Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz. Week in Review. Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the stories that you may have missed that we talked about this past week. First up, Nick Saban testifies about the importance of NIL the deals with athletes students, and how it could help or even hurt and destroy college sports. We'll take a look at what Congress may do to get involved. Also, Hunter Biden runs away from the public hearing that he demanded, so when is he going to be seen again in Washington.
We'll talk about those developments as well. And finally, New York wants five hundred million a half a billion dollars from Donald Trump by Tuesday, and if he doesn't come up with the money, they want to seize his assets. So what will Trump do next? We'll dive into that. It's the weekend review and it starts right now. Sata, you mentioned this roundtable, and I want to play some of your opening remarks. You were sitting there next to Nick Saban, which is, by the way, if you're a
sports fan, it's just cool. He's a legendary coach. I'm so glad he retired so I don't have to deal with him playing him every year because he's a brilliant mind in football. But here's part of what you had to say.
Fear and many others, fear threatens to jeopardize all that is working so well with college athletics. More and more there is agreement that Congress needs to act to ensure that we have a level playing field, that we have real competition, that college sports can continue to thrive in
the decades going forward. And this roundtable is designed to be a discussion with numerous stakeholders who are engaged in the process to get perspectives on what is needed and what is not Right now, we have the brave new world of nil and college athletes now, many of them
earning very significant sums of money. I for one, think that's a good thing, and get as good that young men and young women who worked incredibly hard to develop fantastic skills that in turn can generate enormous economic activity should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor,
should be entitled to benefit. But we also need a system where we have real competition and fair competition, and not just one or two monster schools and everyone else as a hanger on, but real competition throughout the league to make for good games. We also need to make sure the rules that are in place don't just focus on Power five conferences, don't just focus on football and basketball,
which generate most of the revenue. But we need to keep in mind and keep our focus on smaller schools, Division two schools, Division three schools, and we need to focus on the many other sports that are not going to be playing on ESPN, but nonetheless provide an avviage for young women and young men to go to school and to get an education. We now have a patchwork of nil laws state by state that makes it difficult
to navigate. We have multiple active litigation going on that prevents the NCAA and conferences and universities from enforcing the rules or even knowing what the rules are. And we have a lot of uncertainty for student athletes and for agents and collectives who are trying to navigate the evolving and unpredictable rules but uncertain what they're going to be today and even more so, what they're going to be tomorrow.
The purpose of this discussion is to listen if we do it right, A number of senators are expected to join us. We have with us today Senator Moran and Senator Tillis, and I think others will be coming in and out throughout the day. There are many members, both Republicans and Democrats, very interested in this topic. And I will say, if we're going to go forward, and I very much want Congress to pass meaningful legens addressing a IL, but if we're going to go forward, it is going
to take bipartisan cooperation. If this simply becomes a partisan exercise of shirts and skins, we know how that ends. That ends with a vote that doesn't pass through Congress. So we have and I will say many of us here at this table have had multiple good, productive conversations with senators on the other side of the aisle, and I think we are coming towards some outlines of consensus, but we're not there yet, and I'm hopeful this conversation will help move the process forward.
You talked about this being bipartisan. Senator, rarely in Congress do you get something. I think everybody kind of agrees, Hey, we need to make sure this is done right. And you mentioned every different state's got different things, and this has become the and I kind of become the wild wide west. But having this discussion, does there seem to be a lot of consensus here on both sides of the aisle, and pretty easy to get people of the table here to say, hey, let's do this in a responsible manner.
Well, yes and no. I would say there's bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to act, and I think senators on both sides are realizing, hey, we've got a real problem here. What is not clear is if we can reach consensus on what acting looks like. I think there's a need for a federal legislation. We've got a bunch of states stepping in passing their own nil legislation, but you end up having this conflicting patchwork. So, for example, Texas has
passed nil legislation. It did something I've never seen the state of Texas do before, or for that matter, any state legislature. In the Texas State Bill, it explicitly calls on Congress to act. It says, Look, it's not great for each of the states to be doing this. This ought to be a federal rule that applies to everyone.
And so I've drafted legislation, I've circulated it. I spent the better part of a year listening to stakeholders, listening to universities, listening to athletic conferences, listening to players, listening to all sorts of players across across the world of college athletics, and trying to capture their best practices. So the legislation that I've put forward number one. Number one, it protects the ability of student athletes to earn from
their name, image, and likeness. And I think it's only fair. If you've worked incredibly hard, you've developed fantastic skills, you should be able to reap the rewards the fruits of your labor. But number two, it empowers the nc double A to set rules and set standards. Now, there have been some other senators that have introduced legislation that would put the federal government in charge of setting the rules and standards, either the government or a quasi governmental organization.
