Speaker 1: Welcome. It's Verdict with Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you. Senator.
Speaker 1: Nice to chat with you today. Many people are on
Speaker 1: the road going to see family for Thanksgiving and listening
Speaker 1: to this podcast, and I want to start with some
Speaker 1: good news, and that is we are seeing a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure on a lot of senators in DC on
Speaker 1: this gay marriage vote. Before we get into the pressure
Speaker 1: side of things, I want to go step backwards for
Speaker 1: people that may have missed this important issue. Explain this
Speaker 1: vote and explain the mike Le amendment that is so
Speaker 1: important to protect religious institutions, schools, and private schools especially
Speaker 1: from being persecuted by our government. That's why this amendment
Speaker 1: for mike Le is so important. Well, Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: are pushing through a bill that embraces and codifies in
Speaker 1: the federal law gay marriage. Twelve Republicans in the Senate
Speaker 1: have supported that bill. Now, people, both Republicans and Democrats
Speaker 1: have different views on gay marriage, and there's no doubt
Speaker 1: that views on gay marriage have changed and changed a
Speaker 1: lot with the American people over the last ten years.
Speaker 1: The biggest danger of this vote is that it will
Speaker 1: empower the Biden administration and in particular, the Biden irs
Speaker 1: to target people of faith, and by that I mean churches,
Speaker 1: I mean universities, I mean K through twelve schools, I
Speaker 1: mean charities, any organizations that, because of their faith, believe
Speaker 1: marriage is the union of one man and one woman
Speaker 1: and do not embrace same sex marriage. And what it
Speaker 1: will empower the biden Irs to do is to go
Speaker 1: after those institutions and persecute them, to strip them of
Speaker 1: their five oh one C three status, to bar them
Speaker 1: from engaging with the government in providing sir verses to
Speaker 1: the public. We've seen this happen. For example, the city
Speaker 1: of Philadelphia did this to Catholic Charities because Catholic Charities
Speaker 1: in Philadelphia, when it came to adoptions, would not facilitate
Speaker 1: adoption to a same sex couple. The City of Philadelphia said,
Speaker 1: Catholic Charities is out of the business of adoption. We
Speaker 1: won't allow them to assist with adoption. Now, mind you,
Speaker 1: there are lots of other adoption agencies. So if the
Speaker 1: same sex couple in Philadelphia wanted to adopt a child,
Speaker 1: they could do so. They just couldn't conscript Catholic Charities
Speaker 1: to doing so. In a way, they believed was contrary
Speaker 1: to their faith that particular policy was challenged when all
Speaker 1: the way to the Supreme Court was struck down. The
Speaker 1: real world consequence of this bill before the Senate is
Speaker 1: the Biden IRS will now have an excuse to target
Speaker 1: and go after, for example, Liberty University. On the last podcast,
Speaker 1: I predicted Liberty University would be the very first target
Speaker 1: of the Biden IRS to try to deny their five
Speaker 1: O one C three status. So to prevent that, Mike Lee,
Speaker 1: Senator Mike Lee from Utah is introduced an amendment that
Speaker 1: is an iron clad amendment that prohibits the IRS and
Speaker 1: the Biden administration from targeting organizations because of their views
Speaker 1: on marriage. Now, what's the problem, Well, the Democrats have
Speaker 1: put fake religious liberty protections into their bill, and particularly
Speaker 1: they've said nothing in this bill will deny people their
Speaker 1: five oh one C three status. Here's the problem. The
Speaker 1: Biden IRS would say, well, no, no no, it's not the
Speaker 1: bill that's anying them. It's us that's sedying them. It's
Speaker 1: it's a classic lawyer sleight of hand that leaves a
Speaker 1: gaping whole. Now, so far, the Democrats have refused to
Speaker 1: accept Mike Lee's amendment why have they refused to accept
Speaker 1: Mike Lee's amendment because twelve Republicans are giving them the
Speaker 1: votes they need, so they don't have to accept Mike
Speaker 1: Lee's amendment. They got the votes, so they're response to
Speaker 1: Mike Lee has been pound Sand. On Monday, the Monday
Speaker 1: after Thanksgiving, we have a comeback vote Monday at five
Speaker 1: thirty pm. It is a sixty vote threshold to move
Speaker 1: this vote forward. That means if just three of the
Speaker 1: twelve Republicans who voted with the Democrats say we will
Speaker 1: not vote for cloture. We will not vote to move
Speaker 1: this bill forward unless you adopt the Micly amendment, one
Speaker 1: of two things will happen. Either number one, the Democrats
Speaker 1: say okay, will adopt the Micle amendment, in which case
Speaker 1: it gets adopted and then the bill passes. Or number two,
Speaker 1: the Democrats say no, Pound Sand, in which case the
Speaker 1: bill doesn't pass. But what that takes is three of
Speaker 1: the twelve to say, damn it, we're not going to
Speaker 1: be responsible for empowering the Biden irs to persecute people
Speaker 1: of faith. And I got to say, I think that
Speaker 1: is just an incredibly important issue that a week ago
Speaker 1: many people didn't understand. I will say I do think
Speaker 1: that this podcast has helped increase the number of people
Speaker 1: who understand what's at stake. It's so important and if
Speaker 1: you are about to check out for the holidays, we
Speaker 1: all do it. We all spend time with our families
Speaker 1: before you check out. You need to be calling your senator.
