¶ Welcome and Episode Preview
Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson with you. It's really nice to have you with us on this Wednesday morning. And Senator, we've got two big topics to discuss today, including something in the Senate that got a little spicy between you and Cory Booker.
Well, it did so yesterday I charity hearing that was examining the abuse of power from individual district court judges
¶ Judicial Abuse and Nationwide Injunctions
who are issuing nationwide injunctions against President Trump and the Trump administration. And this is the latest iteration of lawfair. This is in the last four years, we saw Democrat prosecutors indict Donald Trump four separate times. That that was they were doing everything they could to stop the voters from re electing President Trump.
That failed.
Now during the Trump presidency, we are seeing lawfair unfold. We are seeing Democrat attorneys general filing lawsuits every single day. We are seeing left wing activist groups filing lawsuits every day, and they are seeking out radical left wing judges who've been appointed in very blue districts. And what we have seen is we have seen over forty nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. Now, to give you a sense of just how egregious this is. In the first one hundred
¶ Historical Context of Nationwide Injunctions
and fifty years of our nation's history, Ben, do you know how many nationwide injunctions were issued.
I have no idea, but I'm guessing comparing it to forty it's not going to be a lot.
The number would be zero. So the first one hundred and fifty years of our nation's history, there was not a single nationwide injunction that was issued. Now, how about the twentieth century, the twentieth century, the entire hundred years from nineteen hundred to nineteen ninety nine, there have been more nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump administration in the first five months than there were in the entire twentieth century.
There have also been more nationwide injunctions issued against Trump than there have been during the George W. Bush presidency, plus the Barack Obama presidency, plus the Joe Biden presidency all combined. This is an assault. You have left wing judges, individual radical district judges who are issuing injunctions, trying to set aside the policies of the president and trying to
set aside the will of the American voters. And it is an assault in democracy, and I got to say Democrats not only are okay with it, they're enthusiastically cheering it on.
It really is shocking, and the level of I think
¶ Dangerous Precedent of Undermining Policies
attack is obviously, as you mentioned, very clear. It is these judges are saying, we're going to take away the power of the presidency. The danger there is aspect of that precedent is also something that I would hope that many people that maybe consider themselves to be moderate or liberal would be concerned about, because that's not how this country is supposed to work now.
It should not be an individual district judge having the ability to set aside the policies of the United States government, the president of the United States, and the policies that the voters voted on. Look, I think the single biggest issue in this last election was the voters were sick and tired of the open borders we saw for four years the invasion of twelve million illegal immigrants, and they wanted a president to secure the border and to deport murderers, rapists,
child molesters, violent Venezuelan gang members. That's what Donald Trump is doing. And we are seeing the Democrats who are suing over and over again and they're getting radical left wing judges to issue orders saying stop deport in criminals and it's lawless. By the way, federal immigration law gives enormous power to the president to deport illegal immigrants, and
these radical judges they don't care. And I will tell you as we were discussing this in this hearing, So the Democrats all showed up for this hearing and they were loaded for bear, and they were all attacking President Trump.
¶ Debating Hypocrisy on Protecting Judges
That was no surprise. And they were saying that the President is horribly saying mean, mean things about judges. And mind you, these are judges who are dramatically abusing their power. And yet the Democrats were all pretending to be horrified that the President would criticize judges. Now, I want to play for you in exchange I had I was talking about the hypocrisy of Democrats who are claiming to be
defending judges. And yet when Joe Biden was president and you had violent mobs protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, the Democrats said not a word. They were not bothered at all that the Biden Justice Department refused to enforce the criminal law that makes it a crime to protest and outside the home of a justice and to threaten the justice's families as they were. And there was an exchange. So Corey Booker, he's a Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee. Corey wants to run for president. He wants to run as the great Liberal hope. And Corey decided to engage with me and attack me on this issue. And he and I went back and forth. And I want to play this entire exchange. It's a little bit extended, but this exchange was striking because he jumped in and he's like, no, no, no, I'm going to fight you on this point. And I've got to say, I don't want to be a spoiler here, but I don't think it went well for Corey. Give a listen.
It did not.
Here it is indulge me for a moment.
¶ Heated Exchange with Senator Cory Booker
We indulge you every moment.