I think that's a mistake. I think if you have politicians or bureaucrats, I mean, can you imagine what a nightmare would be to have congressional hearings on what constitutes pass interference?
Yeah, I mean be bad.
That's bad.
So it would never get it would never get agreed upon ever, Right.
Are there problems with the NC double A, Yes, but it's the least worst option out there, and so my legislation protects the ability of the NC double A to set rules. It also provides for things like the registration of agents. Right now, you have seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year old students who are being represented by agents. They don't know if these guys are honest, they don't know their background. There's no transparency, and it's really setting kids up to
be swindled by people taking advantage of them. So it sets up for a system of registration of agents. It also sets up a system of transparency where you can see what the name, image and likeness market is. You can see what other schools, what other positions are paying, so that you're not operating in the dark. And I've introduced this legislation. I put it out there, and I have been in the process of negotiating with several Democrats
to see if we can get to common ground. One of the important things my legislation also provides is that student athletes are not employees. This is a big question. It's being litigated right now. I think it'd be a disaster of student athletes were treated as employees. I think if that happened, if student athletes were treated as employees, it would end up badly damaging particularly smaller schools Division two schools, Division three schools, and it would badly damage
non revenue sports. So football and basketball would be fine. But look, you played men's tennis, women's golf, volleyball, swimming, track and field. You know universities are saying across the board those sports would be obliterated by treating student athletes as employees. I'll say the historically black colleges and universities have come in and said, likewise, please do not make
student athletes employees. It will decimate our athletic programs. And so I'm in the process of negotiating and trying to find Democrats who are willing to find common ground on this. If we can't get common ground, the bill's not going to pass. I think we're close, but we're not there yet. But I will say, you know, sitting at the roundtable with Nick Saban, it was striking. I asked coach Saban.
I mean, he just stepped down from being one of the most successful college football coaches in all time, and I asked him, I said, coach was the current chaos of NIL and the transfer portal and everything. Was that a factor in your stepping down? And listen to what Nick Saban said in response to my question.
All the things that I believed in for all these years fifty years of coaching no longer exist in college athletics. So it's always about developing players. It was always about helping people may more successful in life. My wife even said to me, we'd have all the recruits over on Sunday with their parents for breakfast, and she would always meet with the mothers and talk about how she was going to help and impact their sons and how they
would be well taken care of. And she came to me, you know, like right before I retired, and said, why are we doing this? And I said, what do you mean? She said, they care about is how much you're gonna pay them. They don't care about how you're gonna develop them, which is all what we've always done. So why are we doing this?
I mean it drove him, I think from the game.
Yeah, no, it's striking. And listen, if Nick Saban can't stand it anymore, how the heck is anyone else supposed to it? And I got to say the genuine concern I've heard from coach after coach after coach, rom athletic director after an athletic director, from the heads of conferences. They are genuinely afraid that we've got a short window of maybe a year or two to act to preserve college sports or else we are risking major and permanent damage. So I hope we see Congress act. I'll tell you
I put the odds at about fifty to fifty. I think we're close to getting bipartisan agreement. I'm spending a lot of time talking with several Democrats and we're close. And it was good. A number of Republicans and Democrats came to this roundtable participated. It was a good conversation, and what was nice about it is it wasn't a
hearing where there was show voting and grandstanding. It was a real conversation, and I do think there's a desire to act to make sure we preserve something amazing, because I got to say, when you're cheering for your school, it brings people together across party lines, across races, across ethnicities, across everything when you're cheering together, and that's something amazing
and special and it's also such a powerful pipeline. There's so many young men and women who are getting college educations who wouldn't get it without college athletics that if we screw this up, it would be enormously damaging.
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, Joe Biden. They had no problem talking about his son, Hunter Biden when he went to Washington, d C. When he had that press conference when he said, I will not testify behind closed doors because the Republicans are going to lie about what I say, and I will only do it
in a public hearing. I demand a public hearing. And there was a big charaine and it was in front of the Capitol where you serve senator. And now we've found out that there is a public hearing that's coming, and Hunter Biden has rejected the GOP invitation for the public hearing after demanding that the same GOP give him a damn public hearing and demanded it in Washington in front of the Capitol.
