Welcome in his verdict with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you, and it's so nice to have you with uespecially if you are listing on the radio around the country. We've got a lot to discuss it happened this last week, including some incredible crime stats that the media is not connecting back to the policies of the Trump administration.
Well, we have a big show today. We start with the numbers that were just released that show murder rates in the United States dropped more than twenty percent. That is on top of data that just came out that show drug overdose deaths dropped more than twenty percent. Both of these this year compared to last year. We're going
to break down those numbers. We're going to talk about why that's happening and how literally tens of thousands of Americans are alive today because President Trump was reelected and Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress. We're also going to talk about Jack Smith's disastrous testimony before the House of Representatives. He got up and brazen lead tried to defend his abuse of power, and it did not go well. We're going to give you all the details.
I want to take a quick moment and talk to you about an incredible organization and it is called Compassion International and how you can get involved. I want you to meet Maria. In fifteen years, she'll be a nurse bringing healthcare to her village. Right now, she's eight and she just needs someone to believe she can get there, someone to help her stay in school, someone to tell her she's capable of extraordinary things. I want you to
meet James, a future engineer. He'll design clean water systems for his community. Today he's learning multiplication and dreaming big. But he needs more than dreams. He needs nutrition, he needs mentorship and someone who won't give up on him. Meet Sophia. She'll become the first in her family to graduate university. She'll teach dozens of children who remind her of herself. But right now, at age ten, she's at a crossroads, and your support could be what tips the balance.
Through Compassion International, you're not helping a child survive poverty. You're investing in who they'll become. The teacher, the leader, the parents who will change their family's story forever, impact the world, one child at a time. Learn how at Compassion dot com. That's compassion dot Com. All right, Senator, so let's just get back to this headline. A lot of people not paying attention to it because why well,
no one's covering it because it's good news. There are fewer Americans that are becoming victims of crime, fewer people in America that are being murdered. All of this because of Donald Trump's leadership and trying to go into danger cities and make them safer for all Americans.
That's right.
Let's start with crime, and what was released this week is the latest murder rates, and the murder rates across the United States decreased nationwide roughly twenty percent. And let's put that in specific numbers. If you look at January through October of twenty twenty five, and you compare it
to the same time period in twenty twenty four. In twenty twenty five, approximately five nine hundred and twelve murders were recorded in the US In that same time period in twenty twenty four, seven three hundred and sixty nine murders were recorded. In other words, there are about fourteen hundred people one thy four hundred people alive who were not murdered because of common sense law and order policies because of not releasing murderers onto the street, because of
deporting murderers and violent gang members. And let's break the numbers down. Chicago the murder rate dropped thirty percent. New York City the murder rate dropped twenty percent. Birmingham, Alabama, it dropped forty nine percent. Albuquerque, New Mexico, had dropped thirty two percent, Baltimore, Maryland it dropped thirty one percent, Atlanta, Georgia twenty six percent, Oakland, California, thirty three percent, Washington, d C. Where President Trump deployed the National Guard thirty
one percent. These are historic lows, and if these trends continue, the US may record its lowest murder rate since nineteen sixty, that is sixty six years ago. That is a stunning result. By the way, border crime, border crime, other violent crimes also decreased in twenty five, including a twenty five percent drop in motor vehicle theft, an eighteen percent drop in robberies,
and an eight percent drop in aggravated assaults. Now these data are being reported, and what is really quite interesting is the media is doing everything they can to cover it up. So Axios wrote the first story on this, and they talk about the murder rate has fallen, but they say, well, it's unclear that this has anything to do with Donald Trump or DOJ or the FBI or policies that Republicans have put in place deporting violent criminals and murderers and gang members, which is truly, it is
a level of dishonesty that is incredible. And I want to give you some of the raw backgrounds that explains why the murder rate has dropped so profoundly. Here are some raw numbers, and this was put out by FBI Director Cash Betel of what has happened that would explain why is it that we've seen a twenty percent drop in murder rate in the last year. We've seen an increase in violent crime arrests. What rate do you think the increase violent crime arrest has been?
What has it been? I have no clue.
One hundred percent?
Wow? All right?
How about this? Gangs and criminal enterprises disrupted? What rate do you think that that increase has been.
I'm gonna guess it's got to be significant.
