statement of quote regret, and so they appended to the
Speaker 3: story from the March tenth online article the following statement quote,
Speaker 3: ABC News and George Stephanopolis regret statements regarding President Donald J.
Speaker 3: Trump made during an interview by George Stefanopolis with representative
Speaker 3: Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March tenth, twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four. And so what were the statements that caused this? Well,
Speaker 3: George Stefanopolis repeatedly said Trump was quote liable for rape
Speaker 3: and was found liable for rape in the civil case
Speaker 3: in New York. And Nancy Mace was was on with Stephanopoulos,
Speaker 3: and and Stephanopolis played a clip of Mace discussing being
Speaker 3: a victim of rape, and then Stephanophilis asked her, quote,
Speaker 3: how do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with
Speaker 3: the testimony we just saw? Quote You've endorsed Donald Trump
Speaker 3: for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him
Speaker 3: liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape.
Speaker 3: And he was referencing the lawsuit by Jene Carroll. Stephanopoulos
Speaker 3: repeated that claim ten times. Ten times. He repeated that
Speaker 3: the jury has determined that Trump was liable for rape.
Speaker 3: What the jury in fact determined is that they found
Speaker 3: that that he was not liable for rape, but rather
Speaker 3: a separate crime under New York law called sexual and
Speaker 3: Trump sued ABC News, and Trump sued Stephanopolis for Stephanopolis
Speaker 3: repeatedly saying a jury had found he was liable for
Speaker 3: rape when they explicitly found he was not liable for rape.
Speaker 3: And at the end of the day, this settlement is
Speaker 3: all about that.
Speaker 1: That it is.
Speaker 3: It is been black letter law for a long time
Speaker 3: that when you falsely accused someone of a felony, that
Speaker 3: that that is defamation. And ABC News just repeatedly said
Speaker 3: he was liable for rape, liable for rape, that's what
Speaker 3: the jury found. That's what the jury found. And there
Speaker 3: was one minor problem. It wasn't true. And and so
Speaker 3: you know, you mentioned they settled this because Trump won.
Speaker 3: It's true that Trump won, and it's true they settled this,
Speaker 3: but I guarantee you their lawyers were telling them, listen
Speaker 3: when you say over and over again, a jury has
Speaker 3: find found someone guilty of a felony and the jury
Speaker 3: found the opposite. That's defamation. And you're gonna end up
Speaker 3: writing a much bigger check if you don't settle this
Speaker 3: this lawsuit. And and and it happened right after the
Speaker 3: magistrate judge ordered both Trump and Stephanopolis on Friday to
Speaker 3: sit for depositions next week, uh and and answer questions
Speaker 3: under oath. And I think ABC realized they were going
Speaker 3: to have to sit George Stephanopolis down, and Trump's lawyers
Speaker 3: were going to get to ask him, Okay, did the
Speaker 3: jury find him liable for rape?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: Or no?
Speaker 3: And Stephanopolis would be forced to say no, did you
Speaker 3: say that the jury found him liable for rape? And
Speaker 3: Stephanopolis would have to be forced to say yes, did
Speaker 3: you say ten separate times on National TV the jury
Speaker 3: found him liable for rape? And Stephanopolis would grumble a
Speaker 3: lot of times and be forced to say yes. And
Speaker 3: here here's the interesting question there. There they were going
Speaker 3: to ask him, did you know at the time that
Speaker 3: you said ten separate times the jury found him liable
Speaker 3: for rape that the jury explicitly had had found him
Speaker 3: not liable for rape. And I don't know how Stephanopolis
Speaker 3: would answer that. My guess is he'd be forced to
Speaker 3: say yes. But he was either deliberately lying or he
Speaker 3: was utterly indifferent to what the truth or falsity of
Speaker 3: what he was saying is. Either way, it is a
Speaker 3: real problem. And I think they looked at that and
Speaker 3: they probably had started prepping him for that deposition and
Speaker 3: realize there is no good answer for him to give,
Speaker 3: because look, they just hate Trump and so they were
Speaker 3: happy to say it. It sounds much more sensationialistic to
Speaker 3: say that, and truth be damned. I think that's why
Speaker 3: they ended up writing the check.
