Welcome in his verdict with center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you as always, and Senator, it's nice to be back in the studio with you. You've been traveling like crazy. You guys have been really busy in Washington and adding some days onto the work week as well. We're finally back here together. We've got a big show.
So it's something going on in Washington, right exactly. You know, there's an old Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times. We certainly live in those. Donald Trump has hit the White House with speed and fury and velocity. There's never been anything like it. They've never been a president like this in the first hundred days. Last week, obviously, the President announced on April second tariffs on just about every country on Earth, the highest tariff level since nineteen thirty three.
It is a big, big deal. Every nation across the globe is reeling. They're all trying to figure out what do we do about it. The stock market, the stock market collapsed, It went into free fall. Six trillion dollars evaporated in forty eight hours. Now Monday, everyone's wondering, how's the market going to open Monday morning? But there's a lot of concern that the market isn't done going down, and the question is where do we go from here? And I'll tell you the reason President Trump is doing
this is important. The reason President Trump is doing this is that we've seen of the last fifty years a hollowing out of manufacturing in America. We've seen what used to be the heart of the American middle class, the heart of blue collar jobs going away, being pulled abroad, going overseas, and the industrial Midwest just just being utterly decimated by good paying jobs leaving America. And President Trump was elected for many things, but heart and center to
fight for bringing those jobs back. That's right at the core of this, bringing those jobs back to America. But there is now a very active debate within the White House which direction do we go next. Do we use this as leverage to lower other countries tariffs and then lower our own tariffs to reflect that, or do we leave these tariffs up forever and ever and ever. And I'll tell you there are different advisors in the White House.
There are angels and demons on each of President Trump's shoulders, urging him use them as leverage or keep them forever. We're going to break down that debate and what the consequences are for you, what it means for you if these tariffs are used as leverage to lower the tariffs of our trading partners, and what it means for you if these tariffs are simply a permanent economic feature of America. We're also going to talk about nationwide injunctions. Nationwide injunctions
we have seen in the last three months. It is the new incarnation of lawfare. It is how the left is attacking Donald Trump. They are filing lawsuits, they are looking for left wing radical judges who are issuing nationwide injunctions to stop the president's agenda. We had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on exactly this topic. We're going to take you there and talk about what the problem is and what the solution should be.
Yeah, it's going to be very interesting. I also want to talk to you real quick about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Israel is still under attack. Missile fire has resumed from the Huthis, from Hesblah and hamas enemies seeking Israel's destruction. Here in America, we cannot imagine living under constant threat of terrorism and rocket attacks. This is the reality in Israel. Parents taking their kids to school, falling to the ground to lay on top of their
small children, trying to comfort them as sirens blair. The next attack against Israel is happening now with little time to repair. And that's why your help is needed right now. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is helping provide life saving aid and security essentials, and your urgently need a gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
flag jackets, and bulletproof vests for first responders. They're also providing armored security vehicles, armored ambulances, and so much more. So if you're proud to stand with Israel, you can make your gift right now by calling eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four eight eight four three two five, or online it's easy to get by going to support IFCJ dot org. That's one word,
support IFCJ dot org. Now center, I have a very important question, a big question before we get into all the politics. There's a game that's happening on Monday, and your hometown team is in that game. How excited are you to see Houston make it through the final four of the championship game.
Look the Cougars. They played incredibly against Duke. They were underdogs against Duke. It was a great victory. We're now in the finals tonight. I got to say, Houston that is going to win tonight, is gonna beat Florida. Florida played well. They had a tough game against Auburn and managed managed to just scrape it out. Florida is a good team, but they don't have what it takes to beat Houston. Houston's defense is too stifling. I'm gonna call it Houston by six.
I like Houston by six. I like the Bowl prediction. Well done. All right, so let's talk about tariffs. You and I we did a show on Friday. It was a show that a lot of people listen to. It actually kind of went viral over the weekend as well. People just want to know what is going to happen this week, next week. There's concern, there's the stress anxiety watching the market, but there's also something that's happening right now that's very interesting. Countries are lining up to meet
with the Trump administration. Vietnam is apparently at the front of the line. They sent emergency delegation in the US. They want to get a deal done as fast as they possibly can. And now we're hearing there's dozens and dozens of other countries are saying, Hey, we want to talk too.
No, there is an historic upper two to hear. And if the White House capitalizes on this opportunity, it could prove to be one of the most significant, one of the most powerful moments for US economic interest for American workers this country has ever seen. Right now, every country that is on the receiving end of these tariffs, they're freaking out, They're panicking. This is a great opportunity to
engage in. Let's make a deal here. Listen to Kevin Hasset, who is the head of the National Economic Council, describing how countries are coming to the White House right now.
I got a report from the USDR last night that more than fifty countries have reached out to the.
President to begin a negotiation.
But they're doing that because they understand that they bear a lot of the tariff.
