Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It's nice to have you with us on Verdict, with
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you as always and center.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot to talk about.
Speaker 3: Well, there's a ton happening. The Trump administration announced that
Speaker 3: they are going to begin revoking student visas for Chinese
Speaker 3: students and vigorously scouring their applications to make sure that
Speaker 3: they are not connected to the Chinese Communist Party. That
Speaker 3: is a welcome step that is much needed. We're going
Speaker 3: to break that down in detail. California also reversed its
Speaker 3: policies on transgender athletes, taking a major step to protect
Speaker 3: women and really showing that the left realizes they are
Speaker 3: in full retreat. We're going to explain exactly what's going
Speaker 3: on there. We're also going to talk about the sad
Speaker 3: news this past week that my good friend Phil Robertson,
Speaker 3: the Great Phil Robertson, passed away. We're going to reflect
Speaker 3: on the impact he had, and I'm going to take
Speaker 3: you guys inside what it's like to go duck hunting
Speaker 3: with Phil Robertson, one of the most incredible and fun
Speaker 3: things I've ever had the joy of doing. And finally,
Speaker 3: the Trump administration announced that the American Bar Association the
Speaker 3: ABA is no longer going to have any special role
Speaker 3: in judicial selection. Long overdue, and a great announcement all
Speaker 3: of that on today's show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a good one.
Speaker 2: I want to talk to you real quick though, about
Speaker 2: what's happening in Israel and what we're seeing right now
Speaker 2: is truly disturbing. Anti Semitism is on the rise around
Speaker 2: the world, and sadly, even right here in America. Jewish
Speaker 2: schools are being targeted, synagogues are being threatened, and families
Speaker 2: are living in fear. It's something that we hoped we'd
Speaker 2: never see again in our lifetime. And so let me
Speaker 2: say this, silence is not an option. This is the
Speaker 2: moment that we can all take a stand with the
Speaker 2: people in Israel. And that's why I want you to
Speaker 2: be involved with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.
Speaker 1: You may have heard of it.
Speaker 2: It's called IFCJ and they are on the front lines
Speaker 2: providing real help where it's needed the most. They're giving
Speaker 2: food and sheltered Jewish families that are under threat. They're
Speaker 2: even building bomb shelters on virtually a daily basis for
Speaker 2: children in Israel, and they're helping survivors of hate rebuild
Speaker 2: their lives. And they don't just respond to crisis, they
Speaker 2: work every day to prevent it. And that's where your
Speaker 2: gift of only forty five dollars will help support their
Speaker 2: life saving work by providing food, shelter, and so much more.
Speaker 2: So please call IFCJ and stand with God's people in
Speaker 2: Israel eight A eight for eight eight IFCJ. That's eight
Speaker 2: eight eight four eight eight four three two five. You
Speaker 2: can also go online and find out more about IFCJ
Speaker 2: and to donate at IFCJ dot org. Every dollar helps,
Speaker 2: don't wait be the difference. Visit IFCJ dot org or
Speaker 2: eight a eight for eight eight IFCJ.
Speaker 1: All right, so let's.
Speaker 2: Dive into this big first topic center and it deals
Speaker 2: with what you mentioned earlier, China and Chinese student visas.
Speaker 2: There was an interesting number that was thrown out earlier
Speaker 2: in the day on TV, and I'm going to quote it.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure if it's ex exactly accurate, but it is,
Speaker 2: and that's why I said it was. I saw it
Speaker 2: earlier today and I want to prefix that with saying it.
Speaker 2: But it's said that there were about five hundred American
Speaker 2: students that have visas in China and more than two
Speaker 2: or eight thousand Chinese students in the US is what
Speaker 2: was said, Why are we doing so much for Chinese students,
Speaker 2: many of them by the way they come in here,
Speaker 2: that spy and rob of us of our intellectual property,
Speaker 2: and the administration ter administration is basically saying, we're trying
Speaker 2: to put a stop to this.
