Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a weekend review. Ben Ferguson with you as always, and there are some major stories that you may have missed that we talked about this week. First up, what does it look like state by state right now, especially in the swing states when it comes to the polling with this presidential election. We're going to break that down for you so you know where we stand right now, just a couple less
than two months away from election day. Also, the Supreme Court is now dealing with presidential immunity, So what does it mean for the sitting president and what does it mean for future presidents after the Supreme Court took a look at this issue. We'll explain that for you. And finally, Kamala Harris comes out she wants to end the filibuster. So what would that look like and would it mean that they would pack the Supreme Court? We break that down for you as well. It is the week in
Review and it starts right now. All right, Senata, So let's go through these states. And this is when I said art listeners, grab your print and paper, because this is where on election night you're gonna love watching the results come in. With these different states and the knowledge that we're about to give you all.
Right, so let's start with Arizona. The best way typically to consume polling numbers is to look to the Real Clear Politics average and so look their variations among poles. Some polls are more accurate than others. But the way most political professionals do is they look to the polling average, and the theory is the averages sort of. It averages
out the ups and the downs. So if you look to the Real Clear Politics average in Arizona, right now, this is a race between Gayego the Democrat, and Kerry Lake the Republican. Right now, Gayego is leading by four point three points, So that's the average. That's the average of the last four polls that have been done in that race. Trump has a good chance of winning Arizona. So right now Trump is outperforming Carrie Lake in that state, but four points is very winnable. She can win that race.
But according to the average, right now, the Democrats are ahead. Let's move to Michigan. So if you look at Michigan, the two candidates are Slotkin the Democrat and Mike Rodgers the Republican. In Michigan, the real Clear Politics average is the Democrat at five point one percent, So again five points is pretty close, but it does show an advantage right now for the Democrats, and that's an average of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven eight polls in the last month. The Democrat is
ahead by an average of five point one percent. All right, let's go to Montana. Montana, I mentioned is the brightest spot in terms of the pickup. This is a battle between John Tester the Democrat, the incumbent, and Tim Sheehey the Republican. And she He is ahead on an average of five point two points. So that's that's sizeable. It's not decisive. Tester could still come back and win it,
but that's it's been a consistent lead. If you look at the last four polls, she He plus six, she He plus seven, she He plus six, and she He plus two, So that's been a consistent lead. All right, Let's look to Nevada. So Nevada, the numbers are bumpier. The incumbent is Jackie Rosen. She's a Democrat. Sam Brown is a Republican. The real Clear Politics average is Rosen by eight point eight percent, so that's a pretty sizable lead. Nevada is another state where Trump is very competitive and
so he could win. Trump it may be that the polling numbers or understating where Brown is but eight point eight percent is there's some distance to be closed on the average polling there.
I'll ask you this real quick before you move forward, because it's a question. I know everybody's asking their head. All right, you just mentioned this state, and then you mentioned Arizona earlier where Trump is leading but Krylake is not there. How often do you see a presidential election cycle vo historically where the Republican wins in the state but the person next down the bound the senate race loses, where people walk in there yes for Trump and no
for the Senate candidate. Is that happened very often?
Yeah, that that happens with some regularity. And Trump in most states is going to get more votes than the down ballot Republicans. For one thing, there are people that come in that just vote president and leave. And then there are also there will be some voters in every one of these states who votes for Trump at the top of the ticket and then for a Democrat Senate candidate. I wish they didn't. It is frustrating as all get out, but there exists.
And to be than theird way, you're like voting against your own interests of what you're saying you want for the country. With the President, well he needs the votes in the House and Senate to get that agenda done.
