Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you and Center, We've got one packed show for
Speaker 1: people today.
Speaker 2: Well, once again California has descended into chaos. We're seeing riots,
Speaker 2: We're seeing cars lit on fire. We're seeing protesters waving
Speaker 2: Mexican flags, waving flags of other countries and defying, assaulting
Speaker 2: law enforcement. And amazingly, we're seeing a parade of Democrats
Speaker 2: all lining up to say, we the Democrats, We're with
Speaker 2: the rioters, that's the side we're on. Likewise, if you
Speaker 2: think about the illegal alien that we saw a parade
Speaker 2: of Democrats going down to El Salvador saying we're on
Speaker 2: your side as well well, that particularly illegal alien has
Speaker 2: been brought to America to be tried for human trafficking.
Speaker 2: Is this is an amazing illustration of exactly where today's
Speaker 2: Democrat party stands. And finally, we're going to talk about
Speaker 2: Joe Biden's use of the auto pen u to the
Speaker 2: autopen to sign legislation, use of the autopen to issue pardons.
Speaker 2: What does that mean legally, what's the consequence of it,
Speaker 2: and what does it mean that President Trump says he's
Speaker 2: going to investigate it what happens next.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're going to deal with that in a moment.
Speaker 1: I also want to talk to you about your cell
Speaker 1: phone service right now. How would you like to know
Speaker 1: that every time you make a phone call, and every
Speaker 1: time you send a text, and every time you pay
Speaker 1: your bill, you're actually standing up for the values you
Speaker 1: believe in. You're setting up for our First or Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children, and you're also
Speaker 1: supporting and advocating for our wounded warriors, our veterans, and
Speaker 1: our first responders. Well, when you're with Patriot Mobile, that's
Speaker 1: exactly what you do. And most of you are going
Speaker 1: to save real money when you make the switch to
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. So why are you waiting? They have cutting
Speaker 1: edge technology just like everyone else now in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: it is so easy to switch, no store visits, no hassle,
Speaker 1: keep your same number and keep your phone or great
Speaker 1: to a new one. Plus, you're gonna love the team
Speaker 1: at Patriot Mobile. They have one hundred percent US based
Speaker 1: customer team that can literally activate you in minutes right
Speaker 1: over the phone and get this. Patriot Mobile is one
Speaker 1: of a few carriers with access to all three major
Speaker 1: US networks. That means you're gonna get amazing nationwide coverage.
Speaker 1: And they can even put a second number on a
Speaker 1: different network on your same phone. So maybe you walk
Speaker 1: around with two phones right now, you don't have to
Speaker 1: do that with Patriot Mobile. They've got unlimited plans, mobile hotspots,
Speaker 1: international roaming, Internet on the go devices, They've got it all,
Speaker 1: even home internet backup. So what are you waiting for?
Speaker 1: Make a difference With every call you make, every text
Speaker 1: you send, go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile dot com slash vertict or call them nine
Speaker 1: to seven to two Patriot right now, use the promo
Speaker 1: code Verdict for a free month of service. Switch to
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile and defend freedom with every call and text
Speaker 1: you make Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or nine
Speaker 1: to seven to Patriot All right, So, Senator, I just
Speaker 1: want to be clear. There's no riots in California, peaceful
Speaker 1: protesters out there. This is completely normal. Maybe there's some
Speaker 1: cars on fire, maybe there's some Mexican flags being fund
Speaker 1: by people that are angry that they're getting deported. You
Speaker 1: cannot make up what democrats will defend.
Speaker 2: Well, look, it's tragic. It's tragic. The chaos, the violence
Speaker 2: that that that seems more and more commonplace in California,
Speaker 2: that seems more and more to be to be the
Speaker 2: face of today's Democrat Party. I want you just to
Speaker 2: watch and see what is unfolding right now in California. Uh,
Speaker 2: in Los Angeles and and and this, this is this
Speaker 2: is who today's left is.
Speaker 3: Turning now to a Fox News alert. Anti ice protesters
Speaker 3: are still riding in Los Angeles County and setting a
Speaker 3: car on fire. You're looking at live pictures and a
Speaker 3: mound California right now. In the last hour, borders are
Speaker 3: Tom Homan told us they were sending in the National
Speaker 3: Guard to California. You know, Lydia. The damage is just
Speaker 3: striking here that we're seeing. We also have seen reports.
Speaker 3: There's a Fox Los Angeles reporter who's just there on
Speaker 3: seeing trying to cover this story. He said his car
Speaker 3: was destroyed by protesters.
Speaker 4: You know, let's hope that no one is hurt and
Speaker 4: no one is injured and it doesn't escalate from here.
Speaker 4: Look at the flag yet, guy, I say.
Speaker 1: There it is Mexican flag, and you know.
Speaker 4: You know, this is this is criminal activity that I
Speaker 4: hope is people are held accountable for And I'm talking
Speaker 4: about the riots right here.
Speaker 5: Where are the cops?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Where are they? We heard earlier that Karen Bass,
Speaker 4: the mayor of LA and allegation that she had prevented
Speaker 4: the LAPD from responding yesterday when there was our first
Speaker 4: developing guy for upwards of two hours or more. To
Speaker 4: your point, where are the police?
Speaker 5: Well, the officials in this part of the country, in
Speaker 5: Los Angeles and California are too busy tripping over themselves
Speaker 5: to attack Donald Trump and law enforcement. I guess those
Speaker 5: are the cops back there to actually condemn these people
Speaker 5: doing these things. And in the intro, Alicia, you said,
Speaker 5: these are anti ICE protesters. Yes, but if you just squint,
Speaker 5: it could easily be the BLM protesters, or the Free
Speaker 5: Palestine protesters, or the resist Doge protesters, or the resist
Speaker 5: ICE in this case protesters.
Speaker 1: It is this dirt bag.
