Speaker 1: Welcome its verdict with Ted Cruz Week in Review, Ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you, and these are the stories that you
Speaker 1: may have missed that we talked about this past week.
Speaker 1: First up, Republicans move for accountability on the border crisis,
Speaker 1: specifically with my Orcis. Also, the White House has one
Speaker 1: terrible message for Israel and they have continued to allow
Speaker 1: them to hang out to drive. We'll have the latest
Speaker 1: on that. And finally, how do the Democrats actually stop
Speaker 1: the impeachment inquiry into my Orcus in the Senate? Senator
Speaker 1: Cruz explains all of that. It's the Week in Review
Speaker 1: and it starts right now. There's also the fact that
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people believe, and I think
Speaker 1: you would agree with this, that there has been zero
Speaker 1: accountability for Secretary my orchis just flat out lying to Congress.
Speaker 1: This is something that he said, and I want to
Speaker 1: get your take.
Speaker 2: Adhere to the oath to which I have sworn, and
Speaker 2: I have abided by the law each and every step
Speaker 2: of the way.
Speaker 1: That's not true, is it.
Speaker 3: That's a lie. It's an absolute lie. And actually there's
Speaker 3: a whole provision of these articles of impeachment that lay
Speaker 3: out how may Orcus has repeatedly lied to Congress. Now, now,
Speaker 3: it's interesting. One of the things that the articles of
Speaker 3: impeachment also lay out is that, Okay, so the Democrats
Speaker 3: are going to take the position, this is a policy
Speaker 3: difference that that that Okay, the Biden administration just they
Speaker 3: won't quite say it, but believes it open borders. So
Speaker 3: they're going to let people go. But it's not impeachable.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's it's not an offense. What is interesting
Speaker 3: is that was not the position of the Biden Justice Department.
Speaker 3: So you had litigation in front of the court where
Speaker 3: Texas sued the Biden administration trying to get the court
Speaker 3: to say, the Biden administration is refusing to refusing to
Speaker 3: follow immigration law. And I'm going to read from the
Speaker 3: Articles of impeachment the dissenting justice in that case noted quote.
Speaker 3: The court holds that Texas lacks standing to challenge a
Speaker 3: federal policy that inflicts substantial harm on the state and
Speaker 3: its residents by releasing illegalaliens with criminal convictions for serious crimes.
Speaker 3: In order to reach that conclusion, the court holds that
Speaker 3: the only limit on the power of the president to
Speaker 3: disobey a law like the important provisions, at issue is
Speaker 3: Congress's power to employ the weapons of inner branch warfare.
Speaker 3: As the descending justice explained, quote, Congress may wield what
Speaker 3: the Solicitor General described as political tools, which presumably mean
Speaker 3: such things as impeachment and removal. Indeed, during oral arguments,
Speaker 3: the justice, who authored a majority opinion stated to the
Speaker 3: Solicitor General, quote, I think your position is instead of
Speaker 3: judicial review, Congress has to resort to shutting down the
Speaker 3: government or impeachment or dramatic steps. That is what the
Speaker 3: Biden Justice Department argued, is that impeachment is the remedy
Speaker 3: when a president a cabinet member refuses to follow the law,
Speaker 3: defies the law. The Biden Justice Department argued that in
Speaker 3: front of the US Supreme Court. And yet you know
Speaker 3: what today, the Democrats are going to say, no, impeachment's
Speaker 3: not the remedy. If you have an executive who defies
Speaker 3: the law, it doesn't matter. We're going to rubber stamp
Speaker 3: it and we're not even going to hold a trial.
Speaker 3: And by the way, every Democrat will tell the reporters
Speaker 3: there was no evidence of a high crime and misdemeanor. Now,
Speaker 3: of course they'll say there was no evidence because they're
Speaker 3: about to vote to block all the evidence, so they
Speaker 3: don't hear any evidence, so then they can say we
Speaker 3: didn't hear any evidence. And the reason they didn't hear
Speaker 3: any evidence is because they're going to refuse to hear
Speaker 3: any evidence. And why are they going to refuse to
Speaker 3: hear any evidence, Because they don't want the American people
Speaker 3: to hear the evidence.
