Welcome.
It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a Week in Review. Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the major stories that you may have missed that we talked about this week. First up, when will the media stop attacking Joe Biden. It's very clear they're trying to take him out right now, but will they get back in line? We're going to talk about the timeline and how important that is. Also, Donald Trump had a massive victory this week at the Supreme Court dealing with presidential immunity and what did the
media do. They immediately lied to you about what this actually means, and now they're saying we may leave the country if Donald Trump is re elected as president. Will break that down for you as well. Plus a major court case that you did not hear about in the media this week that we're going to break down for you. It's the weekend Review and it starts right now. One Democrat that went on TV, I guess he's like the
sacrificial lamb is representative Democratic Representative Dan Goldman. He said this about the president trying to reassure Americans he's really fine, there's no cognitive decline.
And the people who are with him every day have indicated as well that it was an aberration and it is an anomaly, and if that is the case, then we will see that, and we will see that over the next week, and he will restore our faith and confidence in his fitness.
And then everything else between the two of them cuts in favor of Joe Biden. So people are right to have some concerns after that performance. And I don't think there's any excuse that Joe Biden offered. I think he was trying to explain how he had such a poor performance. But he's accepted it, he's owned it, he's acknowledged it, as we all have. And what we need to see from him is that vibrant and whip smart president that we have had for the last three and a half years.
And the people, I mean, you listen to him, and then you go to the facts. Biden's post debate checkup actually conjured what the White House set. They have now confirmed that and President Biden confirmed And again I'm quoting reports coming out of the White House to the Democratic governors.
Remember they had this nine to one to one, uh, you know, all hands on deck meeting with Democratic governors to try to reassure them that he had a medical checkup following the president of debate, despite earlier statements from the White House pres Secretary on multiple occasions that he had not received any medical exam since February.
We played some of that in the last show.
The White House later clarified that Biden was seen by a doctor for a brief quote brief checkup due to the lingering symptoms from a cold, which did not include any major tests. Uh So, even when they lie to you, they still can't there. They're now lying to either the governors or the American people, or they're just lying about all of it.
Your thoughts.
Yeah, look, the cold is nonsense, the jet lag is nonsense. Everyone knows that the issue is that he's too old and he's suffering from dementia. That that is bleakasly true. They're trying to distract from this. Look, I'll give you a sense of how bad it is, even the Praetorian Guard, even the most zealous defenders of Joe Biden, the Democrats, and by that I mean the New York Times, even
their turning on her. On Wednesday of this week, The New York Times wrote a story the headline of which is Biden tells allies he knows he has only days to salvage candidacy. Here's what The New York Times wrote. By the way, this is not an editorial, this is a news story. President Joe Biden has told key allies that he knows the coming days are crucial and understands that he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince voters that he is up to
the job after a disastrous debate performance last week. According to two allies who have spoken with him, Biden has emphasized that he is still deeply committed to fight for his reelection, but understands that his viability as a candidate is on the line. The presidents sought to project confidence Wednesday in a call with campaign staff, even as White House officials were trying to calm nerves inside the ranks of the Biden administration. Quote, no one's pushing me out,
Biden said in the call. I'm not leaving. Vice President Kamala Harris was also on the line. Quote we will not back down. We will follow our president's lead. She said, we will fight and we will win. Rah rah rah. Still Biden allies said the President had privately acknowledged that his next few appearances heading into the July fourth holiday weekend must go well, particularly in an interview scheduled for Friday with George Stephanopolovis of ABC News and campaign stops
in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Quote, he knows that if he has two more events like that, we're in a different place by the end of the weekend, said one of the allies, referring to Biden's halting and unfocused performance on the debate. That person who talked to the President in the past twenty four hours spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation. The accounts of his comment coversations with allies are the first indication to become public that the president is seriously considering whether he can recover after a devastating performance on the debate stage in Atlanta last Thursday, A new poll from The New York Times in Siena College showed the former President Donald Trump now leads Biden forty nine to forty three percent among
likely voters nationally, a three point swing towards the Republican from just a week earlier before the debate this is they're terrified. And note they're terrified about one thing. They think Biden's going to lose. If they thought a mentally incompetent person was going to win, they'd be fine. But they're terrified that there are at least some people who say, gosh, maybe the commander in chief should be aware of what's going on around him.
