Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a weekend review.
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you as always, and there are some
Speaker 1: major stories that you may have missed that we talked
Speaker 1: about this week. First up, what does it look like
Speaker 1: state by state right now, especially in the swing states
Speaker 1: when it comes to the polling with this presidential election.
Speaker 1: We're going to break that down for you so you
Speaker 1: know where we stand right now, just a couple less
Speaker 1: than two months away from election day. Also, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is now dealing with presidential immunity, So what does
Speaker 1: it mean for the sitting president and what does it
Speaker 1: mean for future presidents after the Supreme Court took a
Speaker 1: look at this issue. We'll explain that for you. And finally,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris comes out she wants to end the filibuster.
Speaker 1: So what would that look like and would it mean
Speaker 1: that they would pack the Supreme Court? We break that
Speaker 1: down for you as well. It is the week in
Speaker 1: Review and it starts right now. All right, Senata, So
Speaker 1: let's go through these states. And this is when I
Speaker 1: said art listeners, grab your print and paper, because this
Speaker 1: is where on election night you're gonna love watching the
Speaker 1: results come in. With these different states and the knowledge
Speaker 1: that we're about to give you all.
Speaker 2: Right, so let's start with Arizona. The best way typically
Speaker 2: to consume polling numbers is to look to the Real
Speaker 2: Clear Politics average and so look their variations among poles.
Speaker 2: Some polls are more accurate than others. But the way
Speaker 2: most political professionals do is they look to the polling average,
Speaker 2: and the theory is the averages sort of. It averages
Speaker 2: out the ups and the downs. So if you look
Speaker 2: to the Real Clear Politics average in Arizona, right now,
Speaker 2: this is a race between Gayego the Democrat, and Kerry
Speaker 2: Lake the Republican. Right now, Gayego is leading by four
Speaker 2: point three points, So that's the average. That's the average
Speaker 2: of the last four polls that have been done in
Speaker 2: that race. Trump has a good chance of winning Arizona.
Speaker 2: So right now Trump is outperforming Carrie Lake in that state,
Speaker 2: but four points is very winnable. She can win that race.
Speaker 2: But according to the average, right now, the Democrats are ahead.
Speaker 2: Let's move to Michigan. So if you look at Michigan,
Speaker 2: the two candidates are Slotkin the Democrat and Mike Rodgers
Speaker 2: the Republican. In Michigan, the real Clear Politics average is
Speaker 2: the Democrat at five point one percent, So again five
Speaker 2: points is pretty close, but it does show an advantage
Speaker 2: right now for the Democrats, and that's an average of one, two, three, four, five, six,
Speaker 2: seven eight polls in the last month. The Democrat is
Speaker 2: ahead by an average of five point one percent. All right,
Speaker 2: let's go to Montana. Montana, I mentioned is the brightest
Speaker 2: spot in terms of the pickup. This is a battle
Speaker 2: between John Tester the Democrat, the incumbent, and Tim Sheehey
Speaker 2: the Republican. And she He is ahead on an average
Speaker 2: of five point two points. So that's that's sizeable. It's
Speaker 2: not decisive. Tester could still come back and win it,
Speaker 2: but that's it's been a consistent lead. If you look
Speaker 2: at the last four polls, she He plus six, she
Speaker 2: He plus seven, she He plus six, and she He
Speaker 2: plus two, So that's been a consistent lead. All right,
Speaker 2: Let's look to Nevada. So Nevada, the numbers are bumpier.
Speaker 2: The incumbent is Jackie Rosen. She's a Democrat. Sam Brown
Speaker 2: is a Republican. The real Clear Politics average is Rosen
Speaker 2: by eight point eight percent, so that's a pretty sizable lead.
Speaker 2: Nevada is another state where Trump is very competitive and
Speaker 2: so he could win. Trump it may be that the
Speaker 2: polling numbers or understating where Brown is but eight point
Speaker 2: eight percent is there's some distance to be closed on
Speaker 2: the average polling there.