Speaker 3: Well, what the Trump administration has announced. Secretary of State
Speaker 3: Marco Rubio announced that they will begin aggressively revoking the
Speaker 3: visas of Chinese students in the United States. China engages
Speaker 3: in extensive propaganda and espionage, and they're going to begin
Speaker 3: vetting and vetting aggressively whether a particular student seeking a
Speaker 3: visa to come to this country has ties to the
Speaker 3: Chinese Communist Party. I think this is long overdue and
Speaker 3: it's part of a broad effort. They're also engaged with
Speaker 3: foreign students that are coming to the United States, examining
Speaker 3: their social media history, examining if they have a history
Speaker 3: of radicalism. So, if you are seeking a student visa
Speaker 3: to come to America and you've been public saying I
Speaker 3: hate America, I want to destroy America, which Sadly, we've
Speaker 3: seen some of these radical students who've said that, and nonetheless,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden the Democrats said, welcome to America. We need
Speaker 3: more people who hate our nation and want to destroy it. Well,
Speaker 3: I think the president's exactly right to stand up and
Speaker 3: say we're not going to welcome people to this country
Speaker 3: who are trying to undermine and destroy this country. With
Speaker 3: respect to China, you know the question of espionage and
Speaker 3: intellectual property theft that's existed since the dawn of time. Look,
Speaker 3: when the first caveman invented the wheel, I suspect somebody
Speaker 3: stole his idea and made another wheel. That that's part
Speaker 3: of the human condition. What is not ever before existed
Speaker 3: is a nation state with massive economic resources like China
Speaker 3: making it a state policy to engage in the theft
Speaker 3: of resources. And so I am very I think it's
Speaker 3: exactly right that we're going to vigorously scrutinize those students
Speaker 3: coming in to make sure that they are not operating
Speaker 3: as agents of the Chinese Communist Party. Now, let me
Speaker 3: say at the same time, look, part of the reason
Speaker 3: you don't get that many Americans going to China to
Speaker 3: study is you don't have a whole lot of folks
Speaker 3: that want to go to Chinese universities, whereas people from
Speaker 3: all over the world want to come to American universities.
Speaker 3: And I will say, if you have people who are
Speaker 3: not agents of the communist government, we want the best
Speaker 3: and brightest in the world coming to America. We end
Speaker 3: up having inventions coming here because the best and brightest
Speaker 3: students across the country come and come and study science
Speaker 3: at engineering and they make inventions, and those inventions in
Speaker 3: turn fuel American companies and they create great jobs. And
Speaker 3: so I think the administration is cutting the right balance here,
Speaker 3: which is saying we're going to stop spies, we're going
Speaker 3: to stop terrorists, but at the same time that that
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that we want to close our doors entirely
Speaker 3: too brilliant physicists and engineers from around the world being
Speaker 3: able to come to America and benefiting from from the
Speaker 3: fruits of that.
Speaker 2: You know, there's one thing that we mentioned. Gosh, there's
Speaker 2: probably a little over a year ago on this show.
Speaker 2: In the podcast that we do, I tell people this
Speaker 2: is why you should download Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: We do it three days a week.
Speaker 2: We talked back when under the Biden Harrison administration there
Speaker 2: was even warnings coming from their administration that they're the
Speaker 2: number one threat to this country was China and Chinese
Speaker 2: espionage and influence operations. That is now a Kumbaya moment
Speaker 2: with the Trump administration, where in essence, two administrations that
Speaker 2: saw nothing o't eye both agreed on China and what
Speaker 2: they were trying to do and stealing an electual property
Speaker 2: and sending an incredible number of spies into this country
Speaker 2: and many of them come through our university system.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but the Biden administration did next to nothing to
Speaker 3: stop it. So they acknowledged it's a problem, but at
Speaker 3: the same time, they were complicit in it. And I'll
Speaker 3: tell you I have for over a decade been leading
Speaker 3: the fight to stop Chinese espionage, to stop Chinese propaganda,
Speaker 3: to stop China's malign efforts. I think we need a
Speaker 3: comprehensive effort to take on communist China, much like we
Speaker 3: had under Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War against
Speaker 3: the Soviet Union. And I'll tell you, Ben, one of
Speaker 3: the very first pieces of legislation that I authored and
Speaker 3: passed dealt with exactly this, and it dealt with what
Speaker 3: are called Confucius institutes. So Confucius institutes were started at
Speaker 3: US universities all across America, where there were roughly two
Speaker 3: hundred of them, and they were controlled by Communist China.
Speaker 3: They were paid for by Communist China, by the government,
Speaker 3: and they were used to engage in propaganda and espionage
Speaker 3: on campus. I authored legislation and said, if you have
Speaker 3: a Confucius Institute on campus, you will not get funding
Speaker 3: from the federal government, from the Department of Defense. I
Speaker 3: passed it into law, and I'll tell you that simple
Speaker 3: piece of legislation resulted in over a hundred Confucius institute
Speaker 3: shutting down at universities across the country, shutting down their espionage,
Speaker 3: shutting down their propaganda. I think the Trump administration's announcement
Speaker 3: is the next step in that very important fight.
Speaker 1: Senator, Let's deal with California.