Speaker 1: You need to be making sure they fill the pressure
Speaker 1: over the holidays and tell them that they need to
Speaker 1: stand up, especially if it's one of these twelve. We
Speaker 1: talked about this in the last podcast. You can go
Speaker 1: back and listen and that list is there for you
Speaker 1: of those senators that you need to be talking to
Speaker 1: and let them know we need to flip them and
Speaker 1: make sure that some of them, at least three or
Speaker 1: more support this Micle Amendment, which is so vitally important
Speaker 1: for this issue to protect religious liberty and so that
Speaker 1: the government doesn't have the ability to come out in attack.
Speaker 1: This is an important issue where we're winning right now.
Speaker 1: I love this part of the podcast because we get
Speaker 1: to encourage and inform you on what's really happening in Washington,
Speaker 1: and this is one of those issues that you need
Speaker 1: to get involved with. Ben. Let me explain also because
Speaker 1: It's not hard to see where the puck is going
Speaker 1: on this. I think you're going to end up with
Speaker 1: most of those twelves saying, oh, I support the Micaly Amendment.
Speaker 1: If we had a vote, i'd vote for it. Well,
Speaker 1: in the Senate, just saying you'd vote for it when
Speaker 1: it's tied up, say, is a fifty vote threshold with
Speaker 1: a Democrat majority is not really saying you care about it.
Speaker 1: That's what's called a show vote. Yeah, oh sure, I'm
Speaker 1: for that. No, we don't get that. Okay, well, never mind,
Speaker 1: I don't really care much. I'll let it go. The
Speaker 1: only leverage the minority has is to use sixty vote
Speaker 1: thresholds and deny your vote unless the majority gives in.
Speaker 1: As I said, one of the main Democrat sponsors was
Speaker 1: in the cloak room last week and was saying, well, sorry,
Speaker 1: the Democrats just aren't willing to accept this. Well, of
Speaker 1: course they're not. They'd be idiots if they were, because
Speaker 1: the Republicans started by saying we'll support you without it.
Speaker 1: Why would the D's move. The only way they will
Speaker 1: move is if we get forty one Republicans to say
Speaker 1: we will block cloture, and for that to happen. Three
Speaker 1: of the twelve Republicans has to say no Micaly amendments,
Speaker 1: no bill. It's exactly what you need to ask for.
Speaker 1: Make sure you reach out to these senators put pressure
Speaker 1: on them because they're going to come back from Thanksgiving
Speaker 1: break and this is going to be right up immediately.
Speaker 1: They're trying to get this through as quick as they
Speaker 1: can before people even know what even happened. But before
Speaker 1: I get into that part of the story, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you a little bit about my good friends
Speaker 1: over at Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone
Speaker 1: and nine Americans do, how would you like to know
Speaker 1: that with every phone call you make, you're supporting conservative causes.
Speaker 1: Well that's what Patriot Mobile does. And they use the
Speaker 1: same cell towers that you're on right now, meaning you
Speaker 1: get the same exact coverage that you're getting right now.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative mobile phone provider.
Speaker 1: They are a force for conservative values. Why because they
Speaker 1: take a portion of every bill that you pay and
Speaker 1: they find conservative causes, candidates and organizations that believe in
Speaker 1: the sanctity of life, freedom of speech, and the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: And they're winning if you're ready to have your dollars
Speaker 1: matter when you're paying a bill, switch to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: They can save you money over what you're paying right now.
Speaker 1: They can save you and your family money, and they
Speaker 1: even can save your business or small business money because
Speaker 1: they have an entire section of the business that's just
Speaker 1: dedicated to businesses. They offer the same nationwide coverage as
Speaker 1: all the other major carriers, but the difference is you
Speaker 1: actually get to stand up for what you believe in
Speaker 1: every time you pay that bill. So go online to
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, Patriot Mobile dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict. You'll get free activation and other major offers,
Speaker 1: and you can call them nine seven to Patriot. That's
Speaker 1: nine seven to Patriot, use the promo code Verdict. Senator,
Speaker 1: I want to move to another issue, and my social
Speaker 1: media is blown up over this. People have been reaching
Speaker 1: out and this is maybe one of the weirdest headlines
Speaker 1: I've seen a long time, that China is operating police
Speaker 1: stations in the United States of America. The FBI chief
Speaker 1: has now admitted that that is exactly what has happened here.
