Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Weekend Review, Ben
Speaker 2: Ferguson with you, and here are the big stories that
Speaker 2: you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 2: First up, Scotus getting involved in the deportation of Venezuela
Speaker 2: and illegals. It's interesting to see what Alito and Thomas
Speaker 2: had to say about it.
Speaker 1: We're going to break that down.
Speaker 2: Also, you know that Teslaitaris, well, some radical judges are saying, yeah,
Speaker 2: let's just let him go. Where's it happening and how
Speaker 2: are they getting away with it? That as well? And finally, yes,
Speaker 2: it's real CNN sounding the alarm that the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: is in total disarray. So is the Democratic Party over with?
Speaker 2: And are they just going to admit their socialists and
Speaker 2: communists and Marxists. Will break that down as well. It's
Speaker 2: the Weekend Review and it starts right now. I want
Speaker 2: to move also to this second big story. And there's
Speaker 2: some people that are confused. I also think very frustrated
Speaker 2: by this Supreme Court halting the deportations of illegal immigrants
Speaker 2: and cases. Can you break down what this ruling is.
Speaker 2: Alito was in the descent here and the headlines over
Speaker 2: Easter weekend, people are like, wait, what, how, why is
Speaker 2: this happening. I don't understand how we're protecting people that
Speaker 2: are legal immigrants. Yet again, at the level of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court break this down, so it makes sense.
Speaker 3: Well, the Supreme Court early Saturday morning issued in order
Speaker 3: blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an eighteenth
Speaker 3: century law. And what it said is that they had
Speaker 3: to halt the deportations until quote further order of this Court.
Speaker 3: And I got to say, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas,
Speaker 3: wrote a very fiery descent, really disagreeing with it. I'm
Speaker 3: going I'm gonna read you part of the descent. Here's
Speaker 3: what Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 3: Shortly after midnight yesterday, the Court hastily and prematurely granted
Speaker 3: unprecedented emergency relief proceeding under the all Ritz Act. The
Speaker 3: Court ordered the quote government not to remove a quote
Speaker 3: putative class of detainees until this Court issues a superseding order.
Speaker 3: Although the order does not define the quote putative class,
Speaker 3: it appears that the Court means all members of the
Speaker 3: class that the Habeas petitioners sought to have certified, namely
Speaker 3: quote all non citizens in custody in the Northern District
Speaker 3: of Texas who were, are and will be subject to
Speaker 3: the March twenty twenty five Presidential proclamation entitled Invocation of
Speaker 3: the Alien Enemies Act regarding the Invasion of the United
Speaker 3: States by Trender Aragua and or its implementation. It also
Speaker 3: appears that applicants have recently moved to amend their class
Speaker 3: petition for Habeas corpus and their motion for class certification,
Speaker 3: so it is not clear if the applicants will continue
Speaker 3: to defend this specific definition or will argue for a
Speaker 3: new one. And although the Court does not specify what
Speaker 3: it means by the government, it appears that term is
Speaker 3: intended to embrace all the name defendants, including the President.
Speaker 3: The Court did all of this even though it is
Speaker 3: not clear that the court had jurisdiction. The Allrits Act
Speaker 3: does not provide an independent grant of jurisdiction. Therefore, the
Speaker 3: court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had
Speaker 3: jurisdictions of the applicants appeal, and the Court of Appeals
Speaker 3: had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants
Speaker 3: appealed amounted to a denial of a preliminary injunction. But
Speaker 3: here the order that applicants appealed was what they viewed
Speaker 3: as the District Court's constructive denial of their request for
Speaker 3: a temporary restraining order. That is, the District Court did
Speaker 3: not actually deny their most recent request for a TRO,
Speaker 3: but they inferred that it was constructively denied because the
Speaker 3: District Court failed a rule on that request before the
Speaker 3: expiration of a truncated counts imposed deadline. The denial of
Speaker 3: a true TRO is not appealable, and here it is
Speaker 3: not clear that the applicant's TRO request was actually denied. Indeed,
Speaker 3: an order issued last night the Fifth Circuit held that
Speaker 3: it lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, it is questionable whether
Speaker 3: the applicant complied with a general obligation to seek emergency
Speaker 3: and junctive relief in the district Court before asking for
Speaker 3: such relief from an appellate court. When applicants requested such
Speaker 3: relief in the District Court, they insisted on a ruling
Speaker 3: within forty five minutes on Good Friday afternoon, and when
Speaker 3: the District Court did not act within one hundred and
Speaker 3: thirty three minutes, they filed a notice of appeal, which
Speaker 3: the District Court held deprived it of its jurisdiction. Now
Speaker 3: a lot of that that jurisdictional language seems confusing, but
Speaker 3: understand what happened. They went to the District Court and
Speaker 3: they said we want an answer within forty five minutes,
Speaker 3: and the court did not respond one where another forty
Speaker 3: five minutes. They immediately appealed and said, up, they haven't answered.