Speaker 1: I'll ask you this real quick before you move forward,
Speaker 1: because it's a question. I know everybody's asking their head.
Speaker 1: All right, you just mentioned this state, and then you
Speaker 1: mentioned Arizona earlier where Trump is leading but Krylake is
Speaker 1: not there. How often do you see a presidential election
Speaker 1: cycle vo historically where the Republican wins in the state
Speaker 1: but the person next down the bound the senate race loses,
Speaker 1: where people walk in there yes for Trump and no
Speaker 1: for the Senate candidate. Is that happened very often?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that that happens with some regularity. And Trump in
Speaker 2: most states is going to get more votes than the
Speaker 2: down ballot Republicans. For one thing, there are people that
Speaker 2: come in that just vote president and leave. And then
Speaker 2: there are also there will be some voters in every
Speaker 2: one of these states who votes for Trump at the
Speaker 2: top of the ticket and then for a Democrat Senate candidate.
Speaker 2: I wish they didn't. It is frustrating as all get out,
Speaker 2: but there exists.
Speaker 1: And to be than theird way, you're like voting against
Speaker 1: your own interests of what you're saying you want for
Speaker 1: the country. With the President, well he needs the votes
Speaker 1: in the House and Senate to get that agenda done.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there tend to be more crossover voters who
Speaker 2: do Trump and a Democrat Senate candidate, then there are
Speaker 2: crossover voters who vot Kamala Hara at a Republican senator candidate.
Speaker 2: It just at the end of the day, it has
Speaker 2: tended to be a one way ratchet. All right, Let's
Speaker 2: go to Ohio. Ohio is the next closest after Montana,
Speaker 2: and the two candidates are shared Brown the Democrat, who's
Speaker 2: the incumbent, Bernie Mourno the Republican. The real Clare Politics
Speaker 2: average is the Democrat up by three point six percent.
Speaker 2: So the last three polls were plus two, plus five,
Speaker 2: plus four, So Ohio is definitely winnable. Trump is extremely
Speaker 2: likely to win Ohio. He could win Ohio by double digits.
Speaker 2: But right now Brown is polling substantially ahead of where
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is in Ohio. And so Ohio is a
Speaker 2: state where there are a number of voters right now
Speaker 2: who say they're voting for Donald Trump, and yet a
Speaker 2: Democrat senator who will fight to undermine everything Trump does
Speaker 2: every single day in the Senate, Which is why I
Speaker 2: wish voters wouldn't do that. I don't think that makes sense,
Speaker 2: and I think it ends up working against yourself. Less,
Speaker 2: there's some voters that do all right. Pennsylvania. So Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: is probably the most important battleground in the country. It
Speaker 2: is the state most likely to decide the presidential race.
Speaker 2: The incumbent is Bob Casey is a Democrat. Dave McCormick
Speaker 2: the Republican, a very good friend of mine who I've
Speaker 2: endorsed in campaigned with multiple times. Across Pennsylvania. The Real
Speaker 2: Clear Politics average is four point nine percent. And so
Speaker 2: starting from so back in August, there was a tie,
Speaker 2: then Casey plus one, then Casey plus seven, then case
Speaker 2: plus eighth andk C plus four, then Casey plus nine,
Speaker 2: then Casey plus five, and Casey plus five, and Casey
Speaker 2: plus five, then Casey plus nine, and then the Washington
Speaker 2: Post the most recent poll showed it as a tie. So, look,
Speaker 2: there's some there's some variability on that. So the last
Speaker 2: two polls were Casey plus nined and a tie. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's a big delta between those two. Yeah, and so,
Speaker 2: and so it's why you tend to look to the average,
Speaker 2: because the average kind of takes out the highs and lows.
Speaker 2: And so four point nine percent, you would say, right now,
Speaker 2: the Democrats have an advantage, But four point nine percent
Speaker 2: you can definitely close between now an election day, and
Speaker 2: I think the issue set favors us. All right, Maryland.