Speaker 1: The FBI Director Ray confirmed the bureau is investigating the
Speaker 1: Chinese government's efforts to set up police stations the United
Speaker 1: States America, saying he's very concerned about Beijing's outrageous transitional
Speaker 1: repression schemes. He says there's not only investigations in the US,
Speaker 1: but also in Europe, in Canada and elsewhere that we're
Speaker 1: spurred by safeguard defenders. It's a nonp an organization releasing
Speaker 1: a report on Chinese transitional policing gone wild, as they
Speaker 1: described it, with this Spain based human rights advocacy group,
Speaker 1: saying there are fifty four overseas Chinese police service stations
Speaker 1: operating in thirty countries across five continents that have been
Speaker 1: uncovered by the group so far, meaning there's probably more.
Speaker 1: Ray was grilled about the Chinese efforts by Senator Rick
Speaker 1: Scott during a Senate hearing on Thursday, right before everybody
Speaker 1: left for the holidays, and the FBI director pointed the
Speaker 1: finger directly at the Chinese leader. I want to play
Speaker 1: for everybody this audio. Take a listen to the FBI
Speaker 1: director admitting this is happening not just around the world,
Speaker 1: but in the United States of America right now. It's
Speaker 1: been reported that the Chinese Communist Party are operating police
Speaker 1: stations in the United States and efforts to surveil Chinese dissidents.
Speaker 1: It seems obvious the US shouldn't allow its most significant
Speaker 1: geopolical arrival and oppressive communist regime to establish police stations
Speaker 1: in the US. What a thor or jurisdiction does the
Speaker 1: CP have in the US? And I don't know if
Speaker 1: which one one is testifying. Well, Centator like you, I'm
Speaker 1: very concerned about this. We are aware of the existence
Speaker 1: of these stations. I had to be careful about discussing
Speaker 1: our specific investigative work. But to me, it is outrageous
Speaker 1: to think that the Chinese police would attempt to set
Speaker 1: up shop, you know, in New York, let's say, without
Speaker 1: proper coordination. It violates sovereignty and circumvents standard judicial law
Speaker 1: enforcement cooperation processes. And the reason the reason this is
Speaker 1: so important is because we have seen a clear pattern
Speaker 1: of the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party exporting their
Speaker 1: transder repression right here into the US. And we've had
Speaker 1: now a number of indictments that you may have seen
Speaker 1: of the Chinese engaging in uncoordinated quote unquote law enforcement
Speaker 1: action right here in the United States harassing, star talking, surveiling,
Speaker 1: blackmailing people who they just don't like or disagree with
Speaker 1: the she regime. And so it's a real problem, and
Speaker 1: it's something that we're talking with our foreign partners about
Speaker 1: as well, because we're not the only country where this
Speaker 1: has occurred. Can you do they don't have any right
Speaker 1: to be here? Right? Well, we're looking into the legal
Speaker 1: parameters of it, So I want to be a little
Speaker 1: bit careful to get not to get out over my
Speaker 1: skis on that, but I suffice to say I can
Speaker 1: tell you from an FBI director perspective, I'm deeply concerned
Speaker 1: about this, and I'm not going to just let it lie. Cenator.
Speaker 1: He says he's not gonna let it lie. Well, if
Speaker 1: that's the case, and if he's deeply concerned, how do
Speaker 1: we get the point where either here be they're set
Speaker 1: up and see they're operating. So the answer too, they
Speaker 1: don't have any right to be here, should have been
Speaker 1: hell no. And I got to say this actually underscores
Speaker 1: what the FBI should be focused on, instead of harassing
Speaker 1: and targeting the political enemies of the Biden White House,
Speaker 1: instead of raiding Mara Lago, instead of raiding the homes
Speaker 1: of pro life activists instead of investigating and persecuting parents
Speaker 1: who go to school boards. The FBI ought to be
Speaker 1: going after Chinese spies and ought to be going after
Speaker 1: these apparently police stations, Chinese police stations operating on US soil.
Speaker 1: Now the FBI would say we are well, you're not
Speaker 1: devoting enough resources because you say, well, gosh, I have
Speaker 1: to look into it. How about take all the folks
Speaker 1: you're using to play political enforcers and have them targeting
Speaker 1: the bad guys. Listen, China has been engaged in what
Speaker 1: they call Operation fox Hunt, and that is a global
Speaker 1: effort aimed at forcing Chinese dissidents, aimed at forcing wagers
Speaker 1: to return to China. And when this nonprofit that's based
Speaker 1: in Spain, when it published this report, the Chinese Ministry
Speaker 1: of Foreign Affairs told Elkoreo, a newspaper in Spain, quote,
Speaker 1: I don't see what is wrong with pressuring criminals to
Speaker 1: face justice with all the guarantees contained in Chinese law.