Well, this was all theatrics, that it was all dishonest, that theatrics by Hunter Biden and his legal team and by Joe Biden and the White House. But as you noted, Hunter Biden said from the beginning that he only wanted to testify in public. He didn't trust a closed door event. He said he was happy to testify in public. So the House has taken him up on it and invited him, said, come testify on March twentieth. We've got a hearing. Devin Archer,
Tony Bubbolinski, and Jason Galanis are testifying. By the way, these are individuals Hunter knows very well that he's done
business with. Come testify publicly and immediately. The lie was apparent because Hunter Biden said no. Hunter Biden's lawyer refused to go calling the public hearing a quote blatant planned for media event, and in fact, let me read what Abby Lowell, who's Hunter Biden's lawyer, wrote, quote Your blatant planned for media event is not a proper proceeding but an obvious attempt to throw a hail Mary pass after
the game has ended. Let me remind you of a statement you made about how witnesses and specifically mister Biden, could satisfy your prior requests. At your press conference after the January tenth, twenty twenty four committee hearing to hold mister Biden in contempt, you stated, quote, all we need are people to come in for the depositions and then will be finished. We just need people to show up to the depositions and will wrap this up. Nobody wants
to wrap this up more than I do. Mister Biden did just as you asked, and as you did when you announced that witnesses could choose depositions. You want to ignore what you said. Now, let me note you and I had this conversation with James Comer at the time, and James Comer is a good man, he's a friend. He's doing a very good job. I told him then on this podcast, forget about the closed door deposition. Hunter is saying he will testify publicly. Do it tomorrow, get
him on record publicly tomorrow. I wish I could say I'm surprised. I'm not surprised Hunter Biden is playing games. He is trying to delay this until after the election. And as I reminded James Comer, Hunter Biden's not the target here, He's not the reason. This is a matter of public concern Joe Biden. The corruption of the President of the United States is the target. And so listen, nothing of me, no part of me. Is surprise that Hunter's now saying, oh, no, I did the deposition. Now
I'm not gonna do it. I think the next step is obvious. The House needs issue a subpoena for Hunter Biden to testify publicly. Hunter will have a choice comply with a subpoena or defy the subpoena. And if he defies the subpoena, the House needs to hold him in contempt. That needs to happen fast. Time is running out. But I got to say, you know all of the bravado. Remember we talked about on verdict. Also, how when the House was having a hearing, Hunter Biden showed up in
the hearing room just just gloating. In my view, I wish they had right then said mister Biden, come down to the table, we'll swear you in. Let's go. That's what they should have done. I still think and hope they will get him to testify publicly, but if he avoids public testimony through these games, it will be tragic because this is an effort at off uscation This is an effort at cover up, This is an effort at hiding the criminal behavior of Joe Biden, the president of the United States Center.
How important is it that we get Hunter Biden on the record publicly. It's one thing to read the transcripts. You've read them, what's been released. I've read what's been released, We've had reporting on it. But look, there's an aspect of Hunter Biden that could offer, in my opinion, a huge opportunity for conservatives to capitalize on just how corrupt Joe Biden is because you never know what he's going to say, or how angry he's going to get, or
how self righteous he's going to be. And part of having a public hearing is getting to ask him those uncomfortable questions that need to be answered. But you don't know what he's going to do, and that is a, I think, something the American people deserve to see.
It's incredibly important. Look, Hunter Biden, I believe is lying. I think he lied in his closed door deposition. I think if he has a public hearing, he will lie. But I also think he's not a very good liar. His lies are facially inconsistent their contradictory and competent cross examination can demonstrate how he is lying to cover up for his father. Now we have a closed door deposition, we have a transcript. A transcript is dry, A transcript
is lifeless. A transcript is not going to dominate the evening news. A transcript people are not going to watch and see for themselves and understand the context of it. The context of this is very much like going into the twenty twenty election. The twenty twenty election. In October of twenty twenty, the news broke of the Hunter Biden laptop. The New York Post broke the story, and we saw big tech silence and censor it. We saw Facebook and
Twitter block anyone sharing it. We saw big tech threaten to deep platform any media outlets that reported on it, and media outlets like Politico happily obeyed big tech and simply kept its secret. What was in the Hunter Biden laptop? Mind you, the Hunter Biden laptop was real, it was accurate,
it had evidence of multiple felonies. And mind you, also the Department of Justice and the FBI knew that it was real and accurate because they had the laptop in their possessions and they had had it for over a year, but particularly as you get closer to an election, their objective is do not let the American people see things that demonstrate Joe Biden's criminal culpability. The same thing is true here. The reason to have Hunter Biden testify is so the American people can look him in the eye.
You know, the American people are very good at judging credibility. They can tell when somebody is spouting bs, they can tell when they're not telling the truth, and it's harder to tell that when you're reading a transcript. And so in my view, it is critically important to get Hunter Biden in sworn testimony alone. I actually don't think it was a great idea to have him testifying alongside a bunch.
Of other people.
