Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It's Verdict with Center Ted Cruz. Week in Review, Ben
Speaker 2: Ferguson with you, and these are the stories that you
Speaker 2: may have missed that we talked about this week. First up,
Speaker 2: shocking funding for the United Nations going directly to Terris
Speaker 2: that we're attacking Israel.
Speaker 1: We'll have all the details on that.
Speaker 2: Plus, many Americans are very angry over massive funding still
Speaker 2: being forced down our throats to go to Ukraine. So
Speaker 2: what's behind this funding and why are they getting so
Speaker 2: much cash? And finally, could there be a unanimous decision
Speaker 2: from the Supreme Court over the Colorado case against Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump.
Speaker 2: It's the Week in Review and it starts right now.
Speaker 2: So let's follow the money here. If UNDRA is getting
Speaker 2: funds from the United Nations, and we're the biggest donor
Speaker 2: to the United Nations, we're giving money and it's being
Speaker 2: funneled to those that are helping carry out terrorist attacks
Speaker 2: as well as protecting terraces and the planning and the
Speaker 2: rockets that are being shot into Israel for for years now,
Speaker 2: while they've been in the same building.
Speaker 3: Now, that's exactly right. As The Times of Israel reported,
Speaker 3: unro's Gaza headquarters is located in Gaza City's upscale Remand neighborhood,
Speaker 3: an area that the Israeli the IDF had previously operated
Speaker 3: in and dismantled the local Hamas battalion and withdrawn its
Speaker 3: troops from And here's a quote from Colonel Benny Aharon
Speaker 3: from the IDF, who says, quote the IDF was here previously.
Speaker 3: The first time was to destroy the enemy. But when
Speaker 3: we were here the last time, we collected a lot
Speaker 3: of intelligence documents and findings, a lot of prisoners, and
Speaker 3: thanks to this we reached here. Now we carried carried
Speaker 3: out a targeted operation to take the capability away. We
Speaker 3: had a basis of information, but not enough to be
Speaker 3: able to dig down twenty meters to find it. Twenty
Speaker 3: meters is about sixty feet. We needed a bit more.
Speaker 3: There's information we get from prisoners, we capture from computers,
Speaker 3: we find from documents, maps, and they went down and
Speaker 3: discovered this terror tunnel. Hazan, who is tasked with coordinating
Speaker 3: the brigade's underground operation, said the main entrance to the
Speaker 3: tunnel was located under an Unrau school in the area.
Speaker 3: Wo and this look the un you want to talk
Speaker 3: about Number one the UN has always been just a
Speaker 3: pit of anti Semitism, anti Israel hatred. But they have
Speaker 3: funneled billions of dollars to UNRA, which in turn is
Speaker 3: supporting terrorists and supporting him and employing people who participated
Speaker 3: in the October seventh terror attack.
Speaker 2: What will America's response be to this, as the Biden
Speaker 2: administration said anything? And are there anyone in his administration
Speaker 2: or the UN ambassador asking questions saying what the hell
Speaker 2: is going on at the United Nations Relief and Work
Speaker 2: Agency that's been knowingly, as you described it, providing support
Speaker 2: Tomas terrorists who committed these atrocies against over one thousand
Speaker 2: Israelies and dozens of Americans as well, which I think
Speaker 2: has been overlooked as well by this administration.
Speaker 3: Yes, so sadly, the Biden administration from day one has
Speaker 3: been funneling money into Gaza. Look early on in the
Speaker 3: Biden administration, I led a group of seventeen senators saying
Speaker 3: do not give money to Gaza, because if you give
Speaker 3: money to Gaza, that will flow directly to Hamas and
Speaker 3: be used for terrorist activities. At the time I sent
Speaker 3: that letter, there were one hundred and fifty House Democrats
Speaker 3: who sent a letter to the administration saying, please do
Speaker 3: give money to Gaza even though it will likely be
Speaker 3: used by Hamas for terrorism. We now know because it's
Speaker 3: been publicly reported how the Biden administration resolved that issue.