Speaker 1: And the Chinese Foreign Ministry continued, quote the sites you
Speaker 1: mentioned are not police stations or police service centers. They
Speaker 1: assist overseas Chinese nationals who need help in accessing online
Speaker 1: service platforms to get their driving licenses renewed and receive
Speaker 1: physical checkups for that purpose. It is stunning the words
Speaker 1: that China is saying right there. That's what's known as
Speaker 1: a lie. It's an obvious lie. I will say one
Speaker 1: of the things about the Chinese Communist Party they are liars,
Speaker 1: but they're really bad at it. They don't even really pretend.
Speaker 1: They're just horrible liars. And this is it's reminiscent of
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. You may remember the Trump administration closed
Speaker 1: the Chinese consulate in Houston, my hometown. Yeah, and closed
Speaker 1: it because the Chinese consulate, quote was a hub of
Speaker 1: spying an intellectual property theft. In other words, that had
Speaker 1: a consulate that was ostensibly doing all that stuff that
Speaker 1: that the Chinese Foreign Ministry said driver's licenses at assisting people.
Speaker 1: But what it really was doing is it was the
Speaker 1: central nerve center of a bunch of Chinese spies who
Speaker 1: were spying on people all throughout Houston and the region
Speaker 1: who were engaged in the theft of intellectual property. We're
Speaker 1: trying to steal intellectual property from from companies, from universities,
Speaker 1: from medical centers, and and who were also I listened,
Speaker 1: I talked to individuals who were involved in closing that consulate,
Speaker 1: and it was by all accounts a hellhole, literally with
Speaker 1: with with detention cells in there, with rats in there,
Speaker 1: and the Chinese behave with impunity. They are engaged in
Speaker 1: going essentially a new Cold War against US, and the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is not fighting back, which makes the Chinese
Speaker 1: communists only more aggressive. And I gotta say, Ben, right now,
Speaker 1: the fact that it was a Spanish nonprofit organization that
Speaker 1: highlighted this, what the hell is the Biden administration doing? Well,
Speaker 1: I was going after this, That's what I was going
Speaker 1: to ask you, because Ray even said this, he said,
Speaker 1: the reason there is this is so important is because
Speaker 1: we have seen a clear pattern of the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party, exporting their repression right here in
Speaker 1: the US. And we've had now a number of indictments
Speaker 1: that you may have seen of the Chinese engaging an
Speaker 1: uncoordinated quote unquote law enforcement actions right here in the
Speaker 1: United States of America, harassing, stocking, surveilling, blackmailing people who
Speaker 1: they just don't like or who disagree with the Ji regime.
Speaker 1: My question is we clearly have known about this. The
Speaker 1: only reason why they're now responding is because they're being
Speaker 1: asked by Senator Scott because of this human rights group
Speaker 1: that has exposed This is the reason why the Biden
Speaker 1: administration has allowed them to operate in the US because
Speaker 1: they're compromised with this deal that we now know about,
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden being the big guy Hunter Biden and
Speaker 1: the billions of dollars in loans and the millions of
Speaker 1: dollars coming into his family with these deals, I mean,
Speaker 1: how we just gave some our strategic or reserves and
Speaker 1: a tanker directly to a company that Hunter Biden apparently
Speaker 1: still has a financial stake in, at least on their
Speaker 1: corporate documents. The White House claims he sold it, but
Speaker 1: the corporate documents say no, he didn't. Well there, as
Speaker 1: you noted, there are serious concerns about corruption with Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: and corruption involving taking very substantial sums of money directly
Speaker 1: from the Chinese communists and business dealings with his son
Speaker 1: that need to be made public that I'm confident the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives is going to examine and and that
Speaker 1: need to be investigated in the Department of Justice, but
Speaker 1: but mind you, DJ is too busy going after Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to have time to do something like that. Although
Speaker 1: your question was, is the reason why they're doing it
Speaker 1: because Biden is compromise And I actually don't think that's
Speaker 1: the reason they're doing it. The Democrat Party was pro
Speaker 1: China long before Joe Biden. It's not because of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's issues of corruption that the Democrat Party is pro China.