Speaker 2: Maryland is a state that shouldn't be a battleground. It's
Speaker 2: a very blue state. It is going to go it
Speaker 2: is going to go for Kamala Harris by double digits.
Speaker 2: And yet you've got Larry Hogan, Larry Hogan, the former governor.
Speaker 2: There is a Republican, very popular governor running against a
Speaker 2: Democrat also Brooks. The Real Clear Politics average is six
Speaker 2: point eight percent. But again there's been a lot of
Speaker 2: variability on this. So back in in August there was
Speaker 2: a poll that was a tie, and then Democrat plus five,
Speaker 2: Democrat plus seven, and then and there was one just
Speaker 2: recently Democrat plus fifteen. So Maryland is a race that
Speaker 2: is winnable. But to do that, Hogan is going to
Speaker 2: have to outperform Trump by twenty points or more. That
Speaker 2: ain't easy to do. That, that is a big, big delta.
Speaker 2: He was the governor there, he was very popular and
Speaker 2: he's the only he's the only Republican who has a
Speaker 2: prayer to win in Maryland. But Maryland is not an
Speaker 2: easy state for a Republican to win. And the final
Speaker 2: battleground is Wisconsin. Wisconsin is Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who's
Speaker 2: the incumbent. Eric Hovedy is the Republican running against her.
Speaker 2: The real Clear Politics average is Democrat four point six percent,
Speaker 2: so again close winnable, but right now the Democrats have
Speaker 2: the advantage. Although it's interesting if you look at the polls,
Speaker 2: but going back to August, it was Democrat plus six,
Speaker 2: Democrat plus five, Democrat plus eight, But then the last
Speaker 2: four polls have been Democrat plus three, Democrat plus three,
Speaker 2: Democrat plus four, Democrat plus three. So the race is
Speaker 2: tightened in the last couple of weeks and it's about
Speaker 2: a three and a half point differential in the last
Speaker 2: four polls, which means Wisconsin is very winnable. And look,
Speaker 2: every one of these states that I mentioned is winnable
Speaker 2: by the Republicans. But for us to win, the numbers
Speaker 2: need to shift four or five points, and to do that,
Speaker 2: we've got to focus on the issues. And the issues
Speaker 2: are the same issues as the presidential the economy, inflation,
Speaker 2: illegal immigration, and crime. And if we focus on those,
Speaker 2: I think we've got a real shot at winning every
Speaker 2: one of those.
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. I
Speaker 1: want to move on also to something else that you
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier, and it's happened today. Uh set the stage
Speaker 1: for everybody in Congress and explain exactly what was going on,
Speaker 1: and it dealt with presidential immunity.
Speaker 2: Well, Senate Democrats for two years have been engaged in
Speaker 2: a relentless assault on the Supreme Court and trying to
Speaker 2: undermine the Supreme Court. And so today the Senate Judiciary
Speaker 2: Committee held a hearing on the Supreme Court's decision on
Speaker 2: presidential immunity, and the whole purpose of the hearing was
Speaker 2: to say that the Supreme Court decision is ridiculous, that
Speaker 2: it's out of bounds, that it basically said Trump is
Speaker 2: a King, that he's unaccountable, that it's some you know,
Speaker 2: bizarre decision, and they're trying both to attack Trump and
Speaker 2: to delegitimize the Supreme Court. And so among the witnesses
Speaker 2: testifying was was Michael Mukasey, who was the former Attorney
Speaker 2: General of the United States under George W. Bush, and
Speaker 2: he was a federal judge for nearly twenty years before that,
Speaker 2: and he was one of the witnesses. And so I
Speaker 2: took the opportunity to actually question the former Attorney general
Speaker 2: and to lay out the utterly false narrative the Democrats
Speaker 2: we're putting forward. Give a listen to my questioning of
Speaker 2: Attorney General Mucasey.
Speaker 3: Thank you, mister Chairman.
Speaker 2: The novel of the Democrats argument today is that the
Speaker 2: concept of presidential immunity is somehow unprecedented, is somehow remarkable.
