Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with center Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you as always, Senator. This will be our last
Speaker 1: show before there is an inauguration that's going to be
Speaker 1: taking place next week, which is really fun. But it's
Speaker 1: already started on Capitol Hill with confirmation hearings. And I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty fair to say if Democrats were hoping
Speaker 1: for fireworks and they were hoping to, you know, derail
Speaker 1: some of the nominees this week, they failed miserably.
Speaker 2: We're kicking tail and taking names.
Speaker 3: So Ben, I love you, but I got to say,
Speaker 3: somebody needs to buy you a calendar. So inauguration is
Speaker 3: on Monday, which means we will have a Monday morning podcast,
Speaker 3: which means you and I will record it on Sunday.
Speaker 4: So this is our second to last podcast.
Speaker 2: All right, second inauguration.
Speaker 1: Okay, fine, So we're gonna have one more show technically
Speaker 1: on the day of the inauguration.
Speaker 3: I understand when Monday occurs is a difficult thing to
Speaker 3: figure out, so I'm going to give you that. But
Speaker 3: right now, this is Friday's podcast, and so we're gonna
Speaker 3: talk about what happened this week and what happened this
Speaker 3: week it's real simple. We had confirmation hearings for half
Speaker 3: of the Trump cabinet, and the Democrats came out pouncing.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's what the New York Times says Republicans
Speaker 3: do all the time. They pounced, and they pounced and
Speaker 3: they pounced, and the bottom line is they utterly failed.
Speaker 3: If you're a Democrat trying to think you're going to
Speaker 3: defeat the Trump cabinet, you are despondent right now because
Speaker 3: they shot at everybody and they failed everywhere.
Speaker 4: Here's the spoiler alert.
Speaker 3: I believe every single Trump cabinet nominee will be confirmed.
Speaker 3: We're gonna talk about So I participated in a number
Speaker 3: and we're gonna talk about in particular Pambondi because Pambondi
Speaker 3: is Attorney General I think is the most important Trump nominee.
Speaker 3: She will be confirmed as Attorney General. But we're going
Speaker 3: to break down the issues that we talked about because
Speaker 3: it really went to the core of restoring integrity to
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice. So that's number one. We're gonna
Speaker 3: talk about Number two. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California.
Speaker 3: He's facing horrific wildfires that sadly his own misguided policies
Speaker 3: played a significant part in increasing the likelihood of in
Speaker 3: limiting the ability of California to fight against.
Speaker 4: What is Gavin Newsom doing.
Speaker 3: He's not focused on, we need more fire mitigation, we
Speaker 3: need more sensible public lands management.
Speaker 4: He's not doing that.
Speaker 3: He's not focusing on we need more sensible water management.
Speaker 3: We need to stop having empty reservoir we need to
Speaker 3: have fire hydrants full. No, he's not saying that. And
Speaker 3: he's also not saying, all right, enough with woke firefighter policies,
Speaker 3: enough with DEI, we need to actually hire firefighters devoted
Speaker 3: to fighting fires. Nope, he's not saying that, Gavin Newsom. Instead,
Speaker 3: he rolled out a proposal, and he said, if anyone
Speaker 3: offers to buy somebody's home, somebody's property that's been burned
Speaker 3: to the ground, that is DEVI stated, and I Gavin
Speaker 3: knew somethink the offer is too low, I'll criminally prosecute you.
Speaker 4: I will throw you in jail.
Speaker 3: It is again, if Saturday Night Live made fun of leftists,
Speaker 3: they couldn't come up with a better skit than this.
Speaker 4: And so I pointed that out.
Speaker 3: He went back at me, Gavin Newsom, and I went
Speaker 3: back and forth, and finally Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders in
Speaker 3: the confirmation of Scott Besson to be Treasury Secretary, he
Speaker 3: came out with the bold new Democrat policy they hate
Speaker 3: hate billionaires, well except for leftist communist billionaires who fund
Speaker 3: the Democrat Party, but other than that, they're against them
Speaker 3: all that. At the end of the day, I got
Speaker 3: to say, Scott Bessett popped him back and showed the
Speaker 3: utter and complete hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 4: That's what we're covering on today's pod.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's gonna be really fun audio. You do not
Speaker 1: want to miss that in a second. So let's go
Speaker 1: back to the confirmations. And this was I think an
Speaker 1: exciting time for many Trump supporters. There was worry early
Speaker 1: on that there could be some derailing of some nominees.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 1: You're up against the media, you're up against the Dems.
Speaker 1: They work together and they try to, you know, derail
Speaker 1: in any way they can. That just does not seem
Speaker 1: to be what's gonna happen here. As you said, you
Speaker 1: believe everyone's gonna get confirmed.
Speaker 4: I do so.
Speaker 3: Look we talked about in the last pot Pete Hegseth
Speaker 3: Pete Hegg Seth is clearly the one they're targeting the most.
Speaker 4: They went after heg Seth hard.
Speaker 3: But I gotta say Pete did a fantastic job at
Speaker 3: his confirmation hearing.