Speaker 1: The Democrat Party is pro China because it is structurally
Speaker 1: pro China. If you look at the major funders of
Speaker 1: today's Democrat Party, they are big business, they are big Hollywood,
Speaker 1: they are big universities, and they are big tech. All
Speaker 1: four of those are in bed with communist China. And
Speaker 1: so the Democrat Party today cannot be vigorous standing up
Speaker 1: against communist China. Sure they can that, they can give
Speaker 1: a comment here or there, but they can't actually take
Speaker 1: action to stand up to communist China because the people
Speaker 1: writing the checks to them, they're all hunter Biden. That
Speaker 1: they're all in bed with prostitutes, smoking crack with Chinese communists. Now,
Speaker 1: to be clear, I mean that metaphorically other than erk Swawa,
Speaker 1: but that is the reality of today's Democrat Party. And
Speaker 1: for someone who says, oh, come on, Ted, you're being hyperbolic,
Speaker 1: I want to point out a vote that I forced
Speaker 1: last year in the United States Senate. I forced a
Speaker 1: vote that said that no government funds could be spent
Speaker 1: to facilitate the acquisition of electric cars or parts for
Speaker 1: electric cars that were manufactured with slave labor in concentration
Speaker 1: camps in Communist China. They're over one million weekers currently
Speaker 1: in concentration camps right Nowaday. We voted on the Senate floor,
Speaker 1: and every single Democrat except one, Joe Mansion, voted against
Speaker 1: that amendment. In other words, every Democrat, when given the chance,
Speaker 1: should the Biden White House be funding Chinese concentration camps
Speaker 1: with modern day slavery? Every single Democrats said you betcha
Speaker 1: and voted yes. That's today's Democrat Party. That's the fundamental problem.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you this, Ben, I'm a member of
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee. I'm a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Speaker 1: I believe both the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations
Speaker 1: Committee should hold hearings on Chinese police stations on US soil.
Speaker 1: We need to ascertain how widespread this is where they are,
Speaker 1: what they're doing, and we need to pressure the Biden
Speaker 1: administration to shut them down. Now, I don't know if
Speaker 1: that will happen. If we had won an election day,
Speaker 1: if we had Republican majorities on election day, I could
Speaker 1: go on this podcast and tell you that will happen.
Speaker 1: Because with a Republican majority, I have one hundred percent
Speaker 1: certainty we would have held those hearings and used the
Speaker 1: ability to pressure the Biden administration into action. With Democrat majorities,
Speaker 1: it comes down to Dick Durban and Bob Anendez, and
Speaker 1: maybe they'll hold the hearings, maybe they won't. What I
Speaker 1: can tell you is I'm going to do everything I
Speaker 1: can to press them to do that, and I hope
Speaker 1: they they do the right thing and hold those hearings
Speaker 1: and let the American people know what on earth is
Speaker 1: going on here. Lastly, on this subject Center, there's one
Speaker 1: thing that Race said at the very end of his
Speaker 1: testimony that was kind of shocking to me. He said
Speaker 1: the Justice Department might need to pursue quote, remedies, and
Speaker 1: there may be a State department dimension to this that
Speaker 1: we're looking into. If we're holding out for the State
Speaker 1: Department to fix this problem with China, how screwed, are we? Well, Actually,
Speaker 1: I don't take particular issue with that comment, because when
Speaker 1: you're dealing with a foreign nation, the State department is
Speaker 1: your principal mode of communication. And so, for example, one
Speaker 1: state department remedy is what the Trump administration did in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, which is shutting down a consulate. That's a
Speaker 1: major force of leverage. And so there's no doubt when
Speaker 1: interacting with China. Let's be clear, I'm not advocating going
Speaker 1: to war with communist China. No one in the right
Speaker 1: mind wants two superpowers with nuclear weapons to start shooting
Speaker 1: at each other. What I am advocating is we protect
Speaker 1: US sovereignty and we prevent the Chinese military and the
Speaker 1: Chinese police from engaging an unlawful conduct on United States soil.
Speaker 1: And that that is primarily a law enforcement action, that
Speaker 1: is the Department of Justice and the FBI, But the
Speaker 1: State Department also has an element in terms of exerting
Speaker 1: pressure and being willing to stand up and fight. But
Speaker 1: they've got to be willing to stand up. And as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, at least so far, the Biden administration has
Speaker 1: rolled over repeatedly for communist China. Yeah, to put it
Speaker 1: in perspective for everybody listening. The Chinese Police Station reportedly
Speaker 1: operates in Lower Manhattan. It's run by the American Changley
Speaker 1: Association in New York, Incorporated, which had its tax exempt
Speaker 1: status pulled by the RS and May after it failed
Speaker 1: to submit its taxes for three years in a row.
Speaker 1: The outlets of the documents show the nonprofit group was
Speaker 1: founded in twenty thirteen, so it's been around for a
Speaker 1: while in the US, and paid one point three million
Speaker 1: three years later for a suite of offices that houses
Speaker 1: this Chinese police station. So there you have it, Center.