Speaker 2: So can we just talk about the humor of this
Speaker 2: for a second. The fact that ABC News is going
Speaker 2: to have to write a check for fifteen million dollars
Speaker 2: to the Trump Presidential Library, Like, do you name part
Speaker 2: of the library the ABC Settlement Center.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is amazing, It is truly astonishing.
Speaker 3: And by the way, there's some lefty voices on Twitter saying, oh,
Speaker 3: free speech is dead. Look, you need to understand, defamation
Speaker 3: has always been part of free speech. You have a
Speaker 3: right to speak freely, but you don't have a right
Speaker 3: to defame someone. You don't have a right to say
Speaker 3: something that is deliberately false and deliberately defamatory. And it
Speaker 3: has always been the case that you can be held
Speaker 3: liable for slander or libel. Slander is saying it saying
Speaker 3: it orally. Libel is saying it and writing. They're both
Speaker 3: species of defamation if you deliberately say something false that
Speaker 3: is harmful to the character. But other and particularly when
Speaker 3: you're a news organization, there's an expectation that you have
Speaker 3: some modicum of integrity, some standards, and I think in
Speaker 3: this case, ABC realized they couldn't defend what they've done.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about this administration coming in January twentieth.
Speaker 2: And look, we know that there was a lot of
Speaker 2: reporting that was on the term administration back in sixteen
Speaker 2: that was a lie. Russia collusion was a great example
Speaker 2: of that. And then we know that the media lied
Speaker 2: to us about, for example, Hunter Biden's laptop that was
Speaker 2: a lie, And there was a lot of things said
Speaker 2: that we're not true about people in and around Trump.
Speaker 1: Is this a.
Speaker 2: Reminder, now that we've learned to fight it maybe a
Speaker 2: little bit differently, that we understand the court system can
Speaker 2: be used to hold the media accountable when they lie
Speaker 2: about people in the trum administration. Is this something that
Speaker 2: actually could change the game a little bit.
Speaker 3: Perhaps, Look, this is a situation where it was clear
Speaker 3: and objective that the what ABC said was wrong, that
Speaker 3: it was false, that that that ABC repeatedly said a
Speaker 3: jury had found them liable for rape, and that was
Speaker 3: explicitly the opposite of what they've done. I will say,
Speaker 3: most of the examples you've given, where the media is
Speaker 3: saying horrible things about Trump over and over and over again,
Speaker 3: it's much harder to prove defamation. It's harder to prove
Speaker 3: that it's objectively false. Like on Russia, Russia, Russia, they
Speaker 3: will say, well, look, we were just reporting what the
Speaker 3: allegations were. We were reporting what Muller said, we were
Speaker 3: reporting what so and so said. You know, they can
Speaker 3: hide behind he said.
Speaker 4: She said.
Speaker 3: In this instance, what gave them particular exposure is there
Speaker 3: was a jury verdict and ABC simply reported it wrong
Speaker 3: and did so somebody knew, whether stuff Stephanopoulos knew or not,
Speaker 3: somebody knew. And I will say it is harder to
Speaker 3: win a defamation case if you're Donald Trump, or if
Speaker 3: you're any public figure, because the Supreme Court the standard
Speaker 3: for defamation. They made it much harder for a public
Speaker 3: figure to win a defamation case. And there's a landmark
Speaker 3: decision from the Supreme Court called New York Times versus Sullivan.
Speaker 3: It was nineteen sixty four, and what the court concluded
Speaker 3: is that you have to demonstrate quote actual malice before
Speaker 3: you can find defamation if it's against a public figure.
Speaker 3: And here's the quote from the Supreme Court quote. The
Speaker 3: constitutional guarantees require, we think a federal rule that prohibits
Speaker 3: a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood
Speaker 3: related to his official conduct unless he proves that the
Speaker 3: statement was made with quote actual malice, that is, with
Speaker 3: knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of
Speaker 3: whether it was false or not. Now that's a very
Speaker 3: high standard to prove. And so as a general matter,
Speaker 3: if someone's a public figure, by the way, if someone
Speaker 3: is not a public figure, someone's an ordinary citizen, defamation
Speaker 3: is much easier to prove. You don't have to prove
Speaker 3: actual malice. But if you are a public figure, and
Speaker 3: the President of the United States is the quintessential public figure,
Speaker 3: then you've got to meet that higher threshold. Now, there
Speaker 3: are at least two arguments that Trump's legal team would make.