Speaker 2: And there has been a fight since the President came
Speaker 2: in with his executive order on trying to protect women
Speaker 2: from men being in their locker rooms, being in their
Speaker 2: sports beating them up. We saw it during the Olympics
Speaker 2: in boxing. We've seen countless women who their achievements have
Speaker 2: been taken away from them. On the podium because of
Speaker 2: men claiming their women, which is impossible in reality, and
Speaker 2: California decide they were going to stand up to Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: and guess what, it didn't go very well for them.
Speaker 3: Well, listen, we've seen the Democrat Party getting more and
Speaker 3: more radical ever since Donald Trump took the oath of
Speaker 3: office back in twenty seventeen. They hate Trump and they've
Speaker 3: gotten more and more extreme on a host of issues.
Speaker 3: And one of the poster children for their extreme issues
Speaker 3: is embracing boys in girls sports, men and women's sports.
Speaker 3: And it is wrong, it is unfair, it invites injury,
Speaker 3: and it also deprives both both girls and women of
Speaker 3: athletic victories they should have and they've earned. There are
Speaker 3: differences between boys and girls. There are differences between men
Speaker 3: and women that did not used to be a controversial proposition.
Speaker 3: It is only in today's looney tune left that they
Speaker 3: can't tell to the difference between men and women. But
Speaker 3: I got to tell you, even though in the Senate,
Speaker 3: Senate Democrats all of them continue to defend men in
Speaker 3: women's sports and boys and girls sports, we're seeing the
Speaker 3: state of California. We're seeing the Democrats beginning to retreat.
Speaker 3: We're seeing Gavin Newsom, the governor who's been a far
Speaker 3: left radical governor. He's got ambitions of being president, he's
Speaker 3: looking at running in twenty twenty eight, and he's decided, Okay,
Speaker 3: we're on the wrong side of an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 3: I want to get the hell away from this. And
Speaker 3: so California announced this is a big deal. They're changing
Speaker 3: their policy for track and field so that if you're
Speaker 3: a biological girl and you got you missed out on
Speaker 3: making it to the state championship because you were beaten
Speaker 3: by a biological male who claims to be a transgender woman,
Speaker 3: then the girl you will still get your slot. You
Speaker 3: still get invited to the state championship. Look, that's a
Speaker 3: significant step in the right direction, and Gavin Newsom is
Speaker 3: embracing it. And I got to say this really illustrates
Speaker 3: that at least some Democrats realize, Wow, we are on
Speaker 3: the wrong side of an issue that America. America wants
Speaker 3: to protect girls sports and women's sports. We want to
Speaker 3: protect our daughters and we don't want to see them
Speaker 3: hurt or competing unfairly. And so the crazy thing is
Speaker 3: that means in track and Field in California. Now they
Speaker 3: may give three gold medals, one to the boy, one
Speaker 3: to the girl, and one to the transgender athlete. You
Speaker 3: may have gold medals all around. But for bright blue
Speaker 3: California to make this concession, it shows that at least
Speaker 3: some Democrats realize they are way on the wrong side
Speaker 3: of this issue.
Speaker 2: This also, I think is an issue that it's worth
Speaker 2: fighting for, and I think many that are listening or saying,
Speaker 2: we don't want to give in, and we don't want
Speaker 2: to give up, and the penoum went so far to
Speaker 2: the radical left for so many years that this is
Speaker 2: the fight that is worth fighting on and fighting over.
Speaker 2: And showing California having to change girls track and field
Speaker 2: championship rules after the Trump threatens funding over the trans
Speaker 2: athletes is just an example of hey, we are and
Speaker 2: many times the silent majority, and we need to start
Speaker 2: acting like it, especially on these types of issues.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll tell you Ben this, this issue is a
Speaker 3: powerful issue. And as you know, I ran for re
Speaker 3: election in Texas last year in twenty twenty four. It
Speaker 3: was a quarter billion dollar race. I was Chuck Schumer's
Speaker 3: number one target and my campaign was was the first
Speaker 3: campaign in the country last year to put real time
Speaker 3: and energy behind this, this issue of We're going to
Speaker 3: protect girl sports from boys competing, and we put tens
Speaker 3: of millions of dollars behind this issue. What's fascinating is
Speaker 3: the media completely misunderstood the issue. So one of the
Speaker 3: things that my campaign did is we did focus groups
Speaker 3: in Houston and Dallas of undecided moderate women to understand
Speaker 3: what issues moved them, and we tested thirty thirty five
Speaker 3: different messages. The number one issue that moved undecided moderate
Speaker 3: women in Texas was boys and girls sports. And when
Speaker 3: I started campaigning on it, it was very funny. The
Speaker 3: reporters are like, oh, Cruise is trying to appeal to
Speaker 3: the crazy right wing, and I was just laughing at him,
Speaker 3: and I'm like, you guys are so clueless. This is not
Speaker 3: the crazy right wing. This is soccer moms. This is
Speaker 3: soccer moms who love their daughters. And we land on
Speaker 3: this issue. And then you saw senate races all across
Speaker 3: the country pick up the same message because they were
Speaker 3: seeing the same data. We where we saw President Trump
Speaker 3: lean in Harvard on this.