Speaker 3: That means you've denied it. And the Court of Appeals
Speaker 3: ruled that, well, we're not going to act on this,
Speaker 3: and unfortunately, seven to two, the Supreme Court jumped in.
Speaker 3: And in fact, here's how Justice Leado and Justice Thomas
Speaker 3: end their dissent quote in some literally in the middle
Speaker 3: of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief,
Speaker 3: without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without
Speaker 3: hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving
Speaker 3: the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and
Speaker 3: without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to
Speaker 3: join the Court's order because we had no good reason
Speaker 3: to think that under the circumstances, issuing the order at
Speaker 3: midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the
Speaker 3: judiciary have an obligation of of the law. The executive
Speaker 3: must proceed under the terms of our order, and this
Speaker 3: court should follow established procedures.
Speaker 2: So you look at this and what is this going
Speaker 2: to mean moving forward? And how big of a roadblock
Speaker 2: is this going to be for the Trump administration to
Speaker 2: do what they've said and promised the American people. And
Speaker 2: by the way, the American people voted for, which was
Speaker 2: we want to secure the border and we want to
Speaker 2: get rid of all the illegal immigrants that came into
Speaker 2: this country, especially those that are violent.
Speaker 3: Well, look, it's not clear how big a challenge it's
Speaker 3: going to be. The most distressing thing about this order
Speaker 3: was that it was seven to two.
Speaker 1: Seven to two is not good.
Speaker 3: It means everybody by Alito and Thomas voted to stay
Speaker 3: to halt the deportations of Venezuelans.
Speaker 1: It's not clear.
Speaker 3: Presumably they're going to write a more extended opinion at
Speaker 3: some point, and so we'll find out more their reasoning.
Speaker 3: But I got to say, look, look, these two stories,
Speaker 3: this story in the first one are connected because I
Speaker 3: will say the Democrats strategy in doing the full Ginsburg
Speaker 3: in some ways, I think their audience is not the
Speaker 3: American people. They've got to know somebody on the Democrat
Speaker 3: side of the aisle has got to know, Hey, this
Speaker 3: is not earning US votes. When we say we're the
Speaker 3: party of illegal aliens and criminals and gang members and
Speaker 3: wife beaters, that's us that.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be.
Speaker 3: A rocket scientist when it comes to reading public opinion
Speaker 3: to know that's not the most popular of issues to
Speaker 3: stake your entire party platform on. But in many ways,
Speaker 3: they're aiming at a much smaller audience. They're they're they're
Speaker 3: aiming at five They're hoping to get five justices pissed off,
Speaker 3: and to get them pissed off enough that we see
Speaker 3: a series of Supreme Court orders against the Trump administration
Speaker 3: trying to halt these deportations. Now, I don't think that's
Speaker 3: going to happen, but this ruling is troubling that it
Speaker 3: was seven to two.
Speaker 1: Alito's descent.
Speaker 3: Look, Alito was was very concerned about this, uh and
Speaker 3: and the procedural minutia that he that he recounts as
Speaker 3: is very unusual. Uh And so that dynamic it is
Speaker 3: a dangerous process.
Speaker 1: Uh it is.
Speaker 3: Right now, there's a little bit of a game of chicken,
Speaker 3: and I think what the Democrats are trying to do
Speaker 3: is piss off a couple of Supreme Court justices and
Speaker 3: get them to rule decisively against the president.