Speaker 3: The Biden administration concluded that it was quote highly likely
Speaker 3: those are their terms, highly likely that money given to
Speaker 3: Gaza would be used by Hamas for terrorism. Now ordinarily
Speaker 3: been under US anti terrorism law. If it's highly likely
Speaker 3: the money will be used for terrorism, you can't send
Speaker 3: the money. That would be common sense. Well, what the
Speaker 3: Biden administration did instead is they formally waived US anti
Speaker 3: terrorism law because their political ideology, they so wanted to
Speaker 3: send the money they didn't care if it would be
Speaker 3: used by Hamas for terrorism. So, in a very real sense,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden the Democrats funded Hamas and the October seventh terror.
Speaker 2: Attack, which goes back back to the bigger question in
Speaker 2: the aid it looks like American aid. We say, hey,
Speaker 2: we're going to send some to Israel, but we're also
Speaker 2: wanting to send aid to Gaza. How do we not
Speaker 2: how do we assure that that money is not going
Speaker 2: to go directly in the hands of the terrorists.
Speaker 3: We can't and it is truly asinine. And in the
Speaker 3: wake of this horrific terror attack, what did Joe Biden
Speaker 3: the Democrats want to do. Let's send more money to Gaza.
Speaker 3: Let's send more money to Gaza. And my view is
Speaker 3: stop sending money to people who want to kill us.
Speaker 3: If you cannot assure that the money doesn't go to
Speaker 3: terrorists who want to murder Americans, don't send the money.
Speaker 3: And by the way, this past week, I let a
Speaker 3: group of senators urging the Justice Department to open a
Speaker 3: criminal investigation into a US based nonprofit that raises money
Speaker 3: for UNRA. And it's a group called UNRA USA, which
Speaker 3: is a nonprofit with the self described mission to support
Speaker 3: the quote work of UNRA through fundraising, education, and advocacy
Speaker 3: in the United States. And as I pointed out, here's
Speaker 3: what I wrote in the letter with several other senators. Quote,
Speaker 3: we write to call on you to open a criminal
Speaker 3: investigation into NRA USA, its principles, and its leadership for
Speaker 3: knowingly providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations including hamas.
Speaker 3: This support facilitated and continues to facilitate terrorism, including the
Speaker 3: October seventh terrorist attack in which Palestinian terrorists killed or
Speaker 3: kidnapped dozens of Americans and over one thousand, two hundred Israelis.
Speaker 3: According to its twenty twenty one annual report, NRA USA
Speaker 3: dispersed nearly five million dollars in donations to ANRA that year,
Speaker 3: making the organization onnra's largest institutional donor.
Speaker 2: I mean you hear that, and is an American taxpayer.
Speaker 2: It makes me angry to know that basically I'm funding
Speaker 2: the terrorists that took out these attacks, not just on
Speaker 2: the people in Israel. But we still have not, I think,
Speaker 2: gotten a full accounting from this administration on Americans that
Speaker 2: were killed and also taken hostage.
Speaker 3: Now, sadly that's right. And the Biden administration we've talked
Speaker 3: about before when it comes to foreign policy, it is
Speaker 3: all politics all the time, and they set aside US
Speaker 3: national security that they set aside the interest of protecting
Speaker 3: our allies, and they especially set aside the interest of
Speaker 3: protecting American citizens, and it's made the world much more dangerous.
Speaker 2: Sata, I want to ask you another question about just
Speaker 2: the response from this administration when this type of news
Speaker 2: comes out. There seems to be a no re response.
Speaker 2: Are a very timid response. And I worry that's because
Speaker 2: they've known that there's been this level of corruption for
Speaker 2: quite some time. They're just now being faced with it
Speaker 2: in the government. What do we When did they know
Speaker 2: about the corruption with with Andra and and when did
Speaker 2: the warning STEGN start hitting them?
Speaker 1: Was it before this attack or can they play done?
Speaker 3: No, We've known about it a long time, and I
Speaker 3: will say it's bad ding. When I questioned the Biden administration,
Speaker 3: when I questioned the State Department, and I press them,
Speaker 3: why do you keep giving hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 3: to Gaza. Gaza is run by Hamas. Hamas is the
Speaker 3: government of Gaza, And people.
Speaker 1: Don't believe you when you say that.
Speaker 2: Just the tunnel system that we've seen since they the
Speaker 2: Israelis have gone in is more than enough proof they.
Speaker 3: Can understand the Palestinians. So part of the leftist rhetoric
Speaker 3: they say Gaza is the largest open air prison on earth.