I appreciate that active generosity. It's just something you said that I think is actually dangerous and should be addressed. And you're welcome. But when Judge Errol was killed in New Jersey, the Republican colleagues in the Senate, they're outpouring of support, their outpouring of concern. They're willing to work
together on a bipartisan bill was extraordinary. It shows the truth of this institution that despite some of the fiery rhetoric that you were selling, we're really by parties working bipartisanship. Cornin and Coombs, after the incidents you're talking about, got together and actually passed a bill to better protect our Supreme Court justices, many of whom are friends of ours. You know, Gorsich and I disagree on a lot of stuff. I knew his wife before he did. We studied together
at Oxford. This implication that there was silence when there were threats on their people's houses is absolutely absurd. I remember the rhetoric and the comments, the concern from Coons. I actually distinctly remember you, Chairman, are more than once condemning those attacks on Republican appointed jurists. To say things like that feeds just the partisanship in this institution and feeds the fiery rhetoric. And it's just plain not true. It's just plain not true. And I think you know that.
But we can pull from the record from my colleagues in real time, literally days afterwards condemning it. There's a lot of substantive things to say here, but to think that the lack of humanity when people's homes are being threatened was not in existence. I think that's unfair and really concerns me that you would say that in the way that you did. Well.
I thank my colleague from New Jersey. I will note, as John Adams observed, that facts are stubborn things, and it is existing Federal law eighteen USC. Section fifteen oh seven that makes it a crime to protest at a
judge's home. And the law provides whoever, with the intent of interfering, with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent or of influencing any judge, duror witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, inter near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound, truck or similar device,
or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. That is federal criminal law. Night after night after night, angry mobs were outside the Supreme Court justices homes, and in the entire course of it, the Biden Justice Department prosecuted nobody. We had the Attorney General sitting at that table, and multiple Republican senators asked him, why are you not enforcing
the law. What they are doing is a crime. And my friend in New Jersey said, it is a lie to say we the Democrats condone this. I would challenge my friend find a single Democrat senator on this committee holding the Attorney General to account for not enforcing this law. I was here at those hearings, and I do not recall a single Democrat senator saying to the Attorney General, you should arrest these people who are violating the law.
You should protect the judges. I agree that there was general language against violence, but not a single Democrat senator that I ever saw in this committee was willing to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland to account for flagrantly disregarding the federal criminal law. Because the Biden administration agreed with the protesters and I think wanted those justices haurrassed at their home.
I really appreciate that you've now shifted the accusation you made earlier. Your accusation was that we were silent in the face of protests as Supreme Court justices homes again, we joined together in a bi parisan way not only to condemn that, but to pass legislation to extend round the clock security protection literally days was introduced May fifth past the Senate bi partisan fashion on May night. So if you're saying that we didn't criticize them.
And arrest a single person on who are now changing the that is?
That is what I say again. I'll I'll pull the record. It's arrest even one again.
The answer is not my.
Point to you. Who is the accusation that the Democrats on this committee do not care about the safety of federal judges. I did not interrupt you, sir. I would appreciate if you let me finish. I am sick and tired of hearing the kind of heated partisan rhetoric, which is one of the reasons why we have such divisions in this country. The attacks we see from the President of the United States of America, trolling and dragging judges through is to what we should be talking about. That
puts people in danger. I'm simply taking issue with the claim that you made at the top that people on the Democratic side of the aisle do not care about the safety and the security of judges and said nothing. You said we were silent after people's houses were protested. That is a patent lie, sir. We were not silent. We took action. We've joined in a bipartisan way to protect those judges, as was done in a bipartisan way to protect a New Jersey judge after their horrific attack
at their home. So I see you now trying to shift the debate to whether we talk to an attorney general. I'm simply taking issue with this accusation that somehow we Democrats are so bad because we don't call out threats to college to our judicial colleagues, and that is wrong. You could change the argument now that you want, but what you said was patently not true and was in fact a patent lie.
So I do enjoy the fact that my colleague from New Jersey raises his voice and says it's a patent lie,
¶ Analysis of the Booker Debate
and says he's doing so in defense of lowering the rhetoric. There is some irony to doing those two together. I'll point out that in the entire course of those remarks, Senator Booker did not dispute the central point I made, which is the Biden Justice Department arrested zero people, prosecuted zero people for violating the criminal law, and every Democrat senator on this committee was silent about it. And this
was an ongoing pattern four months. And I would note also that the Senator from New Jersey clutched his pearls about language threatening judges, and yet I do not recall a single Democrat senator of this committee saying a word when Chuck Schumer went to the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened the safety of the Supreme Court justices by name Gorsitchen Kavanaugh, and he said, you have unleashed
the whirlwind and you will pay the price. And not a single Democrat senator had a word to say about this, And so their outrage is selective. And I will give my colleague from New Jersey a chance to just answer a simple yes, no question. Should the Biden Justice Department have enforced the criminal law against protesting at a justice's home, Yes or no.