Speaker 1: That would be very unfortunate if that starts to happen.
Speaker 2: Simply another question, real quick before we move on, is
Speaker 2: part of this. Could it just be the quickness that
Speaker 2: they were asking for the ruling from the court. Is
Speaker 2: that something that you could change moving forward? Could that
Speaker 2: be part of that issue?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, it was done as an emergency appeal, and
Speaker 3: and they're there's another context to where this happens a lot,
Speaker 3: which is dealing with death penalty appeals. And when you
Speaker 3: have death penalty appeals, you have someone who's been convicted
Speaker 3: of a capital offense and they're set to be executed,
Speaker 3: and very frequently you have last minute appeals that are filed.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you when I was a law clerk.
Speaker 3: I was a law clerk for Chief Justice Renquist in
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety six and nineteen ninety seven, and at the time,
Speaker 3: so this gives you a sense, you can now make
Speaker 3: a crack about how old I am at the time.
Speaker 3: The way we would get these emergency appeals is they
Speaker 3: would be faxed in, so they weren't emailed at the time.
Speaker 3: They'd be faxed in and you'd get it off the
Speaker 3: facts and you would get say, if the midnight was
Speaker 3: if the execution was scheduled to happen at midnight, and
Speaker 3: by the way, if it was midnight on the West coast,
Speaker 3: that meant it was three am in d C. But
Speaker 3: if the execution was scheduled at midnight, you would get
Speaker 3: sometimes one hundred page appeal faxed in at ten thirty pm.
Speaker 3: And what would happen. So what plays out when that
Speaker 3: gets faxed in is is the justice who is the
Speaker 3: lead justice for that circuit. So each circuit, each region
Speaker 3: of the country has a lead justice who is the
Speaker 3: justice to whom emergency appeals go. Initially, Chief Justice Renquest
Speaker 3: was the lead justice for the fourth circuit was concerned
Speaker 3: death penalty appeals, and so that was Virginia, North Carolina,
Speaker 3: South Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia in particularly there
Speaker 3: were fair number capital cases. So you would get it
Speaker 3: facts to you, you as the law clerk, would read
Speaker 3: through it. You'd have to read through it very quickly.
Speaker 3: You'd have to prepare a memo, write a memo, you
Speaker 3: then send it to your justice, and a lot of times,
Speaker 3: if this was at midnight or one or two or
Speaker 3: three in the morning, you'd have to call home and
Speaker 3: wake your justice up. Your Justice would be asleep. You'd
Speaker 3: call home, you'd say, Chief, we had an emergency appeal.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: Now the Justice would know there was a execution set
Speaker 3: that night, and so would know that there is likely
Speaker 3: to be a call. But you'd call, wake your justice
Speaker 3: up and ask, Okay, here's the arguments, here's what I
Speaker 3: think about it. And you would write a memo from
Speaker 3: your justice saying summarizing the arguments in the appeal and
Speaker 3: making the recommendation. So for Chief Justice Renquist, in virtually
Speaker 3: every circumstance, if someone was seeking to halt an execution
Speaker 3: at the last minute, he would recommend that that be denied.
Speaker 3: You would then forward it to the other eight chambers.
Speaker 3: To the other eight chambers, and there was a law clerk,
Speaker 3: So in the night of execution, at least nine of
Speaker 3: us were there till midnight or one or two or
Speaker 3: three in the morning. And so when you would forward
Speaker 3: your memo, in a memo in a case like this,
Speaker 3: would be anywhere from two to maybe eight pages, depending
Speaker 3: on how complicated the issues were. They would then get
Speaker 3: your memo, and they've gotten the appeal as well, so
Speaker 3: they're reading the appeal at the same time. They would
Speaker 3: then call their justice, wake him or her up at home,
Speaker 3: and they would cast votes at midnight or one or
Speaker 3: two or three in the morning. And a strategy that
Speaker 3: is still quite frequent when it comes to death penalty
Speaker 3: appeals is just throw so much crap at the wall
Speaker 3: that they're hoping that justices say, I don't know, I
Speaker 3: can't figure this out this quickly, all right, just stay
Speaker 3: the execution, halt the execution so we can figure this
Speaker 3: all out. And unfortunately that strategy, that that strategy can work.