Speaker 1: And part of what they don't want them to hear
Speaker 1: is the reality of what it's like up there on
Speaker 1: the streets. Bill Malusian did some great reporting yesterday on
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel about Elite Ice unit is tracking down
Speaker 1: migrant criminals, specifically child rapists. This is while Mayorkas stared
Speaker 1: at Congress and said the border is secure, the border
Speaker 1: is secure. He said that to Congress he was lying.
Speaker 1: Take a list of this from Fox.
Speaker 4: A short time later, I took down their final target,
Speaker 4: a Brazilian gang member also charged with child rape. Just
Speaker 4: this morning today, four accused child rapists and one MS
Speaker 4: thirteen gang member. Those are the kind of people you're
Speaker 4: going after, that's every day up here in Boston. If
Speaker 4: those are the public safety threats that we really want
Speaker 4: to get off the street. It was a great day
Speaker 4: for the teams.
Speaker 5: That's five public safety threats that are on in the community,
Speaker 5: gonna go ahead.
Speaker 3: And victimize anyone else.
Speaker 5: And I says, all of those arrests you just saw
Speaker 5: happen because local authorities ignored their detainer request to keep
Speaker 5: these guys in custody due to sanctuary policies. I says,
Speaker 5: all of those suspects will remain in federal custody until
Speaker 5: their local charges are resolved. Then Ice will seek into
Speaker 5: port every single one of them.
Speaker 1: Four alleged child rapists arrested in the morning, and they
Speaker 1: said they're doing this every day, and local law enforcement
Speaker 1: is not working with them because local municipalities have said
Speaker 1: we're sanctuary cities. So these child rapists are that should
Speaker 1: have been held by local authorities or not. And yet
Speaker 1: this administration says, no, no, no, we're following the law. Everything's fine.
Speaker 3: Every single week, the Biden administration is releasing thousands upon
Speaker 3: thousands of illegal aliens. That includes murderers, that includes rapists,
Speaker 3: that includes child molesters. Every single week we are seeing
Speaker 3: another horrific crime committed by an illegal alien released by
Speaker 3: Joe Biden and the Democrats. Week after week after week,
Speaker 3: Whether it was Laken Riley and Georgia and the horrific
Speaker 3: murder that occurred from an illegal alien that Joe Biden
Speaker 3: the Democrats released, Whether it was Jeremy Cassaris, a beautiful
Speaker 3: two year old boy and Prince George's County, Maryland, just
Speaker 3: a few miles from where I am right now in DC,
Speaker 3: murdered by Neeli galalien that Joe Biden released, Or whether
Speaker 3: it was a fifteen year old girl in Boston, Massachusetts,
Speaker 3: severely disabled who was raped by an illigal alien that
Speaker 3: not only did Biden released, he flew from Haiti to America.
Speaker 3: So we've covered on this podcast how three hundred and
Speaker 3: twenty thousand illegal immigrants were flown into America by the
Speaker 3: Biden administration. He literally imported in a child rapist who's
Speaker 3: now been arrested for raping the severely disabled fifteen year
Speaker 3: old teenager. This is happening week after week after week.
Speaker 3: This is why the Democrats don't argue on the other side.
Speaker 3: What's the counter argument of, No, it's good a two
Speaker 3: year old boy is murdered. No, it's good that we
Speaker 3: have teenage girls being raped. That there is no counter argument.
Speaker 3: So their counter argument is see no evil. Their counter
Speaker 3: argument is John Tester running from the Senate floor and
Speaker 3: hiding in the cloak room because he doesn't want to
Speaker 3: listen to what's happening. Why because he intends to vote
Speaker 3: today to say no trial, no evidence. I don't want
Speaker 3: to know. I do not care about the people dying.
Speaker 3: I'm a Democrat. I want Democrats to be in power.
Speaker 3: Ten point four million illegal immigrants meets more Democrat voters.