Speaker 2: That claim is utterly a historical and disconnected from the
Speaker 2: entire constitutional history of the Republic. General Mucasey before twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three, How many times has the President of the
Speaker 2: United States been indicted? John before twenty twenty three? How
Speaker 2: many times has the former president of the United States
Speaker 2: been indicted in the last two years? How many times.
Speaker 2: Has President Donald J. Trump been indicted four times?
Speaker 4: I believe.
Speaker 2: Now many presidents of both parties have engaged in controversial actions.
Speaker 3: None of them have been indicted. Let me ask you,
Speaker 3: General mc caasey.
Speaker 2: If a private citizen were to erect an internment camp
Speaker 2: and to forcibly kidnap American citizens, to single them out
Speaker 2: because of race, and to imprison them based on their race,
Speaker 2: would that private citizen be subject to criminal prosecution?
Speaker 4: Would?
Speaker 2: When President Franklin delan Or Roosevelt did the exact same
Speaker 2: thing and erected Japanese internment camps, was fdr prosecuted?
Speaker 4: He was not.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you.
Speaker 2: Similarly, if a private citizen were, say, to detonate a
Speaker 2: nuclear weapon over a city and kill over one hundred
Speaker 2: and forty thousand people, and then if that private citizen
Speaker 2: a few days later detonated another nuclear bomb over another
Speaker 2: city and killed seventy five thousand people, could that private
Speaker 2: citizen be criminally prosecuted?
Speaker 4: He would?
Speaker 2: Was President Harry Truman prosecuted for detonating nuclear weapons over here,
Speaker 2: Sshima and Nagasaki?
Speaker 4: He was not?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 3: How about this?
Speaker 2: If a private citizen launched a weaponized drove and killed
Speaker 2: a United States citizen. Could that private citizen be criminally prosecuted?
Speaker 4: He would?
Speaker 2: Was President Barack Obama criminally prosecuted when he killed United
Speaker 2: States citizens using drones without notice and without due process?
Speaker 4: He was not? Although as far as due process is concerned,
Speaker 4: I believe the comment of my successor to that question
Speaker 4: was that anaral Alaki got quote all of the process
Speaker 4: that was necessary.
Speaker 2: Well, although I suspect he might disagree with that assessment
Speaker 2: were he able to present his case. Right, all right,
Speaker 2: Let's contrast that with the rules that govern other federal officials.
Speaker 2: You were a judge for nineteen years as a federal judge.
Speaker 2: Did you have in community from your.
Speaker 4: Official acts from my official act? Yes?
Speaker 2: Do federal prosecutors have an immunity from their official acts?
Speaker 4: They do?
Speaker 2: Now, the distinction between official acts and personal acts is
Speaker 2: not a terribly shocking distinction. Under the decision of Trump
Speaker 2: versus United States, if any president walks the walks onto
Speaker 2: the sidewalk and just shoots a citizen, is that president
Speaker 2: libel to be prosecuted?
Speaker 4: He is?
Speaker 3: How about this?
Speaker 2: If a president steals funds from his campaign, does that
Speaker 2: president face criminal liability?
Speaker 4: He does.
Speaker 2: How about this, If a president sexually assaults let's say
Speaker 2: an intern in the Oval office, is the president subject
Speaker 2: criminal prosecution for that?
Speaker 4: He could be?
Speaker 2: So that distinction, again is not a shocking distinction. The
Speaker 2: founding fathers vested the executive power in a single president
Speaker 2: of the United States. What we have seen in the
Speaker 2: last two years is we have seen Democrats deliberately weaponizing
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice and our legal system to target
Speaker 2: their political opposition. It is not an accident that every
Speaker 2: indictment against President Trump was brought by a Democrat and
Speaker 2: was brought after he announced his campaign for president of
Speaker 2: the United States. Understand, the target of those indictments was
Speaker 2: not ultimately President Trump. It was the voters. It was
Speaker 2: prosecutors who were terrified that the voters would choose to
Speaker 2: re elect President Trump. One of the great things about
Speaker 2: the United States is we're not a ban out of republic.