Final two questions for you.
One, when do you think the media has to stop this onslaught of attacks on the president because they're going full court press is in another week and then they got to dial it back in case he does continue to be the nominee, they can't push him out. And number two, how important is this prime time taped interview Friday night for Joe Biden's future?
Well, I mean, let me start with number two. The interview on Friday is very important. If he goes and just craps the bed, that could be fatal. I think ABC and Stephanopoulos are going to do everything they can to prevent that from happening. I think they're going to
edit the heck out of the interview. They should run it live and anyone who cares like ABC should be embarrassed about itself that it's not running it live because their editing will be designed to create a false impression, to protect Joe Biden, to turn it into a campaign video. If they're a real journalistic outlet, you know what I do. I do them live, and if I say something dumb, you know what. The camera catches it and all the
world can hear. And it's not ABC's job to be doing the pr and damage control for the Democrats, but that's what they're doing. I think the interview matters a lot. I also think it's interesting you're seeing Democrats publicly breaking ships. So Lloyd Doggett, very liberal Democrat from Austin, Texas, became the first Democrat member of Congress to say the president should step aside. Two others, Jared Golden and Maine and Marie Glusen camp Perez of Washington, both Democrats, both said
they believe Biden will lose in November. That's significant that you're seeing elected Democrats coming out saying that. Another one, Seth Moulton, another Democrat from Massachusetts, raised real questions about whether Biden can win. He said, quote, I deeply respect President Biden and all the great things he's done for America, but I have grave concerns about his ability to defeat
Donald Trump. Winning will require prosecuting the case in the media, in town halls and at campaign stops all over the country. President Biden needs to demonstrate that he can do that. The unfortunate reality is that the status quo will likely deliver us President Trump. We're seeing that happening more and
more and more. Now, your first question was how long will the media continue to attack Listen on the debate night, I predicted if this is going to happen, it's going to shake out in twenty one days, So we're a week into it. I think we have two more weeks ahead of us. We will go into the Republican Convention in two weeks. I think we'll know what happens by then. A final point in one that has not been discussed
a great deal. I think all of this drama impacts President Trump very significantly, and in particular, it impacts his vice presidential choice. Trump is in the middle of presumably picking who he wants to beat VP. Lots of names have been floated, there are lots of shortlists, lots of things discussing. Well, normally when you're picking a VP candidate, you know who your opponent is, you know what you're
fighting against. In this instance, it's a very difficult situation for Trump because the kind of VP he might pick if he's running against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could be a very different VP than if he's running against Michelle Obama. I think right now the Trump team is feeling incredibly confident. I think they think they're gonna win, They're gonna beat Joe Biden. I think they're feeling on
top of the world. I can tell you if the news broke tomorrow that Biden was not the nominee anymore and it was gonna be Michelle Obama, the Trump team, if it were not at a major emergency mode level of this is serious, then they misreading the situation because Michelle Obama's the Democrat nominee is incredibly dangerous and that
could easily impact the vice presidential nominee. So, for example, if it's Michelle Obama, maybe Trump picks Tim Scott, deciding that he wants to go fight and fight more aggressively for African American votes. That's one possible consideration that maybe that's a little bit less of a consideration. If Joe Biden is at the top of the ticket.
So there are.
Complicated, complicated chess moves that are playing out right now because of the uncertainty of who's going to be the nominee.
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week now onto story number two. Well, even on MSNBC, they were having this conversation on this scot of immunity ruling, and they said, in their words, Trump could target like journalists could target. Quote me, That's what Wallace said, and then he said, people, if he wins, will be forced to flee the country.
Listen, frame court in Russia exists, but none of us think that there's a rule of law there.
When you look at this opinions, it just doesn't know it.
Yeah, exactly, Mark Elias. We should pull the curtain back on what's actually happening, shouldn't we. People are exploring options to live in other countries if they think they could be targeted for prosecution by Donald Trump, because targeting you, or targeting me, or targeting Andrew would be an official act based on today's decision.