Speaker 3: That's a lie. You know, Gaza is not run by Israel.
Speaker 3: Gaza is run by the Palestinians. Israel left the Gaza Strip,
Speaker 3: So the Gaza Strip is a portion of what used
Speaker 3: to be Israel, and it is on the south west
Speaker 3: portion of Israel, and they just left Israel left and said,
Speaker 3: all right, there's a massive population Palestinians. You guys are
Speaker 3: in charge. You run it. And they had elections in Gaza,
Speaker 3: and the people of the Gaza Strip elected Hamas, which
Speaker 3: is which is a terrorist organization. It pledges the destruction
Speaker 3: of Israel and the death of Jews. That that is
Speaker 3: in its core mission. That's who the people of the
Speaker 3: Gaza Strip elected. Now understand, over the past decades, billions
Speaker 3: of dollars have flowed into the Gaza Strip in terms
Speaker 3: of relief, both from the United States, from Europe, from
Speaker 3: international agencies, from UNRA, and that money instead of actually
Speaker 3: helping the Gaza Strip, helping the Palestinians, instead of building
Speaker 3: schools and hospitals, instead of building roads, they take massive
Speaker 3: amounts of that money and they turn it directly to terrorism.
Speaker 3: So for example, and I've been to Israel many times
Speaker 3: and when you talk with it, with the Israeli forces,
Speaker 3: they explain money that goes into Gaza, say to build
Speaker 3: water pipes to bring fresh water to people who need it.
Speaker 3: They take the water pipes, they cut it into six
Speaker 3: feet segments and they use those water pipes, they turn
Speaker 3: them into rockets and they fill them with propellant and
Speaker 3: explosive and shrapnel ball bearings and metal that they can
Speaker 3: then fire into Israel. And so the result is the
Speaker 3: people of Gaza, the Palestinians, get denied relief they desperately need.
Speaker 3: Why because Hamas, who controls it, would rather kill Jews
Speaker 3: than help Palestinians. And every time I am asked the
Speaker 3: Biden administration, okay, how do you make sure the money
Speaker 3: going into Gaza doesn't go to terrorism? Their response, you
Speaker 3: know what, they say, what's that? Oh, we trust UNRA.
Speaker 3: Unra's great. Give it to UNRELL. Be fantastic. And it
Speaker 3: has been evident for a long time that UNRA and
Speaker 3: Hamas are utterly intertwined. A dozen UNRAU employees were actual
Speaker 3: terrorists on October seventh, and yet the Biden administration's position
Speaker 3: is we love UNRA.
Speaker 2: Final question on this, is there a way to actually
Speaker 2: stop the funds going into Gaza going into UNRA.
Speaker 3: And and what Donald Trump did it? Absolutely, you can
Speaker 3: stop it. The reason this money has gone is because
Speaker 3: Joe Biden places a higher priority on his political ideology
Speaker 3: than he does on keeping Americans safe, or keeping Israeli safe,
Speaker 3: in our allies safe, and the result is the world's
Speaker 3: a lot more dangerous.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this
Speaker 2: kind conversation, you can go back and listen to the
Speaker 2: full podcast from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. Senator,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of Americans that are very angry
Speaker 2: that so many Republicans defected and did this deal with
Speaker 2: Democrats to send more funding to Ukraine than we'll be
Speaker 2: spent to secure our southern border, putting Americans last and
Speaker 2: putting others first around the world. And this money we
Speaker 2: don't have, We're gonna have to borrow this money. We're
Speaker 2: gonna have to pay interest on this money. And it
Speaker 2: seems like there's no in insight for the obsession with
Speaker 2: sending money to Ukraine. We're sending more money to them
Speaker 2: than to Israel as well. Why did so many Democrats
Speaker 2: get along so well with so many Republicans on this one?
Speaker 2: How is it that so many Republicans can't just stand
Speaker 2: their ground.
Speaker 3: Well, it's incredibly frustrating. Look, you and I are recording this.
Speaker 3: It is ten oh seven pm Texas time on Tuesday night.
Speaker 3: I started this day this morning at a little after
Speaker 3: five am, voting on the Senate floor. And the reason
Speaker 3: we were voting at five am is because Chuck Schumer
Speaker 3: had kept the Senate in all night in order to
Speaker 3: try to force this vote through, and he succeeded. The
Speaker 3: vote was seventy to twenty nine. In other words, seventy
Speaker 3: Senators voted yes, twenty nine voted no. All the Democrats
Speaker 3: except three voted for the funding bill, and yet there
Speaker 3: were just twenty nine of us.