Speaker 1: I want to move to another issue, and that is
Speaker 1: you predicted the future. It will go back to a
Speaker 1: tweet of yours from about a year ago. You said,
Speaker 1: the chances of the GOP retake the house in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two or over ninety percent. That's now happened. And
Speaker 1: you had a prediction. You said, come twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: Eric Squalwell, who likes to sleep with the Chinese enemy,
Speaker 1: Omar and others are getting ready to have a lot
Speaker 1: more time on their hands. Fast forward, Kevin McCarthy now
Speaker 1: says he wants to block three Democrats from committee's the
Speaker 1: same three that you said a year ago was going
Speaker 1: to happen. This is obviously very good news for a
Speaker 1: national security well it is. And so Kevin McCarthy has
Speaker 1: has announced publicly that that he is going to remove
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: and Eric Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee. And listen
Speaker 1: that this is an obvious step that McCarthy should take,
Speaker 1: and it makes sense. Although I will I will pause
Speaker 1: and say I regret that this is happening. And here's
Speaker 1: why this was all predicated on a year ago when
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi threw several Republicans off of committees. And I
Speaker 1: don't think either party's leader should have the authority to
Speaker 1: throw the other parties members off of committees. This will
Speaker 1: become an escalating war. And so when Pelosi, and by
Speaker 1: the way, she did this on the January sixth committee,
Speaker 1: that kangaroo that kangaroo court, when McCarthy wanted to put
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan and Jim Banks on the committee, Pelosi said
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, no, we don't actually want any Republicans
Speaker 1: who will vigorously question our witnesses. We don't want any
Speaker 1: Republicans who will take the other side. We don't want
Speaker 1: any Republicans who will defend Donald Trump, so we won't
Speaker 1: allow those Republicans on, only the ones that are willing
Speaker 1: to be useful idiots and say what we the Democrats
Speaker 1: want it. Really, that's not how Congress should work. Republicans
Speaker 1: should determine which Republicans are on committees. Democrats should determine
Speaker 1: which Democrats are on committees. Thankfully, that's the way the
Speaker 1: Senate works. So Chuck Schumer can't throw me off of
Speaker 1: any committee, and Mitch McConnell can't throw any Democrat off
Speaker 1: any committee. And actually the Senate works even better than
Speaker 1: that because on the Republican side, at least Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: can't throw me off any committee, whereas in the House,
Speaker 1: the Republican leader can remove Republicans from committees. The Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House has much more authority than the Senate
Speaker 1: majority leader. But where the House went last year was
Speaker 1: a truly unprecedented escalation. If Pelosi wanted to strip Swalwell
Speaker 1: from his committee assignment and say, look, Eric, you know
Speaker 1: the fact that you were sleeping with a Chinese spy,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a problem for you. Sitting on the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, so we're going to remove you. That actually
Speaker 1: would have made some sense if Nancy Pelosi had said
Speaker 1: to ilhan Omar, listen, you keep making anti Semitic comments,
Speaker 1: you keep repeating vicious anti Semitic tropes, We're not going
Speaker 1: to put you on the Foreigner Affairs Committee. That would
Speaker 1: have been a reasonable thing for Nancy Pelosi to do
Speaker 1: in her own party, if she actually cared about not
Speaker 1: being compromised to the Chinese Communist or standing up against
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. She didn't do that. Instead, she went after
Speaker 1: Republicans and engaged in partisan warfare. And I predicted then,
Speaker 1: I said, the obvious tit for tat is when Republicans
Speaker 1: take control, they're going to have to remove some of
Speaker 1: these obvious low hanging fruit. But the problem is this
Speaker 1: can only escalate. I don't think we should go down
Speaker 1: this road at all. And what's bizarre, it's actually a
Speaker 1: very interesting entree into the psyche of today's angry congressional
Speaker 1: Democrat because at the time Pelosi removed Republicans from committee assignments,
Speaker 1: they all knew Republicans were getting ready to take over.
Speaker 1: So this was not a mystery. When I sent my tweet,
Speaker 1: everyone agreed that Republicans were getting ready to take over.
Speaker 1: In fact, most of us thought it was going to
Speaker 1: be a much bigger majority than unfortunately we had. But
Speaker 1: they all knew, as I said in my tweet a
Speaker 1: year ago, the odds were ninety percent of greater than
Speaker 1: Republicans were getting ready to take over. So they did
Speaker 1: it anyway because they're just so angry burn it all down.
Speaker 1: They didn't care about where the next escalation would go,
Speaker 1: and I think that process is only going to continue.
Speaker 1: You look at Eric Squalwell for example, and one of
Speaker 1: the points that I think the media has missed Centator
Speaker 1: is the fact that you know, if there's a reason
Speaker 1: to have him not be on a committee, it's because
Speaker 1: if he was in the private sector. Many had pointed out,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't be able to get security clearance. It's not
Speaker 1: because he's a Democrat's because he's been compromised. And that's
Speaker 1: one of the facts that that some have brought up,
Speaker 1: but so many have also overlooked, is if you want
Speaker 1: to say that he shouldn't be on a committee, it's
Speaker 1: from that standpoint it shouldn't be. As you just mentioned it,
Speaker 1: Republicans attacking Democrats and it's escalating it. All right, we're
Speaker 1: gonna kick your guys off when we're in control and
Speaker 1: vice versa. That's not how government's supposed to work well.