Yeah, I mean they could target for criminal prosecution, they could target or administrative investigation, the IRS, the SEC, the EPA.
I mean, they're not just talking about death, they're talking about using the president saying I'm going to target everybody I want to and use all of the things, by the way, which Democrats have done. They've used the justice system, they use the IRS, the Tea Party for example, They've gone after people and raid their homes.
Steve Bannon's in jail right now. Goes on and on and on.
Of all the things that they're doing actually right now before this ruling that had nothing to do with this ruling. Now they're like, well, we're going to have to leave the country because he's just going to target all of us.
So I gotta say, what utter garbage the two of them. Oh, they're going to target us. They're going to target us. That's what Joe Biden is doing right now, Joe Biden. This Justice Department is the most lawless, partisan, weaponized abuse system of justice ever seen. The absolute irony of those people saying, oh, Trump's going to do that. You know what, when he was president before, he didn't do that. It is you, you dishonest partisan hacks that are going after that
have the four indicement against Trump. As you noted, Steve Bannon is in jail right now. They they are, Peter Navarro is in jail right now. You're going after pro life protesters, you're attacking, you're refusing to go after people are fire bombing pregnancy resource centers. The absolute hypocrisy. The people who invented weaponization are now saying, well, we're scared we'll be targeted. It's utter garbage. You know, I got to say, you're and my friend Jesse Kelly, he tweeted
it in response to this. I think his tweet was very insightful. He said, you know what you call it when Scotus reveals the president has immunity, and the first thought the communists have is about using the military to execute political opponents. In poker, that's known as a tell. For instance, if you told me that the president can do whatever he wanted without restriction, my very first thought would be about firing government employees and eliminating entire federal agencies.
For communists, their thoughts go directly to murder. Again a tell.
It's a great point, and it goes back to the insanity of all of them. They do this, and then you know, you look at the Spring Court and again I go back to listen to Norm Essen on CNN immediately after this happens.
Listen to what he says.
When the president does it, that means it is not illegal. So in this context, with what the Court has decided, Norm does this mean that Nixon basically would have been able to do what he did completely legally without any recourse.
You could have had substantial portions of Richard Nixon's wrongdoing that drove him from office because it was conducted from the Oval office, using his official advisors to engage in break ins, a wide variety of other illegal activity would have been impossible to prosecute. Essentially, what the Supreme Court majority, again including terribly conflicted justices who have no business sitting on this case under any standard of udicial ethics, what
they've done, Sarah, is rewrite American history. It goes all the way back to the founding American idea. We overthrew King George the Third because we did not want a ruler to have this kind of absolute immunity, and the Supreme Court has now altered that. And we have to be honest that we're facing a major party political candidate who has said he wants to be a dictator on day one, he wants to assert autocratic powers. They've just given him a license for dictatorship within the purview of
official acts. That should be extremely alarming, And it makes this momentous election really a referendum on the future of American democracy.
A license for dictatorship, Like, come on, CNN.
What utter garbage.
And again, the Freud projection is so utterly rich. It is Joe Biden whose Department of Justice is targeting its political enemies. It is Joe Biden who is engaged in rampant censorship of the free speech of American citizens. It is Joe Biden who issued a blatantly illegal vaccine mandate that was thrown out by the courts, but fired thousands and thousands of active duty service men and women, fired FBI agents, fired Border patrol agents because they refuse to
comply with his illegal vaccine mandate. And to be clear, the court struck down his vaccine mandate, but he had already gotten rid of the people he wanted to get rid of. It is Joe Biden who repeatedly issues lawless orders trying to give away a trillion dollars in student loans that he has no legal authority to do. He knows they'll get struck down in court, but he's trying
to buy votes. That is utterly lawless. It is Joe Biden who on the border is ignoring the entirety of federal immigration law and is released has allowed eleven million people to come into this country illegally, who is ignoring the Americans who are being murdered, who are being raped by the criminals he's releasing. And yet you have these numbskulls go on CNN and say, oh, well, this means Trump can be a dictator. Trump didn't do any of that.