Speaker 2: Some of those women that you were talking to, let's
Speaker 2: be very clear, had moved from California because you know,
Speaker 2: the like, how many people from California moved to Texas
Speaker 2: over the last six years a lot.
Speaker 3: We have over one thousand people a day moving to
Speaker 3: the state of Texas, and California is overwhelmingly the heaviest,
Speaker 3: the largest state that is sending people to Texas. But
Speaker 3: this issue, what's fascinating Ben, is you know, four years ago,
Speaker 3: this issue did not work politically. You saw campaigns try
Speaker 3: to raise it four years ago, and I think people
Speaker 3: thought then that that that it was jumping the shark,
Speaker 3: that it didn't feel real. Four years ago, I think
Speaker 3: people said, oh, come on, that's that's that's not a
Speaker 3: real threat. Well, you know what we've now seen Leah Thomas,
Speaker 3: the the the the swimmer who who is a biological
Speaker 3: man and looks like Michael friggin Phelps, who who who
Speaker 3: We've also seen And I think this was really a
Speaker 3: seminal moment in the Olympics, the two dudes competing in
Speaker 3: in in women's boxing and beating the hell out of women.
Speaker 3: And I think a whole lot of people said, wait,
Speaker 3: this is not theoretical. This is happening over and over
Speaker 3: and over again. Enough is enough and and I think
Speaker 3: this is another milestone that that California is retreating on
Speaker 3: this issue shows that that truth and sanity are are winning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and now the question becomes how much are they
Speaker 2: going to be able to fight back through the court
Speaker 2: system and is this going to be something that's going
Speaker 2: to be unfortunately an issue for probably years to come.
Speaker 3: Well, look, we'll see. And to be honest, California hasn't
Speaker 3: conceded all together. They're still having biological males compete against women,
Speaker 3: which is which is unfair. It invites injury. You know,
Speaker 3: if you're playing volleyball, We've seen women who have a
Speaker 3: biological man spiked the ball into their head and they
Speaker 3: get injured. I mean, I mean it is California is
Speaker 3: still looney Tunes. But the fact that even the lefty
Speaker 3: government of California is saying we've gone too far, that's
Speaker 3: a very positive sign.
Speaker 2: We had some really sad news this week, but also
Speaker 2: a celebration of an incredible legacy in a life.
Speaker 1: You know him from Dug Dynasty.
Speaker 2: Phil Robertson passed away this week and many people may
Speaker 2: not realize this, he was actually incredibly influential in your
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen presidential campaign. He went all in for you
Speaker 2: and even did an ad for you. Some thought that
Speaker 2: was political suicide for Duck Dynasty, the brand, Oh don't
Speaker 2: get involved in politics. Whatever you do, just you know,
Speaker 2: be Dug Dynasty stuff well, you know, in Walmart, and
Speaker 2: just be famous. He was not afraid to take a
Speaker 2: stand for what he believed in, whether it was his
Speaker 2: faith or in politics. And that's one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why I absolutely love the legacy of Phil Well.
Speaker 3: Phil Robertson was extraordinary. He was one of a kind.
Speaker 3: He was truly an American original.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: He passed this week at age seventy nine. And and
Speaker 3: and Phil built a business empire as the the the
Speaker 3: founder of Duck Commander, and and and on television, he was,
Speaker 3: you know, a unique character. He and his family with
Speaker 3: their long scraggly beards, with their love of hunting, with
Speaker 3: their real I mean, there was a genuineness to fill.
Speaker 3: And then there is to his whole family that that
Speaker 3: is it is spectacular and and and there is also
Speaker 3: a love of a love of Jesus, a love of God,
Speaker 3: an open embrace of faith, which which frankly you don't
Speaker 3: see on TV very much. And and and it is
Speaker 3: part it was integral to who Phil was. I I
Speaker 3: was really blessed I got to know Phil, I admired him,
Speaker 3: I considered him a friend, and I got to say,
Speaker 3: you know it, one of the coolest things I've ever
Speaker 3: done in my life is I got to go duck
Speaker 3: hunting with Phil. And this was during the twenty sixteen
Speaker 3: presidential campaign. They invited me to come to his home,
Speaker 3: and so I came to his home and went and
Speaker 3: had dinner with him and the whole family, which was
Speaker 3: really cool. And then then we got up at four
Speaker 3: in the morning the next morning and went to the
Speaker 3: duck blinde. And listen, you and I both enjoy hunting.
