Speaker 1: Welcome. It is a Verdict with Ted Cruz Weekend Review.
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the big stories
Speaker 1: that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 1: The number one story we're going to start with today
Speaker 1: deals with election interference. And if you put Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in a courtroom on purpose on a day like for example,
Speaker 1: Super Tuesday, so we can't campaign, is that not the
Speaker 1: definition of election? Heert interference? Also story number two ray Epps.
Speaker 1: You've heard the name, Well, he got in dieted this
Speaker 1: week sort of. In fact, it was almost a joke.
Speaker 1: So how did ray Epps get away with January the sixth?
Speaker 1: And why have they been protecting him at the FBI
Speaker 1: and the DOJ. We'll explain that. And finally, Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: not getting along very well with Democratic mayors across the
Speaker 1: country who are starting to turn on him on illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: So what does this mean for getting a deal done
Speaker 1: with Mayor Adams in New York. We'll have that for
Speaker 1: you as well. It is the Weekend Review with Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz and it starts right now. Judges getting involved in
Speaker 1: a way that I think is pretty clear it to
Speaker 1: election interference. We've seen court dates that have come out
Speaker 1: now for Donald Trump, with all these different indictments in
Speaker 1: different states, that could be like the days before Super Tuesday,
Speaker 1: when any normal canate would be on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: You just mentioned why you guys didn't do secret service.
Speaker 1: That's how important is to be fast and right to
Speaker 1: be campaigning. We're seeing two things now that seem to
Speaker 1: be marking the calendar. One, you could throw this guy
Speaker 1: into courtroom.
Speaker 2: During dates when he desperately needs to be out campaigning,
Speaker 2: taking away his ability to have a fair election against
Speaker 2: Joe Biden or whoever it may be. And two, now
Speaker 2: you may take away the president former presidents. It's America
Speaker 2: and the leading cannate for the Republican Party's voice to
Speaker 2: talk about the accusations against him from the leftists and
Speaker 2: these people, these DA's are trying to lock him up
Speaker 2: by putting a gag order on what he can say.
Speaker 2: This seems on American it seems Banana Republic. Ask.
Speaker 1: I think it's disgusting political POI here, Yet, that's what
Speaker 1: we're really talking about now, is that real possibility?
Speaker 3: Look, you're exactly right.
Speaker 4: We have talked at length on this podcast about how
Speaker 4: the multiple indictments against Donald Trump are election interference. Democrats
Speaker 4: have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler, and
Speaker 4: because they believe he's Hitler, anything, anything is justified to
Speaker 4: stop him. The ends justify the means, and they're willing
Speaker 4: to corrupt the legal process to turn the Department of
Speaker 4: Justice into a political weapon. They're willing to do everything
Speaker 4: they can to stop the voters from daring to make
Speaker 4: a decision to vote in the way these angry partisan
Speaker 4: Democrats don't want the voters to vote. We've gone over
Speaker 4: two hundred years of our nation's history. We've never indicted
Speaker 4: a president or a former president, or a major candidate
Speaker 4: for president. In the last six months, Democrats have done
Speaker 4: so four separate times. The US Department of Justice under
Speaker 4: Biden is the most partisan and political we've ever seen.
Speaker 4: And Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, we've talked to length.
Speaker 4: He is a partisan. He has a history of abusing power,
Speaker 4: including this is not the first presidential candidate or potential
Speaker 4: presidential candidate he's gone After he went after Bob McDonald,
Speaker 4: the governor of Virginia, was considered a credible presidential candidate.
Speaker 4: Jack Smith indicted him destroyed his political career, destroyed his life,
Speaker 4: and then on appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously throughout the
Speaker 4: conviction as not being consistent with law.
Speaker 3: But he'd already done its job, which here out he
Speaker 3: took him out.
Speaker 4: In this instance, the case in the District of Columbia
Speaker 4: is profoundly dangerous. It's profoundly dangerous because number one, the
Speaker 4: jury pool in the District of Columbia is over ninety
Speaker 4: percent about ninety four percent Democrat. So you're going to
Speaker 4: get a jury that in all likelihood hates Donald Trump
Speaker 4: and believes he's ad Off Hitler. Now, if you believe
Speaker 4: someone's ad Off Hitler, you're a victim.