Speaker 1: And I'll point out also so Swallwell and Shift are
Speaker 1: both on the Intent Eligence Committee and even within Congress.
Speaker 1: So the Intelligence Committee is special. It gets access to very,
Speaker 1: very classified materials. There's a whole range of classification within
Speaker 1: government materials, and you have the highest level of classification
Speaker 1: that they keep incredibly tight constraints on, and typically the
Speaker 1: Intel Committee gets access to that information and most other
Speaker 1: members of Congress don't. So I'm not on the Intel Committee.
Speaker 1: I'm on Foreign Relations and Judiciary, so I get access
Speaker 1: to a lot of classified information. But there's stuff Intel
Speaker 1: has that that I don't ordinarily have access to. And
Speaker 1: if I wanted to, I could be on Intel. I
Speaker 1: chose to be on Foreign Relations instead of Intel, which
Speaker 1: it has a broader jurisdiction. Intel is more specialized, but
Speaker 1: the Intel Committee in particular, you want to talk about,
Speaker 1: our most valuable secrets are secrets that implicate American lives,
Speaker 1: that potentially reveal American covert operatives, that literally can result
Speaker 1: in CIA officers being murdered by our enemies if they
Speaker 1: fall into the wrong hands. If there's one committee you
Speaker 1: want to make sure the members of that committee are
Speaker 1: not compromised in any way, are not going to share
Speaker 1: secrets with our enemies. It's the Intel Committee. And it
Speaker 1: is fairly stunning that both Swallowell and Schiff are on
Speaker 1: the Intel Committee today in January, They're not going to
Speaker 1: be yeah, which is obviously good news from that standpoint
Speaker 1: of a safety and security measure. Want to remind you
Speaker 1: don't forget share verdict with your family and friends. Hit
Speaker 1: that subscriber auto download button so you get this show
Speaker 1: three days a week, and get involved, and make sure
Speaker 1: you reach out to your senators, especially that list of
Speaker 1: twelve that we talked about on the gay marriage bill
Speaker 1: and the Micle Amendment, and make sure it's attached to
Speaker 1: the bill, it's on up or down vote on its own.
Speaker 1: Make sure you know what you're asking for. You can
Speaker 1: go back, can listen to the extended version of that
Speaker 1: conversation and a prior verdict, So grab that one. And
Speaker 1: it's the last time we're gonna talk to you before Thanksgiving.
Speaker 1: So to all your happy Thanksgiving Center. I know you
Speaker 1: want to say something to everybody listening about Thanksgiving as well. Well,
Speaker 1: I hope everyone has a wonderful and blessed Thanksgiving. I
Speaker 1: hope you enjoy some some turkey and stuffing and uh pie.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a great Thanksgiving with our family. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be with with our extended family. Uh Caroline is
Speaker 1: gonna make chocolate pies for everyone, and we're gonna have
Speaker 1: It's a Cuban Thanksgiving, so we'll be sitting around around
Speaker 1: the table after eating and we'll play some dominoes and
Speaker 1: be yelling. There's there's an old joke if if if
Speaker 1: Cubans can't yell, could they talk? And the answers no,
Speaker 1: that's the only way Cubans can communicate with each other's screaming. Um.
Speaker 1: But you know, I hope Thanksgiving as a time I'll
Speaker 1: probably play my nephew some some one on one basketball,
Speaker 1: which I've been playing him since he was about four
Speaker 1: years old, and I've been beating him and beating him
Speaker 1: and beating him. And he just graduated from Baylor, and
Speaker 1: I will say it's a depressing mark. He's now oh
Speaker 1: twenty two, twenty three years old you know, big strapping
Speaker 1: young guy who's the captain of his high school basketball team.
Speaker 1: And it's gotten to the point I can can still
Speaker 1: beat him, but he's now beating me, which is which
Speaker 1: is always a sort of it's actually it's it's both
Speaker 1: depressing and it's a moment of pride when you when
Speaker 1: you see someone that you've been been teaching a game
Speaker 1: and playing with since they were a tiny kid gaining skills.
Speaker 1: So I'll do that. Hopefully I won't break an ankle,
Speaker 1: but I hope everyone take time to be with your family.
Speaker 1: Take time to hug your kids, take time to hug
Speaker 1: your mom, hug your dad. Look, you don't you don't
Speaker 1: know if everyone that's that's at the family table tomorrow,
Speaker 1: if they'll be there for the next Thanksgiving. It's it's
Speaker 1: one of the great reminders that every day we have
Speaker 1: is a blessing and a gift from God. And and
Speaker 1: and I would encourage everyone take time, take rest, but
Speaker 1: but try to do also, particularly with your kids, try
Speaker 1: to remember what Thanksgiving is about, about giving thanks to God,
Speaker 1: giving thanks to the blessings you have. And one of
Speaker 1: the things we try to do with our girls every Sunday,
Speaker 1: as we drive to church in the car, we ask
Speaker 1: each each of our girls, both of our girls, Um,
Speaker 1: what are three things you're grateful for? And we try
Speaker 1: to make that a weekly and Heidi and I go around, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I would say take Thanksgiving to to at
Speaker 1: least have a little time of reflection for all the
Speaker 1: things we have to be thankful for. That that. You know,
Speaker 1: it's easy to be so angry, it's easy to be frustrated.