I get there's some value in saying, well, so and so said this, how you, But I think Hunter Biden ought to be alone at that table. I think every question ought to be directed to him, and you can use the answers from the other witnesses to cross examine him. I also hope if and when Hunter testifies that there's
a degree of coordination. One of the problems when you have a hearing is if you've got lots of individual members, lots of House members, each of whom has five minutes, you will often have people go on marches in one direction or another, and they don't follow up on anything, and it's kind of whatever any individual member wants to do, they just ask that, and some of them are not very good cross examiners, so they can't follow up, and
it doesn't present a coherent storyline, it doesn't systematically dismantle the lies. What I hope is that James Comer and or Jim Jordan the chairman, sit down with their Republican members, that they plan out a strategy for the hearing, a strategy for the cross examination that they assign each member of the committee. Okay, you've got this point, this point, Here are the questions that will be helpful to ask, and you drive a systematic message. That's something in the
Commerce Committee. I'm the ranking member on the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On major hearings, that's exactly what I try to do. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have done that on multiple hearings. For example, the Brett Kavanaugh hearing that was a major fight. We sat and we strategized exactly how we were going to handle the cross examination, the messaging. I hope the House does that, but none of that matters unless you get Hunter at
the witness stand, sworn in and on national television. Because listen, if Hunter's testifying. As much as the media wants to hide it from the American people, they cannot completely do so. And it gives the American people the chance to decide is the President of the United States corrupt? Has he taken bribes from Chinese Communists, from Russians, from Ukrainians, from
from foreign oligarchs. It lets the American people decide. When Hunter sent a WhatsApp text to a Chinese communist threatening his father's punishment if the Chinese Communists didn't send them millions of dollars, was Dad complicit in that shakedown? I think the answer is obviously yes. But seeing Hunter being forced to answer those questions goes a long way to letting the American people decide based on the facts.
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, Senator. While they're trying to destroy our country and not going after the people that are breaking in, there's one thing that is very clear, and that is public enemy number
one of this administration the Democrats, is Donald Trump. We now are seeing them trying to break trump financial I would assume that you would agree this is certainly a level of election interference at shocking. But let's talk about the money now. The ag James who said vote for me and I'll go after Trump, is now asked the court to deny Donald Trump's four hundred and fifty four million dollar bond appeal. This is unprecedented in American society.
This is what would happen in communist countries, yet it's happening right now in America.
Well, we are seeing across the country Democrat prosecutors abusing the justice system to try to number one, destroy Donald Trump, but to try to number two subvert democracy. They are terrified that the voters in November will vote to re elect Donald Trump, and so they want to abuse their power to stop the voters from doing that. What Letitia James has done, she ran for Attorney General promising I'm going to get Trump, and I'll say, at least so far,
she's delivered on that. She went after him with everything she had in a fraud case that is under a New York statute that is really a ridiculous statute because she alleged fraud with no victims. She alleged that he had borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from sophisticated banks like Deutschebank, and Deutschebank didn't lose money. In fact, they made money on the loans. Trump repaid the loans, and Deutschbach said they were thrilled to make the loans and
would happily make them again. And the argument was that he valued his real estate more than it was worth. Deutschbach Bank is not some like poor little old lady who's a vulnerable consumer. They're a multi billion dollar global bank. They valued the real estate on their own damn thing. You know, if I come in and tell tell my mortgage company, hey, my home is worth ten million dollars, they're gonna send their own appraiser to go figure out what my home is worth, They're going to laugh at me.
So an alleged offense with no victim, no injury, and no harm. The judgment with interest is four hundred and fifty four million dollars half a billion dollars. And then New York has a provision that you see in a number of states that to appeal that you've got to put the four hundred and fifty four million dollars in cash either liquid, so either cash or securities liquid, or you have to have a bond that covers that amount.
And so Trump went and tried to get a bond, and he went to thirty different surety companies and all of them turned him down, and and he filed an affidavit. So he's raised an issue on appeal to say, look, you can't require me to put up a half billion dollars just to be able to appeal. And Leticia James just opposed that and said, oh, yeah, he doesn't put
that money up, We're coming to take his property. So I understand what she wants to do, and she wants to do this as soon as potentially next next week. She wants to show up and physically seize his properties, literally go and seize properties that he has in New York or elsewhere. It could literally come down to her
trying to essentially put a padlock on Trump Tower. And I say that not really with hyperbole, because this is a political jahad for her, So I think she will look for the most visible political way to attack her opponent. And here's here's what Trump's lawyers told the New York Appellate Court. The attorneys wrote that, quote, it is not possible under the circumstances presented. They said, the underwriters insisted on cash or liquid assets instead of real estate is collateral.