Speaker 4: I was a no.
Speaker 3: There were twenty nine of us, and that was twenty
Speaker 3: six Republicans and three Democrats who voted no. And listen,
Speaker 3: my reasons for voting no. We've talked about at length,
Speaker 3: but it's worth revisiting. There are elements of this bill
Speaker 3: that I support. There are even elements of this bill
Speaker 3: that I strongly support. So for example, this bill includes
Speaker 3: emergency military funding for Israel. I think that is incredible important.
Speaker 3: I think we should have passed that months ago. This
Speaker 3: bill includes funding to help Taiwan defend itself against communist China.
Speaker 3: I think that is very important for US national security.
Speaker 3: And then, most notably, this bill contains tens of billions
Speaker 3: of dollars of funding for Ukraine. Now, my views on
Speaker 3: that are mixed. I think it is very important that
Speaker 3: Russia lose and Putin loses, and there are certainly circumstances
Speaker 3: in which I would be willing to support military funding
Speaker 3: for Ukraine to stop Russia, because I think that's in
Speaker 3: the United States's interest. However, just a couple of months ago,
Speaker 3: every single Republican in the Senate we stood united, and
Speaker 3: we made a united stand. We said we will not
Speaker 3: fund additional money for Ukraine unless and until we secure
Speaker 3: our own border. That we're not going to spend billions
Speaker 3: to secure the border of another name until America secures
Speaker 3: our border. And we're not going to spend billions to
Speaker 3: stop the invasion of another country until we stopped the
Speaker 3: invasion of our own country. Now, when I said that,
Speaker 3: I meant it. Unfortunately, I think for a lot of
Speaker 3: my colleagues they did not, because, as you know, what
Speaker 3: happened was Chuck Schumer and the Democrats refused to negotiate
Speaker 3: and agree to meaningful border security. Instead, they demanded a
Speaker 3: bill that in many ways would have made the border
Speaker 3: crisis worse, would have codified Joe Biden's open borders, and
Speaker 3: when as soon as the bill TECHS was released, they
Speaker 3: negotiated in secret. Within twenty four hours, the bill had
Speaker 3: collapse because everyone reading it realized it was a terrible bill.
Speaker 3: What Republican leadership did next, I think was indefensible. They said, Okay,
Speaker 3: well a few people don't like Chuck Chuck Schumer's open
Speaker 3: border proposal, then never mind, will'll just pass all the
Speaker 3: funding with nothing on the border at all. I think
Speaker 3: that is an absurd position. But unfortunately seventy senators just
Speaker 3: cast a vote that way.
Speaker 2: So what happens now, because what we're hearing is that
Speaker 2: this could move the House side Speaker Johnson has indicated
Speaker 2: no or probably not, this isn't going to happen. And
Speaker 2: then now Democrats apparently, oh Kim Jeffreys is saying, all right,
Speaker 2: well they're going to get together and they're going to
Speaker 2: get a game planned or basically ram this down everyone's throat.
Speaker 2: What would that look like and what does that mean
Speaker 2: moving forward? On top of the fact that the House
Speaker 2: majority for Republicans just got slimmer as well tonight because
Speaker 2: we've lost a special election.
Speaker 3: Well that's exactly right. Look, if it is up to
Speaker 3: House leadership, if it's up to the Speaker of the House.
Speaker 3: This bill will not pass. The Speaker has said so
Speaker 3: unequivocally that the House is not going to take up
Speaker 3: and pass any military funding for Ukraine unlessen until it
Speaker 3: contains serious and meaningful border security. And by the way,
Speaker 3: the House has already passed strong border security legislation, that
Speaker 3: is HR two. The House passed that months ago. Chuck
Speaker 3: Schumer refused to take it up. I introduced HR two
Speaker 3: in the Senate. I'm the author of HR two in
Speaker 3: the United States Senate. I had it as an amendment
Speaker 3: to this bill. And by the way, I was clear,
Speaker 3: I said, you know what, if we pass HR two,
Speaker 3: I'll vote for this bill. If we pass strong legislation
Speaker 3: that forces Joe Biden to secure the border, I'm on board.