Two hundred and ten percent a total of one thousand, eight hundred gangs and criminal enterprises disrupted? All right, fetanyl more than two thousand kilos of fetanyl sees. That's up thirty one percent. That's enough to kill one hundred and thirty million Americans. There've also been more than six thousand child victims located. That's an increase of twenty two percent. There have been more than one thousand, seven hundred child predators arrested. That's an increase of ten percent. There have
been more than three hundred human traffickers arrested. That's up fifteen percent. There's a thirty five percent increase in espionage arrests. And four of the FBI's top ten most wanted fugitives were captured. And to give you a sense of that, in one year, do you have many how many of the FBI's top ten lists were captured in the four years of the Biden presidency.
I'm gonna guess it's less than five.
Four So in one year they captured as many on the top ten list as Biden did in all four years. And the media want to do everything they can to say, no, no, this drop in the murder rate. It just happened magically. It's probably due to global warming or something. It has nothing to do with arresting murderers. It has nothing to do with deporting murders. It certainly has nothing to do with MS thirteen gang members being put in jail and deported, despite the fact that the way you join MS thirteen
is by murdering someone. And this is real results. And then you put on top of it, put on top of it the drop in overdoses. And when we come back, we're going to give you the drop in overdoses, which is even more profound. Even more lives have been saved in the past year.
We also have some incredible data when it comes to overdoses. This country saving counts lives by securing the border but also going after the cartels and doing everything we can to stop the floid drugs in this country, and it's working quickly.
Well, you're right, although the one thing I'll disagree with you on, as you said countless lives, We actually can can count the lives that have been saved, and the lives that have been saved are staggering. We just discussed how the murder rate has dropped twenty percent in the first year of the Trump administration to the lowest rate since nineteen sixty The lowest rate in sixty six years.
That means roughly one thy four hundred Americans are alive today who would have been murdered if Joe Biden and the Democrats soft on crime open border policies were still in effect. Now, that's a lot ony four hundred people still alive. Nobody knows who it is. It may be you, it may be me, it may be our family are loved ones. We don't know who it is that would have been murdered, but there would have been more murders.
As big as that is, that's not even close to the biggest decrease in deaths because of President Trump and because of common sense policies. The biggest decrease in deaths comes from the drug overdose deaths numbers. And I want to pause for a second and ask everyone listening to this. Have you seen this on the six o'clock news? Have you read this of the New York Times? Have you seen the corporate media covering this? They don't want to
cover this. Here are the stats. In twenty twenty five, drug overdose deaths in America dropped roughly twenty one percent. Now what does that mean? That means in twenty twenty four, there were nine twenty one thousand, six hundred and ninety four deaths from drug overdoses ninety one thousand, six hundred ninety four same time period, and that's actually a year long projected looking at the data from January to August, and this is from the CDC ninety one thousand, six
hundred ninety four and twenty twenty four. What do you think they were in twenty twenty five. Well, the answer is seventy two thousand, eight hundred and thirty six. In other words, the deaths fell from ninety one thousand, six hundred ninety four to seventy two thousand, eight hundred and thirty six. That means they're about nineteen thousand people who did not die because of drug overdoses. And what are the policies that led to it? Well, Number one, securing
the border. We've seen a ninety nine percent decrease in illegal crossings. Number Two, targeting the drug traffickers. All of the images you've seen of the administration taking out Venezuelan drug boats filled with drugs, those drugs are not arriving in the United States at nearly the same rate. And they're nineteen thousand Americans who are alive today. These are sons and daughters, These are husbands and wives, brothers and
sisters that are alive that did not die. You combine the decrease in deaths from drug overdoses with the decrease in deaths from murders, and you're looking at more than
twenty thousand Americans that are alive today. And so you may not think that government policies necessarily impact your life, but they're twenty thousand Americans, and none of us will know for sure who those twenty thousand are that are alive today because the administration is rightly focused on public safety, rightly focused on locking up violent criminals, on putting murderers in jail, on putting rapists in jail, and putting child
molesters in jail, and on deporting violent criminal illegal immigrants and gang members. And America is much much safer as a result.
You know what's interesting about this, Senator, and I just talk about a comparing contrast. Donald Trump comes in and we lower crime statistically nationwide, and it's in a level, as you mentioned earlier, that we haven't seen in decades. You compare that to what Democrats were doing to lower crime. They were just lying about the crime stats. Washington, DC is a prime example of this. Before the election, they want to look like crime had gone down. They straight
up lied about the crime statistics. We've seen this happen in other cities around the country where they got busted lying or recategorizing certain crimes and putting them in different categories. They wouldn't be reported the same way to make it artificially look like crime had gone down. And the difference here is one party really fights crime and goes out to the criminals and wins, and the other one says, when you do a crime, will make it look safer
by altering the numbers. That is a difference between the Republican the Democratic Party on the issue of crime in America today.