Speaker 3: Hunting is a lot of fun. I've hunted with a
Speaker 3: lot of different people. I will tell you, hands down,
Speaker 3: Phil Robertson is the best shot with a shotgun I've
Speaker 3: ever seen in my life.
Speaker 2: Like, like, we're not the only person that's told me that.
Speaker 2: I was talking with another friend that went and hunted
Speaker 2: with him. They said like he was next level, like
Speaker 2: completely different level, that it was just in his blood
Speaker 2: and he knew how to shoot. And it was just like,
Speaker 2: oh wow, Like this is like Olympic level is I
Speaker 2: was described to me this week.
Speaker 3: So we would be in the blind and you see
Speaker 3: some ducks flying over the horizon, and Phil would take
Speaker 3: a shot at a distance. I wouldn't even pick up
Speaker 3: my gun, like it's a distance, like there's no way
Speaker 3: on Earth I'm hitting that bird. If the duck flies
Speaker 3: over by us, I'll shoot it. But like that, like
Speaker 3: he he. That was the thing that really stood out
Speaker 3: is that he would shoot ducks at a distance that
Speaker 3: was like fifty percent further than any other duck hunter
Speaker 3: I've ever seen. And as I said, they were far
Speaker 3: enough away that I didn't even buy I'm an okay
Speaker 3: shot with a shot, and I could hold my own,
Speaker 3: but these ducks were so far away I wouldn't waste
Speaker 3: the shells. And it was It was impressive to watch.
Speaker 3: He was also just just real. He was fun. All Right,
Speaker 3: I'm gonna tell you a neat Phil Robertson story that
Speaker 3: he told me.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 3: So, Phil was a very good athlete. He was actually
Speaker 3: the starting quarterback at Louisiana Tech University. I did not
Speaker 3: know that he was the starting quarterback. And then one
Speaker 3: day he quit. He quit the team and said, I'm
Speaker 3: not gonna play anymore. Now, do you know who his
Speaker 3: backup quarterback was?
Speaker 1: Who was that?
Speaker 3: It's a guy named Terry Bradshaw.
Speaker 1: Is that why he quit?
Speaker 3: Nope, Nope, that's not why he quit. So Terry Bradshaw, who,
Speaker 3: for those of you who are not not football fans,
Speaker 3: is one of the greatest NFL quarterbacks ever to play,
Speaker 3: was a quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Is a legendary quarterback.
Speaker 3: Terry Bradshaw was Phil Robertson's backup. He was not getting
Speaker 3: a ton of playing time because Phil Robertson was the starter.
Speaker 3: He quit because football season interfered with hunting season. And
Speaker 3: so the story Phil told me is is his coach
Speaker 3: came to his apartment and was gonna was trying to
Speaker 3: convince Phil to come back and play football. And Phil said, hey, coach, coach,
Speaker 3: come on in, come on in. Hey, he said, come
Speaker 3: on in the bathroom. I'm cleaning a deer here in
Speaker 3: the bathroom in my bathtub.
Speaker 1: So the coach which comes in and he's.
Speaker 3: Cleaning a deer, and the coach says, Phil, I'm not
Speaker 3: going to convince you to come back and play football,
Speaker 3: am I? And Phil says no, not a chance. But
Speaker 3: but I'm really glad you came over. And so he
Speaker 3: quit and Terry Bradshaw, a legend was born, and then
Speaker 3: a second legend, Phil Robertson was born because his love
Speaker 3: of hunting led him led him to to to form
Speaker 3: for Duck Commander, to start Duck Dynasty and one of
Speaker 3: the coolest things. So in twenty sixteen, he cut a
Speaker 3: TV commercial for my presidential campaign and like the image
Speaker 3: of it. It's the two of us hunting together and
Speaker 3: wearing camo and we got face paint and he's talking.
Speaker 3: But I want to play that that ad. You don't
Speaker 3: have the visuals, but you can google it if you
Speaker 3: want to watch the visuals. And it was classic. But
Speaker 3: this is this is all Phil, And I'll just say this.
Speaker 3: Not a word of this was scripted. They just pointed
Speaker 3: the camera at him and said, Phil talk, and this
Speaker 3: is what he said.
Speaker 1: And by the way, let's meet.
Speaker 2: This has got to be the only presidential campaign ad
Speaker 2: that actually starts with duck calling. I just want to
Speaker 2: point that out, because Phil is calling in the Ducks
Speaker 2: and that's the first thing you're going to hear.