Speaker 3: So if people have to die for me to stay
Speaker 3: in power as a Democrat, I'm okay with that. I
Speaker 3: got to say, Look, it is difficult for me not
Speaker 3: to get really angry about this because as a Texan,
Speaker 3: I see I've looked in the eyes when you get
Speaker 3: down to the border, as I have over and over again,
Speaker 3: and you look in the eyes of these little children
Speaker 3: have been brutalized. It makes you angry that these people. Tomorrow,
Speaker 3: more children will be brutalized, Tomorrow, more women will be raped,
Speaker 3: and not a one of these Democrats cares, not a
Speaker 3: one of them will do anything to change it. And
Speaker 3: they'll tell you, oh I care, but if you cared,
Speaker 3: you would change it. And not a one one of
Speaker 3: that is willing to do that.
Speaker 1: I want to go back in time and this is
Speaker 1: my orcus in front of the White House, and then
Speaker 1: I'm going to compare it to what Schumer said last week.
Speaker 3: Do you believe that right now there is a crisis
Speaker 3: at the border?
Speaker 2: I think that the answer is no. I think there
Speaker 2: is a challenge at the border that we are managing,
Speaker 2: and we have our resources dedicated to managing it.
Speaker 1: That was Mark's first twenty twenty one Secretary of my
Speaker 1: ork Is insisting there's no crisis of the border, despite
Speaker 1: that millions of illegal immigrants coming across and literally thousands
Speaker 1: of illegal crossings per day. Then you go to last week,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer making it clear this is a policy now
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party to have an open border collage.
Speaker 4: Say you're going to offer.
Speaker 5: A motion to dismiss the impeachment charges on Thursday. Are
Speaker 5: you at all concerned that if some Democrats and tough
Speaker 5: Races both for that you can come back to Falston Campaigndro.
Speaker 2: Look, we're going to try and resolve this issue as
Speaker 2: quickly as possible. Impeachment did never be used to settle
Speaker 2: policy disagreements.
Speaker 1: Leadership never be used to settle policy disagreements. This is
Speaker 1: the policy of the Democratic Party. And my archistslied to
Speaker 1: your face in March of twenty twenty one saying that
Speaker 1: there's no crisis the border, and in their mind from
Speaker 1: a policy viewpoint center, I think it's abundantly clear. Now
Speaker 1: they're on the record saying a wide open southern border
Speaker 1: and millions of illegals coming across is not a is
Speaker 1: not a crisis, it's just a policy disagreement, and it's.
Speaker 3: The policy they support. And Schumer repeated those those two
Speaker 3: lines at the press conference about four more times that said,
Speaker 3: we're going to try to get rid of us as
Speaker 3: quickly as possible, and impeachment should never be used for
Speaker 3: policy dispute. What's interesting, he didn't have a third line.
Speaker 3: He was reading those talking points. He was being very precise.
Speaker 3: He's not defending, he's not saying, hey, this is a
Speaker 3: good policy. I agree with the policy the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: I think it's great we have an open border. I
Speaker 3: think it's terrific that we're releasing murderers. I think it's
Speaker 3: terrific that we're releasing rapists. I think it's terrific we're
Speaker 3: releasing child molesters. We're releasing drunk drive. I think it's
Speaker 3: terrific that one hundred thousand people have died of drug
Speaker 3: overdose every year and we keep allowing more and more.
Speaker 3: I think it's terrific that in twenty eighteen, the Mexican
Speaker 3: drug cartels made five hundred million dollars from human trafficking.
Speaker 3: In twenty twenty two they made thirteen billion dollars. I
Speaker 3: think it's fabulous that we, the Democrats, have produced a
Speaker 3: two six hundred percent increase in the revenue for the
Speaker 3: Mexican drug cartels. The biggest friends the human traffickers have
Speaker 3: ever had in the history of humanity have been Joe
Speaker 3: Biden and Alejandro Majorcis. That is the simple reality, and
Speaker 3: none of that does Chuck Schumer say. Instead says, hey,
Speaker 3: this is just a policy dispute.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: They the other side believes in securing the border, and
Speaker 3: we want this country invaded.
Speaker 1: It is the policy of the Democratic Party. And it's sad,
Speaker 1: but we're witnessing the demise of this country, our borders
Speaker 1: and our laws at the hands of these people, and
Speaker 1: it is their America will come back.
Speaker 3: Though America will come back, are not witnessing the demise.
Speaker 3: We're witnessing the attempted demise, and I believe in this country.