Speaker 3: That's not a hard guilty for whatever the crime is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's you hate if it's Adolf Hitler. Yes, we
Speaker 4: also have a district judge who has demonstrated and earned
Speaker 4: a reputation as being one of the furthest left Democrat
Speaker 4: district judges on the federal bench in DC, who is
Speaker 4: presiding this trial is designed to directly interfere with the election.
Speaker 4: But Jack Smith said this is not enough, and so
Speaker 4: he filed a motion, a motion for a gag order.
Speaker 4: So he's gone to this left wing district judge, and
Speaker 4: he's asked for a gag order. He says, defendant has
Speaker 4: repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of
Speaker 4: the district Columbia. That's by daring to point out that
Speaker 4: ninety four percent of DC voters vote Democrat, and that's.
Speaker 3: Going to be the jury pool the court.
Speaker 4: That's by pointing out that the judge has a record
Speaker 4: of being one of the most left wing Democrats on
Speaker 4: the entire federal bench prosecutors. That's by pointing out that
Speaker 4: Jack Smith is a hard core partisan Democrat whos already
Speaker 4: abused his power repeatedly and prospective witnesses. The government therefore
Speaker 4: requests that the court quote enter and narrowly tailored order
Speaker 4: pursue into local Criminal Rule fifty seven C that restricts
Speaker 4: certain prejudicial extra judicial statements, and in particular, what they
Speaker 4: ask for, the government seeks this is a quote a narrow,
Speaker 4: well defined restriction that is targeted at extra judicial statements
Speaker 4: that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing
Speaker 4: the case. The government's proposed order specifies that such statements
Speaker 4: would include a statements regarding the identity, testimony or credibility
Speaker 4: of prospective witnesses, and b statements about any party witness, attorney,
Speaker 4: court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflamma
Speaker 4: territory or intimidating. Now, let's be clear, who do they
Speaker 4: mean by potential witnesses. They mean people like Bills yep,
Speaker 4: and they mean people like Mike Pence. So Mike Pence
Speaker 4: is literally running against Donald Trump right now for the
Speaker 4: Republican nomination for president, and you have the Biden Department
Speaker 4: of Justice asking a federal judge issue an order that
Speaker 4: Donald Trump cannot say a critical word of Mike Pence
Speaker 4: about one of his opponents in the primary. Like, holy crap.
Speaker 4: If this doesn't piss you off, you're not paying attention.
Speaker 4: I mean, it is truly breathtaking. You want to understand
Speaker 4: why this is election interference? DJ believes the federal court
Speaker 4: can order one political candidate you're not allowed to criticize
Speaker 4: your opponent.
Speaker 3: Just don't say a word.
Speaker 4: Don't say a word at all, despite the fact that
Speaker 4: you're facing a political persecution designed to interfere with the election,
Speaker 4: You're not allowed to say it. And if you do,
Speaker 4: by the way. Look, a gag order is typically enforced
Speaker 4: by content tempt and by jail. So what the Biden
Speaker 4: doj is proposing is if Donald Trump says a negative
Speaker 4: word about Mike Pence, that the US Department of Justice
Speaker 4: will show up and arrest him and put him in
Speaker 4: jail for saying a negative word about one of his
Speaker 4: opponents running for president.
Speaker 2: And by the way, they would do that, Let's be clear,
Speaker 2: they would love to arrest.
Speaker 4: Him again, that's what they want, and to keep him
Speaker 4: in jail. This is election interference. It is wildly unconstitutional.
Speaker 4: It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It
Speaker 4: is also a direct violation of the right to vote,
Speaker 4: of our democratic process in this country. Now, the Democrat
Speaker 4: talking hens will say, look, sometimes you have gag orders.
Speaker 4: If you're going against the mafia, bosh, you're going up
Speaker 4: against al Capone. Courts will enter orders saying, Okay, you
Speaker 4: can't intimidate witnesses, can't you can't say things that will
Speaker 4: prejudice the jury. You're right, in an ordinary criminal trial,
Speaker 4: those things can't happen in an ordinary criminal trial. The
Speaker 4: defendant is not a leading candidate for president of the
Speaker 4: United States actively running for president.
Speaker 3: Of the United States. And my guess, I don't think
Speaker 3: the district Court will grant this.
Speaker 4: I don't know that. I don't know this judge at all.
Speaker 4: I've never met her. Her record demonstrates she's left wing.
