Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a week in review,
Speaker 2: Ben Ferguson with you. And here are three big stories
Speaker 2: that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 2: First up in PR and three Colorado radio stations suing
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. They want their free money back, you know,
Speaker 2: your taxpayer dollars that you work.
Speaker 1: So hard for.
Speaker 2: Well, the Trump administration is fighting back and we'll give
Speaker 2: you the details in just a moment. Also, California is
Speaker 2: continuing to defy Trump on boys and girls' sports and
Speaker 2: some politicians are starting to flip on the issue and
Speaker 2: it may even be changing in California.
Speaker 1: That in just a moment.
Speaker 2: And finally, James Comy in his eighty six forty seven
Speaker 2: CShell message on the beach, Well, it's a story that's
Speaker 2: just not adding up, and we'll dive into that as well.
Speaker 2: It's the weekend Review and it starts right now. Want
Speaker 2: to move also to the MPR lawsuit and get your
Speaker 2: take on that center as well.
Speaker 3: So this week NPR, National Public Radio, and three Colorado
Speaker 3: Public Radio stations filed a lawsuit in federal court against
Speaker 3: the Trump White House against the President's executive order barring
Speaker 3: the use of funds for NPR and for PBS, and
Speaker 3: the lawsuit says, quote, it is not always obvious when
Speaker 3: the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation
Speaker 3: of the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: But this wolf comes as a wolf.
Speaker 3: The order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the
Speaker 3: President's views, their news and other content is not fair, accurate,
Speaker 3: or unbiased. Now let me stop and say, listen, you
Speaker 3: could file a reasonable lawsuit arguing that on any of
Speaker 3: these particular executive orders that where you're dealing with congressional appropriations,
Speaker 3: that challenging the authority of an executive order to limit
Speaker 3: congressional appropriations. That that's an area that's being litigated. That's
Speaker 3: going to be litigated, and reasonable minds can can differ
Speaker 3: on what is permissible. And we've talked in previous podcasts
Speaker 3: that there is there is a significant dispute over the
Speaker 3: president's authority to engage in what is called impoundment, which
Speaker 3: is essentially to decline to spend money that Congress has appropriated.
Speaker 3: That you want to file a lawsuit over that, Okay, courts,
Speaker 3: we'll sort that out. That'll be litigated. But here what
Speaker 3: this lawsuit is claiming is that the First Amendment prohibits
Speaker 3: defunding NPR. And the reason they say it really is
Speaker 3: absurd is you can't defund the NPR simply because quote
Speaker 3: their news and other content is not fair, accurator unbiased.
Speaker 3: Now let me say, I think no objective person on
Speaker 3: planet Earth can contend that NPR or PBS are fair,
Speaker 3: accurator unbiased. And so we really are in Alison Wonderland
Speaker 3: through the looking glass, where you now have litigants arguing
Speaker 3: because NPR and PBS are dishonest and political, you can't
Speaker 3: cut off funding because cutting off funding would be silencing
Speaker 3: our right to be dishonest and political, and not just look,
Speaker 3: you absolutely have a right to be dishonest and political.
Speaker 3: So MSNBC can publish any nonsense they want, CNN can
Speaker 3: publish any nonsense they want. Now nobody watches them. It's
Speaker 3: kind of a tree falling in the woods. But they
Speaker 3: have a right to say it. They have a right
Speaker 3: to to to to say utter nonsense. But NPR's argument
Speaker 3: is not only do they have a right to say it,
Speaker 3: which I agree they do, but they have a right
Speaker 3: to have the taxpayers fund them forever. That that that
Speaker 3: it is illegal for us to stop paying for their
Speaker 3: partisan lives. I gotta say, that is an absurd claim.
Speaker 3: And it is the simple simple reality of of of
Speaker 3: of the absurdity of the left.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2: And and I wonder when we will actually get resolution
Speaker 2: on this. Is there a real chance you think that
Speaker 2: we could actually defund m PR, PBS and just say, hey,
Speaker 2: make it on your own.
Speaker 1: Is there a real chance?
Speaker 3: Look, I certainly hope. So I am pressing to do so.
Speaker 3: I'm pressing Congress to do so. I'm pressing Congress to
Speaker 3: enact and codify the Doge cuts that we've seen Elon
Speaker 3: Muskin doche put in place. We're gonna have a battle
Speaker 3: on Congress. We're gonna have a battle in Congress if
Speaker 3: it has to go through regular order. What regular order
Speaker 3: means is the standard path of legislation. That means it's
Speaker 3: subject to filibuster. That means you need sixty votes in
Speaker 3: the Senate, which means you need seven Democrats. If you
Speaker 3: have to get seven Democrats.