Speaker 3: That there may have been some of that that this
Speaker 3: was being done over Easter weekend very quickly, and it
Speaker 3: may be that the justices wanted to say, hold on
Speaker 3: a second, we want to understand what's going on here.
Speaker 3: That's possible, but I do think the democrats entire strategy
Speaker 3: is try to see if they can get a majority
Speaker 3: of the Supreme Court ticked off. And I don't think
Speaker 3: that's happened, but I do think that would be very
Speaker 3: dangerous and harmful if it did happen.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week.
Speaker 1: Now onto story number two.
Speaker 2: Which, by the way, also brings us to another issue
Speaker 2: real quick, and that is, I still can't believe this.
Speaker 2: There's a guy that went viral, a Minnesota state employee
Speaker 2: who apparently caused about twenty thousand, or over twenty thousand
Speaker 2: damages to Tesla's I'm going to say that, make it clear, plural,
Speaker 2: not one, but multiple. It has now led to a
Speaker 2: woke liberal district attorney saying, Nah, we don't really want
Speaker 2: to hold this guy accountable. Let's keep the lawlessness up.
Speaker 2: As long as it's against conservatives and Elon Musk and
Speaker 2: Tesla owners. We're fine with that. No big deal, you're
Speaker 2: good man. We're gonna let you basically go on home.
Speaker 3: Well, there is a suspected vandal. He's thirty three years old.
Speaker 3: He is a government employee. His name is Dylan Brian Atta,
Speaker 3: and he was allegedly spotted keen multiple Tesla vehicles stripping
Speaker 3: their paint off while walking his dog around the city,
Speaker 3: and he caused over twenty thousand dollars in damage, vandalizing
Speaker 3: half a dozen teslas. So he was doing this over
Speaker 3: and over and over again. And by the way, if
Speaker 3: this guy did this, he's dumb as a stump. Because
Speaker 3: tesla's all have cameras on them that video the person,
Speaker 3: any person who walks up to them, so he's doing
Speaker 3: it on camera. Because leftists number one, they're utter hypocrites.
Speaker 3: So they're claimed to care about the Green New Deal
Speaker 3: or complete lies because they've decided now to attack electric cars.
Speaker 3: Why because they hate Elon Musk. And understand, they hate
Speaker 3: Elon Musk not just because he's now supporting Trump, not
Speaker 3: just because he's now cutting the government. They hate Elon
Speaker 3: Musk because he's a heretic. This is religion, and the
Speaker 3: woke leftist cultural Marxist religion five years ago lionized Elon
Speaker 3: Musk and they view him as someone who has betrayed
Speaker 3: the faith. And so this angry government employee, who as
Speaker 3: far as I know, has not lost his job despite
Speaker 3: being a brazen criminal, uh was caught keing and and
Speaker 3: vandalizing six different teslas. And unfortunately, the the Hennemouth County
Speaker 3: District Attorney is a woman named Mary Moriarty, who is
Speaker 3: a left wing George Soros DA and she decided that
Speaker 3: that that that they're not going to go go after her. Uh,
Speaker 3: that that that that they're they're not going to charge him.
Speaker 1: Uh and.
Speaker 3: It is unfortunate. So the chief of police, Minneapolis Police
Speaker 3: Chief Brianohra said that the damage in each case was
Speaker 3: the equivalent of a felony. And the chief said in
Speaker 3: escathing statement on Monday, this is from The New York Post,
Speaker 3: that Moriarty's decision not to bring charges is frustrating for
Speaker 3: his officers in the public. And here's what the police
Speaker 3: chief said quote. The Minneapolis Police Department did its job.
Speaker 3: It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified and arrested
Speaker 3: a suspect, and presented the case file to the Henneman
Speaker 3: County District the Keneman County Attorney's Office for consideration of charges.