Speaker 4: Our qualifications for President of the United States or rather,
Speaker 4: Nara is here.
Speaker 1: She's got me?
Speaker 4: Does he or she love us?
Speaker 1: And he or she do the job?
Speaker 4: And finally, well to kill a duck and put him
Speaker 4: in a pot and make him a good duck Combo.
Speaker 4: I've looked at the candidates. Ted Kruse is my man.
Speaker 4: He fits the bill, He's got me, he loves us,
Speaker 4: he's a man for the job, and he will go
Speaker 4: duck hunt. Because today we're going Ted Krues is my man.
Speaker 4: I'm voting Park Cruise. The reason we're going to vote
Speaker 4: for you, all of us, is because you're one of us,
Speaker 4: my man. That's why looking for you. It's no ever.
Speaker 2: I got to say, it might be one of the
Speaker 2: best ads I've ever seen. It's the closest you'll ever
Speaker 2: be to Rambo Senator uh with a face paint.
Speaker 1: But but this was a big.
Speaker 2: Risk for him, and I'm sure there was a lot
Speaker 2: of pr people around him, like why do you want
Speaker 2: to get involved in politics? Gonna alienate people that could
Speaker 2: be you know, duck commander friends and and people that
Speaker 2: could buy stuff from you. Why do you want to
Speaker 2: get into politics? He believed in you that much, he said,
Speaker 2: I don't care.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look if he was listening to pr people. I
Speaker 3: I certainly saw no evidence of it. I think he's
Speaker 3: a man who followed what he believed was right, and
Speaker 3: he spoke out and he spoke the truth. You know.
Speaker 3: One of the things I loved about Duck Dynasty is
Speaker 3: is that his faith was real and he and he
Speaker 3: talked about it, and he was proud to to to
Speaker 3: demonstrate the love of Jesus every day. And I'll tell
Speaker 3: you a really cool follow up. So he cut that
Speaker 3: ad and and I asked Phil, hey, would you come
Speaker 3: to Iowa? Would you campaign with me on the ground
Speaker 3: in Iowa. Now it was in the middle of duck
Speaker 3: season and Phil had gone hunting every single day of
Speaker 3: duck season every year for more than forty years. He
Speaker 3: had never missed a day. And so we'd asked him
Speaker 3: to come. We were having a big rally in Iowa.
Speaker 3: We asked him, Phil, you would you fly up to
Speaker 3: Iowa and join us? And we didn't get a definite answer.
Speaker 3: He had the invite and he told me he actually
Speaker 3: went to went to the Duck blind at at you know,
Speaker 3: four four thirty in the morning, and he was sitting
Speaker 3: there and he said he sat there like twenty minutes,
Speaker 3: and then he got up and left and got on
Speaker 3: a plane and flew to Iowa. And it was the
Speaker 3: first day in over forty years that he didn't go
Speaker 3: duck hunting on a day during duck season, and instead
Speaker 3: he came and campaigned in Iowa.
Speaker 1: He was awesome. Some of what the impact did that
Speaker 1: have in Iowa?
Speaker 2: When when he I mean because this was at the
Speaker 2: height of their fame obviously in sixteen.
Speaker 3: Well look we wont Iowa on Iowa, uh decisively, and
Speaker 3: and and and ended up winning twelve states in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: and Phil's coming there UH played a uh made a
Speaker 3: real difference. And I'll tell you Phil spoke at that rally,
Speaker 3: and my dad spoke and and and Phil and my
Speaker 3: dad were about the same age.
Speaker 5: It.
Speaker 3: Phil was a little bit younger than my dad. My
Speaker 3: dad's eighty six. Phil was seventy nine when he passed.
Speaker 3: But but they got along. And my father's a pastor
Speaker 3: and and and and like Phil, my dad is is unapologetic.
Speaker 3: Like like my father Ben, you know my dad well
Speaker 3: he is. He's incapable of guile, He's incapable of telling you,
Speaker 3: of not telling you what he thinks it really is
Speaker 3: sometimes to his own fault. My dad will just say
Speaker 3: exactly what he thinks. Consequences be damned. Uh and and
Speaker 3: it's a and And the back to back at that
Speaker 3: rally of having Phil talk and my dad talk, that
Speaker 3: combination was was really really potent.
Speaker 1: It's it's an incredible story.
Speaker 2: I know you you you know the family as well,
Speaker 2: and I know you wanted to say to them obviously
Speaker 2: it's something about their father passing, and just how thankful
Speaker 2: you are for the legacies.
Speaker 3: Left well, look to the to the entire family, to
Speaker 3: Jason and Willie and cy and and and the entire
Speaker 3: extended family. You guys have had an incredible impact on America.