Speaker 1: And that's how they save it, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: That's right, that's their ideal situation is you guys complain
Speaker 2: about it, and we keep giving billions to our propaganda machines.
Speaker 3: Zero Democrats will vote to defund NPR or PBS, which
Speaker 3: means if it goes through regular order, it will not happen.
Speaker 2: The other way is that proof of just how biased
Speaker 2: they are, the fact that zero of them would go
Speaker 2: to defund it because they know how valuable it is
Speaker 2: their propaganda.
Speaker 3: And they don't care. In fact, I want you to have
Speaker 3: listened to Catherine Marr, the CEO of NPR, who describes
Speaker 3: the First Amendment as the quote the greatest challenge that
Speaker 3: she faces to controlling narratives.
Speaker 1: Here, give a listen.
Speaker 4: The number one challenge here that we see is, of course,
Speaker 4: the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
Speaker 4: robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of
Speaker 4: rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
Speaker 4: important that platforms have those rights to be able to
Speaker 4: regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
Speaker 4: But it also means that it is a little bit
Speaker 4: tricky to really address some of the real challenges of
Speaker 4: where does bad information come from and sort of the
Speaker 4: influenced peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2: I mean that through your tax hours are going and
Speaker 2: that's a woman who's in charge.
Speaker 3: Damn it, that pesky First Amendment. We want to censor,
Speaker 3: we want to silence voices we disagree with, and that
Speaker 3: First Amendment stands in the way. And here I want
Speaker 3: you to listen to this, this montage of Catherine Marr
Speaker 3: being being grilled at congressional hearing. Give a listen to
Speaker 3: to just how extreme the NPR CEO is.
Speaker 5: And I welcome the opportunity to discuss the essential role
Speaker 5: of public media in delivering unbiased, nonpartisan, fact based reporting
Speaker 5: to Americans. Madam Chair, thank you so much for the
Speaker 5: opportunity to address this. I know the youth.
Speaker 6: Is it up to you, an MPR to crack down
Speaker 6: on bad information or decide the truth? To answer the
Speaker 6: question yes or no, Miss.
Speaker 5: More, absolutely not. I'm a very strong believer in free speech,
Speaker 5: and I believe that more s.
Speaker 6: Your public statements say otherwise. During the COVID pandemic in
Speaker 6: the twenty twenty election, you said you censored information through
Speaker 6: conversations with government. Which governments were those, Miss Mahr the
Speaker 6: Biden administration, yes.
Speaker 5: Or no, Madam Chair, Wikipedia never censored any information.
Speaker 6: These are your public statements, Miss More.
Speaker 1: Madam Chair.
Speaker 5: We are in full compliance and with the fcc'son de Green,
Speaker 5: and we'll continue to cooperate.
Speaker 6: I remind you you're under oath. I'm assuming you're concerned.
Speaker 6: Both of you are concerned about this, and that's why
Speaker 6: you brought so many attorneys with you today.
Speaker 5: First of all, I want to recognize your concerns. One
Speaker 5: of the first things that I did in coming in
Speaker 5: in May was to beef up our editorial standards and
Speaker 5: PR i've been doing editorial I'm so I'm so sorry
Speaker 5: orally fund.
Speaker 7: An entity that's supposed to provide the news, not provide
Speaker 7: the news. Of course, Ballots of course Congress been an
Speaker 7: article by Uri Berlinger. I've been at NPR for twenty
Speaker 7: five years. Here's how we lost America's trust.
Speaker 5: Well, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that
Speaker 5: we were mistaken and failing to cover the Hunter Biden
Speaker 5: laptop story more aggressively and sooner. Our current editorial leadership wuhan.
Speaker 5: We recognize that we were reporting at the time, but
Speaker 5: we acknowledge that the new CIA evidence is worthy of
Speaker 5: coverage and have covered.
Speaker 7: If you've even talked about the First Amendment kind of
Speaker 7: getting in the way of what you wanted to get done.
Speaker 7: NPR is now and taking this non biased approach.
Speaker 5: I so appreciate the opportunity to perhaps clarify some things.
Speaker 5: My talk about truth was really referencing the way that
Speaker 5: people used truth to refer to belief as opposed to facts.