Speaker 2: Since two thousand, the nation of Pakistan has had six
Speaker 2: former prime ministers prosecuted and convicted. Brazil has had three
Speaker 2: former presidents arrested and imprisoned. Last your, Nicaraguan president Daniel
Speaker 2: or Tega arrested, charged, and imprisoned forty political opponents. General
Speaker 2: Man Casey, youu are Attorney General of the United States,
Speaker 2: it is Is it the proper role of the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice to prosecute and target the political opponents of
Speaker 2: whoever happens to be President of the United States?
Speaker 4: It is most assuredly not, thank you.
Speaker 3: He says, it most certainly is not.
Speaker 1: But the reality is Donald Trump keeps getting attacked by
Speaker 1: the left, and they keep trying to lock up their
Speaker 1: political opponent.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: No, that's exactly what they're doing. And their claim that
Speaker 2: the ruling that a president can't be criminally prosecuted for
Speaker 2: his official acts is contrary to the law.
Speaker 3: It's what's why I use the examples I used.
Speaker 2: It's why I use Look, the Japanese and Tournament Camp
Speaker 2: presidents can do a lot of things in exercising their
Speaker 2: official power that ordinary citizens cannot. And we would want
Speaker 2: our commander in chief. Our commander in chief can send
Speaker 2: our troops into combat, can use lethal force, and they
Speaker 2: do regularly. And so the Supreme Court naturally said, well,
Speaker 2: we don't want a situation where each new president who
Speaker 2: comes in the first order of business is let's criminally
Speaker 2: prosecute the last guy for the things he did as
Speaker 2: president that I disagreed with, and so you know, the
Speaker 2: hearing was really a dog and pony show by the
Speaker 2: Democrats to mischaracterize the Supreme Court decision.
Speaker 3: So I thought it was important to.
Speaker 2: Explain the actual law in the real context.
Speaker 1: Me let me ask you another question about this. Will
Speaker 1: there be a correction? I mean, if Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: the president next time, will there be a correction? Or
Speaker 1: once the cats out of the bag, is there any
Speaker 1: way of getting it back to where we were before
Speaker 1: as you described it twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I certainly hope we are not in a world where
Speaker 2: we are a banana republic where it is routine to
Speaker 2: prosecute your predecessors. I don't know, but I do think
Speaker 2: the Democrats have gone down a road that it's very
Speaker 2: hard to turn around and come back from.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it is going to be very very tough,
Speaker 1: to put it mildly, to turn this thing around. And
Speaker 1: I think once they realize they can do this, I
Speaker 1: don't see Democrats being responsible moving forward with it. That's
Speaker 1: my biggest concern. So is there anything we can do
Speaker 1: to protect former presidents or it is something need to
Speaker 1: change with the law.
Speaker 2: Look, the biggest thing we can and should do is
Speaker 2: reelect Donald Trump as president. Elections have consequences. We're six
Speaker 2: weeks away from election day. The outcome of this election
Speaker 2: matters immensely.
Speaker 3: As before.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
Speaker 1: podcasts from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
Speaker 1: three of the week. You may have missed you look
Speaker 1: at the Democrats. They have for the last several years
Speaker 1: really been trying to undermine the Supreme Court. They have
Speaker 1: leaked from the Supreme Court the Roe v. Wade decision,
Speaker 1: for example. The Democrats have been trying to intimidate Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justices, and we saw just how hostile they allowed
Speaker 1: people to get towards the Supreme Court justice in their homes.
Speaker 1: I mean that the media has been undermining the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court as well and acting like the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: this outdated body that should be changed. So when you
Speaker 1: say that we're one vote away and this is what
Speaker 1: would happen, they're the ones that have been doing all
Speaker 1: the things you would do for this possible opportunity if
Speaker 1: it actually arises, and you can say, yeah, like we've
Speaker 1: been saying this for years, we think the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: should be.