That's exactly right. And and and you also have, uh, you have the media deliberately lying. So for example, this past week, uh that there was a story that was breathlessly reported, which is that the Trump administration has arrested a five year old. Ice is targeted a five year old and there's an adorable picture of a little five year old and and and the left went crazy with that. Twitter went crazy with that that there are multiple reports it turns out that the five year old what happened
is his father was an illegal immigrant. ICE showed up to arrest the illegal immigrant father, and the father abandoned the kid. He ran off, and so the ICE agents understandably stayed back with the five year old kid because the father had just left him alone. Uh And and you know, I guess the alternative, which which which the media would want want ICE to do, is just to let a five year old kid be alone on the
streets and freeze to death like like it is. The level of of duplicity, the level of mendacity, the level of just flat out lying is astonishing. And why is that? It is because the Democrats and the media, although I repeat myself, do not want you to know that the people they're showing up and arresting are overwhelmingly violent criminals. They're not five year old kids. In this instance, the
five year old child was abandoned by his father. And by the way, there are instances all over the country where if you have someone who's pulled over on the side of the road and they have a child in the car and the adult abandons the child, law enforcement will always take care of the kid. That's what your father's been in law enforcement his whole life. That's what
your dad would do. It's what any law enforcement would do if a parent abandons a child, And it is fundamentally dishonest to claim, aha, what they were doing was arresting the child. That's not what they were doing, and the media knows it.
The Ferguson family got bigger over the holidays with a new puppy, and I can tell you how having one dog that is over a decade old and a new dog that's just months old, there's one thing they both have in common. I want them to live a great quality life. And that is exactly why I give them rough greens. Now, I've been telling you about my older dog and some of the symptoms that he was having, slowing down and itching and having bad breath, losing interest
in playtime. That is just part of the aging process, but it doesn't have to be. And after just a few weeks of rough greens we start to see a real difference. This stuff is truly amazing, and if you have a dog you love, you've got to try rough greens for your dog for life. It not only supports long term health by providing live bioavailable nutrients including essential vitamins, minerals, probiotics,
and digestive enzymes, as well as omega oils. The ingredients work together to improve nutrition absorption and maintain joint and muscle health and enhance overall vitality and you can witness it happen over weeks. So if you love your dog and you are ready to get your dog back to the way maybe he used to be and was more playful, then check out Roughgreens.
It's so easy.
You just put it on top of your traditional dogfood and that is it, and dogs absolutely love it. Go to Roughcreens dot com. That's r u ffgreens dot com. Use the promo code verdict and you're going to get a free Jumpstart Trial bag. All you gotta do is add Roughgreens to your dog's food so you cover the shipping. That's it. Promo code verdict to claim you're free Jumpstart Trial bag at Roughcreens dot com. That's r u F F G R E E N S dot com. Promo
code verdict. All right, I want to get to another big story center and it deals with Jack Smith.
He was in front of Congress.
I would assume ninety audience does not know that he had to testify before Congress this week, not because they're uninformed, because the media refuses to cover this.
They think this is old news and just.
Hashing out something had happened a long time ago, so no one should care. I think we should remind people of why accountability is still so vitally important and what Jack Smith was a part of. Can you just give a quick synopsis to people so that people remember who is Jack Smith, what was he doing to abuse power, and just how corrupt was his quote investigation to Donald Trump and.
Others, Jack Smith was the point of the spear on the greatest abuse of power we have seen in modern times. And to put it in context, what Jack Smith did was orders of magnitude worse than what the Nixon administration did during Watergate. During Watergate, you had a couple of half rate burglars break into the to the headquarters of the DNC, the Democrat National Committee. In this instance, jack Smith, what he did was orders of magnitude worth. He went
directly after President Trump indicted him multiple times. He did so for a very explicit reason, because he wanted to prevent the American people from re electing him. It was an effort directly to subvert democracy. It was the first time in the history of the United States that a president or former president has been indicted. Jack Smith did it twice, and then he also teamed up with his rogue Democrat local prosecutors to do it two more times.