Speaker 7: Your comments said that truth was getting the way of
Speaker 7: getting things done, and that you were prioritizing what you
Speaker 7: wanted to get done over truth.
Speaker 8: Did they come up in your job interview?
Speaker 5: Like do you see a problem at congressman? Thank you
Speaker 5: for the question. No, they never came up in my
Speaker 5: job interview.
Speaker 8: If you're a rabid progressive, and do you not think
Speaker 8: it's a problem that your political leanings make it seem
Speaker 8: to the American people that you're not biased and you're
Speaker 8: not doing your job because you agree that your job
Speaker 8: is to have journalistic integrity.
Speaker 5: Right, absolutely, But there is a strong firewall between the
Speaker 5: newsroom and anything that.
Speaker 1: I let's talk about the newsroom.
Speaker 8: You have eighty seven registered Democrats, not a single Republican
Speaker 8: in your editor boards. I mean, how does that work
Speaker 8: to give us the perception that you're doing your job
Speaker 8: of actually delivering unbiased information.
Speaker 5: I would agree with you that that number is a
Speaker 5: concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we
Speaker 5: need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of
Speaker 5: the American society so that we can well for all Americans.
Speaker 1: Well, I just gotta stop it there.
Speaker 2: This goes on for several more minutes, but that part
Speaker 2: there at the end where he's like, you got eighty
Speaker 2: seven people on the edtorial board.
Speaker 1: They're all Democrats. You don't have seen a Republican.
Speaker 2: And then she's like, yeah, if that number is true,
Speaker 2: then it is a concern.
Speaker 3: The argument of NPR is that the First Amendment requires
Speaker 3: for you and me to keep paying for them to
Speaker 3: propagandize and lie. And I got to say one of
Speaker 3: my favorite facts, as I said, it's not just NPR,
Speaker 3: it's three Colorado radio stations, the statewide Colorado Public Radio
Speaker 3: Station based in Denver, KSUT, which was originally founded by
Speaker 3: the Southern Ute Indian tribe. And this is the one
Speaker 3: that cracks me up. The Aspen Public Radio, which broadcasts
Speaker 3: in Aspen, one of the richest communities on planet Earth.
Speaker 3: If you're an Aspen and you look at the airport,
Speaker 3: you just see a line of private jets as far
Speaker 3: as the eye can see. And their argument is the
Speaker 3: First Amendment mandates that we tax American workers to pay
Speaker 3: for propaganda in Aspen. Because the poor, wretched masses of
Speaker 3: aspend can afford to pay for their own propaganda, they
Speaker 3: need to tax American workers instead.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two, Senator,
Speaker 2: Let's deal with California. And there has been a fight
Speaker 2: since the President came in with his executive order on
Speaker 2: trying to protect women from men being in their locker rooms,
Speaker 2: being in their sports beating them up. We saw it
Speaker 2: during the Olympics in boxing. We've seen countless women who
Speaker 2: their achievements have been taken away from them on the
Speaker 2: podium because of men claiming their women, which is impossible
Speaker 2: in reality. And California decide they were going to stand
Speaker 2: up to Trump and guess what, it didn't go very
Speaker 2: well for them.
Speaker 3: Well, listen, we've seen the Democrat Party getting more and
Speaker 3: more radical ever since Donald Trump took the oath of
Speaker 3: office back in twenty seventeen. They hate Trump and they've
Speaker 3: gotten more and more extreme on a host of issues,
Speaker 3: and one of the poster children for their extreme issues
Speaker 3: is embracing boys in girls sports, men and women's sports.
Speaker 3: And it is wrong, It is unfair, It invites injury,
Speaker 3: and it also deprives both both girls and women of
Speaker 3: athletic victories they should have and they've earned. There are
Speaker 3: differences between boys and girls. There are differences between men
Speaker 3: and women. That did not used to be a controversial proposition.
Speaker 3: It is only in today's looney tune left that they
Speaker 3: can't tell to the difference between men and women. But
Speaker 3: I got to tell you, even though in the Senate
Speaker 3: Senate Democrats all of them continue to defend men in
Speaker 3: women's sports and boys and girls sports, We're seeing the
Speaker 3: state of California. We're seeing the Democrats beginning to retreat.
Speaker 3: We're seeing Gavin Newsom, the governor who's been a far
Speaker 3: left radical governor. He's got ambitions of being president. He's
Speaker 3: looking at running in twenty twenty eight, and he's decided, Okay,
Speaker 3: we're on the wrong side of an eighty twenty issue.