Speaker 5: Coalition of leftist violent so called protest that has been
Speaker 5: a huge problem in this country for years, and they
Speaker 5: are escalating.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Kanch, you don't see Democrats coming out with any
Speaker 3: sort of outrage of the destruction here. Their outrage is
Speaker 3: the opposite. It's over the ICE officials who are out there.
Speaker 6: Let me give you five names where we're not hearing
Speaker 6: a lot from right now except to attack these ICE officials,
Speaker 6: which is leading to attacks like this. Karen Bass Los
Speaker 6: Angeles Mayor Gavin Newsom, California Governor Adam shiff who's awfully
Speaker 6: active on x and social media, condemning to guy's point,
Speaker 6: Donald Trump not hearing anything from him. Eric swallwell as well,
Speaker 6: you can't get away from this guy on social media
Speaker 6: attacking Trump. Nancy Pelosi, the whole former House speaker, where
Speaker 6: are you? This is war right now that we're seeing
Speaker 6: in terms of our federal agents being attacked and California
Speaker 6: officials doing nothing to stop it.
Speaker 3: Now, it's going to be an incredibly bad look in
Speaker 3: the next twenty four to forty eight hours if you
Speaker 3: don't get the governor out there, if you don't get
Speaker 3: someone out there to at least get people to stop,
Speaker 3: because right now you have city leaders encouraging people to
Speaker 3: join the resistance.
Speaker 1: You have city leaders, let's just pick it up there,
Speaker 1: encouraging people to go out there and do this. You
Speaker 1: watch that video. There are a lot of Mexican flags.
Speaker 1: So I'm just trying to get my head around this.
Speaker 2: So Ben, I have an idea. Let's you and me,
Speaker 2: let's go illegally to France. Let's just break into France.
Speaker 2: Once we get there, let's start rioting against France because
Speaker 2: we hate France. Let's light the Eiffel Tower on fire.
Speaker 2: Let's start waving the American flag around while we're lighting
Speaker 2: the Eiffel Tower on fire, and let's say, don't you
Speaker 2: dare send us back to America the flag we're flying,
Speaker 2: because you have no right to decide if we get
Speaker 2: to come into your country illegally. We can do anything
Speaker 2: you want. And if you try to enforce your laws,
Speaker 2: I guess we'll just light things on fire. And even better,
Speaker 2: your elected officials would say, damn right, you keep burning.
Speaker 1: And we'll send you more.
Speaker 2: This is truly through the twilight zone and what is striking.
Speaker 2: Let's break down several pieces of it. First of all,
Speaker 2: let's take the media. So we saw Fox News where
Speaker 2: they actually covered what's going on. Yes, I want to
Speaker 2: contrast that with CNN because CNN, look, if you're a
Speaker 2: propaganda outlet, you've got a message to get out, and
Speaker 2: you know what the message is. Nothing to see here.
Speaker 2: This is peaceful. This is fine.
Speaker 1: I mean they are famous, famous for the police station
Speaker 1: being on fire, remember that in the summer of rage,
Speaker 1: and they're like, it's fiery but peace Yeah, fiery but
Speaker 1: peaceful protests here.
Speaker 2: So all right, I want you to watch CNN covering
Speaker 2: this same riot.
Speaker 7: Watch So there's unrest. Let's start with there's protest, lawful protest,
Speaker 7: which is allowed in this country. There is some unrest
Speaker 7: generally dealt with by local law enforcement, and that there
Speaker 7: needs to be state support through state police and sometimes
Speaker 7: even National Guard under a governor's authority. What is happening
Speaker 7: tonight is unprecedent.
Speaker 1: I mean, I love it. She's like, it's unrest. Oh,
Speaker 1: I can't say that. Hold on, I got to back
Speaker 1: that up. And this is just peaceful and that is
Speaker 1: something that is protected and we're totally fine with this.
Speaker 2: Like she admitted unrest and immediately had to run away
Speaker 2: from it. Yeah, and I got to say it's striking. Also,
Speaker 2: the video that they don't show anything on fire there,
Speaker 2: they've learned the less and where during during the Antifa
Speaker 2: and Black Lives Matter riots where they literally put on
Speaker 2: If you don't remember this, they had a video to
Speaker 2: an entire store on fire, and their chiron said, uh,
Speaker 2: fiery but peaceful.
Speaker 1: Protests as buildings are burning.
Speaker 2: It is they've got a message. And and and look
Speaker 2: in the first video on Fox where the folks are talking,
Speaker 2: they say, where are the cops? And you see way,
Speaker 2: mister top a block a block away, and yet there
Speaker 2: are no police officers anywhere near the protesters, no police
Speaker 2: officers anywhere near the car that's on fire.
Speaker 1: And it's clear it goes back to leadership. That's the
Speaker 1: question I want to ask you. You look at this,
Speaker 1: you're allowing.
Speaker 2: You may or ordered them to stay away.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I want to be that that was a
Speaker 1: question I want to ask you.
Speaker 2: Of course, of course, of course, But here you're and
Speaker 2: my friend Dana Bash, she's got to jump in now
Speaker 2: and really defend what's going on here here.
Speaker 1: Give a listen.
Speaker 8: It's pretty bad.
Speaker 9: That's a different question. But I just I just want
Speaker 9: to just stay for the record that what did happen
Speaker 9: in nineteen ninety two was so different from what we're
Speaker 9: seeing now. I mean that was that was a real,
Speaker 9: a real riot that went all across the city of
Speaker 9: Los Angeles after a verdict in the Rodney King case,
Speaker 9: this is a situation where the La County La County Police,
Speaker 9: it's not good, but they're saying that they have it
Speaker 9: under control, and the and the President is sending national.
Speaker 8: Troops in a way that we can look at it. Obviously,
Speaker 8: we see that it is not under control. It's not
Speaker 8: under control. You and I both see that it's not
Speaker 8: under control. And a riot is a right. They're throwing
Speaker 8: they're throwing all types of objects at law enforcement. And
Speaker 8: the President is absolutely right.