Speaker 3: You've had an incredible impact touching people's lives, You've had
Speaker 3: an incredible impact speaking up for for ordinary Americans. But
Speaker 3: but also you guys have powerfully spread the gospel. And
Speaker 3: I appreciate that, that cheerful, happy warrior, that unapologetic willingness
Speaker 3: to speak truth. Look, we are sad that that Phil
Speaker 3: is not with us. We are mourning, and I'll tell
Speaker 3: you Heidi and I are praying for the family that
Speaker 3: is mourning the loss of of the patriarch. But at
Speaker 3: the same time, we're celebrating a life incredibly well lived,
Speaker 3: and and and he's with Jesus now and and and
Speaker 3: Phil we love you all.
Speaker 2: Right, Senata, So let's dive into this other issue that
Speaker 2: really is an interesting one. You've got a lot to
Speaker 2: say about the Trump Justice Department telling the American Bar
Speaker 2: Association that it will no longer comply with ratings for
Speaker 2: judicial nominees.
Speaker 1: Now, explain the politics behind this.
Speaker 2: The ABA has had a lot of power and they're
Speaker 2: basically now saying we're not going to let you guys
Speaker 2: have that power because there's been a lot of bias
Speaker 2: coming out of the American Bar Association.
Speaker 3: Well, the American Bar Association, it's a national organization of lawyers,
Speaker 3: and it is a left wing advocacy group. It is
Speaker 3: not fair, it is not impartial. It is a radical
Speaker 3: left organization. And the ABA has had a formal role
Speaker 3: in judicial selection for seventy five years. It started rating
Speaker 3: judicial nominees in nineteen fifty three, and an until Hill
Speaker 3: two thousand and one, the ABA actually had a formal
Speaker 3: role evaluating judicial nominees before they were nominated. So a
Speaker 3: president a Department of Justice and Administration would would share
Speaker 3: with the ABA, Hey, we're thinking of nominating Ben Ferguson
Speaker 3: to be a federal judge. And they'd go and research
Speaker 3: and interview former clients, and at some point people would say, wait,
Speaker 3: Ben's not even a lawyer, How the hell is he
Speaker 3: going to be a judge? Like, you probably should go
Speaker 3: to law school first. And by the way, that point
Speaker 3: is not crazy. But they engaged that they would do
Speaker 3: a formal role and they would rate the qualifications of
Speaker 3: judicial nominees. Now here's the problem. For decades, the ABA's
Speaker 3: qualification measures were wildly biased. So, for example, Robert Bork,
Speaker 3: Robert Borke. Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Borke to the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court in nineteen eighty seven. Robert Bork was, by any measure,
Speaker 3: one of the most qualified federal judicial nominees in the
Speaker 3: history of this country. Robert Bork had been the Solicitor
Speaker 3: General of the United States, the chief lawyer for the
Speaker 3: United States in front of the Supreme Court of the
Speaker 3: United States. Robert Bork had been one of the most
Speaker 3: renowned and respected law professors for decades. Robert Bork had
Speaker 3: been a federal judge on the US Court of Appeals
Speaker 3: for the DC Circuit and so a remarkable career. And
Speaker 3: yet the ABA when they evaluated Robert Borke, they coned
Speaker 3: he was quote not qualified to be a judge. They
Speaker 3: also concluded the same thing for Frank Easterbrook, again, brilliant,
Speaker 3: brilliant judge, brilliant professor, one of the greatest judges to
Speaker 3: have ever served on the Court of Appeals. Frank Easterbrook,
Speaker 3: the ABA concluded he was not qualified. Also Edith Jones.
Speaker 3: Edith Jones is a judge on the Fifth Circuit Federal
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals down in Texas. I know Judge Jones well.
Speaker 3: She's a phenomenal jurist, one of the best and most
Speaker 3: conservative of judges in the entire country. The a BA
Speaker 3: rated her not qualified. Well. The breaking news is this
Speaker 3: week the Trump Justice Department announced the a BA will
Speaker 3: no longer have a role in judicial selection. They will
Speaker 3: no longer have a role in vetting. They're out and
Speaker 3: and and the Department of Justice said, you know what,
Speaker 3: they can chime in like any other left wing advocacy group,
Speaker 3: but they don't have a role in this process.
Speaker 2: This is going to have, like I think, a big
Speaker 2: impact on the quality BONDI informing the a b A
Speaker 2: that they'll no longer enjoy the special access to judicial nominees.