Speaker 4: But I think if the district court granted this order,
Speaker 4: it would be exceptionally foolish. Why because the order would
Speaker 4: be appealed and it would be overturned on appeal. I
Speaker 4: do not believe there's any way the Supreme Court of
Speaker 4: the United States would allow a leading candidate for president
Speaker 4: to be enjoined, to be ordered from a court, you
Speaker 4: are not allowed to criticize your political opponents. I mean,
Speaker 4: if you could envision, imagine debate. Let's we have a
Speaker 4: subsequent Republican debate. Trump shows up and Mike Pence blasts him,
Speaker 4: and Trump turns and says, I'm sorry, I'm prevented by
Speaker 4: court order from.
Speaker 3: Respety, Yeah, from defending myself.
Speaker 4: That is not free speech, that is not democracy, that
Speaker 4: is not how our system operates.
Speaker 3: And that's election interference. Exactly perfect example of what capsulates.
Speaker 4: And by the way, that's what they want, actually what
Speaker 4: they want. Look, they know in that circumstance, Donald Trump
Speaker 4: could not restrain himself, sure, and then they would arrest.
Speaker 3: Them, and then they would arrest him.
Speaker 4: I mean, I mean, you can almost envision the jack
Speaker 4: booted thugs sitting by the side of the debate and
Speaker 4: as Trump blasts his opponents, and he'll blast all his
Speaker 4: opponents because that's what he does. You can almost envision
Speaker 4: them walking out in the middle of the debate and saying, sir,
Speaker 4: you're under arrest. If that is not election interference, holy cow.
Speaker 4: It really shows just how extreme the Democrats have gotten.
Speaker 4: This is horrific. By the way, let's be clear, I
Speaker 4: would be every bit as opposed to an order preventing
Speaker 4: Joe Biden from criticizing his opponents, from criticizing RFK Junior
Speaker 4: from criticizing Donald Trump. Not to be clear, Joe Biden
Speaker 4: couldn't get up in the morning and speak without criticizing
Speaker 4: Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: He says, good mo. Trump is the devil. That's just
Speaker 3: how he addresses it.
Speaker 4: And he also demonizes every other Republican because he's in
Speaker 4: his mental and feeblement, he's also become an even more
Speaker 4: vicious partisan. But I would be equally and animately opposed
Speaker 4: to any court trying to prevent Joe Biden from attacking
Speaker 4: me or Trump or anybody else, because that's what free
Speaker 4: speech and elections are all about. But today's Democrats, they
Speaker 4: don't believe in democracy, which is why these indictments are happening.
Speaker 4: They want to stop the voters from voting in a
Speaker 4: way they don't like, and they don't believe in free speech,
Speaker 4: which is why they want to muzzle their leading opponent
Speaker 4: for president.
Speaker 3: It is uh. It's a brave new world we're living
Speaker 3: in now.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week.
Speaker 3: Now onto story number two.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about ray apps for a second and remind
Speaker 1: people of ray apps. You and I have talked about
Speaker 1: this on the show before. It's something that came up
Speaker 1: obviously with director, with the director, the FBI director, also
Speaker 1: with the Attorney General Merritt Garland. But Ray Epps out
Speaker 1: of nowhere. Many people believe he was undercover FED. There
Speaker 1: were people even chanting at January sixth fed fed fed.
Speaker 1: He was the guy telling people were going to storm
Speaker 1: the place the night before, caught on tape. He's a
Speaker 1: guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a
Speaker 1: guy that was encouraging people to break into the Capitol
Speaker 1: on January sixth, had not been charged with anything. Now,
Speaker 1: fast forward multiple years later, and we find out this
Speaker 1: last week that yes, ray Epps has now officially been
Speaker 1: charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to
Speaker 1: prison that were in and around January the sixth, rounding
Speaker 1: up people all over the country. Even just days ago
Speaker 1: we saw another person rounded up. We put some you know,
Speaker 1: some different people in jail for decades now for January
Speaker 1: the sixth. But ray Epps, who clearly was a ringleader
Speaker 1: at least on the day before January sixth and January sixth,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor. And we still
Speaker 1: can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want
Speaker 1: you to hear Representative Thomas Massey and his back and
Speaker 1: forth and then your reaction.
Speaker 5: You're signing the Constitution. I'm going to cite it. It's
Speaker 5: our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now in that video,
Speaker 5: that was your answer to a question to me two
Speaker 5: years ago when I said how many agents or assets
Speaker 5: of the government were present on January fifth and January
Speaker 5: sixth and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol,
Speaker 5: and how many went into the capitol? Can you answer
Speaker 5: that now?