He also subpoenaed the phone records of roughly twenty percent of the Republicans in the Senate in a fishing expedition, he targeted over four hundred Republicans. It was a political persecution. If you're a fan of lame is, Jack Smith would make Javert blush. He was out of control and he continues to be brazen. And I will tell you his testimony. He testified for the House of Representatives. It was a disaster. Jim Jordan your friend of mine. He's been again on
the Verdict podcast. Before Jim Jordan shaired the hearing. He opened the hearing by pointed out that the FBI when it rated mar A Lago, that it searched Melania's closet because apparently her clothing and underwear is a matter of national security, according to Jack Smith and the Biden doj and it searched Baron Trump's bedroom, because you know, going after a teenager is really the best use for the Department of Justice, and I guess it is if you're
willing to abuse your power. I want you to listen to Jim Jordan talking about Jack Smith at the hearing. Here, give a listen.
Jenal yields back.
Mister Smith, is Cassidy Hutchinson a liar. She was their star witness January sixth Committee, their star witness in one of those staged and choreographed hearings they paid the former president of ABC News to put together. She was in fact the only witness at this special prime time hearing Tuesday, June twenty eighth, twenty twenty two, eight o'clock in the evening,
and she told some stories. I mean, these were these were some stories she talked about President lunsed across the back seat, grabbed the steering wheel, tried to drive the car to the Capitol.
And I just want to know you think she was lying.
Chairman Jordan.
My assessment of that particular issue is that with respect to the testimony about someone lunge of the president lunging towards the driver, my recollection of her testimony about that is that it was secondhand. She said she'd heard that from somebody.
You familiar with the name Tony Ornado. I'm sorry, you familiar with the name Tony Ornado? Yes, White House Deputy chief of Operations, Deputy chief of staff for operations. Right.
You remember what he said about it?
As I said here right now, I do not.
Yeah, he said it didn't happen. How about Bobby Ingle? Are you familiar with that name? Yes, I am Secret Service agent who was actually in the car that day.
You know what he said?
He said it didn't happen. And they both said the first time they ever heard this story was when miss Hutchinson testified in the prime time hearing as their star witness of the January sixth committee.
By the way, do you.
Ever confirm her testimony about this particular incident?
We conducted, as I said, before, our own independent investigation of all aspects of the case that we thought was relevant.
We attorneys from my office.
Did you ever confirm it? That's a simple question.
We interviewed her, I should say, attorneys in my office.
But did you ever confirm the president leaping across the seat, grabbing the steering wheel. This whole concoctions she brought up in the January sixth hearing, do you ever confirm that.
We interviewed another firsthand witness who was in the car who did not confirm that that happened.
But also your deposition to the committee last month, mister Smith, you said this my recollection with miss Hutchinson was a number of the things that she gave evidence on we're second hand hearsay. Your remembers making that statement to us last month in the deposition.
I did, and I was referring particularly to what we're talking about now.
Yeah, And you also said miss Hutchinson, regarding this particular claim, was a second or even third hand witness. We ask you, if you were a defense attorney, how would you handle cross examining her if she was on the witness stand? And you said, if I were a defense attorney, miss Hutchinson were a witness, the first thing I would do was seek to preclude her testimony because it was here say you remember saying all that.
Yes, that's correct, so that's correct.
Right?
Were you gonna put her on the witness stand if you ever got to trial.
We had not made final determinations as to who we were going to call as a witness. We had a large were still considering her. We had a large choice of witnesses in this.
Are you familiar what Washington Post reporters Carol Lenning and Aaron Davis said in their book? They did his book three hundreds on pages book on chronicle and the whole investigation of the Justice Department, And here's what they said. On page three ten, they said Jack Smith had wondered whether some of Hutchinson's claims might be relied upon a trial. Still, at one point, Smith told the elections team he wasn't ready to give up on Hutchinson's account. Ultimately, however, Trump
administration officials uniformly fiercely disputed her accounts under oath. Prosecutors on your team told Smith they wouldn't want to use Hutchinson as a witness in court, and Smith agreed. Are Caro Lenning and Aaron Davis who wrote this or they lion?
My recollection is that I certainly had not made any final determinations about.
In who we were going to call.
Well, that's the point.
That is the point, the fact that they used her in a primetime hearing, and you won't rule out using her, didn't rule out using her putting on the witness stand when everybody knows she wasn't telling the truth.
That says it all.
That's the degree the Left and Democrats were willing to go to get President Trump putting on the witness stand someone everybody knows is making it up.