Yeah, and there tend to be more crossover voters who do Trump and a Democrat Senate candidate, then there are crossover voters who vot Kamala Hara at a Republican senator candidate. It just at the end of the day, it has tended to be a one way ratchet. All right, Let's go to Ohio. Ohio is the next closest after Montana, and the two candidates are shared Brown the Democrat, who's
the incumbent, Bernie Mourno the Republican. The real Clare Politics average is the Democrat up by three point six percent. So the last three polls were plus two, plus five, plus four, So Ohio is definitely winnable. Trump is extremely likely to win Ohio. He could win Ohio by double digits. But right now Brown is polling substantially ahead of where
Kamala Harris is in Ohio. And so Ohio is a state where there are a number of voters right now who say they're voting for Donald Trump, and yet a Democrat senator who will fight to undermine everything Trump does every single day in the Senate, Which is why I wish voters wouldn't do that. I don't think that makes sense, and I think it ends up working against yourself. Less, there's some voters that do all right. Pennsylvania. So Pennsylvania
is probably the most important battleground in the country. It is the state most likely to decide the presidential race. The incumbent is Bob Casey is a Democrat. Dave McCormick the Republican, a very good friend of mine who I've endorsed in campaigned with multiple times. Across Pennsylvania. The Real
Clear Politics average is four point nine percent. And so starting from so back in August, there was a tie, then Casey plus one, then Casey plus seven, then case plus eighth andk C plus four, then Casey plus nine, then Casey plus five, and Casey plus five, and Casey plus five, then Casey plus nine, and then the Washington Post the most recent poll showed it as a tie. So, look, there's some there's some variability on that. So the last two polls were Casey plus nined and a tie. I mean,
that's a big delta between those two. Yeah, and so, and so it's why you tend to look to the average, because the average kind of takes out the highs and lows. And so four point nine percent, you would say, right now, the Democrats have an advantage, But four point nine percent you can definitely close between now an election day, and I think the issue set favors us. All right, Maryland. Maryland is a state that shouldn't be a battleground. It's
a very blue state. It is going to go it is going to go for Kamala Harris by double digits. And yet you've got Larry Hogan, Larry Hogan, the former governor. There is a Republican, very popular governor running against a Democrat also Brooks. The Real Clear Politics average is six point eight percent. But again there's been a lot of variability on this. So back in in August there was a poll that was a tie, and then Democrat plus five, Democrat plus seven, and then and there was one just
recently Democrat plus fifteen. So Maryland is a race that is winnable. But to do that, Hogan is going to have to outperform Trump by twenty points or more. That ain't easy to do. That, that is a big, big delta. He was the governor there, he was very popular and he's the only he's the only Republican who has a prayer to win in Maryland. But Maryland is not an easy state for a Republican to win. And the final battleground is Wisconsin. Wisconsin is Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who's
the incumbent. Eric Hovedy is the Republican running against her. The real Clear Politics average is Democrat four point six percent, so again close winnable, but right now the Democrats have the advantage. Although it's interesting if you look at the polls, but going back to August, it was Democrat plus six, Democrat plus five, Democrat plus eight, But then the last four polls have been Democrat plus three, Democrat plus three,
Democrat plus four, Democrat plus three. So the race is tightened in the last couple of weeks and it's about a three and a half point differential in the last four polls, which means Wisconsin is very winnable. And look, every one of these states that I mentioned is winnable by the Republicans. But for us to win, the numbers need to shift four or five points, and to do that, we've got to focus on the issues. And the issues are the same issues as the presidential the economy, inflation,
illegal immigration, and crime. And if we focus on those, I think we've got a real shot at winning every one of those.
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. I want to move on also to something else that you mentioned earlier, and it's happened today. Uh set the stage for everybody in Congress and explain exactly what was going on, and it dealt with presidential immunity.
Well, Senate Democrats for two years have been engaged in a relentless assault on the Supreme Court and trying to
undermine the Supreme Court. And so today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, and the whole purpose of the hearing was to say that the Supreme Court decision is ridiculous, that it's out of bounds, that it basically said Trump is a King, that he's unaccountable, that it's some you know, bizarre decision, and they're trying both to attack Trump and
to delegitimize the Supreme Court. And so among the witnesses testifying was was Michael Mukasey, who was the former Attorney General of the United States under George W. Bush, and he was a federal judge for nearly twenty years before that, and he was one of the witnesses. And so I took the opportunity to actually question the former Attorney general and to lay out the utterly false narrative the Democrats we're putting forward. Give a listen to my questioning of Attorney General Mucasey.
Thank you, mister Chairman.
The novel of the Democrats argument today is that the concept of presidential immunity is somehow unprecedented, is somehow remarkable. That claim is utterly a historical and disconnected from the entire constitutional history of the Republic. General Mucasey before twenty twenty three, How many times has the President of the United States been indicted? John before twenty twenty three? How many times has the former president of the United States
been indicted in the last two years? How many times. Has President Donald J. Trump been indicted four times?
I believe.
Now many presidents of both parties have engaged in controversial actions.
None of them have been indicted. Let me ask you, General mc caasey.