Speaker 3: The case impacted at least six different victims and totaled
Speaker 3: over twenty thousand dollars in damage. Any frustration related to
Speaker 3: the charging decision of the Henneman County Attorneys should be
Speaker 3: directed solely at her office. Our investigators are always frustrated
Speaker 3: when the cases they poured their hearts into are declined.
Speaker 3: In my experience, the victims in this these cases often
Speaker 3: feel the same. That's the chief of police and the
Speaker 3: sad reality it is that for leftists today, for elected Democrats,
Speaker 3: they are now openly embracing domestic terrorism. They are now
Speaker 3: openly we played on this podcast before Chuck Schumer refused
Speaker 3: to condemn people fire bombing Tesla dealerships, people throwing molotov
Speaker 3: cocktails at Testa dealerships, people firing guns into tested dealerships.
Speaker 3: Somebody's gonna be killed. I don't want that to happen.
Speaker 3: I pray it does not happen. But this escalating violence
Speaker 3: is going to lead to a loss of life. And
Speaker 3: the Democrats are celebrating it. And now the left wing
Speaker 3: DA's are saying, hey, you've vandalized cars and we decide
Speaker 3: we don't like the person who owns the company that
Speaker 3: built the car. Well, tough luck, sorry, Ben, We're gonna
Speaker 3: scratch up your car, we're gonna keep it. We're gonna
Speaker 3: do thousand dollars of damage and nothing you can do
Speaker 3: about it because we the Democrats, support domestic terrorism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're absolutely right. And there's also that just scary
Speaker 2: psychological aspect of it. If you know your DA won't
Speaker 2: go after the people that are going after your car,
Speaker 2: is it going to make you more or less likely
Speaker 2: to buy a tesla? That's part of the financial warfare
Speaker 2: against Elon Musk.
Speaker 3: And by the way, what's the DA going to do
Speaker 3: if they commit violence against you?
Speaker 1: What's the DA going to do if they commit violence
Speaker 1: against you? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Like, if this radical leftist is able to vandalize a tesla,
Speaker 3: how about if he walks up and punches the owner
Speaker 3: of the tesla in the face. Yeah, do you have
Speaker 3: any confidence that this left wing nutcase DA is going
Speaker 3: to charge the radical with punching someone in the face.
Speaker 3: Their view is, Hey, if you're punching a tesla owner
Speaker 3: in the face, that's an admirable act of resistance. It
Speaker 3: is lawless. And let me be clear, I disagree with
Speaker 3: the political views of Marxists and communists and leftists, but
Speaker 3: I passionately oppose violence against them. And if anyone engaged
Speaker 3: in violence against a leftist, I would support prosecuting them
Speaker 3: and sending them to jail. Violence is never acceptable. And
Speaker 3: you know what, the Democrats can't say that because they
Speaker 3: support they refuse to condemn the violence against their political
Speaker 3: opponents because it is part of their ideology. And we
Speaker 3: saw that tragically during the Black Lives Matter and Antifa
Speaker 3: riots across the country, where Kamala Harris most strikingly raised
Speaker 3: money to bail out of jail radical Antifa terrorists who
Speaker 3: committed crimes of violence in Minneapolis, same city. Because the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party is a party that supports violence in pursuit
Speaker 3: of their remaining in power.
Speaker 2: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 2: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 2: dow the podcasts from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 2: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 2: story number three of the week you may have missed.
Speaker 1: All right, let's.
Speaker 2: Turn to the Democratic Party in disarray and it's a
Speaker 2: real thing right now and CNN is saying it, so
Speaker 2: don't trust us. CNN having a freak out moment on
Speaker 2: TV with new polling data and here is what they said.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this I think is a revolt, a revolt that
Speaker 4: is going on within the Democratic Party right now. Democrats
Speaker 4: and their leaders, I mean, take a look nationally, Hello
Speaker 4: Democrats on dem leaders in Congress, the belief that they
Speaker 4: will do the right thing when it comes to the economy.
Speaker 4: Last year, at this time, eighty percent believe that the
Speaker 4: Democratic leaders in Congress would do the right thing when
Speaker 4: it comes to the economy. Keep in mind this as Democrats,
Speaker 4: look at where we are now.