Speaker 3: I think we will come back. I think millions of
Speaker 3: Americans are looking this and saying, Holy crap, this is horrific,
Speaker 3: this is inhuman, this is wrong. That's why this trial
Speaker 3: is so important is there are a lot of people that
Speaker 3: still don't know what's happening. They don't understand. If you
Speaker 3: watch CNN every day, God help you, but you have
Speaker 3: no idea because the media or propagandists. That's why this
Speaker 3: trial is important. But I think people's eyes are opening
Speaker 3: up now.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. So
Speaker 1: you look at all of that, and then you see
Speaker 1: this that just came out from the National Security Council
Speaker 1: statement on Iranian attacks on Israel, and I'm quoting it
Speaker 1: says President Biden has been clear. Our support for Israel's
Speaker 1: security is iron The US will stand with the people
Speaker 1: of Israel and support their defense against these threats from Iran. Okay, senter,
Speaker 1: If that's true, then they have to give them what
Speaker 1: they need this week. Am I wrong?
Speaker 3: Well, if there was anything like coherence and logic, then yes.
Speaker 3: And Number one I'm going to predict right now, Chuck
Speaker 3: Schumer is going to do everything he can to block
Speaker 3: a vote on emergency military aid to Israel. I've called
Speaker 3: on it, I forced her already once. My guess is
Speaker 3: that he will put in place parliamentary tools to prevent
Speaker 3: us from using the same technique again. And I think
Speaker 3: the House, we've seen the Speaker of the House and
Speaker 3: the Majority Leader both say that they're going to vote
Speaker 3: out an emergency military aid bill this week, so we'll
Speaker 3: get another one that comes over to us. And my
Speaker 3: prediction is the Democrats won't back it. They don't want
Speaker 3: to send military aid to Israel. And part of the
Speaker 3: problem is they've got a crisis in their caucus. And
Speaker 3: their crisis is that the radicals, the teleibs and omars,
Speaker 3: they more and more represent the mainstream of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3: And so Schumer is terrified of Michigan, Biden is terrified
Speaker 3: of Michigan. They're terrified of the radicals, and so they
Speaker 3: may put out statements, but remember this is the same
Speaker 3: Chuck Schumer that not long ago stood on the Senate
Speaker 3: floor and demanded that Israel's elected Prime minister be thrown
Speaker 3: out of office. He decided that Israel, alone, among all
Speaker 3: our allies, was not allowed to elect their leaders every
Speaker 3: other country. You know, Schumer hasn't called for the leader
Speaker 3: of Iran to step down. He hasn't called for the
Speaker 3: leader of Hamas or China, or Rushier of Venezuela or
Speaker 3: North Korea. If you're an enemy of America, nope, Chuck
Speaker 3: Schumer and the Democrats, they're giving you money. But if
Speaker 3: you're our ally, what will Schumer say? How dare you
Speaker 3: be in office? We need an appeaser.
Speaker 4: Just like us.
Speaker 1: You just mentioned I was going to go there that
Speaker 1: the Senate majority of leader said he should step down.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of people in the media have
Speaker 1: been really attacking him, saying that he is a warmonger,
Speaker 1: that he's that he's a killer, that he should not
Speaker 1: be the president, he should not be in charge. I
Speaker 1: don't believe we're going to see any of that stop.
Speaker 1: But at least in the Middle East right now and
Speaker 1: specifically in Israel, how important is his leadership.
Speaker 3: It's extraordinarily important. I will say. I'm blessed to know
Speaker 3: Prime Minister Netanyah, who very well. I think he is
Speaker 3: a remarkable man. When he came and addressed a joint
Speaker 3: session of Congress, and that this was during the Obama administration,
Speaker 3: it was on the verge of Obama pushing through the
Speaker 3: Iran nuclear deal at the time, and this was a
Speaker 3: decade ago. Multiple Democrats boycotted the speech. They refused to
Speaker 3: listen to him speak. The Democrats hatred for Benjamin Netanyah,
Speaker 3: who is nothing new, and understand that when he was
Speaker 3: re elected Prime Minister Joe Biden made clear he was
Speaker 3: not welcome in the White House, that he would not
Speaker 3: be invited in the White House. He could not come
Speaker 3: to the White House. This is long before October seventh,
Speaker 3: This is long before the war in Gaza. They hate
Speaker 3: Natan Yaho, but understand they undermine every Israeli government. They
Speaker 3: have done so from the very first days of this administration.