Speaker 2: And the left, by the way, when that news came out,
Speaker 2: they totally freaked out. And I think that also shows
Speaker 2: just how much they were depending on the ABA to
Speaker 2: get rid of good candidates that were maybe more conservative.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and and and so Pambondi sent a letter to
Speaker 3: the president of the a B A and and and
Speaker 3: she said, quote, well, the a BA is free to
Speaker 3: come in on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations.
Speaker 3: There is no justification for treating the ABA differently from
Speaker 3: such other activist organizations, and the Department of Justice will
Speaker 3: not do so. And so previously the Office Illegal Policy,
Speaker 3: which is the office within the Department of Justice that
Speaker 3: handles judicial selections, they changed. They had previously directed judicial
Speaker 3: nominees to provide a waiver to the ABA to let
Speaker 3: the ABA access non public information, including bar records. And
Speaker 3: so no longer is the Department of Justice going to
Speaker 3: tell judicial nominees give the ABA special access. That is
Speaker 3: over and moreover, Pambondi says, quote nominees will also not
Speaker 3: respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not
Speaker 3: sit for interviews with the ABA. In other words, you
Speaker 3: can be like every other whack job organization on the left,
Speaker 3: but you're not going to have any special access whatsoever.
Speaker 3: This is something I've called for a long time. I
Speaker 3: have for years, for more than a decade, advocated that
Speaker 3: the A B a BA is wildly biased and it
Speaker 3: should it should not have a special role in the process.
Speaker 3: And I want to commend President Trump and Pambondi. It's
Speaker 3: the right thing to do.
Speaker 1: Sinaer.
Speaker 2: We hear a lot about bias and and biased against conservatives,
Speaker 2: but my other question is were they also biased in
Speaker 2: advocating for liberals.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, they are a hard left advocacy organization masquerading as
Speaker 3: a non partisan professional organization. And Joe Biden over the
Speaker 3: last four years nominated over and over again radicals and zealots,
Speaker 3: many of whom were wildly unqualified, and the ABA was
Speaker 3: more than happy to stamp them with a rating of
Speaker 3: qualified and and and one example is is Charnette Charnelle
Speaker 3: Bagel Congrin, who was wildly unqualified, and yet the ABA
Speaker 3: happily deemed her qualified and rather than me layout how
Speaker 3: bad she was. I want you to list into this
Speaker 3: cross examination from my colleague John Kennedy to this judicial
Speaker 3: nominee and the Senate Judiciary Committee here, give a listen.
Speaker 5: Thank you, mister chairman, and congratulations to all of you.
Speaker 5: Judge on the far end, tell me what Article five
Speaker 5: of the Constitution does.
Speaker 6: Article five is not coming to mind.
Speaker 5: At the moment. How about Article two?
Speaker 6: Neither is article two?
Speaker 5: Okay? Do you know what proposivism is?
Speaker 6: In my twelve years as an assistant Attorney General and
Speaker 6: my nine years serving as a judge, I was not
Speaker 6: faced with that precise question. We are the highest trial
Speaker 6: court in Washington State, so I'm frequently faced with issues
Speaker 6: that I'm not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law,
Speaker 6: our research, and apply the law to the facts presented
Speaker 6: to me.
Speaker 5: Well, you're going to be faced with it as if
Speaker 5: you're confirmed. I can assure you of that.
Speaker 2: He was dumbfounded at the end there, like, I can't
Speaker 2: believe you don't know this.
Speaker 3: Well, And let me underscore how simple the first two
Speaker 3: questions are that he asked. So the Constitution has seven articles.
Speaker 3: It's not a very long document. Article five is the
Speaker 3: article through that lays out the process for amending the Constitution.
Speaker 3: It's fairly basic. That was his opening question, she had
Speaker 3: no idea what Article five was. Article two is even
Speaker 3: more fundamental, so the first three articles the constitution. Article
Speaker 3: one creates the Congress, Article two creates the President and
Speaker 3: the executive branch, and Article three creates the federal Judiciary.
Speaker 3: To not know what Article two is is stunning to
Speaker 3: give you a sense you will flunk constitutional law and
Speaker 3: not graduate law school if you don't know what Article
Speaker 3: two is. She was being nominate needed to be what
Speaker 3: is called an Article three judge. I assumed she had
Speaker 3: no idea what Article three was, and nevertheless the ABA
Speaker 3: said she's qualified to be an Article three judge even
Speaker 3: though she has no idea what it is. I'm very
Speaker 3: glad the ABA no longer has a role in making
Speaker 3: those determinations.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Sentner,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
Speaker 2: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts
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 the Ben Ferguson
Speaker 2: podcasts and the Senat and I will see you back
Speaker 2: here for the weekend review on Saturday morning,