Speaker 3: One was, in this case, the defamation was not relating
Speaker 3: to his official conduct. He was not president of the
Speaker 3: United States at the time the interaction with Jean Carroll
Speaker 3: did or did not occur, and so it was not
Speaker 3: a defamatory falsehood related to his official conduct, but rather
Speaker 3: his personal life before he was president of the United States.
Speaker 3: So that would certainly be what Trump's lawyers would argue
Speaker 3: is that the New York Times versus Sullivan stand doesn't apply.
Speaker 3: But secondly, even if you had to demonstrate actual malice.
Speaker 3: Notice a second ago, when I was saying, when they
Speaker 3: were prepping Stephanopolis for his deposition, they would have to
Speaker 3: walk through did he know.
Speaker 1: It was false?
Speaker 3: Well, i't. I didn't have in front of me the standard.
Speaker 3: But it turns out I was quoting the standard back
Speaker 3: at you. Let me read it again. The Supreme Court
Speaker 3: defined actual malice as quote that is, with knowledge that
Speaker 3: it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it
Speaker 3: was false or not. So one or the two you've
Speaker 3: got to demonstrate for actual malice. And the problem I
Speaker 3: think that that ABC had is I think it was
Speaker 3: very clear that they did it with actual malice. I
Speaker 3: think there was certainly a producer or somebody knew for
Speaker 3: a fact it was false to say he'd been found
Speaker 3: liable for rape. It wouldn't surprise me if a producer
Speaker 3: had told Stephanopolis, don't say liable for rape, And it
Speaker 3: wouldn't surprise me if Stephanopolis decided how I'm going to
Speaker 3: say it anyway. It's close enough for government work, and
Speaker 3: it's much more sensationalistic than to report accurately. And I
Speaker 3: think when they found themselves trying to defend the lawsuit,
Speaker 3: that it was going to be clear that they either
Speaker 3: knew what they were saying were false, or at a
Speaker 3: very minimum, they were engaged in reckless disregard of whether
Speaker 3: it was true or false. And so they were going
Speaker 3: to get popped and they were going to lose. And
Speaker 3: that's why they're apologizing, that's why they're writing a big,
Speaker 3: big check.
Speaker 2: And it also made Stepanoplis very vulnerable, right. I think
Speaker 2: that was part of his preserving their anchor here, because
Speaker 2: if they went into a deposition and they really got
Speaker 2: to rough him up, that would hurt his brand, and
Speaker 2: that would hurt the brand of ABC. I think as well,
Speaker 2: because they still want you to believe that he is
Speaker 2: the most non biased, hardcore news guy at ABC News.
Speaker 3: Well, that's right, and look, jerk, George Stephanie worked in
Speaker 3: the Clinton white House. He was a Democrat operative for
Speaker 3: years before he became an ABC journalist, And I have
Speaker 3: no doubt that there were going to be lots of
Speaker 3: questions from Trump lawyers about, Okay, mister Stephanopolis, what are
Speaker 3: your communications with Democrats, what are your communications with the
Speaker 3: White House? What are your communications with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris?
Speaker 3: To what extent are you acting as as a Democrat
Speaker 3: attack dog? And it may well be I don't know
Speaker 3: this to be the case. I'm sure they were going
Speaker 3: to ask those questions, and I suspect that ABC was
Speaker 3: very nervous about what kind of answer Stephanopolis would give
Speaker 3: under oath and potentially vulnerable and for the world to
Speaker 3: know the frequency with which he is explicitly reading the
Speaker 3: talking points from the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: One thing's for sure.
Speaker 2: When the library opens up, it's going to be really
Speaker 2: fun to see how they make sure that everyone going
Speaker 2: through the library knows that this part of the library
Speaker 2: is brought to you by ABC News and to Stepanopolis.
Speaker 2: I cannot wait to see the trolling there because I
Speaker 2: don't believe that Donald Trump is going to let that
Speaker 2: opportunity pass.
Speaker 1: I just I don't believe it. It's going to be
Speaker 1: really fun to see what happens.
Speaker 3: I think that is a fair prediction. I would not
Speaker 3: wager on the other side of you on that one.