Speaker 1: By the way, you ask the people whose cars and
Speaker 1: buildings are on fire if this is a riot or not.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Dana told us it's not real. It's not really, it's
Speaker 2: a fake. You know, they are familiar with fakes. They
Speaker 2: are experts in fakes. You know, it really is striking.
Speaker 2: This has nothing to see here, not a real riot.
Speaker 2: It's all okay. And then she says, well, okay, it's
Speaker 2: not good.
Speaker 1: But it's nothing like a real riot back in the
Speaker 1: old days in the nineties.
Speaker 2: And look, there have been multiple arrests because you have
Speaker 2: these protesters are actively aggressively trying to stop ice from
Speaker 2: carrying out their jobs, from enforcing immigration laws. One of
Speaker 2: the people arrested was the president of the SEIU union
Speaker 2: who was arrested for physically actively stopping federal agents from
Speaker 2: carrying out their jobs. Now what is the reaction of
Speaker 2: Democrat politicians. Well, here, take a look.
Speaker 10: The reality is we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles,
Speaker 10: and again, any violence against police officers should not be accepted.
Speaker 10: Local authorities can handle that. But remember a lot of
Speaker 10: these peaceful protests are being generated because the President of
Speaker 10: the United States is so in case and confusion by
Speaker 10: arresting people who are showing up for their immigration hearings.
Speaker 1: They other aren't peaceful, don't they.
Speaker 2: So the phrase peaceful protests, which they say repeatedly and
Speaker 2: noticed that. So that was Corey Booker, and he's saying, well, look,
Speaker 2: you can't commit violence against cops. Look, I'm glad he
Speaker 2: says that in part because they've seen where these riots go.
Speaker 2: But at the same time he's repeatedly saying what CNN
Speaker 2: is saying, which is it's only the governor and local
Speaker 2: law enforcement that can do it. Nothing federal because President
Speaker 2: Trump has called up the National Guard, and they are
Speaker 2: so unhappy that we're actually going to see these violent protesters.
Speaker 2: Will be stopped from terrorizing the communities they're engaged with.
Speaker 2: And that's a nightmare scenario for the Democrats because anytime
Speaker 2: you have violence like this, they are on the side
Speaker 2: of the violence.
Speaker 1: Do you notice Booker also said the beginnings that we've
Speaker 1: talked about how orchestra tray Democrats are when they do
Speaker 1: these things on college campuses where there's people behind him
Speaker 1: in advocacy. Booker said, this.
Speaker 2: You're suggesting the people who are paying for this are
Speaker 2: also paying for the Democrats are going on TV to fin.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, Cory Booker seems to have some pretty good
Speaker 1: insider information that this is the quote beginning his words,
Speaker 1: not mine, of something big like this is the beginning.
Speaker 1: And he said that on Sunday morning, after a weekend
Speaker 1: of this violence, the beginning. So you got to ask
Speaker 1: the question are they all in on it?
Speaker 2: Well, look, you know, you look at so much of
Speaker 2: today's Democrat Party that's paid for by George Soros that
Speaker 2: it kind of makes you wonder if it's now George
Speaker 2: Zorro and it is all about go back, and they
Speaker 2: want California to secede from America and go back to Mexico.
Speaker 2: But look, Corey Booker was not alone. Give another Listen.
Speaker 11: Every single ICE agent who's engaged in this aggressive overreach,
Speaker 11: and I'm trying to hide their identities from the American
Speaker 11: people will be unsuccessful in doing that.
Speaker 1: This is America.
Speaker 11: It is not the Soviet Union, but not behind the
Speaker 11: Iron curtain. This is not the nineteen thirties, And every
Speaker 11: single one of them, no matter what it takes, no
Speaker 11: matter how long it takes, will of course be identified.
Speaker 1: As I have a dad who's spent the majority of
Speaker 1: his life in law enforcement. That is a threat, yes
Speaker 1: to law enforcement. Yes, that we're going to make sure
Speaker 1: that everyone that hates you knows who you are, where
Speaker 1: you live, who your kids may be, who your wife is,
Speaker 1: and we're going to make you feel in safe for
Speaker 1: doing your job.
Speaker 2: Look, that is grotesque. It's one of the most grotesque
Speaker 2: things I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: That's a king.
Speaker 2: Jeffries, the Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, and
Speaker 2: he's not hiding what he's saying. He is threatening to
Speaker 2: docks to expose, to reveal the identities of federal law
Speaker 2: enforcement agents ICE because he wants threats, he wants violence,
Speaker 2: he wants intimidation, he wants violence, an intimidation directed at
Speaker 2: federal law enforcement. That is grotesque. By the way, the
Speaker 2: Mayor of Boston analogized Ice to Nazis. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: that is understand today's Democrat party. This is not your
Speaker 2: grandfather's Democrat party. This is a Democrat party. Now. If
Speaker 2: you are an illegal alien, if you are a gang member,
Speaker 2: if you are a murderer, if you are a rapist,
Speaker 2: the Democrats stand with you. If you're a police officer,
Speaker 2: the Democrats are not with you. If you are an
Speaker 2: ICE agent, they are not with you. If you're a
Speaker 2: border patrol agent, they are not with you. If you
Speaker 2: are enforcing the law, they are not with you. And
Speaker 2: listen to what Corey Booker said. Corey Booker said, well,
Speaker 2: Trump is causing it because he's enforcing the law.
Speaker 1: Because yeah, because enforcing the law, it is well. And
Speaker 1: then you got to look at Newsom. I mean, look
Speaker 1: at Newsom. We had this very interesting rebranding. I would
Speaker 1: call it Newsom maybe three point zero four point zero.
Speaker 1: He's rebranded himself a lot. He's really good at it.
Speaker 2: He's pretending to be a he's suddenly discovered that boys
Speaker 2: and girls exist. It's really remarkable because you know, twelve
Speaker 2: seconds ago he didn't know that.
Speaker 1: And yet here's his true colors yet again. So here's
Speaker 1: what he tweeted out.