Speaker 6: I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 5: Oh, last time, you don't know how many there were
Speaker 5: or there were none.
Speaker 6: I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
Speaker 6: If there were any. I don't know how many. You've
Speaker 6: know whether there are any.
Speaker 5: I think you may have just perjured yourself that you
Speaker 5: don't know that there were any. You want to say
Speaker 5: that again, that you don't know that there were any.
Speaker 6: No personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I
Speaker 6: said the last time.
Speaker 5: You've had two years to find out and to day,
Speaker 5: by the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps,
Speaker 5: and yesterday you indicted him.
Speaker 7: Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, you're
Speaker 7: sending Grandma's to prison. You're putting people away for twenty
Speaker 7: years for merely filming.
Speaker 3: Some people weren't even there yet.
Speaker 7: You got the guy on video, he's saying go into
Speaker 7: the capitol. He's directing people to the capitol. Before the
Speaker 7: speech ends, he's at the side of the first breach.
Speaker 3: You've got all the goods on.
Speaker 7: In ten videos, and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor.
Speaker 5: The American public isn't buying it. I yielded to bounce
Speaker 5: of my time to Chairman Geordy.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I answer the question.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna ask you one now.
Speaker 5: We'll let the down.
Speaker 6: Yeah, go ahead. But in discovery, in the cases were
Speaker 6: filed with respect to January sixth, the Just Department prosecutors
Speaker 6: provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking.
Speaker 6: With respect to mister EPs, the FBI has said that
Speaker 6: he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
Speaker 6: Mister Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding, I
Speaker 6: believe going on today on that subject.
Speaker 5: The charge is a joke, I yielded, Chairman.
Speaker 1: I love the end there, the charge of joke. I
Speaker 1: yielded the chairman. He's right about that, based on everything
Speaker 1: we know about Ray Epps. So who is the guy?
Speaker 3: Well, look, it's a very good question.
Speaker 4: And you see the Attorney General once again dodging and
Speaker 4: and you know, one of the most telling moments of
Speaker 4: that exchange is is when the when Merrick Garland says, well,
Speaker 4: I don't even know if there were any FBI agents there?
Speaker 4: And and and I think I think the point was
Speaker 4: made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was
Speaker 4: almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look an earlier Verdict we
Speaker 4: did actually before you and I teamed up, back when
Speaker 4: it was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire
Speaker 4: episode of Verdict that was entitled who is ray Epps?
Speaker 4: And and you ought to go on YouTube, and it
Speaker 4: was episode one oh four of Verdict, Who Is ray Epps?
Speaker 4: And it followed questioning that I had done in the
Speaker 4: Judiciary committee of senior officials at the Department of Justice
Speaker 4: and the FBI, where I asked them who Ray Epps was,
Speaker 4: and if he had been, if he was an employee
Speaker 4: of the FBI, if he was a confidential informant. They
Speaker 4: refused to answer, They stonewalled. I asked the question, did
Speaker 4: you have agents there? They refused to answer. They stonewalld
Speaker 4: I asked whether federal agents incited violence? They refused to answer.
Speaker 4: They stonewalled. And so this has been a pattern for
Speaker 4: a long time. And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance
Speaker 4: that he has no idea what the Department of Justice's
Speaker 4: involvement was in incite violence or criminality. On January sixth,
Speaker 4: I can tell you this is also in the wake
Speaker 4: of the Department of Justice losing the case they brought
Speaker 4: against the individual rules that were charged with a plot
Speaker 4: to kidnap and murder the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And
Speaker 4: the basis of their losing was that the FBI had
Speaker 4: engaged in entrapment, that they had incited the criminality.
Speaker 1: And so can you explain a little bit more what
Speaker 1: that means in citing criminality so people understand it well.
Speaker 4: Law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime. In
Speaker 4: other words, if the police send an undercover agent to
Speaker 4: you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a car parked
Speaker 4: on the street. It's got the keys in it. Why
Speaker 4: don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you can
Speaker 4: do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there,
Speaker 4: turn the keys and take it. If they do that,
Speaker 4: that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones, they're
Speaker 4: the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality, and you
Speaker 4: might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were
Speaker 4: not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you
Speaker 4: to do it, and so it's a defense that a
Speaker 4: criminal defendant can give is look, this was the government's idea.