Speaker 4: I think he's going to make it through.
Speaker 3: If you look at Pambondy as the nominee for Attorney General,
Speaker 3: she did a spectacular job in her hearing, a masterclass.
Speaker 3: And I want you to listen to right now my
Speaker 3: questioning of Pam Bondy. So I went right after Maisie Herono,
Speaker 3: Democrat from Hawaii, who gave this long screed about how
Speaker 3: Pam Bondi and Trump was going to politicize the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice.
Speaker 4: Why And here's what Maisie asked hers.
Speaker 3: She said, well, because Trump is going to ask you
Speaker 3: to prosecute his opponents, and you're going to do it
Speaker 3: because you're a political hack. And so I went right
Speaker 3: after this. Give a listen to my questioning of Pam
Speaker 3: Bondi in the hearing this week. General Bondi welcome, Thank
Speaker 3: you for your long career in public service, and thank
Speaker 3: you for your willingness to take on this incredibly important office.
Speaker 3: You know, I have to say, I don't know that
Speaker 3: there is a more important position in this new administration
Speaker 3: than the position to which you have been nominated Attorney
Speaker 3: General of the United States. I thought the exchange just
Speaker 3: a moment ago with Senator Herono was illustrative. She asked
Speaker 3: you how you would respond if the president asked you
Speaker 3: to target his political enemies. It's rather striking because it's
Speaker 3: not a hypothetical. It has happened over the last four years.
Speaker 3: And I think perhaps the most tragic legacy of the
Speaker 3: Biden Harris administration has been the politicization and the weaponization
Speaker 3: of the United States Department of Justice. And we don't
Speaker 3: need to ask hypothetically, because Joe Biden publicly mused and
Speaker 3: allowed the New York Times to report it, calling on
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland, why will he not prosecute Trump more quickly?
Speaker 3: And Merrick Garland sadly, he sat in that chair and
Speaker 3: promised to be a political and he broke that promise
Speaker 3: almost the instant he walked into the Department of Justice.
Speaker 3: If you look on the west pediment of the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court of the United States, just above the entrance, there's
Speaker 3: a simple yet profound forward phrase, equal justice under law.
Speaker 3: We have seen over the last four years a Department
Speaker 3: of Justice that systematically targeted the political opponents of Joe
Speaker 3: Biden and Kamala Harris, and that systematically protected his friends
Speaker 3: and allies. And it is tragic to see the loss
Speaker 3: of confidence in the American people in the Department of
Speaker 3: Justice and in the FBI. I would note I don't
Speaker 3: think there's an institution in a America who has lost
Speaker 3: more respect from the American people than the FBI has
Speaker 3: in the last four years. That is a grotesque violation
Speaker 3: of the obligation of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
Speaker 3: So I want to start with just a very simple question.
Speaker 3: If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you pledge
Speaker 3: to fairly and faithfully uphold the law, regardless of party?
Speaker 4: So help me God, Amen, Look, And I want to
Speaker 4: be clear for folks at home.
Speaker 3: I don't want a Republican Department of Justice. I don't
Speaker 3: want a Democrat Department of Justice. I want an Apartment
Speaker 3: of Justice that follows the damn law. And I think
Speaker 3: the American people do too. That shouldn't be too much
Speaker 3: to expect.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: I'm grateful to President Trump for nominating you. I think
Speaker 3: on any objective level, you're clearly qualified for this position.
Speaker 3: You have been a prosecutor for decades. You've been the
Speaker 3: elected attorney general of the state of Florida, the third
Speaker 3: largest state in America, for eight years.
Speaker 4: Let me ask you, in terms.
Speaker 3: Of your practice, how many criminal cases over the course
Speaker 3: of your career have you personally handled?
Speaker 5: Handled? Thousands?
Speaker 3: How many of those were before a jury?
Speaker 5: Hundreds? I don't want to overstate the hundreds. I was
Speaker 5: in a courtroom for many years. I tried four when
Speaker 5: I was an intern jury trials. I think you had
Speaker 5: to try at least twenty in misdemeanor before you went
Speaker 5: to felany. Then you were in court every day, and
Speaker 5: I was also lead trial attorney for many years, trying
Speaker 5: many cases.
Speaker 3: So and how many of those cases would have been
Speaker 3: before a judge?
Speaker 5: Oh, hundreds and hundreds as well, but hundreds before a jury,
Speaker 5: I would assume.
Speaker 3: And as Attorney General of Florida, how many lawyers did
Speaker 3: you supervise?
Speaker 5: Roughly approximately four hundred.
Speaker 4: Senator Now, I also want to clarify something.
Speaker 3: During the course of this hearing, several Democrat senators have
Speaker 3: referred to you as President Trump quote personal lawyer. Now,
Speaker 3: I don't believe that is an accurate characterization as I
Speaker 3: understand it, You represented President Trump as a White House
Speaker 3: special advisor.
Speaker 4: During his first impeachment trial. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: Within office of White House Counsel, Yes, Senator, and.
