Welcome.
It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a week in review, Ben Ferguson with you. And here are three big stories that you may have missed that we talked about this week. First up in PR and three Colorado radio stations suing the Trump administration. They want their free money back, you know, your taxpayer dollars that you work.
So hard for.
Well, the Trump administration is fighting back and we'll give you the details in just a moment. Also, California is continuing to defy Trump on boys and girls' sports and some politicians are starting to flip on the issue and it may even be changing in California.
That in just a moment.
And finally, James Comy in his eighty six forty seven CShell message on the beach, Well, it's a story that's just not adding up, and we'll dive into that as well. It's the weekend Review and it starts right now. Want to move also to the MPR lawsuit and get your take on that center as well.
So this week NPR, National Public Radio, and three Colorado Public Radio stations filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Trump White House against the President's executive order barring the use of funds for NPR and for PBS, and the lawsuit says, quote, it is not always obvious when the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation of the First Amendment.
But this wolf comes as a wolf.
The order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the President's views, their news and other content is not fair, accurate, or unbiased. Now let me stop and say, listen, you could file a reasonable lawsuit arguing that on any of these particular executive orders that where you're dealing with congressional appropriations, that challenging the authority of an executive order to limit
congressional appropriations. That that's an area that's being litigated. That's going to be litigated, and reasonable minds can can differ on what is permissible. And we've talked in previous podcasts that there is there is a significant dispute over the president's authority to engage in what is called impoundment, which is essentially to decline to spend money that Congress has appropriated. That you want to file a lawsuit over that, Okay, courts,
we'll sort that out. That'll be litigated. But here what this lawsuit is claiming is that the First Amendment prohibits defunding NPR. And the reason they say it really is absurd is you can't defund the NPR simply because quote their news and other content is not fair, accurator unbiased. Now let me say, I think no objective person on planet Earth can contend that NPR or PBS are fair,
accurator unbiased. And so we really are in Alison Wonderland through the looking glass, where you now have litigants arguing because NPR and PBS are dishonest and political, you can't cut off funding because cutting off funding would be silencing our right to be dishonest and political, and not just look, you absolutely have a right to be dishonest and political. So MSNBC can publish any nonsense they want, CNN can publish any nonsense they want. Now nobody watches them. It's
kind of a tree falling in the woods. But they have a right to say it. They have a right to to to to say utter nonsense. But NPR's argument is not only do they have a right to say it, which I agree they do, but they have a right to have the taxpayers fund them forever. That that that it is illegal for us to stop paying for their partisan lives. I gotta say, that is an absurd claim. And it is the simple simple reality of of of of the absurdity of the left.
Yeah, it is.
And and I wonder when we will actually get resolution on this. Is there a real chance you think that we could actually defund m PR, PBS and just say, hey, make it on your own.
Is there a real chance?
Look, I certainly hope. So I am pressing to do so. I'm pressing Congress to do so. I'm pressing Congress to enact and codify the Doge cuts that we've seen Elon Muskin doche put in place. We're gonna have a battle on Congress. We're gonna have a battle in Congress if it has to go through regular order. What regular order means is the standard path of legislation. That means it's subject to filibuster. That means you need sixty votes in
the Senate, which means you need seven Democrats. If you have to get seven Democrats.
And that's how they save it, is what you're saying.
That's right, that's their ideal situation is you guys complain about it, and we keep giving billions to our propaganda machines.
Zero Democrats will vote to defund NPR or PBS, which means if it goes through regular order, it will not happen.
The other way is that proof of just how biased they are, the fact that zero of them would go to defund it because they know how valuable it is their propaganda.
And they don't care. In fact, I want you to have listened to Catherine Marr, the CEO of NPR, who describes the First Amendment as the quote the greatest challenge that she faces to controlling narratives.
Here, give a listen.
The number one challenge here that we see is, of course, the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very important that platforms have those rights to be able to regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit tricky to really address some of the real challenges of where does bad information come from and sort of the influenced peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
I mean that through your tax hours are going and that's a woman who's in charge.
Damn it, that pesky First Amendment. We want to censor, we want to silence voices we disagree with, and that First Amendment stands in the way. And here I want you to listen to this, this montage of Catherine Marr being being grilled at congressional hearing. Give a listen to to just how extreme the NPR CEO is.
And I welcome the opportunity to discuss the essential role of public media in delivering unbiased, nonpartisan, fact based reporting to Americans. Madam Chair, thank you so much for the opportunity to address this. I know the youth.