Speaker 3: But net Yahoo, they have a particular loathing too, because
Speaker 3: he actually understands the gravity of the threat he is facing.
Speaker 3: He understands that when the Ayahtola says death to Israel,
Speaker 3: he's not playing around. He actually means it. When he
Speaker 3: says death to America. He's not playing around, he actually
Speaker 3: means it. And listen, I've been blessed. In twelve years
Speaker 3: in the Senate, I've met many world leaders. That's one
Speaker 3: of the most incredible parts of the jobs. You get
Speaker 3: to sit down with people that are leading our friends,
Speaker 3: leading other countries, leading our competitors. There is no world
Speaker 3: leader who is impressed me more. There's no world leader
Speaker 3: who frankly is taking my breath away more than Benjamin
Speaker 3: Netanyaho because he has a seriousness of purpose. He is
Speaker 3: the only world leader for whom I have used the
Speaker 3: adjective Churchillian. In my office in DC, I have three busts.
Speaker 3: I have a bust of Ronald Reagan, I have a
Speaker 3: bust of Churchill, and I have a bust of doctor
Speaker 3: Martin Luther King Jr. And I have those three busts
Speaker 3: because they are all men who had extraordinary vision. They
Speaker 3: faced remarkable challenges. They saw a world that was better
Speaker 3: than the world they were living in, and their vision
Speaker 3: helped bring the world to a better place with extraordinary
Speaker 3: courage and clarity. And I have to tell you, I
Speaker 3: think net and Yah who has that same courage and clarity.
Speaker 3: Now it is not my role to tell the people
Speaker 3: of Israel who their prime minister should be. So when
Speaker 3: net Yaho was prime minister, when I started in the Senate,
Speaker 3: I dealt with him because he was the leader, the
Speaker 3: elected leader of Israel. When the people of Israel elected
Speaker 3: Enough Tolly Bettett, I dealt with him. Whomever the people
Speaker 3: of Israel elect, I will deal with the elected leader.
Speaker 3: But the people of Israel re elected Benjamin Netanyah who
Speaker 3: and I respect the choice of the people of Israel.
Speaker 3: There is an arrogance in Democrat foreign policy, but also
Speaker 3: in some Republican foreign policy, that they think they can
Speaker 3: meddle in the internal politics of foreign nations and especially
Speaker 3: our friends and allies, that they can do what Chuck
Speaker 3: Schumer did, which is tell the people of Israel Tis Tisk,
Speaker 3: you have no business electing net Yah who throw him
Speaker 3: out now? And they treat them like the voters, the
Speaker 3: people of Israel like the red haired step children. It
Speaker 3: is ridiculous. It's much like. Look, there have been long
Speaker 3: debates in Washington about a two state solution, and that
Speaker 3: they're Every Democrat says we must have a two state solution.
Speaker 3: Many Republicans say we must have a two state solution.
Speaker 3: My view on that is that's a decision for the
Speaker 3: people of Israel to make. They care acutely about their security.
Speaker 3: If the people of Israel just decide that a two
Speaker 3: state solution is workable, I respect that decision. If they
Speaker 3: decide it's not because the terrorists with whom they are dealing,
Speaker 3: the Hamas and Hesbela, will not accept Israel's right to
Speaker 3: exist and will wage war on them, I respect that
Speaker 3: decision as well, and so I will say when it
Speaker 3: comes to Prime Minister net and Yahoo, it's the choice
Speaker 3: of the people of Israel that he should be their leader.
Speaker 3: I respect their choice. But at the same time, I
Speaker 3: think he is a leader who understands the seriousness of
Speaker 3: these threats and is not cowed by the aggression of
Speaker 3: Hamas or Hesbela, or Iran or anyone else. He is
Speaker 3: bound and determined to protect the people of Israel.
Speaker 1: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 1: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 1: dow the podcast from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 1: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 1: story number three of the week you may have missed. Finally, Senator,
Speaker 1: What exactly did Democrats do yesterday on impeachment? Just so
Speaker 1: people understand how they pulled this off.