If a private citizen were to erect an internment camp and to forcibly kidnap American citizens, to single them out because of race, and to imprison them based on their race, would that private citizen be subject to criminal prosecution?
Would?
When President Franklin delan Or Roosevelt did the exact same thing and erected Japanese internment camps, was fdr prosecuted?
He was not.
Let me ask you.
Similarly, if a private citizen were, say, to detonate a nuclear weapon over a city and kill over one hundred and forty thousand people, and then if that private citizen a few days later detonated another nuclear bomb over another city and killed seventy five thousand people, could that private citizen be criminally prosecuted?
He would?
Was President Harry Truman prosecuted for detonating nuclear weapons over here, Sshima and Nagasaki?
He was not?
All right?
How about this?
If a private citizen launched a weaponized drove and killed a United States citizen. Could that private citizen be criminally prosecuted?
He would?
Was President Barack Obama criminally prosecuted when he killed United States citizens using drones without notice and without due process?
He was not? Although as far as due process is concerned, I believe the comment of my successor to that question was that anaral Alaki got quote all of the process that was necessary.
Well, although I suspect he might disagree with that assessment were he able to present his case. Right, all right, Let's contrast that with the rules that govern other federal officials. You were a judge for nineteen years as a federal judge. Did you have in community from your.
Official acts from my official act? Yes?
Do federal prosecutors have an immunity from their official acts?
They do?
Now, the distinction between official acts and personal acts is not a terribly shocking distinction. Under the decision of Trump versus United States, if any president walks the walks onto the sidewalk and just shoots a citizen, is that president libel to be prosecuted?
He is?
How about this?
If a president steals funds from his campaign, does that president face criminal liability?
He does.
How about this, If a president sexually assaults let's say an intern in the Oval office, is the president subject criminal prosecution for that?
He could be?
So that distinction, again is not a shocking distinction. The founding fathers vested the executive power in a single president of the United States. What we have seen in the last two years is we have seen Democrats deliberately weaponizing the Department of Justice and our legal system to target their political opposition. It is not an accident that every indictment against President Trump was brought by a Democrat and was brought after he announced his campaign for president of
the United States. Understand, the target of those indictments was not ultimately President Trump. It was the voters. It was prosecutors who were terrified that the voters would choose to re elect President Trump. One of the great things about the United States is we're not a ban out of republic. Since two thousand, the nation of Pakistan has had six former prime ministers prosecuted and convicted. Brazil has had three
former presidents arrested and imprisoned. Last your, Nicaraguan president Daniel or Tega arrested, charged, and imprisoned forty political opponents. General Man Casey, youu are Attorney General of the United States, it is Is it the proper role of the Department of Justice to prosecute and target the political opponents of whoever happens to be President of the United States?
It is most assuredly not, thank you.
He says, it most certainly is not.
But the reality is Donald Trump keeps getting attacked by the left, and they keep trying to lock up their political opponent.
Yeah.
No, that's exactly what they're doing. And their claim that the ruling that a president can't be criminally prosecuted for his official acts is contrary to the law.
It's what's why I use the examples I used.
It's why I use Look, the Japanese and Tournament Camp presidents can do a lot of things in exercising their official power that ordinary citizens cannot. And we would want our commander in chief. Our commander in chief can send our troops into combat, can use lethal force, and they
do regularly. And so the Supreme Court naturally said, well, we don't want a situation where each new president who comes in the first order of business is let's criminally prosecute the last guy for the things he did as president that I disagreed with, and so you know, the hearing was really a dog and pony show by the Democrats to mischaracterize the Supreme Court decision.
So I thought it was important to.
Explain the actual law in the real context.
Me let me ask you another question about this. Will there be a correction? I mean, if Donald Trump is the president next time, will there be a correction? Or once the cats out of the bag, is there any way of getting it back to where we were before as you described it twenty twenty three.
I don't know.
I certainly hope we are not in a world where we are a banana republic where it is routine to prosecute your predecessors. I don't know, but I do think the Democrats have gone down a road that it's very hard to turn around and come back from.
Yeah, and it is going to be very very tough, to put it mildly, to turn this thing around. And I think once they realize they can do this, I don't see Democrats being responsible moving forward with it. That's my biggest concern. So is there anything we can do to protect former presidents or it is something need to change with the law.
Look, the biggest thing we can and should do is reelect Donald Trump as president. Elections have consequences. We're six weeks away from election day. The outcome of this election matters immensely.