Speaker 3: Is working within the White House Council's office different than
Speaker 3: representing Donald J. Trump individually as his personal lawyer.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, how's it different.
Speaker 5: You're working for the government, you're working for the Office
Speaker 5: of White House Counsel. You're not representing him in his
Speaker 5: personal capacity.
Speaker 3: And so you have not represented him in his business affairs,
Speaker 3: in his personal life, or at any of the criminal
Speaker 3: trials he.
Speaker 2: Has faced, no, Senator, And.
Speaker 3: You know, when it comes to weaponization, it's worth noting
Speaker 3: that in more than two centuries of our nation's history,
Speaker 3: no president had previously been indicted, no president had previously
Speaker 3: been prosecuted, until the Biden Harris White House came along.
Speaker 3: And in the last four years we've seen Donald Trump
Speaker 3: indicted and prosecuted not once, not twice, not three times,
Speaker 3: but four separate times, and.
Speaker 5: Two assassination attempts.
Speaker 3: Senator, I have to say Javert from Les miz would
Speaker 3: be chagrined at the efforts of Democrats to do anything
Speaker 3: possible to take him down. And I believe the real
Speaker 3: target in this was not President Trump, but it was
Speaker 3: the American people that these prosecutions were brought because partisan
Speaker 3: prosecutors were terrified if the American people would do exactly
Speaker 3: what they did in November of twenty twenty four and
Speaker 3: vote to re elect Donald J.
Speaker 5: Trump by seventy seven point three percent million Americans, seventy
Speaker 5: seven point three million Americans.
Speaker 3: Will you commit every day as Attorney General to follow
Speaker 3: the law, to follow the Constitution, to uphold the rule
Speaker 3: of law without favor and without regard to the partisan position.
Speaker 4: Of any criminal defendant.
Speaker 3: Yes, Senator, that's what we should all expect from Attorney general.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 1: I love the way that you weighed that out to
Speaker 1: explain just so many of the attacks and fallacies, but
Speaker 1: also what her job is and the fact And you've
Speaker 1: said this before, and I think it's a great point
Speaker 1: to make again. You don't want a Republican Department of
Speaker 1: DOJ or a Democrat. You want it to be nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: because that's what God us into this mess with legal
Speaker 1: warfare against every conservative anyone around Trump. And the list
Speaker 1: is long of people that have been persecuted by this DOJ.
Speaker 3: Well, and the Democrats have been screaming at her, what
Speaker 3: will you do with trump demands go prosecute Democrats? And
Speaker 3: the point I tried to make is, listen, that's not
Speaker 3: an hypothetical, that's not some abstract question. Joe Biden did that.
Speaker 3: He did that with Merrick Garland. And by the way,
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland saluted and said sir, yes, sir, and went
Speaker 3: and indicted Donald Trump over and over again. So we
Speaker 3: know what that looks like. And I don't believe Pambondi
Speaker 3: will do that. By the way, I don't believe Donald
Speaker 3: Trump will demand that. Now, I will say we had
Speaker 3: a second round of questioning with Pambondy, and in the
Speaker 3: second round I focused on a different aspect of politicization.
Speaker 3: One aspect of it is using the machinery of justice
Speaker 3: to go after your enemies, using the machinery of justice
Speaker 3: to protect the political friends of the president. But there's
Speaker 3: a different aspect of politicization, and that is refusing to
Speaker 3: follow the law for an overarching political agenda, in this case,
Speaker 3: the radical open borders agenda. So listen to this short
Speaker 3: round of questioning that I had with Pambondy. Later in
Speaker 3: the day, an excellent job at this hearing. And I
Speaker 3: want to go back to the topic you and I
Speaker 3: discussed before, which is the politicization of the Department of Justice.
Speaker 3: I want to focus on a different aspect of it.
Speaker 3: We talked about the Department of Justice under Joe Biden
Speaker 3: and Kamala Harri being used to target the president's political enemies.
Speaker 3: We talked about it being used to protect the political
Speaker 3: friends and allies of the White House. But there's another
Speaker 3: aspect of politicization and lawlessness, and that is refusing to
Speaker 3: follow the law, utterly defying federal statutory law. And I
Speaker 3: think there's no area where this has been more egregious
Speaker 3: than as it concerns our immigration laws. We have had
Speaker 3: four years of a wide open southern border. My state
Speaker 3: Texas has born a disproportionate burden as a consequence of
Speaker 3: that as twelve million illegal aliens have flooded into this country.