Speaker 2: He says, the federal government is taking over the California
Speaker 2: National Guard and deploying two thousand soldiers in Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: not because there's a shortage of law enforcement, but because
Speaker 2: they want a spectacle. Don't give them one. Never use violence,
Speaker 2: speak out peacefully. So understand the end of that. Speak
Speaker 2: out peacefully. He's calling for I'm the governor. I want
Speaker 2: more riots. They're not enough of you out there, more
Speaker 2: and more and more. Somebody gets sorrows online too. George,
Speaker 2: we need more money. Can you send out more protests now?
Speaker 2: That is his message, and they are furious, furious with
Speaker 2: President Trump for actually defending the communities. Look, we saw
Speaker 2: in that first video the law enforcement, the police officers
Speaker 2: are ordered don't do anything about it, don't keep people safe.
Speaker 2: We've seen, by the way, we've seen this video before.
Speaker 2: We saw it during the Antifa in Black Lives Matter riots,
Speaker 2: where where again Democrat mayors, Democrat governors prevented law enforcement
Speaker 2: from doing their jobs. And by the way, look.
Speaker 1: Well, and the word is on the street that local
Speaker 1: I mean local law enforcement. We're told on Saturday and
Speaker 1: Friday night stand down, like, don't get involved, let them
Speaker 1: do what they're gonna do. If that turns out to
Speaker 1: be like the entire policy of LA and the local
Speaker 1: government there, doesn't that give even more credence to Wine.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump should send in the National Guard.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And look, I will give those Democrats credit for
Speaker 2: being the voice of reason, the voice of moderation. I
Speaker 2: want you to listen to this, this very careful, calm
Speaker 2: measured analysis from a Democrat California congress woman. She's assessing
Speaker 2: the situation carefully. She's trying to balance competing interests, trying
Speaker 2: to protect property and lives, and give a listen to
Speaker 2: what she has to say.
Speaker 3: I skip the coality so that order defy stored there.
Speaker 1: It is if ICE would just leave and all the
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants can do what they want to do. And
Speaker 1: we've had no crime problems in California in the last
Speaker 1: year or so.
Speaker 2: So understand their message. Also, they do not want federal
Speaker 2: immigration laws enforced. She wants ICE out of the state.
Speaker 2: And by the way, to be clear, her message also
Speaker 2: every illegal alien in America, please come to California. Because
Speaker 2: that's who she represents. That is and I don't even
Speaker 2: know that congresswoman. She's one of the many left at California.
Speaker 2: They blur together. You know, she has has Look I
Speaker 2: give her credit. Apparently she's volunteering to join AOC and
Speaker 2: ilhan Omar and the other kooks to be the face
Speaker 2: of today Democrat party.
Speaker 1: This is sad. Final question on this. You look at
Speaker 1: the present's decisions in the National Guard, and you look
Speaker 1: at Democrats now clearly wanting a fight, They're wanting more
Speaker 1: illegals to come out. Is this one of those things
Speaker 1: where they think this is a positive nationwide? I mean,
Speaker 1: how could you think that burning down cities, attacking your
Speaker 1: neighbor's property, burning cars, attacking law enforcement somehow a political win.
Speaker 2: I don't understand that while you're riding a motorcycle around
Speaker 2: a burning car, waving a Mexican flag bingo. Look at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, apparently those individuals and we
Speaker 2: saw Mexican flags everywhere you look. Apparently those individuals they
Speaker 2: want America to be Mexico. What else do you And
Speaker 2: by the way, look, Mexico is a beautiful country. If
Speaker 2: you want to go to Mexico go to Mexico.
Speaker 1: But if you want to fly the flag, go to Mexico.
Speaker 2: But you don't have a right to defy federal law
Speaker 2: to come here illegally. And yet that is, at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, that is what today's Democrat Party
Speaker 2: stands for. It is their core belief, it is their
Speaker 2: reason for being. And you asked if they think this
Speaker 2: is a winning message, Well, it depends who you're talking to.
Speaker 2: If you're talking to your radicals, if you're talking to
Speaker 2: your zealots, if you're.
Speaker 1: Talking to the fun the stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, If you're talking to the big, big money donors, yes,
Speaker 2: that's a winning message. If you're talking to the people
Speaker 2: who wrote checks on the anti Israel and anti America
Speaker 2: protests and college campuses, it's a great message.
Speaker 1: If you're actually.
Speaker 2: Talking to ordinary Americans, if you're talking to soccer moms,
Speaker 2: if you're talking to people who would like their kids say,
Speaker 2: if you're talking to people who don't really want to
Speaker 2: see their neighborhoods lit on fire, I question, as Brea
Speaker 2: Roberts said, throw me in that brier patch. Well, you know,
Speaker 2: I question if they're gonna be happy with this decision
Speaker 2: come next election.
Speaker 1: Day, which brings me to story number two, and it's
Speaker 1: one that is just maybe one of I laughed when
Speaker 1: I saw the news. I thought this was a brilliant
Speaker 1: move by the Trump administration. Democrats have been obsessed with
Speaker 1: the Maryland father, the Maryland man who just happened to
Speaker 1: get deported, who was an illegal immigrant, who was caught
Speaker 1: human smuggling through my home state of Tennessee. And they
Speaker 1: act like it never happened. And now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: we're like they were demanding you bring him home, bring
Speaker 1: him back to America. Well, guess what, the dude's coming home.
Speaker 2: He is indeed, and he has been brought to be prosecuted.
Speaker 2: He has been indicted. He has been indicted for human trafficking.
Speaker 1: Wait, I thought he was just a Maryland dad, not
Speaker 1: a human trafficker.
Speaker 2: Well, I will tell you. I'm holding the indictment in
Speaker 2: my hand and it is stunning. So how long was
Speaker 2: he a human trafficker? Well, according to the indictment, from
Speaker 2: in Or around twenty sixteen through inn Or around twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five, So for nine years.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty good career.