Is it up to you, an MPR to crack down on bad information or decide the truth? To answer the question yes or no, Miss.
More, absolutely not. I'm a very strong believer in free speech, and I believe that more s.
Your public statements say otherwise. During the COVID pandemic in the twenty twenty election, you said you censored information through conversations with government. Which governments were those, Miss Mahr the Biden administration, yes.
Or no, Madam Chair, Wikipedia never censored any information.
These are your public statements, Miss More.
Madam Chair.
We are in full compliance and with the fcc'son de Green, and we'll continue to cooperate.
I remind you you're under oath. I'm assuming you're concerned. Both of you are concerned about this, and that's why you brought so many attorneys with you today.
First of all, I want to recognize your concerns. One of the first things that I did in coming in in May was to beef up our editorial standards and PR i've been doing editorial I'm so I'm so sorry orally fund.
An entity that's supposed to provide the news, not provide the news. Of course, Ballots of course Congress been an article by Uri Berlinger. I've been at NPR for twenty five years. Here's how we lost America's trust.
Well, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that we were mistaken and failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner. Our current editorial leadership wuhan. We recognize that we were reporting at the time, but we acknowledge that the new CIA evidence is worthy of coverage and have covered.
If you've even talked about the First Amendment kind of getting in the way of what you wanted to get done. NPR is now and taking this non biased approach.
I so appreciate the opportunity to perhaps clarify some things. My talk about truth was really referencing the way that people used truth to refer to belief as opposed to facts.
Your comments said that truth was getting the way of getting things done, and that you were prioritizing what you wanted to get done over truth.
Did they come up in your job interview?
Like do you see a problem at congressman? Thank you for the question. No, they never came up in my job interview.
If you're a rabid progressive, and do you not think it's a problem that your political leanings make it seem to the American people that you're not biased and you're not doing your job because you agree that your job is to have journalistic integrity.
Right, absolutely, But there is a strong firewall between the newsroom and anything that.
I let's talk about the newsroom.
You have eighty seven registered Democrats, not a single Republican in your editor boards. I mean, how does that work to give us the perception that you're doing your job of actually delivering unbiased information.
I would agree with you that that number is a concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of the American society so that we can well for all Americans.
Well, I just gotta stop it there.
This goes on for several more minutes, but that part there at the end where he's like, you got eighty seven people on the edtorial board.
They're all Democrats. You don't have seen a Republican.
And then she's like, yeah, if that number is true, then it is a concern.
The argument of NPR is that the First Amendment requires for you and me to keep paying for them to propagandize and lie. And I got to say one of my favorite facts, as I said, it's not just NPR, it's three Colorado radio stations, the statewide Colorado Public Radio Station based in Denver, KSUT, which was originally founded by the Southern Ute Indian tribe. And this is the one that cracks me up. The Aspen Public Radio, which broadcasts in Aspen, one of the richest communities on planet Earth.
If you're an Aspen and you look at the airport, you just see a line of private jets as far as the eye can see. And their argument is the First Amendment mandates that we tax American workers to pay for propaganda in Aspen. Because the poor, wretched masses of aspend can afford to pay for their own propaganda, they need to tax American workers instead.
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, Senator, Let's deal with California. And there has been a fight since the President came in with his executive order on trying to protect women from men being in their locker rooms, being in their sports beating them up. We saw it
during the Olympics in boxing. We've seen countless women who their achievements have been taken away from them on the podium because of men claiming their women, which is impossible in reality. And California decide they were going to stand up to Trump and guess what, it didn't go very well for them.
Well, listen, we've seen the Democrat Party getting more and more radical ever since Donald Trump took the oath of office back in twenty seventeen. They hate Trump and they've gotten more and more extreme on a host of issues, and one of the poster children for their extreme issues is embracing boys in girls sports, men and women's sports. And it is wrong, It is unfair, It invites injury, and it also deprives both both girls and women of
athletic victories they should have and they've earned. There are differences between boys and girls. There are differences between men and women. That did not used to be a controversial proposition. It is only in today's looney tune left that they can't tell to the difference between men and women. But I got to tell you, even though in the Senate Senate Democrats all of them continue to defend men in women's sports and boys and girls sports, We're seeing the
state of California. We're seeing the Democrats beginning to retreat. We're seeing Gavin Newsom, the governor who's been a far left radical governor. He's got ambitions of being president. He's looking at running in twenty twenty eight, and he's decided, Okay, we're on the wrong side of an eighty twenty issue. I want to get the hell away from this. And
so California announced this is a big deal. They're changing their policy for track and field, so that if you're a biological girl and you got you missed out on making it to the state championship because you were beaten by a biological male who claims to be a transgender woman, then the girl you will still get your slot. You still get invited to the state championship. Look, that's a significant step in the right direction, and Gavin Newsom is
embracing it. And I got to say this really illustrates that at least some Democrats realize, Wow, we are on the wrong side of an issue that America America wants to protect girls sports and women's sports. We want to protect our daughters and we don't want to see them hurt or competing unfairly. And so the crazy thing is that means in track and field in California now they may give three gold medals, one to the boy, one to the girl, and one to the transgender athlete. You
may have gold medals all around. But for bright Blue California to make this concession, it shows that at least some Democrats realize they are way on the wrong side of this issue.