Speaker 2: I want to move on to this other big shocking story,
Speaker 2: and it is the normalization of kill your political enemy,
Speaker 2: kill anybody that you don't like, that you think is evil,
Speaker 2: justify it publicly so we can normalize it. We've seen
Speaker 2: this with the assassination attempts on Donald Trump. We have
Speaker 2: now seen this turn really ugly when it comes to
Speaker 2: the murder of this CEO of New York City, the
Speaker 2: cold blooded murder of this CEO, and people have turned
Speaker 2: him into some sort of hero. We now have elected officials, Senator,
Speaker 2: some that you serve with getting in on this, allowing
Speaker 2: for this almost justification of well, we understand why people
Speaker 2: would want to do that.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 3: And we did an entire podcast on this last week
Speaker 3: last Wednesday at Courge. You go back and listen to it,
Speaker 3: because I really think what is happening here. It is
Speaker 3: dangerous and it is grotesque. This healthcare CEO was gunned
Speaker 3: down in broad daylight in New York City and this
Speaker 3: deranged killer walked up and shot him multiple times in
Speaker 3: the back. After a two day man hunt, he was
Speaker 3: caught and the left lost their mind. They have lionized
Speaker 3: him because and we did a deep dive, this is
Speaker 3: because of the cultural Marxism. This is because their ideology
Speaker 3: says that that anytime the quote oppressor engages in violence
Speaker 3: or rather the quote victim engages in violence against the
Speaker 3: quote oppressor, that that violence is justified and to be celebrated.
Speaker 3: And we went through the number of leftists, including Taylor Lorenz,
Speaker 3: a you know, a quote unquote journalist for both the
Speaker 3: Washington Post and the New York Times, who described how
Speaker 3: she felt joy that was her term, joy at this
Speaker 3: guy being murdered.
Speaker 1: It's sick. And we talked about as.
Speaker 3: Well, how the view Joy Bihar unloaded on me because
Speaker 3: I pointed out that these were left as a leftists
Speaker 3: just celebrating cold blooded murder, and she said, it's not leftists,
Speaker 3: it's not us at all. Well, Joy Bihar, guess what
Speaker 3: your message didn't get to Bernie Sanders. Your message didn't
Speaker 3: get to AOC, your message didn't get to Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 3: because all of them in the last few days have
Speaker 3: been on TV justifying, rationalizing, giving excuses for the cold
Speaker 3: blooded murder. I want you to listen to this montage
Speaker 3: of comments from them, and then we're going to talk
Speaker 3: about it more.
Speaker 4: And this is not to say that an act of
Speaker 4: violence is justified, but I think for anyone who is
Speaker 4: confused or shocked or appalled, they need to understand that
Speaker 4: people interpret and fee and experience denied claims as an
Speaker 4: act of violence against them. People go homeless over the
Speaker 4: financial devastation of a diagnosis that doesn't get addressed, or
Speaker 4: you know, the amount that they're going to have to
Speaker 4: cover with a surprise bill and things like that. And
Speaker 4: when we kind of talk about how systems are violent
Speaker 4: in this country in this passive way, our privatized healthcare
Speaker 4: system is like that for a huge amount of American Yeah.
Speaker 5: And we'll say it over and over. Violence is never
Speaker 5: the answer. This guy gets a trial who's allegedly killed
Speaker 5: the CEO of United Health that you can only push
Speaker 5: people so far and then they start to take matters
Speaker 5: in their own hands.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Elizabeth Warren obviously understands killing again and murder and
Speaker 6: shooting somebody in the back is totally unacceptable. But what
Speaker 6: I think has happened in the last few month once
Speaker 6: is that what you have seen rising up is people's
Speaker 6: anger at a health insurance industry which denies people the
Speaker 6: healthchaed that they desperately need while they make billions and
Speaker 6: billions of dollars in profit.
Speaker 2: Anytime you say something's terrible, but it means you're saying,
Speaker 2: but we understand it. It's okay, we get it, we
Speaker 2: comprehend it. We see how you got from point AT
Speaker 2: to point B. We have video of a cod blooded
Speaker 2: murderer who goes up and assassinates an individual, and they're
Speaker 2: justifying the understanding of why he should be, why he
Speaker 2: and others are angry at all these healthcare se years.