Speaker 2: Kilmar Armando Abrego, Garcia and others known and unknown to
Speaker 2: the grand jury conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the
Speaker 2: United States from countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador,
Speaker 2: and elsewhere, ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas.
Speaker 2: Very nice they came into Texas. The co conspirators knew
Speaker 2: the undocumented aliens did not possess authorization to enter the
Speaker 2: United States. They used cell phones, they used social media applications.
Speaker 2: The indictment also allegesed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was a
Speaker 2: citizen of El Salvador, was not a United States citizen,
Speaker 2: was living in the United States, and was also a
Speaker 2: member and associate of the transnational criminal organization MS thirteen.
Speaker 1: No, he's a dad. Hold on a second, you can't
Speaker 1: say that this is just a Maryland dude, Maryland dad,
Speaker 1: Maryland man.
Speaker 2: And by the way, they accurately describe MS thirteen. MS
Speaker 2: thirteen was a criminal enterprise engaged in, among other activities,
Speaker 2: acts and threats involving murder, extortion, narcotics, trafficking, firearms trafficking,
Speaker 2: alien smuggling, and money laundering. MS thirteen operated throughout North
Speaker 2: and Central America, including in El Salvador, Guatemalica, Mexico, the
Speaker 2: United States, including in Texas, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, and elsewhere. Now,
Speaker 2: how many illegal aliens do you think he's charged with smuggling?
Speaker 1: I'm assuming zero because he's just a Maryland man. He's
Speaker 1: just a Maryland dad.
Speaker 2: He's a Maryland dad. I want to read this paragraph.
Speaker 2: Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, as detailed further below, used his
Speaker 2: status in MS thirteen to further his criminal activity.
Speaker 1: Right, not as a father or dad, as a MS
Speaker 1: thirteen gang member.
Speaker 2: Over the course of the conspiracy, the co conspirators knowingly
Speaker 2: and unlawfully transported wait for it, thousands of undocumented aliens,
Speaker 2: many of whom were MS thirteen members and associates.
Speaker 1: So you're bringing in people that are now a member
Speaker 1: of a terrorist organization into the country. So not just
Speaker 1: random buel pang. He was smuggling in members of the
Speaker 1: Town organization in the United States America for not one year,
Speaker 1: not two, not three, not four, five years, but nine years. Yes.
Speaker 2: And and look, the fact that DOJ brought this indictment
Speaker 2: means presumably they have the evidence to prove this indictment.
Speaker 2: They're going to put on that evidence they're gonna put
Speaker 2: on that evidence that this guy was a gang member
Speaker 2: for nine years, that he was part of a conspiracy
Speaker 2: that smuggled thousands of people illegally, including other gang members.
Speaker 1: You think the media is gonna apologize for anither stories
Speaker 1: or attacking Trump and saying that he just sent a
Speaker 1: Maryland dad a Maryland man.
Speaker 2: And understand, this is the same the same illegal immigrant
Speaker 2: that my colleague Chris van Holland, Democrat from Maryland, flew
Speaker 2: down and had really what was a very sweet margarita
Speaker 2: with I mean it was a Broman.
Speaker 1: It was a moment. It was a bro moment, you.
Speaker 2: Know, as I tweeted out at the time, you know,
Speaker 2: find somebody who looks at you the way Democrats look
Speaker 2: at illegal alien MS thirteen gang members, like the sweet
Speaker 2: nothings in his eyes as he looked on. And by
Speaker 2: the way, you saw Democrat House members, you know, all
Speaker 2: on a parade to go down there.
Speaker 1: They wanted to use your tax dollars to go see
Speaker 1: the Maryland man.
Speaker 2: This is the face of the Democrat Party, this is
Speaker 2: who they stand for. So look, you ought to ask
Speaker 2: yourself at home, am I an MS thirteen gang member
Speaker 2: who's a human trafficker, who smuggles in thousands of illegal aliens,
Speaker 2: who smuggles in gang members. If so the Democrats of
Speaker 2: the party, for me, if you're not, if you kind
Speaker 2: of think we don't want human traffickers and gang members
Speaker 2: in America, well then I don't know what the Democrats is.
Speaker 1: This like the ultimate FAFO like moment, because for Democrats,
Speaker 1: and I want people to understand the funniest part of
Speaker 1: the story, Democrats demanded we bring him back. He's coming back,
Speaker 1: gonna go to jail for a long time, and then
Speaker 1: after he serves his time, apparently we're gonna send him
Speaker 1: right back to the country where he just came from.
Speaker 1: But it didn't just go from bad to worse, like
Speaker 1: he would have been better off just staying where he was.
Speaker 1: Look at, Democrats actually are putting this man.
Speaker 2: In jail, and these facts, the facts that prove he
Speaker 2: was a human trafficker, the facts and evidence that DJ
Speaker 2: is gonna put on. I hope and believe the American
Speaker 2: people need to know those facts because they need to know. Look,
Speaker 2: we've already in this podcast cover how the guy is
Speaker 2: allegedly a wife beater, that he has a long history
Speaker 2: of criminality. We played the audio of him being caught
Speaker 2: human trafficking, but at the time we didn't know that
Speaker 2: there was a decade worth of thousands of people being trafficked,
Speaker 2: including other gang members. What you wish for, right and
Speaker 2: by the way, to understand, Look, I don't know specifically
Speaker 2: what this gang member did, but I'll tell you MS
Speaker 2: thirteen when they are human trafficking, they are raping women,
Speaker 2: they are raping children. They are abusing women and children
Speaker 2: that they are abusing, little boys, little girls.
Speaker 1: They're soulists. They do not care about human life.
Speaker 2: Here it is MS thirteen is evil and in Texas
Speaker 2: we see the atrocities they carry out. I fully expect
Speaker 2: the evidence that comes out in this trial to be
Speaker 2: nothing short of horrifying. And I got to say, if
Speaker 2: you're a Democrat and you've decided the entire future of
Speaker 2: your party is defending this guy, yeah, you know what's weird, Ben,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Are worried right now. I don't think they are.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the strangest thing it is in the
Speaker 2: face of this.