Speaker 3: I want to get the hell away from this. And
Speaker 3: so California announced this is a big deal. They're changing
Speaker 3: their policy for track and field, so that if you're
Speaker 3: a biological girl and you got you missed out on
Speaker 3: making it to the state championship because you were beaten
Speaker 3: by a biological male who claims to be a transgender woman,
Speaker 3: then the girl you will still get your slot. You
Speaker 3: still get invited to the state championship. Look, that's a
Speaker 3: significant step in the right direction, and Gavin Newsom is
Speaker 3: embracing it. And I got to say this really illustrates
Speaker 3: that at least some Democrats realize, Wow, we are on
Speaker 3: the wrong side of an issue that America America wants
Speaker 3: to protect girls sports and women's sports. We want to
Speaker 3: protect our daughters and we don't want to see them
Speaker 3: hurt or competing unfairly. And so the crazy thing is
Speaker 3: that means in track and field in California now they
Speaker 3: may give three gold medals, one to the boy, one
Speaker 3: to the girl, and one to the transgender athlete. You
Speaker 3: may have gold medals all around. But for bright Blue
Speaker 3: California to make this concession, it shows that at least
Speaker 3: some Democrats realize they are way on the wrong side
Speaker 3: of this issue.
Speaker 2: This also, I think is an issue that it's worth
Speaker 2: fighting for, and I think many that are listening or saying,
Speaker 2: we don't want to give in, and we don't want
Speaker 2: to give up, and the pendulum went so far to
Speaker 2: the radical left for so many years that this is
Speaker 2: the fight that is worth fighting on and fighting over.
Speaker 2: And showing California having to change girls track and field
Speaker 2: championship rules after the Trump threatens funding over the trans
Speaker 2: athletes is just an example of Hey, we are, in
Speaker 2: many times the silent majority, and we need to start
Speaker 2: acting like it, especially on these types of issues.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll tell you Ben this, this issue is a
Speaker 3: powerful issue. And as you know, I ran for reelection
Speaker 3: in Texas last year in twenty twenty four. It was
Speaker 3: a quarter billion dollar race. I was Chuck Schumer's number
Speaker 3: one target and my campaign was was the first campaign
Speaker 3: in the country last year to put real time and
Speaker 3: energy behind this this issue of we're going to protect
Speaker 3: girls sports from boys competing and and we put tens
Speaker 3: of millions of dollars behind this issue. What's fascinating is
Speaker 3: the media completely misunderstood the issue. So one of the
Speaker 3: things that my campaign did is we did focus groups
Speaker 3: in Houston, Dallas of undecided moderate women to understand what
Speaker 3: issues moved them, and we tested thirty thirty five different messages.
Speaker 3: The number one issue that moved undecided moderate women in
Speaker 3: Texas was boys and girls sports. And when I started
Speaker 3: campaigning on it, it was very funny. The reporters are like, oh,
Speaker 3: Cruise is trying to appeal to the crazy right wing,
Speaker 3: and I was just laughing at him. I'm like, you
Speaker 3: guys are so clueless. This is not the crazy right wing.
Speaker 3: This is soccer moms. This is soccer moms who love
Speaker 3: their daughters. And we land on this issue. And then
Speaker 3: you saw senate races all across the country pick up
Speaker 3: the same message because they were seeing the same data
Speaker 3: we where we saw President Trump lean in Harvard on this.
Speaker 2: Some of those women that you were talking to, let's
Speaker 2: be very clear, had moved from California, because you know,
Speaker 2: the like, how many people from California moved to Texas
Speaker 2: over the last six years A lot.
Speaker 3: We have over one thousand people a day moving to
Speaker 3: the state of Texas, and California is overwhelmingly the heaviest,
Speaker 3: the largest state that is sending people to Texas. But
Speaker 3: this issue, what's fascinating Ben, is you know four years
Speaker 3: years ago, this issue did not work politically. You saw
Speaker 3: campaigns try to raise it four years ago, and I
Speaker 3: think people thought then that that that it was jumping
Speaker 3: the shark, that it didn't feel real. Four years ago,
Speaker 3: I think people said, oh, come on, that's that's that's
Speaker 3: not a real threat. Well, you know what, we've now
Speaker 3: seen Leah Thomas, the the the the swimmer who who
Speaker 3: is a biological man and looks like Michael friggin Phelps
Speaker 3: who who who We've also seen And I think this
Speaker 3: was really a seminal moment in the Olympics, the two
Speaker 3: dudes competing in in in women's boxing and beating the
Speaker 3: hell out of women. And I think a whole lot
Speaker 3: of people said, wait, this is not theoretical. This is
Speaker 3: happening over and over and over again. Enough is enough
Speaker 3: And and I think this is another milestone that that
Speaker 3: California is retreating on this issue, shows that that truth
Speaker 3: and sanity are are are winning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And now the question becomes how much are they
Speaker 2: going to be able to fight through the court system
Speaker 2: and is this going to be something that's going to
Speaker 2: be unfortunately an issue for probably years to come.