Speaker 2: This is dehumanizing people who you don't like, the same
Speaker 2: way they've done it with Trump.
Speaker 1: It is so dangerous.
Speaker 3: Look at it's exactly the same as with Trump. It's
Speaker 3: exactly the same as these leftists have done with Amas
Speaker 3: on October seventh, where they'll all say in obligatory violence
Speaker 3: is wrong, but then they immediately start justifying the violence.
Speaker 3: And they immediately say, well, yes, the rape and murder
Speaker 3: of twelve hundred Israeli.
Speaker 1: Said that's wrong.
Speaker 3: But but the Palestinians are oppressed, and we should celebrate
Speaker 3: the Palestinians and is it wonderful?
Speaker 1: And then that's what the leftists do. You know, yes, yes.
Speaker 3: Yes, murdering the guy was wrong, I suppose, But you
Speaker 3: know what, every healthcare ceo needs to be murdered, Every
Speaker 3: ceo needs to be murdered, and they immediately their ideology
Speaker 3: goes to celebrating violence. And let me just once, I
Speaker 3: would like to see someone on the left be clear
Speaker 3: and unequivocal that violence is wrong, period the end. This
Speaker 3: murder was grotesque, it was evil, It was wrong. There
Speaker 3: is no justification for it whatsoever. Even if your political
Speaker 3: ideology is you've decided you hate this healthcare ceo that
Speaker 3: you've never met. You don't know what he's done, you
Speaker 3: don't know anything about him other than that he was
Speaker 3: the CEO of a healthcare company. And because because your
Speaker 3: ideology is so railing against capitalism, you think murder is
Speaker 3: a great thing. It's it's as I said, it's the same.
Speaker 3: These are the same people who buy coffee cups that say,
Speaker 3: you know, I wish wish the guy in Butler, Pennsylvania
Speaker 3: hadn't missed because violence is okay to them. These are
Speaker 3: the same people that's celebrated the Black Lives Matter ANTIFA riots.
Speaker 3: This is this is Kamala Harris raising money to bail
Speaker 3: people out of jail who are violent rioters. Because for
Speaker 3: today's radical left, the ends justify the means, and violence
Speaker 3: is okay. And I want to be absolutely clear, violence
Speaker 3: is never okay, whether I agree with your ideology or not.
Speaker 3: Nobody should engage in violence against anyone else and if
Speaker 3: you do, if you engage in violence, you should face
Speaker 3: serious consequences.
Speaker 2: How much do you worry about this becoming normalized? I mean,
Speaker 2: we got over as Donald trump first assassination incredibly quick.
Speaker 2: It was like, okay, it happened, but he's so live, what's.
Speaker 1: Immediately move on?
Speaker 2: And then we have another attempted assassination on him down
Speaker 2: at his golf course and be like, well, I mean
Speaker 2: it's Donald Trump. You kind of gotta expect this now.
Speaker 2: That was the demeanor of many on the left. And
Speaker 2: then there was part of the left that is exactly
Speaker 2: as you described it, they were like, well, the guy
Speaker 2: should have not missed, and it was almost anger at
Speaker 2: the at the shooters. I think that's the most shocking
Speaker 2: part to me is we are dehumanizing people in a
Speaker 2: way that is now putting other people lives at risk.
Speaker 3: Well, and and for too many on the left, politics
Speaker 3: is everything. It is life and death is identity. I mean,
Speaker 3: I mean, look, I get to say politics is very
Speaker 3: different than twelve years ago when I first got elected.
Speaker 3: It's so nasty and personal. You know, we used to
Speaker 3: be able to disagree without without hating each other, without
Speaker 3: demonizing each other, with without cheering at at violence and
Speaker 3: the murder of those you may disagree with. And unfortunately,
Speaker 3: I don't see a whole lot of public democrats speaking
Speaker 3: out against this.
Speaker 7: It.
Speaker 3: I wish we had more that had the courage to
Speaker 3: speak out and say this is unequivocally wrong. Look, well
Speaker 3: let's talk this strange killer. His lawyers are being paid
Speaker 3: for by leftists who are celebrating what he did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's the part I think that when I
Speaker 2: look at this, I'm like, if you said this ten
Speaker 2: years ago, fifteen years ago, you'd probably have people calling
Speaker 2: for you to resign of all the people we just paid.