As before.
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and dow the podcasts 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 you look at the Democrats. They have for the last several years really been trying to undermine the Supreme Court. They have leaked from the Supreme Court the Roe v. Wade decision,
for example. The Democrats have been trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, and we saw just how hostile they allowed people to get towards the Supreme Court justice in their homes. I mean that the media has been undermining the Supreme Court as well and acting like the Supreme Court is
this outdated body that should be changed. So when you say that we're one vote away and this is what would happen, they're the ones that have been doing all the things you would do for this possible opportunity if it actually arises, and you can say, yeah, like we've been saying this for years, we think the Supreme Court should be.
Packed, right, Yeah, look that that's correct. And and here's the math. Today there's a fifty one forty nine Democrat majority in the Senate. However, of those fifty one, they're two Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema, who have both voted against ending the filibuster. So Chuck Schumer tried to end the filibuster. They had a vote on it, and forty nine Democrats voted to end the filibuster. Had either Mansion or Cinema flipped, they would have had the votes.
But the two of them are the only things that stopped it. Now, I'm going to tell you something we know for an absolute certainty, in January of next year, neither Mansion nor Cinema will be there.
Very true.
Both of them their terms are done, neither of them are running for reelection. It's one hundred percent they will be gone. That means that Schumer is going into this election with forty nine votes to end the filibuster. If he picks up one anywhere, he gets to fifty, and if Tim Waltz is the vice president. He has everything he needs needs to end the filibuster. And I want to make a point here. Also, you notice none of the things I listed were economic. I didn't list in
the calamity in the Parade of Horribles. I didn't list seventy percent marginal tax rates. I didn't list massively confiscatory death taxes. I didn't list wealth taxes that tax you on unrealized capital gains. I didn't list banning fracking and shutting it down oil and gas exploration in the United States.
I didn't list nationalization of mineral rights. Look to be honest, the economic stuff, the socialism that follows like night follows day, because the Democrat's top priority, the four things I listed are all about seizing control and making it permanent, making it impossible that democrat ever lose. And you know, there's something deeply Freudian about how democrats behave because they talk incessantly about saving democracy, and yet today's Democrats are profoundly
anti democratic. Their number one priority is making it so the voters can never ever, ever, ever ever vote them out of power. And once they're in power, look on the economic stuff. The only constraints are just how crazy are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren willing to go? But it is look at countries like Venezuela. Once you get one party locked in power with no ability to constrain them, the country goes downhill incredibly quickly, and I think terrible policies.
Look policies. I didn't mention gun confiscation, going after the Second Amendment, going after religious liberty, going after the First Amendment. They packed the Supreme Court not to have the courts backstopping any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. All of that happens as a matter of course. Schumer's first focus is power, and if he can lock in power forever, that really is the end of our democracy, and ironically it's the number one priority of today's Democrats.
Let me go back to a very consequential vote, and I just want to remind people perspective on this filibuster. In the sixty plus, when we go back to Obamacare, what was the number on Obamacare? How many votes did that pass with? Do you remember?
Well, the way they passed to Obamacare was through a special budget procedure called budget reconciliation and budget reconciliation is the most important exception to the filibuster. Budget reconciliation comes from a law called the Budget Act of nineteen seventy five, and it's a special procedure for adopting a budget, and under that statute, it is exempt from the filibuster, so you can pass it with a majority. That's how they
did Obamacare, as they did it using budget reconciliation. By the way, the Trump tax cuts were passed using budget reconciliation, so they were not subject to the filibuster. No Democrat voted for the Trump tax cuts. If you look at things like the Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act that was passed by the Democrats using budget reconciliation. So there are things that can be done that typically involve spending and
taxing that can be done with just fifty votes. But the structural changes to our republic, things like the federal takeover of all elections in this country, or adding two new states to the Union, or granting immediate voting rights to every illegal alien in America, that cannot be done through budget reconciliation. Packing the Supreme Court cannot be done through budget reconciliation. The statute lays out specific categories of
what can and can't be done through reconciliation. So the sort of simplest way to think about it is spending in taxes you can get around the filibuster. Everything else as a general matter, you can't see.