Speaker 3: Well, at one pm yesterday we convened on the Senate floor.
Speaker 3: This is pursuant to the Senate rules. When we enter impeachment.
Speaker 3: We were all sworn in, and then we all signed
Speaker 3: the oath book, one at a time. We signed the
Speaker 3: oath Book. And what is supposed to happen next is
Speaker 3: that we adopt a resolution laying out a trial schedule
Speaker 3: of how the House managers are going to present their case.
Speaker 3: But instead what happened is Chuck Schumer rose on a
Speaker 3: constitutional point of order, and a constitutional point of order
Speaker 3: as you stand and say, what is on the floor
Speaker 3: violates the constitution. And he raised a constitutional point of
Speaker 3: order and he said at Article one, the first article
Speaker 3: sent over by the House does not allege a high
Speaker 3: crime or misdemeanor. And so what happened next is we
Speaker 3: voted on whether Article one alleged a high crime or misdemeanor.
Speaker 3: High crime and misdemeanor is what you need to be
Speaker 3: able to impeach someone. Now, Article one focused on Alejandro
Speaker 3: Majorcus's defiance of federal law that that that that he
Speaker 3: he was refusing to follow explicit and clear federal law,
Speaker 3: federal law that that says that that illegal immigrants shall
Speaker 3: be detained, that that illegal immigrants with criminal conviction shall
Speaker 3: be detained and shall be deported, over and over again.
Speaker 3: Immigration law is mandatory. It says shall shall, shall shall,
Speaker 3: and he's defying it at a level it's never happened before.
Speaker 3: It's not that he's bad at his job. It's that
Speaker 3: he is utterly flouting and defiedying federal law. And that
Speaker 3: that's the first article of impeachment. And they argued, well,
Speaker 3: actually they didn't argue. They just made a motion that
Speaker 3: it's not a high crime or misdemeanor. They presented no argument,
Speaker 3: They did not give a legal argument, they did not
Speaker 3: write a brief, they did not present an argument. And
Speaker 3: I was the person who raised the lead objection to that. Now,
Speaker 3: under the impeachment rules, you can't debate on the Senate floor.
Speaker 3: You're supposed to be silent because you're jurors.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, why is that? But that makes sense
Speaker 1: because you're juror not a lawyer. I guess presenting right.
Speaker 3: Right, And so I made a motion for us to
Speaker 3: move into executive session. If we move into executive session,
Speaker 3: we throw the reporters out. We turned the TV cameras off.
Speaker 3: But then we can debate it. And I said, look,
Speaker 3: you're you're making a major legal point. You presented no argument,
Speaker 3: and what you're saying is quality is fundamentally wrong. And
Speaker 3: I'll tell you the amazing thing is the idea that
Speaker 3: refusing to follow the law, defying the law is not
Speaker 3: a high crime and misdemeanor is not impeachable. It is
Speaker 3: contrary to the original understanding the Constitution. Joseph Story, who
Speaker 3: was a Supreme Court justice, one of the leading constitutional
Speaker 3: scholars right at the very beginning of our country, and
Speaker 3: his commentaries in the Constitution are widely cited for understanding
Speaker 3: what the founding generation believed the Constitution to mean. And
Speaker 3: he talked about, he wrote at length about high crimes
Speaker 3: and misdemeanors, and he gave lots of examples, including the
Speaker 3: Lord Admiral refusing to protect the high seas, and he said,
Speaker 3: that is a high crime or misdemeanor, and that is
Speaker 3: virtually analogous, very closely analogous to the head of Homeland
Speaker 3: Security refusing to secure the border. It's the same principle
Speaker 3: of allowing lawless piracy to threat and an invade America.