Speaker 1: There's lots to be angry about. There's lots to be
Speaker 1: frustrated about, but there's also lots to say. Thank you God,
Speaker 1: thank you for your incredible blessings. Thank you that we
Speaker 1: live in the United States of America. Thank you that
Speaker 1: we enjoy freedom. That thank you that that at least
Speaker 1: right now, these Chinese police stations are not coming to
Speaker 1: arrest me. That's that. That that that's something to be
Speaker 1: very grateful for. Thank you that that we enjoy peace
Speaker 1: and freedom and prosperity. That for almost the entirety of
Speaker 1: human history has not existed on planet Earth. That there
Speaker 1: is truly no better time to be alive than right
Speaker 1: now with all of the challenges and look, everyone, we're
Speaker 1: fighting against forces that are trying to tear down our country.
Speaker 1: That's a fight worth fighting. You know what I'm thankful for.
Speaker 1: I'm thankful that we get to fight that fight. I'm
Speaker 1: thankful that we get to be in the arena and
Speaker 1: fight for things that matter. And so love your kids,
Speaker 1: love your family, rest, eat, eat till your stuffed, watch
Speaker 1: some football, but spend time also giving thanks because we've
Speaker 1: got a lot to be thankful for, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: I got one last question. It's an important one center fried,
Speaker 1: smoked or oven baked. How's the turkey going to come
Speaker 1: out of your house? Oven baked? Ah? There we go? Traditional?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, No, I've never done the I think
Speaker 1: I've heard lots of good things about the fried thing,
Speaker 1: but I've never been adventurous enough to try that. Smoked
Speaker 1: is okay, But I liked oven make better. I just
Speaker 1: think it tastes better. And my mom makes really good stuffing,
Speaker 1: and and so we'll do we'll do that, which is fun.
Speaker 1: I will tell you my sister Miriam years ago when
Speaker 1: when when I was in college, my sister Miriam, who
Speaker 1: was nine years older than I am, and she's the
Speaker 1: sister who passed away from an overdose about a decade ago.
Speaker 1: But she was living in Philadelphia, and so I was,
Speaker 1: I don't know, nineteen twenty years old. So she's twenty eight,
Speaker 1: twenty nine, and her son, Joey, my nephew, was a
Speaker 1: little boy at the time, and I was going to
Speaker 1: spend Thanksgiving with Miriam at her apartment. And Miriam I
Speaker 1: loved her deeply. She was a good person, but she
Speaker 1: made lots and lots of foolish decisions, and she was
Speaker 1: a little scatter braid. So she was having her little
Speaker 1: brother over for Thanksgiving dinner and she'd never done that before,
Speaker 1: and so she put the turkey of the oven, but
Speaker 1: she didn't quite understand how long you needed to cook
Speaker 1: the turkey. So what I got here for Thanksgiving dinner,
Speaker 1: it wasn't ready, and it wasn't ready, and it wasn't ready,
Speaker 1: and it was finally ready at two in the morning.
Speaker 1: So we had Thanksgiving dinner at two in the morning.
Speaker 1: And Joey and I are just laughing at my sister.
Speaker 1: It was. It was a wonderful and fun time. But
Speaker 1: we're cracking up that, like, well done, Miriam at two
Speaker 1: a Thanksgiving dinner, you know? Not Julia Childs but you
Speaker 1: know what, it was family in there was love, so
Speaker 1: that that's what you want and Thanksgiving. Hey, at least
Speaker 1: she didn't leave the bag of the innards inside the cavity.
Speaker 1: I've had that experience of going to someone's house. They
Speaker 1: asked me to carve the turkey at our family friends.
Speaker 1: My dad looked at me and I looked at him
Speaker 1: and I was like, what do we do now? He
Speaker 1: was like, we take it out and we don't say
Speaker 1: a darn word about it. And that's what we did. Senator.
Speaker 1: Happy Thanksgiving to you in your family, for everybody listening,
Speaker 1: Havy Thanksgiving to you guys as well. Don't forget on Friday,
Speaker 1: we'll have a new episode for you, not a rerun,
Speaker 1: So on your way home from seeing family and friends,
Speaker 1: make sure you download Verdict. On Friday, we'll have a
Speaker 1: new episode for you. Then, Happy Thanksgiving. We'll see you
Speaker 1: back here on Friday morning.