Speaker 1: There used to be in politics moments where you knew
Speaker 1: you screwed up. Were even your party look, they're all
Speaker 1: in on California and still on defending this guy.
Speaker 2: Their position is is that one Democrat congresswoman said, law enforcement,
Speaker 2: get the f out. That's their message. No cops, no ICEN,
Speaker 2: open border patrol, We don't defend, we don't defend California.
Speaker 2: We don't know America guys, but gang members and murderers europeeps.
Speaker 1: Amazing. I want to move to one final issue, and
Speaker 1: it's one that has gotten a lot of attention in
Speaker 1: conservative circles. It's certainly one that the media just refuses
Speaker 1: to talk about. And the President clearly wanted to use
Speaker 1: the power this week of his microphone to bring up
Speaker 1: the issue of the auto pen. When it comes to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden investigating what did he know, when did he
Speaker 1: know it? Did he have any clue what he was
Speaker 1: signing with the autopen, was even directing the autopen to
Speaker 1: be used? Or were there people that were literally playing
Speaker 1: President yep that were saying, I want to hook this
Speaker 1: political favor up, or this pardon up, or this piece
Speaker 1: of legislature, this executive order up, and he had no
Speaker 1: idea what was even happening.
Speaker 2: Well, and President Trump did a really good job explaining
Speaker 2: this at the Oval office this past week. Give a listen.
Speaker 9: The predecessor dismissed your autopin investigation.
Speaker 12: He said he made all the decisions during his presidency.
Speaker 12: I'm curious a reaction to his dismissal. Well, look to
Speaker 12: the autopen.
Speaker 13: I think is the big scandal outside of the rigged
Speaker 13: election of twenty twenty. I think the biggest scandal of
Speaker 13: the last many years is the autopen and who's using it.
Speaker 13: I happen to think I know, okay, because I'm here
Speaker 13: and I'm not a big odo pen person fortune I'm glad.
Speaker 12: I'm very glad. It's an easy way out. But it's
Speaker 12: a very bad thing, very dangerous.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 12: I sign important documents.
Speaker 13: Usually when they put documents in front of you, they're important,
Speaker 13: even if you're signing ambassadorships or and I consider that important.
Speaker 12: I think it's inappropriate.
Speaker 13: You have somebody that's devoting four years of their life
Speaker 13: or more to being an best and I think you
Speaker 13: really deserve that person deserves to get a real signature,
Speaker 13: not an autopen signature. And I can tell autopen easily.
Speaker 13: I can look at it like two little pinholes. From
Speaker 13: pulling the paper right, you will see the pinholes. It's
Speaker 13: real easy to tell about autopen. I think it's very
Speaker 13: disrespectful to people when they get an autopen signature outside.
Speaker 13: Autopen to me are used when thousands of letters come
Speaker 13: in from young people all over the country and you
Speaker 13: want to get them back, and you know, people use
Speaker 13: autopens for that to send a little signature at the
Speaker 13: bottom of a letter.
Speaker 12: We have thousands of them.
Speaker 13: We get thousands of letters a week, and it's not
Speaker 13: possible to you know, I'd like to do it myself,
Speaker 13: you can't do it to me.
Speaker 12: That's where auto pens start and stop.
Speaker 13: But I don't think I'm sure that he didn't know
Speaker 13: many of the things. Look, he was never for open borders,
Speaker 13: he was never for transgender for everybody. He was never
Speaker 13: for men playing in women's sports. I mean he changed,
Speaker 13: I mean all of these things that change so radically.
Speaker 13: I don't think he had any idea that what was Frankly,
Speaker 13: I said it during the debate and I say it now.
Speaker 12: He didn't have much of an idea what was going on.
Speaker 12: He shouldn't be.
Speaker 13: I mean, essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,
Speaker 13: and that is wrong. It's illegal, it's so bad, and
Speaker 13: it's so disrespectful.
Speaker 1: To our I look at what he said there, and
Speaker 1: I go back to something that is, you've seen autopin.
Speaker 1: Do you have the autopin? I've never asked you that. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: So I've gone an office before to get a birthday
Speaker 1: card or something done. When I worked in DC, people
Speaker 1: would come over and say, hey, can we get this written.
Speaker 1: It's somebody's seventieth anniversary or save you birthday, and they'll go, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: and they'll put it together and they'll get it autopin signed.
Speaker 1: Because there's so many requests like this. But he's right,
Speaker 1: being the president, it's America, there's a lot of If
Speaker 1: it's being put in front of you, it probably deserves
Speaker 1: a signature. If it's making it to be in front of.
Speaker 2: You, well, let's draw a distinction. First of all, let
Speaker 2: me explain what an autopen is.
Speaker 9: It.
Speaker 2: It's a machine where literally you have a mechanical arm
Speaker 2: that holds a pan, typically a sharpie. Most most signatures
Speaker 2: are used with sharpies. And so I've got an autopen
Speaker 2: as far as I know, I think every member of
Speaker 2: Congress has.
Speaker 1: So my birthday card you're telling me was not real
Speaker 1: when I.
Speaker 2: Made fun of you that that that was definitely written
Speaker 2: by me, and uh, but but you use it for
Speaker 2: you know, correspondence. I mean, in my time in the Senate,
Speaker 2: I've literally gotten millions of letters from constituents and we
Speaker 2: send out millions of letters in response. And so you
Speaker 2: could spend literally every waking moment doing nothing but signing
Speaker 2: that correspondence. And so what you do instead, Every congressional
Speaker 2: office has a correspondence office where for a given topic,
Speaker 2: if you ask me about illegal immigration, we have a
Speaker 2: letter in the office where that lays out your plans,
Speaker 2: my views on illegal immigration, and they're the policy team
Speaker 2: helps draft those and they get approved. You know, I
Speaker 2: suspect we'll have a letter shortly on on these these
Speaker 2: la riots and and and what's happening there. Whatever the
Speaker 2: topics are that people are writing in on. A congressional
Speaker 2: office will prepare a letter that's response responsive to it,
Speaker 2: and those will get auto pen That is very different
Speaker 2: from something that requires a signature to have legal effect,
Speaker 2: and they're really.