Speaker 3: So Joseph's story and the founding generation understood this to
Speaker 3: be a high crime and misdemeanor. And amazingly enough, Ben
Speaker 3: the Biden Justice Department argued in front of the US
Speaker 3: Supreme Court that impeachment was the remedy for the Biden
Speaker 3: administration refusing to follow the law. So in Texas versus
Speaker 3: the United States, Texas sued the Biden administration for refusing
Speaker 3: to secure the border, and the Supreme Court ended up
Speaker 3: agreeing with the Biden administration and saying, well, Texas can't
Speaker 3: sue and the Biden doj The Solicitor General for Biden argued, look,
Speaker 3: if you have a cabinet member who's refusing to follow
Speaker 3: the law, Congress has remedies, including impeachment, and so I
Speaker 3: stood up and said listen. The Biden Department of Justice
Speaker 3: argued last year this was impeachable. It didn't matter. Every
Speaker 3: single Democrat, all of them. And by the way, Eve
Speaker 3: in the so called moderates, Joe Manchin and Cirsten Cinema,
Speaker 3: they voted also Nope, not a high crimer misdemeanor. And
Speaker 3: as a result, because they had to have a majority,
Speaker 3: the point of order carried. They got fifty one votes
Speaker 3: for it, and so the first article was thrown out,
Speaker 3: and then they did it again on the second one.
Speaker 3: And I'll tell you the second one is even more astonishing.
Speaker 3: So as a result of the first vote, it is
Speaker 3: now the position of Democrats that any cabinet member can
Speaker 3: refuse to follow the law and defy the law and
Speaker 3: utterly ignore the law, and you can't impeach him for it.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's an astonishing and dangerous proposition in Democrat
Speaker 3: looney land. But the second article of impeachment was for
Speaker 3: breach of trust, and it focused on majorcas repeatedly lying
Speaker 3: to Congress under oath about what was happening at the border.
Speaker 3: And again Chuck Schumer rose on a point of order
Speaker 3: and said, this is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Now,
Speaker 3: mind you there saying lying under oath to Congress is
Speaker 3: not impeachable. It is a felony. It is a felony
Speaker 3: that you can serve jail time for. And it's worth
Speaker 3: remembering Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury. The House impeached
Speaker 3: him and what did the Senate do? They didn't throw
Speaker 3: it out, they didn't dismiss it. The House managers presented
Speaker 3: the case, the conducted a trial, and ultimately the Senate
Speaker 3: acquitted him. But they did their duty to hold a trial.
Speaker 3: And actually before that, there's someone I'm sure you've never
Speaker 3: heard of, a guy named Walter Nixon. You know who
Speaker 3: Walter Nixon was?
Speaker 1: Who is that?
Speaker 3: Walter Nixon was a federal judge. He was a federal
Speaker 3: judge actually from Mississippi. You're an all miss grad. He
Speaker 3: was a federal judge from Mississippi. But he was not
Speaker 3: a good guy, and he was convicted of perjury before
Speaker 3: a grand jury. And you know what happened. The Congress
Speaker 3: impeached him, the House impeached him, the Senate convicted him,
Speaker 3: and he was removed as a federal judge for perjury.
Speaker 3: So even though it was clear, there was clear precedent
Speaker 3: that yes, perjury, lying under oath is a high crime
Speaker 3: or misdemeanor, it is impeachable, every single Senate Democrat voted
Speaker 3: that it's not a high crime or misdemeanor. So now apparently,
Speaker 3: again in Democrat Wonderland, lying to Congress is AOK, and
Speaker 3: understand this was not about the Constitution. They didn't care.
Speaker 3: They had no arguments as to why the Constitution said this.
Speaker 3: This was about power, and this was about protecting their
Speaker 3: political backsides because they're terrified of the American people hearing
Speaker 3: what is happening at the border, the fentanyl, the deaths,
Speaker 3: the rapes, the children being abused. They do not want
Speaker 3: that evidence before the American people. And I'll say this
Speaker 3: is a final point to wrap up. Do you want
Speaker 3: to see proof of why this is all political and
Speaker 3: why the Democrats did what they did? Yes, you know what,
Speaker 3: you know what, you know what ms you know what,
Speaker 3: MSNBC and CNN covered all day yesterday Trump twenty four seven,
Speaker 3: the Trump trial, Storey Daniels ooh smut lying processly like
Speaker 3: apparently there was no impeachment proceeding in the Senate. Nothing happened,
Speaker 3: there's no border crisis. The only thing they would cover
Speaker 3: is is the attack on Trump.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to dial
Speaker 1: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.