Speaker 3: And what the Biden administration has done no other president
Speaker 3: in the history of America has done. The Biden administration
Speaker 3: has simply ignored the law and when illegal aliens are apprehended,
Speaker 3: they release them. Federal law says they shall be detained,
Speaker 3: says they shall be deported, and frankly, our constitutional system
Speaker 3: is not meant meant to deal with a president who
Speaker 3: defies the law. Article two says the president shall take
Speaker 3: care that the laws be faithfully executed. This administration utterly
Speaker 3: defied the law. I have said, somewhat tongue in cheek,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden did something I previously thought was impossible. He
Speaker 3: made me miss Barack Obama. Because Barack Obama, for all
Speaker 3: my disagreements with him, when it came to illegal immigration,
Speaker 3: he by and large followed the law. Barack Obama deported
Speaker 3: millions of people. The left got mad at him and
Speaker 3: called him the deporter in chief. No administration has ever
Speaker 3: done with This administration has done, which is said, we
Speaker 3: are going to facilitate the invasion of this country. We're
Speaker 3: going to release twelve million people, and we are going
Speaker 3: to see Americans murdered, women raped, children abused and murdered.
Speaker 3: We're going to see drugs flood into this country, fentanyl
Speaker 3: flood into this country.
Speaker 4: And so I want to ask you several things on this.
Speaker 3: First of all, in your experience, what are the consequences
Speaker 3: of open borders and who pays the price when illegal
Speaker 3: immigrants and in particular criminal illegal immigrants are released in.
Speaker 5: Country American citizens, Senator, and I think they're paying. I
Speaker 5: know they're paying the price every single day. We're seeing it,
Speaker 5: we're watching it. We've talked about Lake and Riley, of
Speaker 5: course multiple times. But there are multiple victims violent crime
Speaker 5: in all of our states. And as we say now,
Speaker 5: every state is a border state. I was at the
Speaker 5: border at not in your state, but in Yuma, Arizona,
Speaker 5: several months ago, and I saw firsthand. I saw the
Speaker 5: border patrol agents and Customs showed US IDs and driver's
Speaker 5: license venezuela from all of these countries. IDs just thrown
Speaker 5: on the ground, and people were allowed to walk freely
Speaker 5: into our country. Senator, I never knew the definition of
Speaker 5: a disposable child. I never heard that term in my
Speaker 5: entire career until I was there. A disposable child that
Speaker 5: the agents kept recognizing, A little boy coming over and over.
Speaker 5: You're familiar with it, I'm sure, same little boy.
Speaker 4: And let me ask.
Speaker 3: Let me ask, because my time has expired and the
Speaker 3: issue you're raising is so incredibly important. One statistic that
Speaker 3: every American should know is the number three hundred thousand.
Speaker 3: There are over three hundred thousand children that this administration
Speaker 3: has lost. Little girls and little boys who came here
Speaker 3: on accompanied were in this administration's custody. They handed them
Speaker 3: over to adults, many of them not blood relatives, and
Speaker 3: they don't know where they are. I've never seen a
Speaker 3: single Democrat in this committee ask one question about the
Speaker 3: three hundred thousand children.
Speaker 4: I want to ask you a commitment.
Speaker 3: Will you, as Attorney General investigate and make every effort
Speaker 3: to find those children and if they are subject to abuse,
Speaker 3: get them out of those abusive situations that the federal
Speaker 3: government has put them into.
Speaker 5: Yes, Senator, Thank.
Speaker 2: You, Senator.
Speaker 1: This goes back to I think one of the things
Speaker 1: we talked about and highlighted on this show, and that
Speaker 1: was just the abuse of power by majorchis and not
Speaker 1: even knowing about, for example, the wristbands which you've described
Speaker 1: on this show that were found at the border, and
Speaker 1: so many people that are traffick had to wear those,
Speaker 1: including kids.
Speaker 2: You look at how we've lost all.
Speaker 1: These kids, and hearing her commit to actually using the
Speaker 1: DOJ for this reason, which would be a non political reason,
Speaker 1: saving kids from sex slavery for goodness sakes, that was
Speaker 1: encouraging to hear.
Speaker 3: It was very encouraging that commitment was very important. Look,
Speaker 3: you and I in our last podcast two days ago,
Speaker 3: we talked about the horrific scandal in the United Kingdom
Speaker 3: of thousands of girls subject to repeated child rape for decades,
Speaker 3: and how the government turned its back on them, refused
Speaker 3: to prosecute, refused to investigate, all in the name of multiculturalism.
Speaker 3: By the way, if you did not listen to Wednesday's podcast,
Speaker 3: you ought to listen to it, because it really is
Speaker 3: there are among the stories that really bothered me, that
Speaker 3: horrify me. That's really at the top of the list.
Speaker 3: But you and I talked about on Wednesday, how it's
Speaker 3: easy to say as Americans, well, gosh, it's a shame
Speaker 3: the Brits did that, But we're somehow better than that.
Speaker 4: No, we're not.