Everybody knows that, and.
You were willing to do.
By the way, you know how many times Cassidy Hutchinson was mentioned in their report, the January sixth report, Any idea, mister Smith, I do know one hundred and eighty five times someone that the whole country knows wasn't telling the truth, and you were still considering putting her on the witness stand because you had to get President Trump. And everybody can see that.
Senator.
You listened to that line of questioning, and that's just five minutes of pure facts and gold from Jim Jordan reminding people what they were trying to do on the left, even when they knew that things were being made up, that lies were being told. And this is no different than Russian collusion. Back in sixteen, when the FBI had already declared that they thought that the Stele dossier was quote user generated, and they used it anyway that's exactly
what was happening here with a special counsel. It was weaponize and do whatever you want to do to try to stop Donald Trump from becoming president again.
Well, and what Jim Jordan did there was also highlight the willingness to rely on people that were lying, that were obviously lying. I will say it's interesting Cassidy Hutchison. I don't know her personally. Before she worked in the White House, she was apparently an intern in my office. I have no recollection of her. We have lots of
interns who come in and out of the office. We tend to have interns in the spring semester and the fall semester and also during the summer, and typically I will sit down with the group of interns that are with us for like a twenty minute meeting in my office, and I'll talk with him a little bit. So I assume I met her when she interned, but I don't remember her. She wrote a book right after her star testimony.
She wrote a book of all of her stories, and in it she describes this exchange with me, this conversation that she says happened with me. That is truly fantastic because it never occurred, and it was an exchange that she said occurred after she went to the White House, and the dialogue back and forth she makes up has me kind of like tugging on her shirt sleeve and asking for her help, and it has her like strongly
like sticking it to the Senator. And I have to admit, so I didn't read her book, and I think very few people actually did. I did what's called the Washington read when someone writes something about you that's sort of making a little bit of news, which is I went and read the page where she talks about it, and I literally laughed out loud at the exchange because it
it was truly fiction. And the fact that she was willing to fictionalize a conversation with me that that did not occur tells me that the other pages of the book are quite likely to be fiction as well. And it speaks volumes that both Jack Smith and the Democrats running the January sixth Commission were perfectly happy to rely upon a fabulous whom they knew was not telling the truth.
Senner, one of our good friends, actually did a great back and forth in this hearing. Brandangil, a guy who his tone is demeanor is always cool and calm and kind of quiet, but very direct, and it's a personality that I love watching because of the way that he asks questions and gets answers. And he did a really fabulous job in this situation as well.
Well.
As you know, Brandon Gill is a good friend. He's a freshman representative from Texas. He's someone I supported when he ran in a very crowded primary. He had a big win, and I told the voters of Texas if they elected him, he was going to be a leader in Washington, and already, just in his first year plus on Capitol Hill, he's already proven to be a leader
in Washington. Here he's cross examining Jack Smith about Arctic frost and in particular his willingness to trample on the Constitution to target both the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, and also roughly twenty percent of the Republicans in the United States Senate. Give a listen to this exchange and how ridiculous Jack Smith's responses are to Brandon Gill's questions.
The gentleman from Texas, mister Gill was recognized for five minutes.
Mister Smith in January of twenty twenty three, did you subpoena then Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's toll records?
Yes, sir, we.
Did, Yes, you did.
And the subpoena covered the time period between November twenty twenty and January twenty twenty one.
Is that right?
I'm sorry, sir. Could you say that again?
We're not going to delay like this.
The subpoena covered the time period between November of twenty twenty and January twenty twenty one. How many days after Kevin McCarthy was sworn in his speaker did you subpoena his records?
I don't recall, but those two things had nothing.
It was sixteen days after becoming the highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, usubpoenaed his toll records. Do you agree that that might reasonably be considered a violation of the speech or debate clause?
I do not, and I want to be clear that the till.
We were collecting months worth of phone data on the Republicans Speaker of the House, the leader of the opposition, right after he got sworn in as speaker, all around the time of a major vote that sounds like a flagrant violation of the speech or debate clause to me, and I think most people agree with me. And Speaker McCarthy had no recourse, did he? Because you issued a non disclosure order ensuring that neither he nor any of the American people knew about the subpoenas.
Is that right?
The toll record, the non content toll record subpoena is we did secure non disclosure orders for those subpoenas.
You did.
And let me ask you, mister Smith, at the time you secured those non disclosure orders.
Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risk?
The non disclosure order was based on concerns about it.