Speaker 3: And Schumer said, not just no, but hell no. Refused
Speaker 3: to allow a vote on HR two. When we were
Speaker 3: voting this morning, I was trying very hard to get
Speaker 3: a vote. Schumer locked down and blocked every single amendment vote.
Speaker 3: What I expect Republican leadership in the House to do
Speaker 3: is to take up this bill and to attach strong
Speaker 3: border security to it and then send it back to
Speaker 3: the Senate. That's what I think is likely to happen.
Speaker 3: There is a chance, and you referenced it. There's some
Speaker 3: Democrats talking about trying to do what's called a discharge petition,
Speaker 3: which is all the House Democrats teaming up with a
Speaker 3: handful of hawkish Republicans to basically overrule the Speaker of
Speaker 3: the House and force the bill onto the floor. I
Speaker 3: don't think that will happen, and it is the sort
Speaker 3: of move that would be just absolute rebellion by the
Speaker 3: rank and file Republican members. And but that is really
Speaker 3: what Mitch mcconnlin Chuck Schumer's plan is, is to try
Speaker 3: to use this bill to directly attack the Republican Speaker
Speaker 3: of the House. And I got to say, Ben, I
Speaker 3: don't understand why Senate Republican leadership is trying to lead
Speaker 3: the attack on House Republican leadership.
Speaker 2: Well, one final question this what was in it for
Speaker 2: Republicans that just caved on this? I mean, I know,
Speaker 2: and I'm cynical because I've been around it probably too long,
Speaker 2: and you're probably you see it every day, so you're
Speaker 2: cynical too. I'm like, all right, so what did you
Speaker 2: get like to make you not listen to the American
Speaker 2: people and just go along with this. What was the
Speaker 2: incentive there to side with the Democrats.
Speaker 3: So so let me be a little more forgiving in
Speaker 3: this sense. You know, there are folks that said, what
Speaker 3: did they get? They're compromised. Look, in my experience, that's
Speaker 3: not how Washington works. I don't think there's anybody with
Speaker 3: a folder of people having, you know, sexual relations with
Speaker 3: barnyard animals. And I don't think this is compromant. I
Speaker 3: don't think it's And I also don't think for the
Speaker 3: people who voted for this that what did they get?
Speaker 3: I don't think that they're like the Biden family in
Speaker 3: terms of making millions of dollars off of this. I
Speaker 3: don't think that's why it happened. At least among the Republicans.
Speaker 3: I think a great many of them passionately believe that
Speaker 3: it is in America's interest for you Ukraine to beat Russia.
Speaker 3: And I understand that sentiment. I think Russia's winning this
Speaker 3: war would be very, very bad for America and over
Speaker 3: the long term, would be much more expensive for American
Speaker 3: taxpayers than it would be to defeat Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 3: So want I want Russia to lose and I think
Speaker 3: it's combined with there are a lot of Republican senators
Speaker 3: that basically they don't like a fight, and in any
Speaker 3: given fight, when you ask them, all right, let's hold
Speaker 3: the line and say we won't do this unless we
Speaker 3: get real border security, they look at you and say, well,
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer would never do that. And I don't understand
Speaker 3: why they expect Chuck Schumer to stand strong and never blink,
Speaker 3: and yet their solution is always, well, therefore, we got
Speaker 3: to give Schumer what he wants. But that's temperamentally the
Speaker 3: view of far too many Republicans in Congress.
Speaker 2: As before, If you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 2: this conversation on this topic, you can go go back
Speaker 2: and now the podcast from earlier this week to hear
Speaker 2: the entire thing. I want to get back to the
Speaker 2: big story number three of the week.
Speaker 1: You may have missed.
Speaker 2: It's amazing that Colorado took it this far because to me,
Speaker 2: this seems like there's a decent chance this could be
Speaker 2: exactly what you thought. It could be a unanimous decision
Speaker 2: or even an eight to one.