Speaker 3: Three hundred thousand kids in America have been lost, and
Speaker 3: the Biden administration doesn't care. Democrats and Congress don't care,
Speaker 3: the media doesn't care. I am very very glad this
Speaker 3: week that Pam Bondi committed to me on the record
Speaker 3: that as Attorney General, she's going to investigate. I hope
Speaker 3: she's going to create a task force in the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice to go and find those three hundred thousand kids,
Speaker 3: to go figure out are these children being abused or
Speaker 3: are they being physically abused or being sexually abused? What
Speaker 3: happened that it's not okay for the federal government to
Speaker 3: lose three hundred thousand little boys and little girls. This week,
Speaker 3: I sat down with Bobby Kennedy, and when I sat
Speaker 3: down with him, I asked him the same question. He's
Speaker 3: going to be the next Secretary of AHHS, Will AHHS
Speaker 3: investigate and fought those children to make sure they're not
Speaker 3: being abused? And I'll tell you he committed to me
Speaker 3: in my office the same thing. That's a big deal,
Speaker 3: and it's one of the many things that makes me
Speaker 3: very excited about this new cabinet coming in.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about timing, because there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: worried that there's going to be, you know, delays with
Speaker 1: cabinet members. You mentioned half of the of the cabinet
Speaker 1: you guys have had up in front of you this week.
Speaker 1: There are twenty attorney generals that are calling for what
Speaker 1: they described as swift Senate confirmations of Chrissy Nome Pambondi
Speaker 1: Cash hotel. Are there going to be Shenanigan's who tried
Speaker 1: to lay this? Or are you concerned about that because there
Speaker 1: have been a lot of articles written about that the
Speaker 1: last couple of days.
Speaker 4: You know, I'm not really concerned.
Speaker 3: So we have had hearings already for about half of
Speaker 3: the cabinet nominees. Now I'm going to point out January
Speaker 3: twentieth has not happened yet, so it's before Donald Trump
Speaker 3: has become president. Again, none of these nominees have been nominated,
Speaker 3: so nobody can be nominated to a cabinet position until
Speaker 3: the president is in office. He will not be in
Speaker 3: office until noon on January twentieth, So the Senate is
Speaker 3: holding confirmation hearings on a whole bunch of nominees who
Speaker 3: haven't been nominated yet.
Speaker 4: And that's a good thing.
Speaker 3: I think on January twentieth, Trump will take the oath
Speaker 3: of office at noon that day will confirm I think
Speaker 3: probably a couple of Trump cabinet nominees. My guess is
Speaker 3: Marco Rubio will be confirmed as Secretary of State. I
Speaker 3: think it will be an overwhelming vote. I think he'll
Speaker 3: get north of ninety votes. He might even get north
Speaker 3: of ninety five votes. It will be all the Republicans
Speaker 3: and most of the Democrats.
Speaker 4: I think there's a good chance.
Speaker 3: John Ratcliff, who's been nominated to be director of CIA,
Speaker 3: I think he'll be confirmed on January twentieth, and I
Speaker 3: think the rest of the cabinet will be confirmed in
Speaker 3: the next thirty days. So will it be instantaneous, will
Speaker 3: it be in ten minutes, No, but I think within
Speaker 3: thirty days we'll move the cabinet through and we'll move expeditiously.
Speaker 3: And this week's been a very good week for that
Speaker 3: because the cabinet nominees have performed exceptionally and I think
Speaker 3: they're all going to get confirmed.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about and go back something you said
Speaker 1: a moment ago, and that's you know, what are you
Speaker 1: focusing on. It's very clear that the Republicans are focused
Speaker 1: on moving forward, getting things done for the people. And
Speaker 1: you look at what Democrats are doing, whether and we're
Speaker 1: going to get to this part in a minute, but
Speaker 1: whether it's them saying, oh, we don't like people that
Speaker 1: aren't our fans right now, so we're going to call
Speaker 1: them oligarks, We're going to attack people that are rich.
Speaker 1: And then you look out in California where the wildfires,
Speaker 1: unfortunately are still burning, and it seems to be pure
Speaker 1: politics right now for the governor out there who had
Speaker 1: enough time to while these wildfires are going on, to
Speaker 1: get in back and forth with you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, so, Gavin Newsom, you and I did a
Speaker 3: podcast last week and it was another podcast which if
Speaker 3: y'all didn't listen to, I'd encourage you to go back
Speaker 3: and listen to. It laid out the specific policies that
Speaker 3: California had put in place that increase the chains of
Speaker 3: disastrous and catastrophic wildfires, and that reduced the ability of
Speaker 3: California to fight those wildfires. Now, look, what is happening
Speaker 3: in California is horrific, and as you know, Heidi's a
Speaker 3: native Californian, a lot of our family is out in California.
Speaker 3: My heart is breaking for these Americans who are seeing
Speaker 3: their homes burned to the ground, the people being killed.
Speaker 3: It is an absolute tragedy. And I am grateful for
Speaker 3: the firefighters, for the police officers, for the first responders
Speaker 3: who are risking their lives to save people. Even at
Speaker 3: the time we are rallying around protecting people in harms.
Speaker 3: Ray way, I think it is valuable to ask are
Speaker 3: their policies that California enacted that made this worse? And
Speaker 3: the answer is yes. And then I got to say
Speaker 3: this week, Gavin Newsom jumped out, we're going to play
Speaker 3: the audio to second, and.
Speaker 4: Here's what he tweeted.
Speaker 3: He said, quote, today, I signed an executive order prohibiting
Speaker 3: greedy land developers from ripping off LA wildfire victims with unsolicited,
Speaker 3: undervalued offers to buy their destroyed property. Make no mistake,
Speaker 3: this is a prosecutable crime.