Speaker 1: That's a great distinction, a way of describing it.
Speaker 2: There are three category categories that are consequential here pardons,
Speaker 2: executive orders and laws, and let me break all three
Speaker 2: of these down, because there's real legal significance in the
Speaker 2: in the in the question that President Trump is raising,
Speaker 2: all right, first of all, pardons that there are a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of folks that that Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Pardoned controversial pardons, by the way.
Speaker 2: So including so on the same day Joe Biden pardon
Speaker 2: Anthony Fauci, he pardoned General Millie, former Chairman of the
Speaker 2: Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then he pardoned every member
Speaker 2: of the January sixth Commission. So he pardoned Benny Thompson
Speaker 2: and Liz Cheney and Zoe Lofgram and Adam Schiff and
Speaker 2: Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy and Jamie Raskin and Aline Laurier
Speaker 2: and Adam Kinsinger.
Speaker 1: And by the way, they were they were begging for
Speaker 1: these pardons.
Speaker 2: All nine of them got pardoned. It's being reported now
Speaker 2: that that the one pardon that Biden signed personally was
Speaker 2: his son Hunter Biden's pardon, but that all of the
Speaker 2: rest of these pardons were auto penned. And here's what
Speaker 2: President Trump tweeted out. He said, quote the pardons that
Speaker 2: Sleepy Joe gave to the Unselect Committee of Political thugs
Speaker 2: and many others. I gotta say, I love nobody writes
Speaker 2: like Donald Trump are hereby declared void, vacant, and of
Speaker 2: no further force or effect because of the fact that
Speaker 2: they were done by auto pen In other words, Joe
Speaker 2: Biden did not sign them, but more importantly, he did
Speaker 2: not know anything about them. The necessary pardoning documents were
Speaker 2: not explained to or approved by Biden. Now let's talk
Speaker 2: about pardons first. So pardons do not have to be
Speaker 2: in writing. Okay, if you look at the language of
Speaker 2: the Constitution, Article two, Section two, clause one says, in
Speaker 2: relevant part, the President shall have power to grant reprieves
Speaker 2: and pardons for offenses against the United States. So the
Speaker 2: Constitution does not specify any particular form of a pardon.
Speaker 2: It doesn't specify it has to be in writing. It
Speaker 2: simply says the President shall have power to grant reprieves
Speaker 2: and pardons. So with respect to pardons, whether it's signed
Speaker 2: or not, that's not a constitutional requirement. But what is
Speaker 2: a constitutional requirement is that the president granted. Interesting, and
Speaker 2: so what President Trump alleged is Biden didn't know about this,
Speaker 2: didn't know what he was doing. It was not his decision.
Speaker 2: I think it is entirely possible that we will see
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice prosecute someone who has received one
Speaker 2: of these autopen pardons. Really, if they prosecute someone, it's
Speaker 2: going to be someone for whom there is clear evidence
Speaker 2: of a federal criminal violation. But also it will be
Speaker 2: someone who there is evidence that Biden didn't know about it, so.
Speaker 1: They would have to bring to do that, they would
Speaker 1: have to bring evidence he didn't know about it. And
Speaker 1: then does that kick off the big grand debate and
Speaker 1: the investigation because you bring those charges to say, okay,
Speaker 1: let's see if you can prove that he did know
Speaker 1: about it.
Speaker 2: So look, if DOJ brought an indictment against someone that
Speaker 2: Biden had pardon using an autopen, the defense lawyer would
Speaker 2: almost immediately seek to get the indictment dismissed because the
Speaker 2: pard sure, and I would expect the court to litigate that.
Speaker 2: DOJ would argue, this is not a valid pardon because
Speaker 2: it was not issued by the president. It was issued
Speaker 2: by a staffer manning the autopenner. And the question would
Speaker 2: be did Joe Biden approve and authorize it personally or
Speaker 2: was this just the staff.
Speaker 1: They just said, Hey, get my buddy or our friend
Speaker 1: or our colleague or our ally this.
Speaker 2: So for example, they would look to all right, did
Speaker 2: Biden make public statements about it? Was he interview, did
Speaker 2: he stand at a podium? What did he say? Because
Speaker 2: that would go to was he aware of it? And
Speaker 2: did he approve it? Now, let's focus on statutes. Can
Speaker 2: the president sign a law to have it become a
Speaker 2: federal law by autopen and not by signature? And here
Speaker 2: actually the question is actually pretty similar to the pardon question.
Speaker 2: It comes down to what Biden knew. So actually, in
Speaker 2: two thousand and five, the US Department of Justice, the
Speaker 2: Office Legal Counsel, they issued a formal opinion whether the
Speaker 2: president may sign a bill by directing that his signature
Speaker 2: be affixed to it. And the summary of the conclusion
Speaker 2: was the president need not personally perform the physical act
Speaker 2: of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and
Speaker 2: decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather,
Speaker 2: the president may sign a bill within the meeting of
Speaker 2: Article one, section seven by directing a subordinate to affix
Speaker 2: the President's signature to such bill, for example, by autopen.
Speaker 2: And here the statutory languages is, or rather the constitutional
Speaker 2: language is more explicit. So here's what Article one, section
Speaker 2: seven says. Quote, every bill which shall have passed the
Speaker 2: House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes
Speaker 2: a law, be presented to the President of the United States.
Speaker 2: If he approves, he shall sign it. So sign it
Speaker 2: is explicitly there. You can't orally sure sign a law.
Speaker 2: You have to sign it.