Speaker 2: Packed, right, Yeah, look that that's correct. And and here's
Speaker 2: the math. Today there's a fifty one forty nine Democrat
Speaker 2: majority in the Senate. However, of those fifty one, they're
Speaker 2: two Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema, who have both
Speaker 2: voted against ending the filibuster. So Chuck Schumer tried to
Speaker 2: end the filibuster. They had a vote on it, and
Speaker 2: forty nine Democrats voted to end the filibuster. Had either
Speaker 2: Mansion or Cinema flipped, they would have had the votes.
Speaker 2: But the two of them are the only things that
Speaker 2: stopped it. Now, I'm going to tell you something we
Speaker 2: know for an absolute certainty, in January of next year,
Speaker 2: neither Mansion nor Cinema will be there.
Speaker 3: Very true.
Speaker 2: Both of them their terms are done, neither of them
Speaker 2: are running for reelection. It's one hundred percent they will
Speaker 2: be gone. That means that Schumer is going into this
Speaker 2: election with forty nine votes to end the filibuster. If
Speaker 2: he picks up one anywhere, he gets to fifty, and
Speaker 2: if Tim Waltz is the vice president. He has everything
Speaker 2: he needs needs to end the filibuster. And I want
Speaker 2: to make a point here. Also, you notice none of
Speaker 2: the things I listed were economic. I didn't list in
Speaker 2: the calamity in the Parade of Horribles. I didn't list
Speaker 2: seventy percent marginal tax rates. I didn't list massively confiscatory
Speaker 2: death taxes. I didn't list wealth taxes that tax you
Speaker 2: on unrealized capital gains. I didn't list banning fracking and
Speaker 2: shutting it down oil and gas exploration in the United States.
Speaker 2: I didn't list nationalization of mineral rights. Look to be honest,
Speaker 2: the economic stuff, the socialism that follows like night follows day,
Speaker 2: because the Democrat's top priority, the four things I listed
Speaker 2: are all about seizing control and making it permanent, making
Speaker 2: it impossible that democrat ever lose. And you know, there's
Speaker 2: something deeply Freudian about how democrats behave because they talk
Speaker 2: incessantly about saving democracy, and yet today's Democrats are profoundly
Speaker 2: anti democratic. Their number one priority is making it so
Speaker 2: the voters can never ever, ever, ever ever vote them
Speaker 2: out of power. And once they're in power, look on
Speaker 2: the economic stuff. The only constraints are just how crazy
Speaker 2: are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren willing to go? But
Speaker 2: it is look at countries like Venezuela. Once you get
Speaker 2: one party locked in power with no ability to constrain them,
Speaker 2: the country goes downhill incredibly quickly, and I think terrible policies.
Speaker 2: Look policies. I didn't mention gun confiscation, going after the
Speaker 2: Second Amendment, going after religious liberty, going after the First Amendment.
Speaker 2: They packed the Supreme Court not to have the courts
Speaker 2: backstopping any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 2: All of that happens as a matter of course. Schumer's
Speaker 2: first focus is power, and if he can lock in
Speaker 2: power forever, that really is the end of our democracy,
Speaker 2: and ironically it's the number one priority of today's Democrats.
Speaker 1: Let me go back to a very consequential vote, and
Speaker 1: I just want to remind people perspective on this filibuster.
Speaker 1: In the sixty plus, when we go back to Obamacare,
Speaker 1: what was the number on Obamacare? How many votes did
Speaker 1: that pass with? Do you remember?