Everything I just listed Trump actually followed the law. He exercised his power. He implemented policies that proved very beneficial for the American people. It is the Democrats. And look look when Alejandro Majorcas was impeached for utterly defying the law, for refusing to follow immigration law, every single Democrat in the Senate, all of them voted to throw out the case and to hear no evidence. So they don't care about the rule of law. They care about power. The
reason they're angry and hyperventilating. Is because this case is an effort to weaponize the justice system to stop the voters from voting to elect Donald Trump, and this ruling they view as getting in the way of what they want to do, which is weaponized the justice system to subvert democracy. The irony is, he says, this is a blow to democracy. What they're doing is an attack on democracy, and they're frustrated that their attack on democracy is not working.
Center.
My final question for you now is the politics of this. You got Twitter going crazy in the left saying, all right, we'll just take out Donald Trump, which is I thought against all but apparently not. You've got the media saying, well, this means that Donald Trump, if he gets elected, is going to be a dictator and a tyrant and he can just lock everybody up, so people are going to have to flee the country. And now, in a weird way, this kind of gets the Democrats out of.
Jail free card.
With the court cases, which I believe have been backfiring on them. They've only been helping every time they go after Trump legally, it seems to help Donald Trump. Is this in a weird way of blessing in disguise politically for the Democrats, they can kind of just put pause and Jack Smith can go away, and Alvin Brad can kind of go away for a little bit, and we just kind of have a normal election.
Now, you know, I think you may be overthinking it. I don't think they're capable of thinking strategically or rationally on this. They just hate him. They want to attack him on every front. It is always about Orange Man bad, it is always about Trump is the devil. And so they're just gonna have You're gonna see cries of frustration. You're gonna see tears on MSNBC. Trump winning terrifies them. Look, these cases, the Jack Smith case is not going to
proceed before the election. It's going to take significant time to brief out and decide the immunity questions that now have been sent to the Lower Court. And it's not clear that any of the jack Smith case survives once you go through the analysis of what constituted an official action, either an exclusively official action or an official action with shared authority with Congress. Very little, if any of the
Jack Smith indictment will survive that analysis. But and and actually Alvin Bragg, it's interesting, you know, we were supposed to have the judicial sentencing of Trump two days before the Republican Convention.
That now is going to be delayed.
And the reason it's going to be delayed is as soon as this decision came down, Trump's legal team asked to brief the judge there as to why those convictions should be thrown out under the reasoning in in this Supreme Court decision, and and and the court said yes, that that that the court will consider legal arguments on that question, and that meant that the sentencing had to be delayed. And Alvin Bragg agreed to delay the sentencing. Now,
I got to say he pretty much had to. With this decision coming down, it is obvious that the court at least needs to consider what is the relevance of this decision to the convictions against Donald Trump. Now, the court said when it was scheduling arguments that it thought that the arguments were baseless. So I'm going to predict right now the New York judge is going to say, no,
that decision doesn't change anything. And it is true that the conducted question occurred before Trump was president, and so it is in no way, shape or form an exercise of presidential authority, and so there are lots of reasons why the decision from the New York Trial Court is an absolute abomination and an abuse of power, and why
it will be reversed on appeal. But it may well be that it's not going to be because of this decision, because this decision concerns the exercise of presidential powers, and Trump was not president when the conducted question occurred.
As before, If you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and dow the podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing. I want to get back to the big story number three of the week. You may have missed, tender. There's another important issue. I know you wanted to bring up. It is one that has not been on the front pages of newspapers, and that doesn't mean it's not important.
In fact, it's very important. Explain to us about this significant ruling that came down.
So last week, the US Supreme Court decided a decision called lowp or Bright Enterprises Versus Raymondo. And what the court did is it overruled a nineteen eighty four decision of the Supreme Court. The Chevron decision, and that was a decision Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Council. The Chevron decision created something that is called Chevron deference. Now, what
is Chevron deference. It was a doctrine that said the courts will defer to federal agencies on rules and regulations so long as that rule and regulation is quote reasonable.
What it did is it.