Speaker 1: That's not happening.
Speaker 2: There would have been like reporters saying, hey, like you
Speaker 2: need to answer for this these you know, these statements
Speaker 2: that you made, do you want to clarify them or
Speaker 2: clean them up. There's none of that this time. It's like,
Speaker 2: oh yeah, yeah, of course it makes sense.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 3: It is the reality of where we are today.
Speaker 1: It's sad.
Speaker 2: I pray for this country and I hope that at
Speaker 2: some point people will start to reject this type of
Speaker 2: rhetoric and not norm wise it like we are like it,
Speaker 2: like it's happened so far. Everybody's looking for the perfect
Speaker 2: gift for the holidays. And if you've got a hunter,
Speaker 2: if you've got a shoot in your family, you've got
Speaker 2: to sign them up for Ammo squared. And I'm going
Speaker 2: to give you some free AMMO in your account right
Speaker 2: now now.
Speaker 1: Amo squared is amazing.
Speaker 2: And if you had a hard time finding MO during
Speaker 2: COVID and you saw the prices go up three x
Speaker 2: four x, five x six x, it was insane. I
Speaker 2: owned a gun store and a gun range. Dead I've
Speaker 2: never seen what happened during that time. You literally couldn't
Speaker 2: get Ammo. Well, Ammo Squared ensures that you never have
Speaker 2: that problem again, that you have Ammo when you need it,
Speaker 2: and it's an automated approach to purchasing Ammo on any budget.
Speaker 1: It's simple.
Speaker 2: You pick your calibers, you set your budget, and you
Speaker 2: select a shipping trigger.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: Your AMMO grows slowly over time and is stored for
Speaker 2: free as it builds up, and is shipped with a
Speaker 2: click of a button. Now, unlike a traditional subscription service,
Speaker 2: you aren't forcing into a set budge and or a
Speaker 2: monthly shipment. You decide your budget and you can change
Speaker 2: your budget whenever you want to, and you schedule when
Speaker 2: you get your ammoship to you. Now, Ammo Squared offers
Speaker 2: nearly seventy different caliber options. And let's say you store
Speaker 2: up one caliber and then you sell that firearm and
Speaker 2: you change to a different caliber.
Speaker 1: Not a problem.
Speaker 2: You can trade it back in without even having to
Speaker 2: take the shipment. You just say I want to switch
Speaker 2: from nine to this, or I want to switch from
Speaker 2: this a rifle to that rifle caliber.
Speaker 1: It's no problem at all.
Speaker 2: It's budget friendly and customizable, and you can buy as
Speaker 2: little as a few dollars a month, and then everything's
Speaker 2: managed online. Forget about moving a heavy case of Ammo
Speaker 2: in your garage or trying to sell Ammo as well.
Speaker 2: Online you can exchange your AMO squared inventory from one
Speaker 2: caliber to another, or you can sell it and make
Speaker 2: big money if the price in fact goes up.
Speaker 1: So let me give you some free AMO in your
Speaker 1: account right now.
Speaker 2: Go to amosquared dot com, slash bend today, squared dot
Speaker 2: com slash bend today to get free AMO on your account.
Speaker 2: There's no minimum to buy, no memberships needed, and no
Speaker 2: extra fees. You can buy Ammo on the small budget
Speaker 2: amosquare dot com, slash ben and get free AMO in
Speaker 2: your account today. Finally, Senator, this is another story and
Speaker 2: the media is trying to figure this out. The Democratic
Speaker 2: Party is trying to figure it out. How did we
Speaker 2: lose this last selection? What caused it? Was it really
Speaker 2: our policy on migrants and illegal immigrants. And there was
Speaker 2: a very interesting conversation that took place, and people even
Speaker 2: on the left.
Speaker 1: Like, is this aha moment?
Speaker 2: And I laughed because it's something that you actually said
Speaker 2: on this show a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: Jessica Tarlove and Katie Kuric.
Speaker 2: We're talking about GOP governors sending illegal immigrants to other
Speaker 2: parts of the country from border states, and I want
Speaker 2: to play this clip for people's and they specifically, we're
Speaker 2: talking about Rod DeSantis in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas,
Speaker 2: and this is what they said.