Speaker 4: So play Gavin Newsom saying this Altadena.
Speaker 6: I just signed an executive order with community leaders to
Speaker 6: deal with the issue that is becoming a bigger and
Speaker 6: bigger issue every day, and that's land developers that are
Speaker 6: engaging in predatory efforts to make unsolicited offers for properties
Speaker 6: at significantly below market value. This predatory behavior is disgusting
Speaker 6: in the best of times, and of course here in
Speaker 6: the midst of this tragedy at scale, it's disgraceful.
Speaker 2: So we're going to hold those folks accountable.
Speaker 6: I'm very grateful for the leadership here in the community
Speaker 6: that promoted this approach and this executive order's reflection of
Speaker 6: their direction and their commitment to preserving the unique character
Speaker 6: of this community for generations to come.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, is a prosecutoral crime. Is what he
Speaker 1: put out there in his tweet, saying, I'm signing this
Speaker 1: executive order prohibit the greedy land developers from ripping off
Speaker 1: LA wildfire victims with unsolicited offers.
Speaker 3: So I responded, I responded on Twitter, and I sent
Speaker 3: back the following tweet. Misguided California policies number one limited
Speaker 3: fire mitigation efforts, number two produced water shortages, and number
Speaker 3: three underfunded firefighters. And by the way, that's what we
Speaker 3: discussed at depth in our podcast last week. The tweet continued,
Speaker 3: Now Democrat politicians are making it harder for those devastated
Speaker 3: by the wildfires to sell their destroyed properties. This will
Speaker 3: only hope hurt the victims. So that was my response,
Speaker 3: and then I got to say, it's in interesting. You know,
Speaker 3: Newsom is in the middle of a crisis, and yet
Speaker 3: somehow he found time to tweet back against me. He
Speaker 3: was mad at what I had to say. So here's
Speaker 3: what Gavin Newsom tweeted back. He said, quote openly shilling
Speaker 3: for scammers and bottom feeder land speculators is a weird play,
Speaker 3: even for you, Ted. Our executive order doesn't prevent anyone
Speaker 3: from selling their property. It prohibits scammers from making unsolicited
Speaker 3: offers to buy property for pennies on the dollar. And
Speaker 3: then I got to say I responded to that, and
Speaker 3: I said, leftists ignorant of basic economics have played a
Speaker 3: major role in the exodus of millions from California. Now
Speaker 3: Newsom brags that he will criminally prosecute anyone making a
Speaker 3: quote unquote vote low offer to purchase a fire devastated property.
Speaker 3: The result, many Californians won't get offers. And I got
Speaker 3: to say this back and forth. I think it actually
Speaker 3: reveals a lot the left today. They don't understand basic economics.
Speaker 3: They don't understand economics. One oh one. Let's say you're
Speaker 3: a person in LA and let's say your home has
Speaker 3: been tragically destroyed. Let's say you're in tragedy or in crisis.
Speaker 3: You don't know what to do. It's burned to a crisp,
Speaker 3: you can't afford to rebuild, you don't know what to do.
Speaker 3: And you know what, maybe someone comes in and makes
Speaker 3: it offer and says, hey, ben your property, that has
Speaker 3: been burned down, whether it's your home or commercial property
Speaker 3: where you have, I'll pay you X dollars for that. Now,
Speaker 3: before the fire, you probably wouldn't have taken X dollars
Speaker 3: because your property wasn't burned to the ground it was
Speaker 3: worth more. But after the fire you might well say,
Speaker 3: holy cow, I'm in panic. I need help. That is
Speaker 3: a life saver to me, so thank you. I will
Speaker 3: take X dollars because I can't afford it if I
Speaker 3: don't get some help right now?
Speaker 4: What is Gavin Newsom saying?
Speaker 3: Nope, if you make an offer, dammit, I'm gonna prosecute
Speaker 3: you and throw you in jail. What that means, Let's say, Ben,
Speaker 3: your home's burned or a crisp You know what, people
Speaker 3: aren't gonna make you offers because if they're worried. Wait,
Speaker 3: if I offer to buy Ben Ferguson's home, the lunatics
Speaker 3: in California are gonna come prosecute me and put me
Speaker 3: in jail. You know what, I ain't making an offer,
Speaker 3: So you know what you're gonna get for your property.
Speaker 4: Zero Because.
Speaker 3: Numbskull politicians are focused on demagoguing someone who would offer
Speaker 3: to buy a fire destroyed property rather than focusing on
Speaker 3: stopping these wired fires, preventing them and supporting the firefighters
Speaker 3: to stop them if and when they occur.
Speaker 1: There's also a family aspect of this that is concerning
Speaker 1: and you and I saw this with the massive flooding
Speaker 1: that happened in Houston. My in laws house got flooded out.
Speaker 1: They had no intent of moving, but after they got flooded,
Speaker 1: it was the right time for them to leave that
Speaker 1: house and sell that house that lot basically and move
Speaker 1: closer to where the rest of the family was.