Speaker 1: That number has been.
Speaker 4: Slashed in half to just thirty nine percent.
Speaker 1: Holy Toledo.
Speaker 4: That is the lowest number by far in Gallup polling.
Speaker 4: The lowest previous was just sixty percent, which is twenty
Speaker 4: one points higher than this. Democrats hate, hate, hate, hate
Speaker 4: what they're congressional leaders in Washington are doing right now
Speaker 4: on the key issue of the day, the economy, and
Speaker 4: their confidence has fallen through the floor. Mister Berman, all.
Speaker 5: Right, Chuck Schumer is the Senate Democratic leader right now.
Speaker 5: How we're feelings about him, particularly in New York.
Speaker 4: Yeah, let's go to the state of New York. It's
Speaker 4: what's always on my mind. Right, We're in the state
Speaker 4: of New York right now. New York Democrats on Chuck
Speaker 4: Schumer view him favorably. In December of twenty twenty four,
Speaker 4: that was just a few months ago. It was seventy
Speaker 4: three percent. Look at where that number has fallen to
Speaker 4: in just a few months. It is now down to
Speaker 4: just fifty two percent. That is the lowest I could
Speaker 4: ever find and see on a college on how democrats
Speaker 4: in Chuck Schumer's home state knew him. And keep in mind,
Speaker 4: if you're thinking about a primary challenge, it would be
Speaker 4: a few years away. But Alexandiocstio Cortes's favorable writing among
Speaker 4: Democrats is considerably higher in the sixties, so he is
Speaker 4: doing quite poorly in his own home state.
Speaker 6: Of New York.
Speaker 4: I never thought i'd see the day in which just
Speaker 4: fifty two percent of New York Democrats with you Chuck
Speaker 4: Schumer favorably. It's almost unfathomable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's almost un fathomable. Now here's the takeaway for me, Senator.
Speaker 2: The fact that AOC has a higher approval rating than
Speaker 2: Chuck Schumer means the Democratic Party is dead. The Socialist,
Speaker 2: Marxist and Communists have taken it over, and now they're
Speaker 2: out with these old guys.
Speaker 1: We also saw.
Speaker 2: One of your colleagues, Dick Durbin, hanging it up, saying
Speaker 2: I'm out of here, I'm not running for reelection.
Speaker 3: Well, what is stunning about that is a couple of things.
Speaker 3: Number One, as they're relaying poll numbers that show Democrats
Speaker 3: unhappy with the Democrat leadership in Congress. The reason they're
Speaker 3: unhappy is they think Chuck Schumer is not crazy enough.
Speaker 3: They think of Keem Jeffries is not crazy enough. The
Speaker 3: problem and end. Listen, We're in a very polarized society.
Speaker 3: Both both sides are pulling further and further apart. But
Speaker 3: people that identify as partisan Democrats, they hate Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: And I'm not quite sure what they want Chuck Schumer
Speaker 3: to be doing. Maybe lighting himself on fire on the
Speaker 3: Senate floor, running around naked, screaming at the top of
Speaker 3: his lungs. I don't know, you know, maybe they just
Speaker 3: want him to join AOC and Bernie Sanders on their
Speaker 3: Fight the Oligarchy tour. Oh to be clear, they're flying
Speaker 3: around in private jets to fight the oligarchy, which actually
Speaker 3: may symbolize today's Democrat Party more than anything else. They
Speaker 3: could do to get off their private jet and stand
Speaker 3: up and say fight the oligarchy. And by the way,
Speaker 3: George Soros, thanks for the money. But the Democrats want
Speaker 3: their elected leaders to be even more crazy that. And
Speaker 3: this is after four years of absolute shambles of the
Speaker 3: Obama administration. And what's striking also about that clip you
Speaker 3: played is CNN, which is a propaganda outlet for the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party, is panicking that they can't believe it. They
Speaker 3: are terrified. The media is in desarray. You mentioned Dick Durbin,
Speaker 3: the Democrat Center from Illinois, announced he was not running
Speaker 3: for reelection. Look, Dick Durbin is the number two Democrat
Speaker 3: in the entire Senate. He is number two only to Schumer,
Speaker 3: and he's calling it quits. He is also the top,
Speaker 3: the ranking member, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 3: Used to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 1: And so they gut senior Democrats that are saying, get
Speaker 1: me out of this place.