Speaker 4: They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis, the
Speaker 4: central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover
Speaker 4: informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested
Speaker 4: the plot, They're the ones who.
Speaker 3: Drove it forward.
Speaker 4: And these guys were acquitted, the charges were thrown out.
Speaker 4: And the fact that the Biden DOJ is caught with
Speaker 4: absolute misconduct, it is really stunning, and of course the
Speaker 4: corporate the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's
Speaker 4: exactly relevant to the question that was just raised about
Speaker 4: January sixth, which is, to what degree did the criminal
Speaker 4: conduct that occurred, the violence that occur on that day,
Speaker 4: to what degree did law enforcement agents incite it or
Speaker 4: prompted And the reason there's so much focus on Rey
Speaker 4: Epps is he was caught on tape repeatedly saying let's
Speaker 4: go into the capitol, not just up to the capital,
Speaker 4: into the capitol. And there's one point where his behavior
Speaker 4: was so odd that the entire crowd begins chanting fed, fed, fed, fed,
Speaker 4: and so That's why I asked a senior leader at
Speaker 4: the FBI if ray Epps was a FED, and she
Speaker 4: refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is pleading
Speaker 4: complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on January
Speaker 4: six except for the fact that he has told Congress
Speaker 4: repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals involved
Speaker 4: with January sixth than any other matter in DJ's history,
Speaker 4: which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's
Speaker 4: yet another example of how the Biden DOJ is about
Speaker 4: politics all of the time, and if you can target
Speaker 4: your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.
Speaker 1: Center Finally, there was one part that I really thought
Speaker 1: wrapped up just how bad this back and forth was
Speaker 1: this testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight, when
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland has asked a pretty simple question, and that's, hey,
Speaker 1: why do you act like you're the president's lawyer. That's
Speaker 1: not your job.
Speaker 6: Our job is not to do what is politically convenient.
Speaker 6: Our job is not to take orders from the President,
Speaker 6: from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what
Speaker 6: to criminally investigate. As the president himself has said, and
Speaker 6: I reaffirmed today, I am not the president's lawyer. I
Speaker 6: will add I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department
Speaker 6: works for the American people. Our job is to follow
Speaker 6: the facts and the law, and that is what we do.
Speaker 1: I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar
Speaker 1: at this point. I don't think he can be trusted.
Speaker 1: And I think he's weaponized a DOJ and turn it
Speaker 1: into a weapon of the President of the United States
Speaker 1: of America. No matter what he says with his rhetoric
Speaker 1: there in those prescripted clear talking points, they knew this
Speaker 1: was a problem for them, and so that's why they
Speaker 1: had him say it this way.
Speaker 4: Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John
Speaker 4: Mitchell was Richard Nixon's attorney general. He was indicted, he
Speaker 4: was prosecuted, He served twenty two months in jail for
Speaker 4: his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen
Speaker 4: as Merrick Garland.
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland look.
Speaker 4: In The New York Times reported that Joe Biden quote
Speaker 4: told confidence that he wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to
Speaker 4: stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action.
Speaker 4: Joe Biden knew exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland.
Speaker 4: He was getting someone willing to use the weaponry of
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously
Speaker 4: willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the President,
Speaker 4: to protect Hunter Biden, to protect Democrats. And I will
Speaker 4: underscore again, we've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the
Speaker 4: IRS who've come forward, two different whistleblowers to say what
Speaker 4: Merrick Garland just said there is flat out false because
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice has consystematically obstructed justice, obstructed the
Speaker 4: investigation into Hunter Biden, and especially into Joe Biden. And
Speaker 4: so he can say over and over again, I'm not
Speaker 4: the president's lawyer, and yet he behaves exactly like he's
Speaker 4: the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1: Should this be an election year issue, just the way
Speaker 1: that the DOJ has been weaponizing, specifically, should Republicans be
Speaker 1: targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting.
Speaker 4: The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of
Speaker 4: the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think
Speaker 4: is a major election issue, a major reason to throw
Speaker 4: these clowns out, because it has done more to undermine
Speaker 4: the rule of law that than anything that we have
Speaker 4: seen in decades.