Speaker 2: Well, the way they passed to Obamacare was through a
Speaker 2: special budget procedure called budget reconciliation and budget reconciliation is
Speaker 2: the most important exception to the filibuster. Budget reconciliation comes
Speaker 2: from a law called the Budget Act of nineteen seventy five,
Speaker 2: and it's a special procedure for adopting a budget, and
Speaker 2: under that statute, it is exempt from the filibuster, so
Speaker 2: you can pass it with a majority. That's how they
Speaker 2: did Obamacare, as they did it using budget reconciliation. By
Speaker 2: the way, the Trump tax cuts were passed using budget reconciliation,
Speaker 2: so they were not subject to the filibuster. No Democrat
Speaker 2: voted for the Trump tax cuts. If you look at
Speaker 2: things like the Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act that was
Speaker 2: passed by the Democrats using budget reconciliation. So there are
Speaker 2: things that can be done that typically involve spending and
Speaker 2: taxing that can be done with just fifty votes. But
Speaker 2: the structural changes to our republic, things like the federal
Speaker 2: takeover of all elections in this country, or adding two
Speaker 2: new states to the Union, or granting immediate voting rights
Speaker 2: to every illegal alien in America, that cannot be done
Speaker 2: through budget reconciliation. Packing the Supreme Court cannot be done
Speaker 2: through budget reconciliation. The statute lays out specific categories of
Speaker 2: what can and can't be done through reconciliation. So the
Speaker 2: sort of simplest way to think about it is spending
Speaker 2: in taxes you can get around the filibuster. Everything else
Speaker 2: as a general matter, you can't see.
Speaker 1: And that's why I want to remind people, because we
Speaker 1: were talking about that during the time, and it came
Speaker 1: up that you know, the sixty votes and how important
Speaker 1: it is, and it's a hard threshold if you change it,
Speaker 1: and you think about how consequential, for example, Obamacare was
Speaker 1: and during that time when there was almost a super majority,
Speaker 1: and YadA, YadA, YadA, and you go, okay, there's a
Speaker 1: reason why it was set up this way. The entire
Speaker 1: United States of America's history changes if you get rid
Speaker 1: of this. Am I wrong?
Speaker 3: You are absolutely right.
Speaker 2: Look, if Schumer ends the filibuster, no Republican ever wins again.
Speaker 3: It is one party rule.
Speaker 2: And so ask yourself, how has Hugo Chaves and Nicholas
Speaker 2: Maduro been for Venezuela that will be and listen, some
Speaker 2: people listening might say, oh, come on, that's too much.
Speaker 2: You shouldn't compare Kamala Harris to Nicholas Maduro. Well, if
Speaker 2: their policy is to lock themselves and their party into
Speaker 2: power forever and to disempower the voters from ever ever
Speaker 2: ever being able to take them out of power, that
Speaker 2: is exactly what Chavez and Maduro have done. That's what
Speaker 2: Castro have done. It is the strategy of dictators and
Speaker 2: it is a shocking thing that today's Democrats no longer
Speaker 2: believe in order to save democracy, they're willing to destroy democracy.
Speaker 1: Senator, let me ask two questions to wrap this up.
Speaker 1: There may be people that say, look, if there is
Speaker 1: a let's say they get it and they get rid
Speaker 1: of the filibuster, it'll come back in a couple of years.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's like a little bit of an overreaction here.
Speaker 1: I go back in history, and I'm a student of history.
Speaker 1: You are, and you love history as well. When consequential
Speaker 1: things usually happen within our government, A great example is Obamacare.
Speaker 1: Once it's done, it is extremely hard to undo it.
Speaker 1: And so if people think, well, maybe they do it
Speaker 1: and we'll get it back. Maybe they throw four more
Speaker 1: people on the Supreme Court, but we could get it
Speaker 1: back to nine if we really wanted to. How impossible
Speaker 1: would it be to undo some of the things you
Speaker 1: talked about if it actually went into effect because the
Speaker 1: Democrats win in November.