So the rank hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer apologizing the next day and you holding that standard for him, and not for your president, who you actually rightfully describe when you were running against him in a primary. I would love to run those tapes of how you perfectly talked about the danger of our president and his rhetoric. But now you are failing in fact blind to the very things you're accusing Chuck Schumer of. I don't think Donald Trump would know an apology if it hit him in the head,
never set apologizing. So again, you are very very sir, very very deep into the waters of hypocrisy in your criticisms of Chuck Schumer.
So let the record reflect that Spartacus did not answer the question and did not tell us whether the criminal law should be enforced, because he knows the answer is yes, and he knows that the Biden Department of Justice was being wildly political and partisan in refusing to enforce the law because they disagreed with the Supreme Court justice's rulings.
That was one very entertaining back and forth center. I wish there was actually more of this in the Senate because it's a great moment where you can see two very different viewpoints, two very different ways of looking at this, and like you said, it did not go well for Corey Booker, but I actually love that there's this type of grand debate.
Absolutely, we need to have this engagement. We need to have this engagement on ideas, and it's striking the Democrats. They claim they support democracy, but yet when it comes to Donald Trump, they want a single unelected district judge striking down every policy he implements. And they don't care that the American people voted for it. They want power. And look, in the course of this hearing, there were a couple of points I made that no Democrat had
a response to. Number one, these lawsuits are being filed over and over again before radical left wing judges. Of the forty plus nationwide injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration, thirty five of them have been in five jurisdictions, five left wing jurisdictions. They're seeking out these left wing judges because they know that they'll rule for them, and the Democrat defense is, well, gosh, Trump is just violating the law. Well, you know what, if that were true,
you'd be willing to file the cases anywhere. But you're not. The Democrat attorneys general, the left wing interest groups are going to seek out the radicals because they know the radicals will rule for them, and we're not seeing Democrat
senators defend that position. We're not seeing them say, give any explanation as to why one radical judge should be able to set aside nationwide the policies of the President of the United States, who was elected by the American people to secure the borders, to bring us back to common sense positions. And so I think this hearing was important, and I got to say, I think Corey Booker listen, Corey is running for president of the United States. That's
not complicated. He's going to run in twenty twenty eight, and he's running in the left lane of the Democrat Party. So he's going to take on Elizabeth Warren, he's going to take on AOC and he's going to argue, I am liberal Democrat here mirror. But at the end of the day, trying to appeal to those radicals, you got a problem of you actually got to address the substance, and I think today we did and it was not the outcome he was hoping for.
It certainly was not. And it's one of those moments that I'll be interested to see when this audio and video comes back to haunt him down the road when that president run you mentioned, because I think he thought he was about to have a moment and it's not the moment he probably was hoping for if you go back and look at that tape. I want to also get to this other big issue, and that is out in Colorado and the tear attack there. We've got a
¶ Colorado Terror Attack and Immigration
significant update on this individual and also real concerns and honesty now coming from the administration about the real threat of other terrorists that may be in this country that were led into this country by the Biden and Harris administration.
Well, it turns out that four years of open borders allowing over twelve million people to come into this country illegally, that was a really bad point. And even worse, look, there were ten million people who were apprehended by the Biden administration. They let them go. That is problematic on many many fronts, But the most disturbing number is two million. They're roughly two million god aways. Those are people that crossed the border. We know cross the border, but yet
they escaped detection. And those god aways are much much more likely to be criminals. They're much more likely to be murders, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, gang members. And if you look at this, this radical who attacked and fire
¶ Attacker's Background and Biden Policies
bombed the peaceful Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado, this was a guy who never should have been in this country to begin with. He came in on a tourist fe SA he overstated, and this was a radical Islamist. And I want to read to you a tweet from Bill Malusion. Now, regular listeners of this podcast know Bill Malusian is the best reporter in America. He reports for Fox News and
he's been detailing what's going on at the border. Here's what Bill Malusion tweeted, breaking new details on Colorado terror attack suspect as Fedes charged him with federal hate crime, according to federal court filings obtained by Fox News, Egyptian illegal alien Mohammed Solomon admitted in an interview that he wanted to kill all quote Zionist people, and he had been planning the attack for a year, and that he
would conduct the attack again if he could. He allegedly told investigators that he waited to carry out the attack until his daughter graduated high school, and that he specifically targeted the quote Zionist group in Boulder after learning about them from an online search. It was premeditated, as he allegedly admitted he knew they would gather on Sunday at one pm, he arrived and waited for them. Additionally, investigators found a black container with fourteen more molotov cocktails near
the spot he was arrested in. Inside his vehicle, investigators found paperwork with the words Israel, Palestine, and USAID. This man was admitted into the country via a tourist visa during the Biden administration. He overstayed, filed an asylum request, and was granted work authorization by the Biden administration, which expired at the end of March of this year. So understand, this guy came into this country, he overstayed his visa, and yet the Biden administration said, hey, look a radical
Islamic terrorist. We want you to stay. It was not hard to figure out from his social media who this guy was. But the Biden administration, they were not focused on defending this nation. They were not focused on stopping terrorists from coming into this country. Instead, they made a political decision. I get asked all the time, Ben, why would Democrats open up the borders. It clearly hurt them in the flat last election. Why would they do this?