Speaker 2: That was a family decision.
Speaker 1: And if someone knocked on the door and was like, hey,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you want to rebuild this, maybe
Speaker 1: you should. You know, this is a lot value that
Speaker 1: is worth a lot. And here's the economics of this.
Speaker 1: There were many people that made that decision as well.
Speaker 1: You just took that away from them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Look, it's not complicated.
Speaker 3: In a free society, I have a right to offer
Speaker 3: you if I see something, if I see your house,
Speaker 3: if I see your car, if I see anything and
Speaker 3: I say hey, I'll give you one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 3: for that, I'll give you a million dollars for that.
Speaker 3: I'll give you a thousand dollars for that whatever. Like
Speaker 3: we have a free society where I can tell you, ben,
Speaker 3: you have something, do you want to sell it? I'll
Speaker 3: offer you this price. By the way, no one's forcing
Speaker 3: you to say yes. Like if someone makes it offer,
Speaker 3: you could say go pound sand No, I don't want
Speaker 3: to sell it. And that's perfectly fine. If you remember
Speaker 3: the movie Bugsy, great movie about the beginning of la
Speaker 3: and Warren Baty is playing Bugsy Siegel and he's in
Speaker 3: Beverly Hills and he sees this gorgeous mansion and he
Speaker 3: walks up to the door and knocks on the door
Speaker 3: and he says, I want to buy your house. The
Speaker 3: guy says not for sale, and he says, nonsense, everything's
Speaker 3: for sale.
Speaker 4: How much do you want?
Speaker 3: And he says it's not for sale, and then he
Speaker 3: offers some massive amount and thirty seconds later the guy
Speaker 3: leaves his house and Buggy Segel moves into his house. Like,
Speaker 3: at some level, the right to offer I will pay
Speaker 3: you X for what you have. That's the basic conduct
Speaker 3: of free people and so. But the point on this
Speaker 3: and this is economics one O one. When Gavin Newsom
Speaker 3: says I'm going to come and lock you up and
Speaker 3: put you in jail. If you make an offer to
Speaker 3: people in crisis, well, you know what, people are not
Speaker 3: going to make offers. So people are sitting there who
Speaker 3: are trapped and hopeless and who their insurance was canceled.
Speaker 3: They can't get insurance, they can't pay their property taxes,
Speaker 3: they can't they don't know.
Speaker 4: What to do.
Speaker 3: They're all going to be worse off because listen, if
Speaker 3: someone makes an offer to buy it, maybe you say no,
Speaker 3: I don't want that offer.
Speaker 4: It's not enough, I don't want it. Okay, you're not
Speaker 4: any worse off.
Speaker 3: Have you been hurt because someone called and said, I'll
Speaker 3: give you this amount for your property.
Speaker 4: You're not hurt.
Speaker 3: But for people who are in crisis, that offer maybe
Speaker 3: the the life preserver they need. And Gavin Newsom said, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: you ain't getting offers. Guess what you're just going under
Speaker 3: because we the California Socialists, we're not going to focus
Speaker 3: on protecting you. We're going to focus on demagoguing the big,
Speaker 3: bad rich person who would offer to buy your property.
Speaker 4: Instead.
Speaker 1: It is also goes back to this other narrative when
Speaker 1: we heard it from the President of the United States
Speaker 1: of America. The other night, he was obsessed with this
Speaker 1: idea of oligarchs. I actually think this was a little
Speaker 1: bit different. And Bernie Sanders started naming names when he
Speaker 1: was doing the confirmation hearing for the man who's up
Speaker 1: for Treasury secretary, and I want to get your take,
Speaker 1: and we're going to play Bernie. But one of the
Speaker 1: things I felt was really kind of icky about this
Speaker 1: was the fact that it's.
Speaker 2: Like, hey, we're warning some of you that.
Speaker 1: Have stepped out of line from the Democratic Party that
Speaker 1: we're coming after you when we get our power back
Speaker 1: if you step out too far into the conservative side
Speaker 1: of things. And that's why we're warning you that if
Speaker 1: we name you is an oligarch, then if we get
Speaker 1: our when we get our power back, there's going to
Speaker 1: be some sort of hell to pay. And you better
Speaker 1: be careful how much you work with Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: you support freedom of speech, and you support freedom of
Speaker 1: expression online and the able the ability to post things,
Speaker 1: and that's what it was boiling down to, and it
Speaker 1: was I think even more weird. It was in a
Speaker 1: back and forth with the guy for Treasury secretary, it's like, wait,
Speaker 1: are you trying to weaponize treasury to say, hey, your
Speaker 1: job is to now make sure there's no billionaires in America.
Speaker 3: Well, look, it's worth giving a listen. So listen to
Speaker 3: this back and forth. And in terms of the demagogic
Speaker 3: language of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 4: This is a great example. Give a listen.