Speaker 1: In reaction on.
Speaker 8: The immigration front, there was a tendency amongst Democrats, and
Speaker 8: especially Democrats were discussing the issues of people who do
Speaker 8: interviews or are part of the media to minimize it
Speaker 8: over the first two and a half years when there
Speaker 8: were a lot of people coming in here, and I
Speaker 8: thought that it was a stunt. You know, when they
Speaker 8: started bussing migrants they go to markets, vineyards. Yeah, it
Speaker 8: was the smartest thing they ever did.
Speaker 7: Well. It's interesting because I have a friend who lives
Speaker 7: in Florida, and I said, what did you think of
Speaker 7: of Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott taking some of these
Speaker 7: immigrants and moving them to northern states? And she said,
Speaker 7: I thought it was great because nobody really was paying
Speaker 7: attention before that. And I do think that this untold
Speaker 7: story was the strain on social services and communities, particularly
Speaker 7: along the border. This influx huge influx of immigrants was
Speaker 7: having and I think the mainstream media, however you define
Speaker 7: that these days, kind of ignored that story to its peril.
Speaker 2: I mean, wow, right, Like, at least they're figuring it out.
Speaker 2: I don't want to say that all the media is
Speaker 2: figuring it out, but it is pretty funny they figured out.
Speaker 2: The only problem is they were just a couple of
Speaker 2: years too late.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look at striking to hear Kittie Kurk admitting that now,
Speaker 3: as you know, this was an idea that I suggested
Speaker 3: three years ago. In October of twenty twenty one, I
Speaker 3: introduced a bill called the Surge Act. And the Surge
Speaker 3: Act was designed to create thirteen new ports of entry
Speaker 3: to send illegal immigrants. And here's here's what my press
Speaker 3: really said at the time. If Washington Democrats had to
Speaker 3: endure even a fraction of the suffering South Texas families, farmers, ranchers,
Speaker 3: and small businesses have had to face, our nation's immigration
Speaker 3: laws would be in force. The wall would be built
Speaker 3: and remain in Mexico. Policy would be implemented. And so
Speaker 3: I introduced legislation to change the points of entry and
Speaker 3: add thirteen new places block island Rhode Island, Greenwich, Connecticut,
Speaker 3: Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Governor's Island, New York, Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, Nantucket, Massachusetts, Newport,
Speaker 3: Rhode Island, Scarsdale, New York, Palo Alto, California, Yuntville, California,
Speaker 3: Saint Helena, California, and North Hero, Vermont, which is where
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders vacations. And the idea was all the places
Speaker 3: where rich liberals sit and sip chardonnay and look down
Speaker 3: on people concerned about the open borders. And it was
Speaker 3: really striking. At the time I introduced this legislation, the
Speaker 3: leftist media went crazy, and in fact, the county executive
Speaker 3: at Martha's Vineyard attacked me, attacked me by name, and
Speaker 3: he said Cruise doesn't understand immigration, said we and Martha's
Speaker 3: Vineyard would welcome illegal immigrants. Well, several months later, Ron
Speaker 3: de Santis and Greg Abbott took me up on what
Speaker 3: I had suggested, and they did exactly that. They sent
Speaker 3: fifty illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, and of course that
Speaker 3: same county executive within twenty four hours declared an emergency
Speaker 3: and ended up deporting the fifty who had been sent.
Speaker 3: And I'll tell you we actually covered this on Verdict
Speaker 3: several years ago, So I want you to play an
Speaker 3: old segment from Verdict. This is actually pre pre the
Speaker 3: great Ben Ferguson. This is back when when Michael Noles
Speaker 3: and I were doing it.
Speaker 2: Our good Ford. Yeah, yes, the voice is about to
Speaker 2: change a little bit, right.
Speaker 3: But this is us talking about it three years ago,
Speaker 3: and it had a bit of foreshadowing.
Speaker 1: So give a listen.
Speaker 9: They've just sent airplanes full of illegal aliens to Martha's vineyard.