Speaker 2: Well, understand that the four things I listed are all structural,
Speaker 2: so once they happen, you can undo them. If you
Speaker 2: have twenty million illegal immigrants voting Democrats win. Texas isn't
Speaker 2: the only state that turns blue. North Carolina turns blue,
Speaker 2: Georgia turns blue, Arizona turns blue. I mean you have
Speaker 2: suddenly swing states that are not swing states anymore. This
Speaker 2: is why the Democrats, they're just focused on power. You
Speaker 2: look at if it's right, DC will elect Democrats for
Speaker 2: all eternity if it becomes a state. Puerto Rico, I
Speaker 2: don't think it's one hundred percent correct that Puerto Rico
Speaker 2: would only elect Democrats. We have seen Republicans elected in
Speaker 2: Puerto Rico, although partisan politics doesn't line up in Puerto
Speaker 2: Rico exactly like it does.
Speaker 3: In the mainland.
Speaker 2: But if the Democrats are correct that that's four new
Speaker 2: Democrats in the Senate. It is very difficult to see
Speaker 2: a map that ever again elects a Republican majority in
Speaker 2: the Senate. So there will never be an opportunity to
Speaker 2: reverse it. And by the way, you can look to
Speaker 2: what happened with the Supreme Court. So if you look
Speaker 2: at Supreme Court nominations, Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option,
Speaker 2: the same method for ending the filibuster for legislation. Harry
Speaker 2: Reid exercised the nuclear option to end the filibuster for
Speaker 2: judicial nominations, and he did so. When he did so,
Speaker 2: I remember I was on the Senate floor, and he
Speaker 2: did exactly what I said.
Speaker 3: He asked for a ruling from the chair.
Speaker 2: He appealed the ruling of the chair, and all the
Speaker 2: Democrats voted with him, and they overturned it. And so
Speaker 2: to confirm a judge, you only need now fifty votes
Speaker 2: plus the Vice President. And I remember being on the
Speaker 2: Senate floor. I turned to Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota,
Speaker 2: and all the Democrats were voting like lemmings to and
Speaker 2: the filibuster. And I told her then, I said, you
Speaker 2: realize the consequence of this. We are going to get
Speaker 2: more justices like Clarence Thomas and antonin Scalia. And that
Speaker 2: is unequivocally correct. And in fact, if you want to
Speaker 2: know why, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Neil
Speaker 2: Gorsich were confirmed. It is because the Democrats ended the
Speaker 2: filibuster for judicial nominations. If they hadn't, there is no
Speaker 2: chairance on Earth Cavanaugh or Amy Cody Barrett gets confirmed
Speaker 2: because it would have taken sixty votes and there weren't
Speaker 2: going to be sixty votes for any nominee that had
Speaker 2: a proven record of being conservative. So it changed markedly
Speaker 2: the kinds of judges that Trump could nominate. Once the
Speaker 2: change is made procedurally, it never ever ever goes back.
Speaker 1: Final question for you, and that is you look at
Speaker 1: what you just said in this show, and it changes
Speaker 1: my perspective. And I do this with you three days
Speaker 1: a week and talk politics every day because the easy issue,
Speaker 1: right is the economy stupid? And that's the number one issue.
Speaker 1: Most voters say number two, they say the border. This
Speaker 1: issue to me now after we've gone through it is
Speaker 1: even bigger than those two issues when it comes to
Speaker 1: the future of this country. Is that a fair take.
Speaker 2: In terms of law long term future? Yes, it is
Speaker 2: absolutely a fair take. It is, as I said, the
Speaker 2: single thing that keeps me up at night that we
Speaker 2: are that close to losing our entire country. And I
Speaker 2: think almost everyone is oblivious to it. I look, you
Speaker 2: and I are both Texans. How many Texans do you
Speaker 2: know that realize that we could be three months away
Speaker 2: from Texas becoming California, becoming a bright blue plate state.
Speaker 2: By the way, if that happens, I'll make a crazy
Speaker 2: prediction that I hope and pray never comes true. If
Speaker 2: the Democrats and the Filibuster, if they grant voting rights
Speaker 2: to every illegal alien in America and every illegal alien
Speaker 2: in Texas, Beto O'Rourke would be the next governor of
Speaker 2: the state of Texas. I don't think that's an exaggeration.
Speaker 2: I think that is actually quite likely.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.