Speaker 3: Well, look, we'll see and to be honest, California hasn't
Speaker 3: conceded altogether. They're still having biological males compete against women,
Speaker 3: which is which is unfair. It invites injury. You know,
Speaker 3: if you're playing volleyball, we've seen women who have a
Speaker 3: biological man spiked the ball into their head and they
Speaker 3: get injured. I mean, I mean it is California is
Speaker 3: still looney tunes. But the fact that that that even
Speaker 3: the lefty government of California is saying we've gone too far,
Speaker 3: that's a very positive sign.
Speaker 2: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 2: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 2: dow the podcast from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 2: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 2: story number three of the week.
Speaker 1: You may have missed.
Speaker 3: Unless the head of the FBI is calling for the
Speaker 3: murder of the president of the United States. And that
Speaker 3: is another story that broke in the last few days.
Speaker 3: So the former FBI director James Comey, he tweeted out
Speaker 3: this this image and it is an image of seashells
Speaker 3: on the beach that spell out eighty six forty seven.
Speaker 3: Now forty seven is obviously Donald Trump and eighty six
Speaker 3: on the face of it. To eighty six someone is
Speaker 3: standard slang for killing someone, And as I posted on
Speaker 3: social media, is there any other reasonable interpretation of this
Speaker 3: other than the former head of the FBI publicly calling
Speaker 3: for the murder of the president of the United States
Speaker 3: and Comy backed away from it. I got to say,
Speaker 3: part of the reason I think he put it out
Speaker 3: is he's got a new book coming out and he
Speaker 3: wanted some attention. But it is unimaginable that a head
Speaker 3: of the FBI would be particularly a president who has
Speaker 3: had two assassination attempts. This is not theoretical. Donald Trump
Speaker 3: was shot, He came within a half finch of being
Speaker 3: killed in Butler, Pennsylvania, and yet the head of the
Speaker 3: FBI is openly calling for people to eighty six Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Well, and not only as you mentioned, is it a
Speaker 2: dog whistle, but also, yeah, he had a book coming out,
Speaker 2: He's like, hey, if I do this, and maybe they're
Speaker 2: just narcissm and arrogance to a level that even I
Speaker 2: didn't realize with him, and I thought it was pretty
Speaker 2: high where he's like, I'm I'm I'm so powerful, I
Speaker 2: can get away with this, and then everybody will want
Speaker 2: to interview me. I get to dog whistle this against
Speaker 2: the president while also guaranteeing that every single show will
Speaker 2: want to book me to talk about my book AKA and.
Speaker 1: Also the seashells on the Beach.
Speaker 2: It was one hell of a move, and I think
Speaker 2: it's one where he thought, nothing's gonna happen to me
Speaker 2: even if I do get interviewed by the Secret Service.
Speaker 1: Who cares well?
Speaker 3: And I will say he doubled down this week by
Speaker 3: calling on the FBI eventually to fight the President of
Speaker 3: the United States, and and and and accusing the Trump
Speaker 3: administration of being, in his words, quite white supremacists adjacent.
Speaker 3: Listen to this, So follow up on the CShell situation
Speaker 3: when explaining why you took it down? But what were
Speaker 3: you trying to communicate to the public, Impete Trump? What
Speaker 3: was your reasoning for it?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 9: I just thought it was a cool picture. Someone was
Speaker 9: expressing a political view in a very clever way in
Speaker 9: shells that were organized by the like they had the
Speaker 9: same color for each of the letters. I just thought,
Speaker 9: what a cool thing. And I'm well known as a
Speaker 9: political opponent of Donald Trump, and I just thought, well,
Speaker 9: that's cool. My Instagram account is family politics stuff, including
Speaker 9: stuff like this. I put a shell on last fall.
Speaker 9: I thought it was cool. Someone had painted the inside
Speaker 9: of a big shell, say Bo Kamala. I thought that's
Speaker 9: really cool, so I put that on. But so it's
Speaker 9: not any particular message other than that.