Speaker 3: Well, and to underscore that, so we played obviously Justice
Speaker 3: Thomas and Justice Gorsich are conservatives. But let's listen now
Speaker 3: to Justice Elena Kagan, and remember what I said at
Speaker 3: the outset, which is that I believe this had a
Speaker 3: very good chance of being unanimous. I think the Chief
Speaker 3: Justice desperately wants it to be unanimous, and I think
Speaker 3: the way it gets to be unanimous, in particular, is
Speaker 3: the Chief Justice goes to Elena Kagan, who I think
Speaker 3: is the smartest of the liberal justices. She was the
Speaker 3: former dean of the Harvard Law School, she was former
Speaker 3: Solicitor General of the United States. She's very, very smart.
Speaker 3: Listen to Justice Kagan asking the Colorado lawyer Jason Murray question.
Speaker 2: Before I play that for you, I want to tell
Speaker 2: you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. For ten years,
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 2: When I say only trust me, they're the only one.
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile is a great support of the show. That's
Speaker 2: one of the reasons why I love them. I'm proud
Speaker 2: to partner with great commies at sport conservative Christian values.
Speaker 2: And when you switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do
Speaker 2: they give you dependable nationwide coverage, giving you the ability
Speaker 2: to access all of the major networks, meaning you get
Speaker 2: the same exact coverage that you have right now. You
Speaker 2: get that same coverage you've been accustomed to, but without
Speaker 2: funding the woke left, you may not realize that Big
Speaker 2: Mobile supports Democrats and democratic causes and candidates and Planned
Speaker 2: parenthood with millions and millions of dollars in donations. That's
Speaker 2: why when you look at my cell phone the top left,
Speaker 2: it says the word Patriot, I know every month when
Speaker 2: I get my bill, I am supporting conservative causes that
Speaker 2: I stand behind. They actually at Patriot Mobile take about
Speaker 2: five percent of your bill every month and they give
Speaker 2: it back to free speech organizations, religious freedom organizations, organizations
Speaker 2: that support and protect the sancty of life, the Second Amendment,
Speaker 2: as well as our military, our veterans, our first responder heroes,
Speaker 2: and our wounded warriors.
Speaker 1: They have one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: US based customer service team that makes switching easy and
Speaker 2: you can keep your same cell phone number you have
Speaker 2: right now, keep your same phone if you have that
Speaker 2: you have right now, or upgrade to a new one.
Speaker 2: Plus the team will help you find the best plan
Speaker 2: for your needs and many times it can save you
Speaker 2: big money every month. So go to Patriot Mobile dot
Speaker 2: com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 2: Or call them and make the switch nine seven to
Speaker 2: two Patriot. That's nine seven to two Patriot. Get free
Speaker 2: activation when you use the promo code Verdict that's Patriot
Speaker 2: Mobile dot com slash verdict. Or call them nine seven
Speaker 2: to two Patriot. That's nine seven to two Patriot. Take
Speaker 2: a listen to this very interesting back and forth between
Speaker 2: Justice Kagan and the Colorado lawyer Jason Murray.
Speaker 4: Justice Kavanaugh, there has to be some process for determining
Speaker 4: those questions, and then the question becomes does anything in
Speaker 4: the fourteenth Amendment say that only Congress can create that process?
Speaker 4: And Section five very clearly is not an exclusive provision.
Speaker 4: It says Congress shall have power.
Speaker 5: It maybe put most boldly, I think that the question
Speaker 5: that you have to confront is why a single state
Speaker 5: should decide who gets to be president of the United States.
Speaker 5: In other words, you know, this question of whether a
Speaker 5: former president is disqualified for insurrection to be president again
Speaker 5: is just say it. It sounds awfully national to me.
Speaker 5: So whatever means there are to enforce it would suggest
Speaker 5: that they have to be federal national means, why does
Speaker 5: you know if you weren't from Colorado when you were
Speaker 5: from Wisconsin or you were from Michigan, And it really,
Speaker 5: you know, what the Michigan Secretary of State did is
Speaker 5: going to make the difference between whether Candidate A is
Speaker 5: elected or Candidate BE is elected. Matt seems quite extraordinary,
Speaker 5: doesn't it.
Speaker 4: No, your honor, Because ultimately it's this court that's going
Speaker 4: to decide that question of federal constitutional eligibility and settle
Speaker 4: the issue for the nation. And certainly it's not unusual
Speaker 4: that questions of national importance come up.
Speaker 5: Well, I suppose this Court would be saying something along
Speaker 5: the lines of the state has the power to do it.