Speaker 1: If ever, as before, if you want to hear the
Speaker 1: rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go
Speaker 1: back and down the podcasts from earlier this week to
Speaker 1: hear the entire thing. I want to get back to
Speaker 1: the big story number three of the week. You may
Speaker 1: have missed center. There was also something else that happened
Speaker 1: a year ago, if you go backwards, Uh, the President
Speaker 1: of the United States of America was in New York City,
Speaker 1: and when he was there, he was at the UN
Speaker 1: addressing the UN. He had meetings with Mayor Adams, the
Speaker 1: mayor of New York City, and even did fundraisers with
Speaker 1: the Mayor of New York City. This year, things are
Speaker 1: a little different. He's not going to sit down and
Speaker 1: meet with Mayor Adams because Mayor Adams has been critical
Speaker 1: of the migrant crisis, the illegal immigrant crisis that is,
Speaker 1: you know, destroying, in his words, his city. And he's
Speaker 1: not even going to go to the migrant center that's
Speaker 1: just two blocks away.
Speaker 8: Listen to this, despite the UN being just four avenues
Speaker 8: away from the Roosevelt Hotel, which is the Migrant Intake
Speaker 8: Center here in New York City. The President has no
Speaker 8: plans to visit or address the migrant crisis here in
Speaker 8: New York. In fact, he has no plans to meet
Speaker 8: with Mayor Adams during his three day visit, a departure
Speaker 8: from last year when the two met and attended fundraisers together.
Speaker 8: The federal government also making no indication that they intend
Speaker 8: to increase funding to New York City FEMA, providing one
Speaker 8: hundred and four million dollars for contact that covers just
Speaker 8: thirteen days of the crisis here. The Biden administration, frustrated
Speaker 8: with Adam's response and his inability to stop the crisis,
Speaker 8: also putting the finger at Congress to do more.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's amazing how your best friend, in the
Speaker 1: guy that you're campaigning with and fundraising with a year ago,
Speaker 1: now you won't even give him the time of day
Speaker 1: because he won't get in line and say what you're saying. Yet,
Speaker 1: the real coward here, Centaer, seems to be Adams and
Speaker 1: every other Democrat, whether it's in San Diego, whether it's
Speaker 1: on the border, or whether it's in New York City,
Speaker 1: who refused to say out loud President Joe Biden, do
Speaker 1: your job and close the border, secure the border. They
Speaker 1: will not say those words.
Speaker 4: Nope, none of them will. And they still claim to
Speaker 4: be sanctuary cities that they say it's destroying their city,
Speaker 4: but there's still a sanctuary city. You know the fact
Speaker 4: that Mayor Adams uses the phrase that madman in Texas
Speaker 4: and blames it all on Greg Adams, on Greg Abbott.
Speaker 4: Look from his perspective, he knows it's the Democrats who've
Speaker 4: caused this, but at this point his partisan loyalty is
Speaker 4: just greater. So he's not willing to call out Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: He's not willing to call out Kamala Harris. He's certainly
Speaker 4: not willing to call out Chuck Schumer or any of
Speaker 4: the Senate Democrats or congressional Democrats. He's not calling out
Speaker 4: AOC although you know, as he talked about, when AOC
Speaker 4: and Jerry Nadler and other Congressional Democrats recently had a
Speaker 4: press conference in New York, even New Yorkers were fed
Speaker 4: up and screaming at them.
Speaker 3: And yet.
Speaker 4: At the end of the day, the hypocrisy is so massive,
Speaker 4: but even acknowledging it's a problem is too much for
Speaker 4: Joe Biden, and so now Mayor Adams is persona non
Speaker 4: grata because he acknowledges that it's a problem. You're supposed
Speaker 4: to utterly ignore it and just let people suffer, and
Speaker 4: it is. You know, I get asked a question over
Speaker 4: and over again, why would the Democrats do this? And
Speaker 4: I don't know for sure. Listen, I'm not a psychiatrist,
Speaker 4: I'm not Sigmund Freud, so I don't know what's going
Speaker 4: on in their head. I know, number one, they don't care.
Speaker 4: And the reason I know they don't care because if
Speaker 4: they cared, they would do something about it. They would
Speaker 4: stop the policy decisions that are causing it to happen,
Speaker 4: that are causing people to be killed, that are causing
Speaker 4: children to be brutalized, that are causing women to be
Speaker 4: actually assaulted. If they cared, they would behave differently tomorrow.
Speaker 4: And they don't. Biden doesn't, Kamala Harris doesn't, Alejandro Mayorcis doesn't.