So Trump has lots of real estate, but apparently the other writers said no, it's got to be cash or liquid and he didn't have a half billion dollars sitting around, and they insisted on cash to cover one hundred and twenty percent of the judgment, which is five hundred and fifty seven million dollars. An insurance broker, Gary Giuletti wrote in a sworn statement that quote a bond of this size is rarely, if ever.
Seen, And.
Letitia James responded, well, no, no, that's not true. There have been billion dollar bonds before, yes, for massive public corporations, but Trump's business is not a public corporation. It is a private company. And to get a half billion dollar bond is incredibly difficult, and so understand the impact. If Trump is not able to post this bond, the effect would be to deny him the right to even appeal the absurd partisan decision from the district Court. I got
to say, this is such a profound abuse. Now, that doesn't mean Trump would be out of options, because if the New York courts insists you got to put up a half billion dollars in order to appeal this decision, I am confident that Trump will appeal that and potentially appeal that all the way to the U. S. Supreme
Court and the U. S. Supreme Court. He would have multiple arguments constitutional arguments, including the constitution prohibits denying an individual, depriving an individual of property without due process of law. And there would be an argument that this is such an excessive bond that it constitutes a violation of due process. He would also have an argument under the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment specifies excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now, the Eighth Amendment typically applies in a criminal context, but given the magnitude here, I would expect him to make both an Eighth Amendment argument and a due process argument, and it is entirely possible that would prevail ultimately. But what New York is doing, what the New York Attorney General is doing, is the conduct of a banana Republic.
Kevin O'Cleary, who many b will know from Shark Tank, not the most political guy. He talked about the business fallout of this and asking where are the adults in the room, because we can't let this stand in the United States of America. Here's part of what he said, which I thought was really interesting.
But more importantly, the message about the American brand. You think about America, the reason this is the number one economy on Earth is that we have laws, and we have due process, and we have property rights. It attracts foreign capital from all around the world. All of that
is being shaken to the core here. The concept of seizing assets in thirty days on a bond number that's never been issued, No insurance bond companies ever issued anything near this, so there was no chance that was going to happen, and only giving thirty days notice in time, that's a really bad message, and I think New Yorker should think well past Trump, whether he's president or not, or whether this Attorney's General is gone in four years
or not, it's irrelevant. This is case setting against the American brand. The most stable country on earth anywhere to put capital work over a long period of time, particularly in real estate, is the United States of America. This is an assault on what we believe to be core and I find it extraordinary. I think it's very troubling. It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump at this point, in my view, and it is completely bipartisan. This is an attack on America, and I don't know
how you can look at it any other way. And as an investor, and I know plenty of investors are completely disturbed by this. I mean, no one is going to put any money to work in New York in these amounts until this thing settles down. The whole world is watching, and everybody's waiting for one thing we haven't got yet. Adult supervision.
Where is it?
Where are the adults in this crazy narrative. Certainly there's got to be adult supervision at some point. And I understand, you know, the war going on here and all the political YadA YadA, Wolf wolf wolf, But we need an adult in the room. Now, this is the United States of America under.
Siege, under siege. I mean, he's not joking around. He says, where are the adults center? I'm going to ask you this, where are the adults? At what point do the adults get a hold of this?
Well, at this point, it's not clear to me that there are any adults left in New York. There certainly are not among politicians. I don't know of a single Democrat politician who has spoken out against this abuse. Certainly Chuck Schumer hasn't. The governor hasn't. The Mayor of New York City, he hasn't. Leticia James is auditioning to be governor. She's clearly ambitious. She' views this as the path to
success in the Democrat Party in New York. And I got to say, look, I think they rationalize in their own mind, this is a special rule just for Donald Trump. We hate Trump so much. They think Trump is the devil,
and so this applies just to Trump. But this precedent can apply to anyone if if simply claiming that you overstated the value of your real estate gives the Attorney general the justification to seize hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, what real estate developer in their right mind would would continue to do business. Every real estate developer, just as a starting point is subject to this kind
of shakedown. And if you don't think that Leticia James or the next ambitious Attorney General will use that power, then you're smoking something because look, it is arbitrary, it's unreviewable, and by the way, if you can't get a bond to appeal it, there is no appellate review. So it's the ability to shake it down. And so if she
wants to negotiate a settlement, suppose she comes in. That gives this politician the ability to terrorize businesses, to terrorize foreign corporations, anyone that they decide we don't like.
It.
Essentially empowers the politicians to terrorize individuals and companies and force them to comply with whatever their demand is or else we will seize your assets and you can't even appeal it. And yet why is not a single Democrat in New York worried about this or speaking out about it. You know, it's astonishing.
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 today 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.