And I believe it was entirely about power. They viewed twelve million illegal immigrants, they said, listen, every one of these we think are going to vote for Democrats. We want them in here. Some portion of them will vote illegally. The rest of them, they believed, if they stayed in power, they'd grant amnesty and make them all voters. And if they have to bring in Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who were murdering people, sadly, the Democrats were willing to do that.
This is the part that I really think we do need to make it clear, not just now but in the future. The Democratic Party, and you alluded to this in your comments there. Their plan they knew was going to have disastrous consequences from a national security standpoint. They were willing to play Russian Roulette with that open border. And they were warned and they saw the people that were on the terrorists watch list center and they didn't care because it was their overall plan to flood the
country with the legal immigrants and fundamentally changes country. They knew this plan would allow for people that are terrorists, some of them on the terrorists watch lists at the time to get into this country, and they still continued to have the open border policy because they basically said, Hey, it's part of our bigger plan, and there's going to be collateral damage from.
This, so be it and listen when I say this, this sounds harsh, and you sort of think of a listener who's not terribly political and they're like, wait, the Democrats couldn't really want more terrorists in this country. But at the end of the day, that was the inevitable
consequence of the policies they put in place. When you allow twelve million people to cross the border illegally, and by the way, the Biden Border Control the border patrol, they instructed their agents be on the lookout for hesbela Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jehad terrorists coming across this border. Look, we have radical Zealots who have declared Jahad and America who have demanded of their terrorists murder as many Americans as you can and murder as many Jews and Israelis
as you can. And in the face of those very real and clear national security threats, the fact that the Biden administration and the Democrats, it wasn't just Joe Biden, it wasn't just Kamala Harris. It was every single Democrat in the Senate. It was every single Democrat in the House. Because they voted in favor of open borders over and over and over again, they knew that some of the people coming were just like this radical and listen, I've
¶ Push to Designate Muslim Brotherhood
reintroduced this week legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. The Muslim Brotherhood.
This is something you've been sounding the alarm on for quite some time. I want to be very clear about that.
So I've been fighting for this legislation for more than a decade. The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. It is in countries throughout the Middle East. It is in Egypt, it is in cutter it is all across the Middle East. And the Muslim Brotherhood openly aggressively they support hamas they support Hesbela. They are a terrorist organization and by the way, to be clear, in Egypt, they're an actual political party. Look, we had Mohammed Morsey who was the leader of e
who was a Muslim Brotherhood radical. Now now thankfully Mohammed Morsey was defeated and he was defeated by Alcesi, who is fighting against the Muslim Brotherhood. Look, look if you look at the Arabs who are dealing with this, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadis, they believe in using violence, using murder to force people to embrace their radical Islamus view. And yet these are these are the radicals that are fighting, that that are murdering Israelis, and that are murdering Americans.
And and this is exactly the radicals that this lunatic in Boulder, Colorado was embracing, and that Joe Biden, the Democrats were letting endo this country.
Final question on the on the the designate of Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Is this finally going to be the moment where you think there's a decent, there's a chance that this can become reality, or there's still going to be Democrats at all costs that say we are going to defend this.
So I hope so so right now today, the Muslim Brotherhood is designated as a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia, they're designated in the United Arab Emirates, They're designated in Egypt, in Syria and Bahrain. But the United States has yet to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. When you have a group that actively encourages the waging of jahad, the murdering of innocence, they are a terrorist organization. And so I pressed, I pressed the entire first Trump term
for the Muslim Brotherhood to be designated. We did not succeed. I think we will succeed this administration. I think President Trump is going to do this, and I'm going to keep pressing designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization because because that is who they are, and we saw the horrific and potentially deadly consequences this week in Boulder, Colorado.
It's an incredible story and it's a sad one. It's also one that we must keep following and keep fighting to protect American citizens. And we're gonna keep keeping you updated on this story moving forward here on VERDIC. I promise you that don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday and Friday, so make sure you hit that subscribe or auto download button so that you do not miss an episode. Please write it to five star review. It helps us reach new listeners more than you can imagine.
So if you've not done that, please do that and share this wherever you are, like I said on media and the CINA, and I will see you back here Friday morning.