And that's why I want to remind people, because we were talking about that during the time, and it came up that you know, the sixty votes and how important it is, and it's a hard threshold if you change it, and you think about how consequential, for example, Obamacare was and during that time when there was almost a super majority, and YadA, YadA, YadA, and you go, okay, there's a reason why it was set up this way. The entire United States of America's history changes if you get rid
of this. Am I wrong?
You are absolutely right.
Look, if Schumer ends the filibuster, no Republican ever wins again.
It is one party rule.
And so ask yourself, how has Hugo Chaves and Nicholas Maduro been for Venezuela that will be and listen, some people listening might say, oh, come on, that's too much. You shouldn't compare Kamala Harris to Nicholas Maduro. Well, if their policy is to lock themselves and their party into power forever and to disempower the voters from ever ever ever being able to take them out of power, that is exactly what Chavez and Maduro have done. That's what
Castro have done. It is the strategy of dictators and it is a shocking thing that today's Democrats no longer believe in order to save democracy, they're willing to destroy democracy.
Senator, let me ask two questions to wrap this up. There may be people that say, look, if there is a let's say they get it and they get rid of the filibuster, it'll come back in a couple of years. Maybe there's like a little bit of an overreaction here. I go back in history, and I'm a student of history. You are, and you love history as well. When consequential things usually happen within our government, A great example is Obamacare. Once it's done, it is extremely hard to undo it.
And so if people think, well, maybe they do it and we'll get it back. Maybe they throw four more people on the Supreme Court, but we could get it back to nine if we really wanted to. How impossible would it be to undo some of the things you talked about if it actually went into effect because the Democrats win in November.
Well, understand that the four things I listed are all structural, so once they happen, you can undo them. If you have twenty million illegal immigrants voting Democrats win. Texas isn't the only state that turns blue. North Carolina turns blue, Georgia turns blue, Arizona turns blue. I mean you have suddenly swing states that are not swing states anymore. This is why the Democrats, they're just focused on power. You look at if it's right, DC will elect Democrats for
all eternity if it becomes a state. Puerto Rico, I don't think it's one hundred percent correct that Puerto Rico would only elect Democrats. We have seen Republicans elected in Puerto Rico, although partisan politics doesn't line up in Puerto Rico exactly like it does.
In the mainland.
But if the Democrats are correct that that's four new Democrats in the Senate. It is very difficult to see a map that ever again elects a Republican majority in the Senate. So there will never be an opportunity to reverse it. And by the way, you can look to what happened with the Supreme Court. So if you look at Supreme Court nominations, Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option,
the same method for ending the filibuster for legislation. Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option to end the filibuster for judicial nominations, and he did so. When he did so, I remember I was on the Senate floor, and he did exactly what I said.
He asked for a ruling from the chair.
He appealed the ruling of the chair, and all the Democrats voted with him, and they overturned it. And so to confirm a judge, you only need now fifty votes plus the Vice President. And I remember being on the Senate floor. I turned to Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and all the Democrats were voting like lemmings to and the filibuster. And I told her then, I said, you realize the consequence of this. We are going to get more justices like Clarence Thomas and antonin Scalia. And that
is unequivocally correct. And in fact, if you want to know why, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsich were confirmed. It is because the Democrats ended the filibuster for judicial nominations. If they hadn't, there is no chairance on Earth Cavanaugh or Amy Cody Barrett gets confirmed because it would have taken sixty votes and there weren't going to be sixty votes for any nominee that had a proven record of being conservative. So it changed markedly
the kinds of judges that Trump could nominate. Once the change is made procedurally, it never ever ever goes back.
Final question for you, and that is you look at what you just said in this show, and it changes my perspective. And I do this with you three days a week and talk politics every day because the easy issue, right is the economy stupid? And that's the number one issue. Most voters say number two, they say the border. This issue to me now after we've gone through it is even bigger than those two issues when it comes to the future of this country. Is that a fair take.
In terms of law long term future? Yes, it is absolutely a fair take. It is, as I said, the single thing that keeps me up at night that we are that close to losing our entire country. And I think almost everyone is oblivious to it. I look, you and I are both Texans. How many Texans do you know that realize that we could be three months away from Texas becoming California, becoming a bright blue plate state. By the way, if that happens, I'll make a crazy
prediction that I hope and pray never comes true. If the Democrats and the Filibuster, if they grant voting rights to every illegal alien in America and every illegal alien in Texas, Beto O'Rourke would be the next governor of the state of Texas. I don't think that's an exaggeration. I think that is actually quite likely.
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast 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.