Speaker 10: I'm just gonna ask youp it the MSNBC interview you
Speaker 10: were doing, because on social media everyone's saying he's talking
Speaker 10: about the white supremacist adjacent Republican Party. Everybody in the party, voters.
Speaker 1: What what's you want.
Speaker 10: To No clarification at all.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not gonna come on.
Speaker 9: Okay, thank you, well, thank you, hello.
Speaker 1: I love it.
Speaker 2: Be well, I'm not going to clarify and that I'm
Speaker 2: going to keep that out there as well.
Speaker 3: Buy my book what utter garbage. Oh, I just thought
Speaker 3: it was kind of interesting. I just thought it was, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, kind of pretty. The seashells were pretty, Like
Speaker 3: what an absurd claim, and that there's something mocking about it,
Speaker 3: that that that he could claim. Okay, number one, James
Speaker 3: Comey is not a stupid man.
Speaker 1: He's smart. He knows what he's doing.
Speaker 3: He knows exactly what he is doing. And James Comy
Speaker 3: number one, he knows who forty seven is. He knows
Speaker 3: exactly who forty seven is. Forty seven is the forty
Speaker 3: seventh President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, number two.
Speaker 3: The claim that he didn't know what eighty six is. Listen,
Speaker 3: that is that that is absurd, It is it is
Speaker 3: not remotely credible. And the fact that he's saying that,
Speaker 3: the fact that he's saying that is mocking. It is
Speaker 3: a level of contempt. And listen. I gotta say, I
Speaker 3: don't know Comy personally, but in my view, he is
Speaker 3: someone who was consumed by power. When he was the
Speaker 3: head of the FBI, I think he had delusions of grandeur.
Speaker 3: I think he believed he was j. Edgar Hoover and
Speaker 3: he wanted to have presidents of the United States reporting
Speaker 3: to him. By the way, do you happen to know
Speaker 3: off the top of your top of your head what
Speaker 3: eighteen USC. Section eight seventy one provides, No, what is it?
Speaker 3: What's funny? It's actually a felony. Threatening the President of
Speaker 3: the United States is a felony that's punishable buy up
Speaker 3: to five years in Prisonman, you would think the head
Speaker 3: of the FBI would know that, and yet he blithely said, oh,
Speaker 3: I just saw some pretty seashells. You know, nothing to
Speaker 3: see here, And.
Speaker 2: Let's just remind people when you said that he's smart.
Speaker 2: This is the same guy that mocked the Trump administration
Speaker 2: the first time, right when they got into office, when
Speaker 2: he just sent a couple FBI agents over to try
Speaker 2: to entrap General Flynn. Like, never forget, that's how calculated
Speaker 2: this guy is. So for him to say, oh, I
Speaker 2: just saw a picture here and I thought it was
Speaker 2: really cute to seashells, I don't buy that crap for
Speaker 2: a moment.
Speaker 3: He proposed sending someone wearing a wire to entrap the
Speaker 3: president of the United States. And I want you to
Speaker 3: listen to him with Nicole Wallace and MSNBC, because I
Speaker 3: want you to listen to just this, this smarmy, sanctimonious,
Speaker 3: dishonest You can tell what I think about him here,
Speaker 3: just play his words and see if you agree with me.
Speaker 6: You are back in the middle of a political firestorm.
Speaker 9: Yeah for walking on the beach with my wife. So
Speaker 9: I don't know how we ended up here. Never occurred
Speaker 9: to me that it was any kind of controversial thing,
Speaker 9: But that's the time.
Speaker 3: We live in Okay, Ben, there's a technical word for
Speaker 3: what he just said there that would be called a lie.
Speaker 3: He is deliberately lying, he knows he's lying. He is
Speaker 3: not in trouble for walking on the beach with his wife.
Speaker 3: He is understandably in trouble for publicly advocating the murder
Speaker 3: of the president of the United States.
Speaker 2: And yet there's a lot of you think he knew
Speaker 2: exactly what he was doing. And yeah, he may get
Speaker 2: hauled in for some questioning, but he's not going to
Speaker 2: get arrested because he's a former.
Speaker 1: AMBI director and that guy never gets in trouble.
Speaker 9: Right.
Speaker 3: Well, we shall see. I will say Cash Betel and
Speaker 3: Dan Bongino are not your typical heads of the FBI.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
Speaker 2: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.