This also, I think is an issue that it's worth fighting for, and I think many that are listening or saying, we don't want to give in, and we don't want to give up, and the pendulum went so far to the radical left for so many years that this is the fight that is worth fighting on and fighting over.
And showing California having to change girls track and field championship rules after the Trump threatens funding over the trans athletes is just an example of Hey, we are, in many times the silent majority, and we need to start acting like it, especially on these types of issues.
Well, I'll tell you Ben this, this issue is a powerful issue. And as you know, I ran for reelection in Texas last year in twenty twenty four. It was a quarter billion dollar race. I was Chuck Schumer's number one target and my campaign was was the first campaign in the country last year to put real time and energy behind this this issue of we're going to protect girls sports from boys competing and and we put tens of millions of dollars behind this issue. What's fascinating is
the media completely misunderstood the issue. So one of the things that my campaign did is we did focus groups in Houston, Dallas of undecided moderate women to understand what issues moved them, and we tested thirty thirty five different messages. The number one issue that moved undecided moderate women in Texas was boys and girls sports. And when I started campaigning on it, it was very funny. The reporters are like, oh, Cruise is trying to appeal to the crazy right wing,
and I was just laughing at him. I'm like, you guys are so clueless. This is not the crazy right wing. This is soccer moms. This is soccer moms who love their daughters. And we land on this issue. And then you saw senate races all across the country pick up the same message because they were seeing the same data we where we saw President Trump lean in Harvard on this.
Some of those women that you were talking to, let's be very clear, had moved from California, because you know, the like, how many people from California moved to Texas over the last six years A lot.
We have over one thousand people a day moving to the state of Texas, and California is overwhelmingly the heaviest, the largest state that is sending people to Texas. But this issue, what's fascinating Ben, is you know four years years ago, this issue did not work politically. You saw campaigns try to raise it four years ago, and I think people thought then that that that it was jumping the shark, that it didn't feel real. Four years ago, I think people said, oh, come on, that's that's that's
not a real threat. Well, you know what, we've now seen Leah Thomas, the the the the swimmer who who is a biological man and looks like Michael friggin Phelps who who who We've also seen And I think this was really a seminal moment in the Olympics, the two dudes competing in in in women's boxing and beating the hell out of women. And I think a whole lot of people said, wait, this is not theoretical. This is
happening over and over and over again. Enough is enough And and I think this is another milestone that that California is retreating on this issue, shows that that truth and sanity are are are winning.
Yeah, And now the question becomes how much are they going to be able to fight through the court system and is this going to be something that's going to be unfortunately an issue for probably years to come.
Well, look, we'll see and to be honest, California hasn't conceded altogether. They're still having biological males compete against women, which is which is unfair. It invites injury. You know, if you're playing volleyball, we've seen women who have a biological man spiked the ball into their head and they get injured. I mean, I mean it is California is
still looney tunes. But the fact that that that even the lefty government of California is saying we've gone too far, that's a very positive sign.
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.
Unless the head of the FBI is calling for the murder of the president of the United States. And that is another story that broke in the last few days. So the former FBI director James Comey, he tweeted out this this image and it is an image of seashells on the beach that spell out eighty six forty seven. Now forty seven is obviously Donald Trump and eighty six
on the face of it. To eighty six someone is standard slang for killing someone, And as I posted on social media, is there any other reasonable interpretation of this other than the former head of the FBI publicly calling for the murder of the president of the United States and Comy backed away from it. I got to say, part of the reason I think he put it out is he's got a new book coming out and he
wanted some attention. But it is unimaginable that a head of the FBI would be particularly a president who has had two assassination attempts. This is not theoretical. Donald Trump was shot, He came within a half finch of being killed in Butler, Pennsylvania, and yet the head of the FBI is openly calling for people to eighty six Donald Trump.