Was Speaker McCarthy a flight risks?
Was not?
He was not?
Then why did your non disclosure order refer to him as a flight risk? It says right here the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in flight from prosecution.
Sir, When securing a non disclosure order, the risks don't have to be associated.
I think that the Speaker of the House is risks this question, No, this is not your time, this is my time. You think the Speaker of the House is a flight risk? You think he's going to hop on a plane and leave the country.
No. What I was trying to explain is, with respect to a non disclosure order, the risks aren't necessarily associated with the subscriber to the phone, the risks to okay mitigation.
I think that you were using this is clearly in reference to Speaker McCarthy, and you were using clearly false information to secure a non disclosure order to hide from Speaker McCarthy and from the American people the fact that you were spying on his toll records.
But I've got more more, so let's move on.
In May of twenty twenty three, you also issued subpoenas for toll records of nine US senators and an additional representative.
Is that right?
In May of twenty three, we did issues.
You did, and there were non disclosure orders in conjunction with those subpoenas as well.
Right, that's correct, consistent with Department policy, right law.
So again, nobody would know what you were doing.
The senators would, and the representatives would, and the American people wouldn't know what you were doing.
Is that right?
The toll records that we secured in the non disclosure orders were consistent with policy, and.
You knew whenever you were doing that that there was a risk you were violating the speechure debate clause.
Is that right?
The toll record subpoenas that we secured were with the concurrence of the public context.
Your own analysis says that you knew there was a risk you were violating the speech or debate clause.
I have it right here.
This is an email from John Keller at Public Integrity Section to your team. As you are aware quote, as you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a member's legislative calls violates the speechure debate clause in the DC circuit. That's from your own analysis right there. So you did know, didn't you.
So with respect to the item you just put up on the screen, the last sentence states.
Uh, oh, we're going to get to the last sentence. Okay, We're going to get to the last sentence, and you cite case Lawn here. Quote the bar on compelled disclosure is absolute?
Is right? Is that right? Or do you think that you didn't have to abide by that precedent?
To be clear, this is not this statement is not from my office. This is the statement.
This is this is your justification for those subpoenas and indios that you ordered. This was part of your analysis. It's a cursory analysis. I think it's worth noting. Well, let's get to that last sentence then, quote, given my understanding of the low likelihood that any of the members listed below would be charged, the litigation risk should be minimal here. In other words, you're using a novel legal theory, which you knew was novel, has never been tested by
any court. You're not charging any of these members. Nobody's going to know about it because you issued indio. Nobody's going to sue about it, So sue this.
So who cares? We're going to do it.
Anyways, You walked all over the Constitution throughout this entire product ven the Gentleman's Times sighclared members of Congress, and you know it.
It's absolutely disgraceful.
It's incredible when you when you hear just how out of control our government was under the direction of the Biden administration and Jack Smith and the unlimited powers that clearly he believed he had to just do and create whatever he wanted to try to bring down Donald Trump and anyone around him.
Well, Jack Smith knew that what he was doing was illegal, that it violated the Constitution, that had violated the speech and debate clause. But as that email exchange indicates that that Brandon Gill read, he was counting on the fact that no one would ever know about it, that it would stay secret, that it would never be made public, so he could violate the law. And his objective was to prevent the American people from re electing President Trump. And let's be clear, if Kamala Harris is DOJ we
were in office, we wouldn't know about this. Nobody would know about this. He would have succeeded. You know, he's like the villain and Scooby Doo. You know, he would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids. And by the way, by the meddling kids, he means the voters of America who decided, no, we've had enough of this dumpster fire. We'd like to get
back to common sense. And I got to say, Jack Smith is just calmly telling Congress that he went but went before the judge, and he lied, he lied over and over again. I thought the exchange. Is Kevin McCarthy a flight risk? He says no, Well, then why did you tell the judge he was a flight risk? And he has no good answer. Well, well, you know we're not referring to the actual target of the subpoena. It's
complete nonsense. He also told told the judge that every Republican that he subpoenaed was was likely to destroy evidence, completely made up, false statements, and it's an abuse of power. And and Jack Smith is completely unapologetic, incredible.
Don't forget.
We do this show as a podcast three days a week, so make sure you hit that subscribe or auto download button wherever you get your podcasts.
So that you don't miss a single episode.
And the Center and I will see you back here on this radio station next week and on your phone or wherever you get your podcasts as well this week, all week long,