Speaker 4: But the only explanation I can come up with is
Speaker 4: really twofold number one, that they've handed the policy agenda
Speaker 4: over to the real radicals, to the open border nuts
Speaker 4: on the extreme left of the Democrat Party and They've
Speaker 4: done that in almost every single issue. But number two
Speaker 4: is I think the Democrats rationalized to themselves there's a
Speaker 4: long term political benefit. They see that they view every
Speaker 4: one of the seven two point two million illegal immigrants,
Speaker 4: they view them as likely future Democrat voters, and their
Speaker 4: view is, well, if we stay in power, the ends
Speaker 4: justify the means. If some people have to die for
Speaker 4: Democrats to stay in power, well that's okay with them.
Speaker 4: And it's it looks saying that that sounds horrendously callous
Speaker 4: and heartless. But I guess, Ben, what I would say
Speaker 4: is if I'm wrong, if I'm ascribing too callous and
Speaker 4: heartless a motive, what other explanation is there besides that,
Speaker 4: because I don't know of one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great point. I want to end with what you mentioned,
Speaker 1: the reporting that's being done down at the border by
Speaker 1: Fox reporter Bill Malujin, and he said this on Fox,
Speaker 1: and I think perfectly wraps up the last seventy two hours.
Speaker 9: I'm artha, Well, these surging border numbers are really put
Speaker 9: into context when you think about the fact that New
Speaker 9: York City Mayor Eric Adams said his city can't handle
Speaker 9: ten thousand migrants per month. Well, they're getting nine thousand
Speaker 9: a day down here at the southern border. A lot
Speaker 9: of them crossing right here in Eagle Pass. Take a
Speaker 9: look at this video our fantastic drone team shot showing
Speaker 9: a massive illegal crossing in the river right behind where
Speaker 9: I'm standing. You'll see a human chain in the water
Speaker 9: as they're trying to get across the river. Very dangerous spot.
Speaker 9: A ten year old boy drowned in this area last week.
Speaker 9: The port of entry is right next to these people,
Speaker 9: just one hundred yards away. They don't care though, they
Speaker 9: want to cross illegally because they feel if they can
Speaker 9: step foot in the United States, they're going to be
Speaker 9: released into the country. You also want to show you
Speaker 9: human smuggling pursuit. Take a look at this video Texas
Speaker 9: DPS chasing a human smuggler in Kinney County, high speed chase.
Speaker 9: The driver an illegal immigrant driving a stolen truck loaded
Speaker 9: with illegal immigrants. They spike his tires, he goes off
Speaker 9: road into the brush, loses control, and then you'll see
Speaker 9: on the thermal camera everybody goes bailing out of that vehicle,
Speaker 9: running off in all different directions. Texas DPS arrested the
Speaker 9: driver and six illegal immigrants lasting to show you down
Speaker 9: in the Rio Grand Valley with Texas DPS troopers in
Speaker 9: the brush as they are arresting illegal immigrants trying to
Speaker 9: evade capture from border patrol. Several of them were wearing
Speaker 9: cartel wristbands indicating they had paid a cartel to get
Speaker 9: across illegally. And back out here live mark the concerning
Speaker 9: border patrol agents reporting that right here in Egle Pass
Speaker 9: they just arrested an illegal immigrant with a conviction and
Speaker 9: another illegal immigrant with a conviction for sexual assault of
Speaker 9: a child. Send it back to you.
Speaker 1: No big deal, right, No big deal. Yeah, just people
Speaker 1: that are killing people, and people with it are raping children.
Speaker 1: That's who we're catching when we do catch them crumbing
Speaker 1: coming across the border. And you heard him mention those wristbands,
Speaker 1: the same RITS bands that the man who's in charge
Speaker 1: of the border said he didn't know what they were
Speaker 1: when you showed him to him before Congress.
Speaker 3: No, that's exactly right.
Speaker 4: That Bill Blugen is actually down on the border who's
Speaker 4: reporting on what's happening. He knows what the wristbands are.
Speaker 4: They're color coded for how many thousands of dollars they
Speaker 4: owe the cartels, and yet the Secretary of Homeland Security
Speaker 4: told me under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee he
Speaker 4: had no idea what they were because he simply doesn't care,
Speaker 4: and neither do his political superiors.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a search to again the Ben Ferguson Podcast,
Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.