Gave enormous powers to unelected bureaucrats, and Chevron you can trace in a very direct line, the rise of the administrative state, the rise of unelected bureaucrats issuing rules that are incredibly costly to the American people, incredibly harmful to
the American people. You can trace that rise to the Chevron doctrine because when an agency of unelected bureaucrats issued a brand new rule, the courts would enforce that rule and say, well, it's the expert agency, and so we're going to get forced to what they say, even if Congress never passed this into law. And so the court last week overruled Chevron. What that means now is that
it is Congress. It's the elected members of Congress that have to make policy decisions that impact the American people, not the armies of bureaucrats who have no democratic accountability.
What type of present that will this have moving forward? And what is a state of corporations as well?
Well?
What it will do is weaken federal regulators. And let's take for example, the facts here. So the facts here concerned a family fishing company, and the federal government issued a regulation that required the family fishing Company number one to allow a fishing monitor a person on board their ship, but also forced the family fishing company to pay the salary of the federal fishing monitor, even though the law
passed by Congress had no such requirements. So, in other words, this regulator said, okay, you the fisherman, you got to allow a federal bureaucrat on your ship, and you got to pay a salary. Why because we said so, because we want you to pay a salary. And the court said, well, wait a second. When Congress passed the law, it didn't say that where did you this come up with? Where did you come up with this? You just made this up.
And so in this case I led an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief in the Supreme Court. It was joined by seventeen other senators Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, led an amicus brief in the House of Representatives. Let me read you the first couple of paragraphs of the brief that I filed in the Supreme Court.
Here's the summary of the argument. Quote.
The Court should unequivocally abandon the contemporary Chevron deference doctrine because it contradicts Articles one, two, and three of the Constitution. Decades of application of Chevron deference have facilitated the exercise of functions by the executive branch that more properly belong
to the legislative and judicial branches. Agencies exploit general or broad terms and statutes to engage in policy making functions of questionable legality, with the assumption that the courts will grant deference and not independently evaluate the lawfulness of those agency interpretations. And then I quote from from a dissent of Justice Thomas's quote. The founders expected that the federal government's powers would remain separated and the people's liberty secure
only if the branches could check each other. Therefore, the Constitution imposes structural constraints on all three branches, and the exercise of power free of those accompanying restraints subverts the design of the Constitution's ratifiers. The court agreed with the amicus brief that I filed for seventeen senators. It agreed with the amicus brief Mike Johnson, the Speaker the House, filed for a number of House members. And the result today is there is more power in the elected members
of Congress. And the reason that matters is where power resides. You want it to reside where there's accountability. If Congress votes for an idiotic law that hurts the American people, you know what the voters can do. They can throw the bums out. If an unelected bureaucrat issues a rule that says, I don't know, fishermen, you got to let a bureaucrat on your vote and you got to pay a salary. Well, you know what, you can't fire that bureaucrat.
That bureacrat doesn't run for office, that bureaucrat doesn't do town halls, that bureaucrat never sees the people he's hurting. And so this was a victory for democracy and a victory for the Constitution, which of course means democrats and the media are horrified.
You know this reminds me so much of the parallels and what you're describing with what we saw with doctor Fauci, a guy elected by no one making more money than anybody else in the United States government. Literally that's not a joke, making more than the president makes and being able to basically make up and put laws on all of us in certain lockdowns, etc. On all of us and change the entire way we did our life. And
there was in essence no checker balance for him. This seems like where the country is moving now, paying attention more to these type of situations.
Well, and look, we see a whole series of decisions from the Supreme Court that are all about enforcing the Constitution and enhancing democracy. You take the Dobbs decision that overturned ROVERSUS weighed, what did it do. It moved questions of abortion that are hotly contested that people passionately disagree on. It moved them to the elected branches of government. It moved them to the fifty states, where the citizens of each state could decide what should the rules be in
your state? And nobody would expect that Texas would have the same rules that California has because the citizens have different values and where there are contested policy issues that ought to be the voters deciding now. Interestingly enough, even though democrats on the corporate media love talking about how much they want to defend democracy, they are horrified whenever
the voters actually get to decide. They want unelected judges deciding so long as they agree with what the judges are deciding, and they want unelected bureaucrats deciding, and they know they're going to agree with that because the bureaucrats are overwhelming the left wing and disconnected from the harms that their rules and regulations are causing.
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down with my podcast and you can listen to my podcasts every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and we will see you back here on Monday morning.