Well, and not only as you mentioned, is it a dog whistle, but also, yeah, he had a book coming out, He's like, hey, if I do this, and maybe they're just narcissm and arrogance to a level that even I didn't realize with him, and I thought it was pretty high where he's like, I'm I'm I'm so powerful, I can get away with this, and then everybody will want
to interview me. I get to dog whistle this against the president while also guaranteeing that every single show will want to book me to talk about my book AKA and.
Also the seashells on the Beach.
It was one hell of a move, and I think it's one where he thought, nothing's gonna happen to me even if I do get interviewed by the Secret Service.
Who cares well?
And I will say he doubled down this week by calling on the FBI eventually to fight the President of the United States, and and and and accusing the Trump administration of being, in his words, quite white supremacists adjacent. Listen to this, So follow up on the CShell situation when explaining why you took it down? But what were you trying to communicate to the public, Impete Trump? What was your reasoning for it?
No?
I just thought it was a cool picture. Someone was expressing a political view in a very clever way in shells that were organized by the like they had the same color for each of the letters. I just thought, what a cool thing. And I'm well known as a political opponent of Donald Trump, and I just thought, well, that's cool. My Instagram account is family politics stuff, including stuff like this. I put a shell on last fall. I thought it was cool. Someone had painted the inside
of a big shell, say Bo Kamala. I thought that's really cool, so I put that on. But so it's not any particular message other than that.
I'm just gonna ask youp it the MSNBC interview you were doing, because on social media everyone's saying he's talking about the white supremacist adjacent Republican Party. Everybody in the party, voters.
What what's you want.
To No clarification at all.
No, I'm not gonna come on.
Okay, thank you, well, thank you, hello.
I love it.
Be well, I'm not going to clarify and that I'm going to keep that out there as well.
Buy my book what utter garbage. Oh, I just thought it was kind of interesting. I just thought it was, uh, you know, kind of pretty. The seashells were pretty, Like what an absurd claim, and that there's something mocking about it, that that that he could claim. Okay, number one, James Comey is not a stupid man.
He's smart. He knows what he's doing.
He knows exactly what he is doing. And James Comy number one, he knows who forty seven is. He knows exactly who forty seven is. Forty seven is the forty seventh President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, number two. The claim that he didn't know what eighty six is. Listen, that is that that is absurd, It is it is not remotely credible. And the fact that he's saying that, the fact that he's saying that is mocking. It is
a level of contempt. And listen. I gotta say, I don't know Comy personally, but in my view, he is someone who was consumed by power. When he was the head of the FBI, I think he had delusions of grandeur. I think he believed he was j. Edgar Hoover and he wanted to have presidents of the United States reporting to him. By the way, do you happen to know off the top of your top of your head what eighteen USC. Section eight seventy one provides, No, what is it?
What's funny? It's actually a felony. Threatening the President of the United States is a felony that's punishable buy up to five years in Prisonman, you would think the head of the FBI would know that, and yet he blithely said, oh, I just saw some pretty seashells. You know, nothing to see here, And.
Let's just remind people when you said that he's smart. This is the same guy that mocked the Trump administration the first time, right when they got into office, when he just sent a couple FBI agents over to try to entrap General Flynn. Like, never forget, that's how calculated this guy is. So for him to say, oh, I just saw a picture here and I thought it was really cute to seashells, I don't buy that crap for a moment.
He proposed sending someone wearing a wire to entrap the president of the United States. And I want you to listen to him with Nicole Wallace and MSNBC, because I want you to listen to just this, this smarmy, sanctimonious, dishonest You can tell what I think about him here, just play his words and see if you agree with me.
You are back in the middle of a political firestorm.
Yeah for walking on the beach with my wife. So I don't know how we ended up here. Never occurred to me that it was any kind of controversial thing, But that's the time.
We live in Okay, Ben, there's a technical word for what he just said there that would be called a lie. He is deliberately lying, he knows he's lying. He is not in trouble for walking on the beach with his wife. He is understandably in trouble for publicly advocating the murder of the president of the United States.
And yet there's a lot of you think he knew exactly what he was doing. And yeah, he may get hauled in for some questioning, but he's not going to get arrested because he's a former.
AMBI director and that guy never gets in trouble.
Right.
Well, we shall see. I will say Cash Betel and Dan Bongino are not your typical heads of the FBI.
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.