Speaker 9: And I cheered when I saw the headline, and then
Speaker 9: I had to think, you know, there's a certain podcast
Speaker 9: hosted by a certain senator from Texas that has been
Speaker 9: calling exactly for that for many weeks now, and I
Speaker 9: just can't help but wonder if that may have had
Speaker 9: some effect on this policy going into effect.
Speaker 3: I was thrilled when the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott,
Speaker 3: took me up on the idea and began sending illegal immigrants,
Speaker 3: first to d c, then to New York, then to Chicago.
Speaker 3: It's had a fantastic event as these democratic mayors have
Speaker 3: lost their minds and declared national emergencies. The mayor of
Speaker 3: d C declared a national emergency or a city emergency
Speaker 3: because six thousand illegal immigrants were sent to d C.
Speaker 3: Of course, we've had since Joe Biden became president. We
Speaker 3: have had four point two million illegal immigrants cross illegally
Speaker 3: with Biden as president.
Speaker 9: It is horrific. That's a crazy number. Four point two million.
Speaker 9: That is a crazy number. It is larger than many
Speaker 9: of the states of our union. I mean four point
Speaker 9: two million since Joe Biden put his hand on the
Speaker 9: Bible and took the oath of office. That's what's come
Speaker 9: and it continues to get worse. And what is amazing
Speaker 9: about when red state governors, first Texas now Florida are
Speaker 9: shipping to blue strongholds is the Democrats, who talk a
Speaker 9: good game immediately flipped tailed. So I want to give
Speaker 9: you a quote on the from Martha's Vineyard. When I
Speaker 9: introduced the legislation, you had Democrats, democrats and the House
Speaker 9: of Representatives slamm me. But I want to read from
Speaker 9: the county commissioner of Martha's Vineyard, Keith Chattenover, And here's
Speaker 9: the quote he said about my legislation. I would love
Speaker 9: to see Martha's Vineyard become a haven for new immigrants
Speaker 9: in the country. But Senator Cruz has no idea what
Speaker 9: he's talking about regarding a border crisis. He went on
Speaker 9: to say, immigrants make our country stronger, as evidence by
Speaker 9: immigration from Brazil and other countries to the vineyard. And
Speaker 9: he is trying to whip up racial anxieties for political gain,
Speaker 9: which is essentially the entire GOP platform. Anyhow, that's before
Speaker 9: they arrived. I want to see if after two, three, four, five,
Speaker 9: six ' ten, one hundred planeloads or bus loads, if
Speaker 9: the county commissioner has the same view.
Speaker 2: Three years ago you said that, Senator, and now we're
Speaker 2: seeing that Democrats are actually saying, man, this is really effective,
Speaker 2: Like this was really really effective. You did this as
Speaker 2: stopped the Surge Act in October twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: And by the way, three years ago, notice that number
Speaker 3: four point two million illegal immigrants were now over twelve million.
Speaker 3: What has happened at our southern border is an experiment
Speaker 3: in radicalism that has never been tried in the United
Speaker 3: States of America. Our country is struggling the suffering that
Speaker 3: has occurred, and I will say the actual sending of
Speaker 3: planeloads and bus loads of illegal immigrants to Blue strongholds.
Speaker 3: It showed the complete and utter hypocrisy as every Democrat mayor,
Speaker 3: every Democrat governor, every Democrat county executive completely demonstrated everything
Speaker 3: they'd been saying was a lie, and it broke through
Speaker 3: the media freeze out in a way nothing else did.
Speaker 3: I think Katie Kirk's right that that single action of
Speaker 3: demonstrating Democrat hypocrisy on this issue could well have decided
Speaker 3: the presidential election last month.
Speaker 1: Now, I'll say this job well done. Center.
Speaker 2: That was something you said way beforehand, and it clearly
Speaker 2: they're even admitting now had a massive impact on the
Speaker 2: outcome of this election. Don't forget we did the show Monday,
Speaker 2: Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscribe auto download button so
Speaker 2: that you can always make sure you get every episode.
Speaker 2: Also make sure you write us a five star review
Speaker 2: to help us grow so we can reach new people
Speaker 2: that may not have listened to the show yet. And
Speaker 2: on those in between days, grab my show the Ben
Speaker 2: Ferguson podcasts as well. I'll keep you up to day
Speaker 2: on the latest breaking news there as well, and we
Speaker 2: will see you back here on Wednesday morning.