Speaker 1: But that's why bill signs are such a big deal.
Speaker 2: What the Department of Justice concluded, and this is a
Speaker 2: lengthy opinion, is the settled understanding of the meaning of
Speaker 2: sign an individual can sign a document by directing that
Speaker 2: his signature be affixed to it by another. And so
Speaker 2: they conclude this settled understanding of the meaning of sign
Speaker 2: leads us to conclude that Article one, section seven permits
Speaker 2: the president to sign a bill by directing a subordinate
Speaker 2: to affix the President's signature to it. Now, I've got
Speaker 2: to say, as a legal matter, I think there's a
Speaker 2: there's a strong case to be made that that is
Speaker 2: accurate that you can authorize someone to sign a binding
Speaker 2: legal document for you. If you're the decision.
Speaker 1: Maker and you say, hey, I'm on a plane is
Speaker 1: a great example national emergency worst case scenario, and you
Speaker 1: say sign that right now to do what X, Y
Speaker 1: or Z.
Speaker 2: And let me give you an example I have personal
Speaker 2: experience with so as you know, when I can. I'm
Speaker 2: out of law school. I was a law clerk for
Speaker 2: Chief Justice William Renquist on the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: And every time there is an execution in this country,
Speaker 2: almost without fail, there are emergency appeals that go to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, and they often will go and be
Speaker 2: concluded at midnight or one or two or three in
Speaker 2: the morning, because typically the death warrant is carried out
Speaker 2: right before midnight, and so the appeals are filed last minute.
Speaker 2: And so when that happens, there is a law clerk
Speaker 2: from every justice that remains at the court till the
Speaker 2: matter is resolved. And the Chief Justice had jurisdiction over
Speaker 2: the DC Circuit, but also the Fourth Circuit, which covers
Speaker 2: a number of states that have capital punishment. And so
Speaker 2: when the execution occurs in the circuit that your justice
Speaker 2: is the lead for, the justices will vote. They do
Speaker 2: it by phone. So you will read the emergency appeals,
Speaker 2: you'll summarize the emergency appeals you'll call your justice, wake
Speaker 2: him or her up, explain the issues, and then the
Speaker 2: justices will vote. At the end of the process. The
Speaker 2: very last thing that happens in the process is there
Speaker 2: is a form that is sent to the prison. And
Speaker 2: there were multiple essentially death warrants that I signed, and
Speaker 2: I would sign them WHR slash TC. WHR was William
Speaker 2: Hubb's renquist. So I'm signing for the Chief Justice s
Speaker 2: slash TC because the chief was home in bed, so
Speaker 2: he was not physically signing it. But because I had
Speaker 2: authorization to sign it, you'd literally put it on then
Speaker 2: a fax machine and at the prison they'd pull it
Speaker 2: off the fax machine and that signature that I had
Speaker 2: signed for the Chief Justice was sufficient to carry out
Speaker 2: an execution.
Speaker 1: The TC at the end is that just to clarify
Speaker 1: that you did it on behalf of it, okay.
Speaker 2: And you see that sometimes secretaries when they sign for
Speaker 2: someone will do the same thing and put with the
Speaker 2: slash to say who is signing it? What I would
Speaker 2: say the critical question in terms of a law. Look,
Speaker 2: there will be an argument that the word sign in
Speaker 2: the Constitution means sign and so it's not a frivolous
Speaker 2: argument that the auto pen can't do it in any circumstance,
Speaker 2: and I would expect that potentially made. But the more
Speaker 2: powerful argument is did the president direct that his signature
Speaker 2: be affixed to it?
Speaker 1: Or did a or did a stafford go roke?
Speaker 2: Did a stafford just say yep, this is our policy,
Speaker 2: so put it in the autopen, it's signed, and listen.
Speaker 2: White houses keep records. You've worked in a White House,
Speaker 2: they keep meticulous.
Speaker 1: Records, especially on this level.
Speaker 2: And so I fully expect there to be litigation questioning
Speaker 2: looking for a statute where where there is not clear
Speaker 2: indication that Biden was aware of it, that he made
Speaker 2: a decision to sign it, but rather that simply you
Speaker 2: had a White House staffer say Okay, this is our policy,
Speaker 2: let's sign it. And if that's the case, I think
Speaker 2: there's If the president did not direct that his signature
Speaker 2: be affixed to it, I think there's a real argument
Speaker 2: that is not a law that is not validly in
Speaker 2: the United States Code, that law is null and void.
Speaker 1: I think that.
Speaker 2: And by the way, it's not sufficient for the president
Speaker 2: at the outset to say hey, I support this law.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: That's different from you can say you support all sorts
Speaker 2: of law. Sure, that's different from making the decision I
Speaker 2: am going to sign this law right now. Look, there
Speaker 2: are all sorts of laws that you could say you support,
Speaker 2: but the legislative process is like sausage making. You don't
Speaker 2: even know what's in the thing till it passes. And
Speaker 2: so finding early statements from Biden that I support such
Speaker 2: and such policy is not enough. I expect the question
Speaker 2: to be And by the way, you don't have to
Speaker 2: wait for litigation, because Donald Trump has access to all
Speaker 2: of the White House records that will show did Biden
Speaker 2: make those decisions. That's why ordering that investigation is so strong,
Speaker 2: because if they find a law that there is no
Speaker 2: record of Joe Biden saying I want to sign this,
Speaker 2: and I am directing you to sign this, then I
Speaker 2: think there's a real argument that law is not validly enacted.
Speaker 1: It's incredible. We're gonna keep covering it. Don't forget. We
Speaker 1: do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscriber
Speaker 1: auto download button so you do not miss an episode. Also,
Speaker 1: if you're watching this episode on YouTube, make sure you
Speaker 1: subscribe on YouTube as well. As we put these out
Speaker 1: so you don't miss them either, tell your family, tell
Speaker 1: your friends about this show and the Senate, and I
Speaker 1: will see you back here in a couple of days