Speaker 2: Well, and by the way, he said something that was
Speaker 2: really interesting, how low the bar has fallen. So Dick
Speaker 2: Durbin's excuse for why he is not running for reelection was,
Speaker 2: in essence, well, I don't want to become Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: And he put it this way in the interview.
Speaker 5: Listen, a senator yesterday, after you made your announcement that
Speaker 5: you would not be seeking reelection, there are number of
Speaker 5: Democrats who privately really applauded your choice, saying that it
Speaker 5: was that it was something the right thing to do,
Speaker 5: to step aside and perhaps let a younger generation of
Speaker 5: politicians step to the forefront. We know the idea of
Speaker 5: democratic elected officials and age has been a hot topic
Speaker 5: in recent years. Do you hope do you are we
Speaker 5: without thinking? Do you think it is time now for
Speaker 5: younger politicians, the next generation to come forward?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 7: I think this it's more complex. It is not just
Speaker 7: a question of a number, what your age is. Look
Speaker 7: at Bernie Sanders, for God's sake, still drawing thousands and
Speaker 7: thousands of people out for rallies and he's a few
Speaker 7: years older than I am. The bottom line is are
Speaker 7: you competent? Can you still do the job? That's the
Speaker 7: question the voter should ask. But should a new generation
Speaker 7: be interested in public service? You bet. I've spent my
Speaker 7: time in office trying to encourage younger people to get involved.
Speaker 6: Senator Durban it's Ali Vitally. I wonder if I can
Speaker 6: pick up on something you just said, this idea of
Speaker 6: are you competent? Are you able to do this job?
Speaker 6: In the Senate? As you see this push from the
Speaker 6: grassroots that Lamir is talking about here, do you think
Speaker 6: enough of your colleagues are asking themselves those fundamental questions
Speaker 6: about if they can continue to serve.
Speaker 7: I think so. I think if you're honest about yourself
Speaker 7: and your reputation, you want to leave when you can
Speaker 7: still walk out the front door and not be carried
Speaker 7: out the back door.
Speaker 2: I mean, you hear that, and it's basically saying, well,
Speaker 2: I'm not going to pull at Joe Biden, and other
Speaker 2: people need to look at this as well. He was
Speaker 2: a I think, clearly knocking Joe Biden and what he
Speaker 2: just said as.
Speaker 3: Well well, And nobody in that discussion acknowledge that Dick
Speaker 3: Durbin spent four years lying to the American people saying
Speaker 3: that Joe Biden was not senile, that he was mentally
Speaker 3: capable to do the job. By the way, CNN spent
Speaker 3: four years lying to the American people screaming that it
Speaker 3: was a conspiracy theory to point out what is obviously
Speaker 3: true and was obviously true then that Biden's mental capacity
Speaker 3: was severely diminished. I will say this, and actually it
Speaker 3: might surprise you. I'm going to say something nice about Durbin.
Speaker 3: So I've served with Durbin for thirteen years. On the
Speaker 3: Senate Judiciary Committee, and I'll tell you what I tell
Speaker 3: any nominees that are coming before Judiciary, I tell them
Speaker 3: durban is the single most dangerous Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 3: because I think he's the smartest Democrat, and he is
Speaker 3: radical and extreme, but he's very good at sounding reasonable.
Speaker 3: There are other Democrats that are radical and extreme, as
Speaker 3: Sheldon white House and Adam Schiff, but they sound like
Speaker 3: lunatics when they're ranting. Everyone knows their lunatics. Part of
Speaker 3: what makes Durbin such a dangerous questioner for Republican nominees
Speaker 3: or Republican witnesses is he's very good at masking his
Speaker 3: extreme policies in ways that sound much more reasonable than
Speaker 3: his colleagues. And so I will say for Democrats, seeing
Speaker 3: Durbin hang it up is a real loss to them.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dial
Speaker 2: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict, or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again. Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.