Speaker 5: But I guess I was asking you to go a
Speaker 5: little bit further and saying, why should that be the
Speaker 5: right rule? Why should a single state have the ability
Speaker 5: to make this determination not only for their own citizens,
Speaker 5: but for the rest of the nation.
Speaker 4: Because Article two gives them the power to appoint their
Speaker 4: own electors as they see fit. But if they're going
Speaker 4: to use a federal constitutional qualification as a ballot access determinant,
Speaker 4: then it's creating a federal constitutional question that then this
Speaker 4: Court decides and other courts other states. If this Court
Speaker 4: affirms the decision below determining that President Trump is ineligible
Speaker 4: to be president, other states would still have to determine
Speaker 4: what effect that would have on their own states law
Speaker 4: and state procedures.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean we if we affirmed, I mean center,
Speaker 2: even she someone you would expect would be on the
Speaker 2: side of Colorado not really having it either.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Look, and as I said, I don't think any justices
Speaker 3: are going to vote with Colorado. I think we're going
Speaker 3: to see in all likelihood of unanimous decision. And she's
Speaker 3: focusing on you know, earlier we played Katanji Brown Jackson,
Speaker 3: and she was focusing on the fact that that president
Speaker 3: is not an officer that has specified in the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 3: Section three. Justice Kaiget's po pointing out, well, why does
Speaker 3: one state get to do this? And if one state
Speaker 3: gets to do it, couldn't another state do something different?
Speaker 1: What do you do with that?
Speaker 3: And let's let's do one other clip which emphasizes that point.
Speaker 3: And you remember we did an entire podcast talking about
Speaker 3: the amicus brief that I filed, and this was an
Speaker 3: argument that I made on behalf of one hundred and
Speaker 3: seventy members of Congress, and I think it's a really
Speaker 3: powerful argument. Let's listen to Justice Alito asking about that argument,
Speaker 3: in particular, Thank you, Thank.
Speaker 4: You, Counsel Justice Thomas.
Speaker 6: Justice Alito, Suppose there's a country that proclaims again and
Speaker 6: again and again that the United States is its biggest enemy.
Speaker 6: And suppose that the President of the United States, for
Speaker 6: diplomatic reasons, think that it's in the best interests of
Speaker 6: the United States to provide funds or release funds so
Speaker 6: that they can be used by that country. Could a
Speaker 6: state determine that that person has given aid and comfort
Speaker 6: to the enemy and therefore keep that person off the ballot.
Speaker 4: No, your honor, this Court has never interpreted the aid
Speaker 4: and comfort language, which also is present.
Speaker 3: So that's another enormous problem with Colorado's argument, which is
Speaker 3: that if Colorado is able to throw Donald Trump off
Speaker 3: the ballot, you're going to see other states act. You're
Speaker 3: going to see red states throw Joe Biden off the ballot.
Speaker 3: And the hypothetical that Sam Alito asked, it's a very
Speaker 3: good hypothetical. He's obviously talking about Iran, and Iran is
Speaker 3: led by an Iatola who chanced death to America, who
Speaker 3: has murdered hundreds upon hundreds of servicemen and women, American
Speaker 3: servicemen and women, who's the biggest funder of state funder
Speaker 3: of terrorism in the world, And Joe Biden has flowed
Speaker 3: one hundred billion dollars to the IYATOLA. Now, as Justice
Speaker 3: Alito pointed out, Biden argues, it's for diplomatic reasons. But
Speaker 3: under the argument of Colorado, you could some other state
Speaker 3: could say, well, no, we conclude you're giving aid and
Speaker 3: comfort to our enemy. So Joe Biden is off the ballot.
Speaker 3: And the lawyer's answer was just well no, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: that's a different provision. So no, no, we like Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: so you can't do that. I think that demonstrates that
Speaker 3: the theory behind this decision is insupportable, and it leads
Speaker 3: to chaos, and it fundamentally leads to judges battling each
Speaker 3: other to decide elections rather than the voters deciding elections.
Speaker 3: And so I'm going to reiterate, I think the chances
Speaker 3: that the US Supreme Court reverses this decision are one
Speaker 3: hundred percent, and I think the chances are significant more
Speaker 3: likely than not that the decision will be unanimous and
Speaker 3: I think we will get it this month, the month
Speaker 3: of February.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 2: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.