Speaker 7: When you have a small number of multi billionaires who
Speaker 7: have enormous economic, media and political power. Would you agree
Speaker 7: with President Biden who last night stated, and I quote
Speaker 7: and Oligauki is taking shape in America of extreme wealth
Speaker 7: power and influence that threatens our entire democracy, our basic
Speaker 7: rights and freedom's end of quote. That's what President Biden
Speaker 7: said last night. I agree with him, do you.
Speaker 8: I enjoyed our visit, and I hope you got my
Speaker 8: follow up materials that on the discussions, my predicious writings
Speaker 8: on the terraces and China and the three billionaires who
Speaker 8: you listed that all made the money themselves. Mister Musk
Speaker 8: came to the country as an immigrant.
Speaker 2: I understand that.
Speaker 7: But what I'm asking you is when you have a
Speaker 7: handful of people like Musk who will soon be part
Speaker 7: of the Trump administration and others, when you have three
Speaker 7: people owing more wealth than the bottom half of America society.
Speaker 7: When these people have enormous influence over the media, when
Speaker 7: they spend huge amounts of money in both political parties
Speaker 7: to elect candidates. What Biden said last night is we're
Speaker 7: moving toward an oligocky I'm asking you that question. Do
Speaker 7: you think, forget how they made their money, do you
Speaker 7: think that when so few people have so much wealth
Speaker 7: and so much economic and political power, that that is
Speaker 7: an oligoxic form of society?
Speaker 8: Well, I wouldn't note that they. President Biden gave the
Speaker 8: Presidential Metal of Freedom to two people who I think
Speaker 8: would qualify for his oligarchs.
Speaker 7: So this is not a condemnation of any one individual.
Speaker 2: I'm just asking you when.
Speaker 7: So few people have so much wealth and power, But
Speaker 7: do you think that that is an oligockic form of society?
Speaker 8: Senator? I think it depends on the ability to move
Speaker 8: up and down the end.
Speaker 4: No, that's not really dancer.
Speaker 7: I mean, if you had the mobility, no matter who
Speaker 7: those individuals might be. All right, But let me ask
Speaker 7: you another question.
Speaker 1: I love there how He's like, all right, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: move on because this isn't landing and just threw it
Speaker 1: back in my face that we just gave medals of
Speaker 1: the highest level of metal you can give to a civilian,
Speaker 1: to two of the people that would be categorized oligorks.
Speaker 1: One of them, by the way, is a hard core
Speaker 1: radical by the name of George Soros.
Speaker 3: George Soros just got the Medal of Freedom from Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: He celebrated. He also gave it to Hillary Clinton. And
Speaker 3: by the way, before that, Barack Obama gave the Medal
Speaker 3: of Freedom to Bill Gates. And listen, the position of
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders is, we hate billionaires. Unless you're billionaires who
Speaker 3: support socialists and the Democrat Party, then you're okay. But
Speaker 3: to be clear, you're only okay if you're buying absolution.
Speaker 3: The instant you stop buying absolution, we will demonize you
Speaker 3: and we will burn you an effigy in the streets.
Speaker 3: And I gotta say, I like Scott Bessen's, He's like, wait,
Speaker 3: you're attacking these people. None of these three people, you're
Speaker 3: attacking none of them inherited wealth. You know, Elon Musk
Speaker 3: came as an immigrant from Africa, like he built amazing
Speaker 3: companies and and to a socialist, they don't care what
Speaker 3: you did to build wealth. They're going to demonize you.
Speaker 3: They're going to attack you. And it's an example of
Speaker 3: and and by the way, it's it's why you get
Speaker 3: so many incredibly rich, so many billionaires who backed the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party because they're basically paying for protection from Roba spear,
Speaker 3: from from from the guillotine in the French Revolution. And
Speaker 3: and I got to say that that is where the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party is. But I'll give Scott Besson a shout out.
Speaker 3: He responded with fantastic answers. Which is why Bernie ran
Speaker 3: ran to the hills and ran away because he realized
Speaker 3: it wasn't going the way he wanted. Scott Besson's gonna
Speaker 3: get affirmed. Every Trump cabinet member is gonna get confirmed.
Speaker 1: That might be the best thing we've heard all day.
Speaker 1: Every member is going to get confirmed with Trump's cabinet.
Speaker 1: And that's incredible. Don't forget. We do the show Monday, Wednesday, Friday,
Speaker 1: and we've got one more show. I just sw the
Speaker 1: Senator wants to remind everybody one more show Monday.
Speaker 3: No, I thought you told me this was the last
Speaker 3: one before inauguration. I was listening to you at the
Speaker 3: beginning of the show. You said that you know, I'm
Speaker 3: changing here.
Speaker 1: I'm just moving with the calendar. I'm moving with the
Speaker 1: times here, Senator. So we'll have that final one for
Speaker 1: you before inauguration that will air on Monday on Inauguration Day.
Speaker 1: Don't forget our weekend review will be on Saturday as well.
Speaker 1: Hit that subscriber auto download button and we'll see you
Speaker 1: back here on Saturday, and then for one more show
Speaker 1: on Monday as well