More than fifty countries. And that's just in a few days. And listen, I've had a lot of countries that are reaching out talking to my office, and my advice to them is, go cut a deal. Go cut a deal, and the front half of your deal needs to be the tariffs that we've imposed against US goods, against US crops, against US livestocks, against used cars, against US manufacturing, against US services. All of those tariffs we are going to slash if we see Vietnam came in, Israel has come in.
Israel and Vietnam were right at the front. But you know, it's interesting. Vietnam is a country that is worth talking about a little bit because we have a very significant trade deficit with Vietnam. Yeah, do you know why?
Why is that?
Because America is winning? Why do we have a big trade deficit with Vietnam? Because most of that manufacturing used to be in China. And what happened is America, starting under President Trump, leaned on manufacturers and said move your manufacturing out of China. And so a whole bunch of them moved them out of China and went to Vietnam. So Vietnam was doing what we asked them to. We asked, hey,
can you take on this manufacturing instead of China? And there was a massive move of American companies that pulled manufacturing out of China and moved it to Vietnam. Look, everything we do to delink from China is a good thing. So moving those jobs out of China was a terrific victory, and it was a victory for President Trump. It was the Trump administration that urged moved those jobs to Vietnam.
Now Vietnam suddenly has a big trade deficit because all those jobs came out of China to Vietnam, and now Vietnam has a massive tariff that was levied on it by President Trump. The question is are they going to work a deal where they lower barriers on both sides. I hope they will, But there's another path. Listen, there are voices in the White House who simply believe in
tariffs as a permanent feature of the US economy. There are voices in the White House that want these high tariffs to be in place in six months, in a year, in two years, in five years, in ten years, that they want tariffs to be the main source of economic revenue for the federal government. That is a very different philosophy. And this is one of the things I'll tell you
within the Senate with my colleagues. A lot of us are debating, Okay, how much of this is leverage to get great deals from other countries.
And how much of this is what you said, economic revenue for the government.
And by the way, you know, you get some people that talk about, well, we'll do tariffs instead of the income tax, and I got to say that sort of reminds me of the old cartoon Popeye. Yeah, and you know, I'll gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger. Today, I'm like, well, wait a second. The last I checked, we still have the income tax and we have these tariffs. That's just a ton more taxes. If you want to get rid
of the income tax, then we can talk. But I don't see anyone proposing getting rid of the income tax. And so at the end of the day, in my view, if the outcome from these tariffs is really high tariffs from every country on Earth against American goods, and really high tariffs from America against goods from every every other country on Earth, that is going to be really bad for Texas and really bad for America.
Let's talk about momentum. You mentioned the people coming to the table, and you heard there in that comment fifty nations are now lining up. You and I both know that that one of the things Donald Trump does really well is the art of the deal and loves when there's something to celebrate celebrating it. Yes, I see in our near future Vietnam America on stage White House. We got a historic deal done, and that's where that move goes.
So what I'm urging is for the President to come and make major deals and make them quickly. Look to calm the stock market down. A few major deals quickly would really really help. I would love it if this week, this week we had an announcement from the president, this major country came in, they offered huge concessions. They slashed their tariffs, and we're slashing ours. That would be a great.
Outcome, and that's momentum building as well.
Look, the stock market has a psychology to it. If people start saying it's a bear markeage, people start saying we're going into a recession, that feeds upon itself. That means people are less willing to invest money, they're less willing to take risks, and so it is important for people to see the real tangible victories coming from this, and those victories are not just cash. One of the things you're hearing the White House say is, well, look
at all the revenue we're getting from tariffs. That's not actually bringing jobs back to America getting those tariffs, that's just raising prices. And if the immediate effect for voters of these tariffs is serious inflation because the cost of what they're buying is going up. I mentioned on Friday's podcast how one of the big three American auto manufacturers told me last week the effect of this tariffs is they would increase the cost of the cars they sell by four five hundred dollars a car.
It's a lot of mind average Americans.
That is a lot of money. That is a big hit. And so we've got to see the upside. We've got to see the benefit. Look one upside. Right now, Europe has a ten percent tariffs on American cars, and prior to April second, America had a two percent tariff on European cars. Now, I can tell you the Europeans are already back channeling. They are already putting on the table
zero and zero. They'll take their ten percent to zero, we take our two percent to zero, and cars go back and forth from Europe and America without a tariff. That deal is there. The President could announce it this week. That's a major victory. Getting rid of those tariffs in Europe is a major victory. But it is important. So they're different voices. So, for example, one of the voices speaking out is Elon Musk. We had Elon on the podcast.
Elon said last week. Here's what he told Reuters. US tech billionaire Elon Musk said on Saturday he hoped in the future to see complete freedom of true between the United States and Europe, speaking days after President Donald Trump announced tariffs on trading partners Mosca. Trump advisor has been working to eliminate wasteful US public spending. Spoke via video link at a congress in Florence of Italy's right wing Co Ruling Party Co Ruling League party.
Quote this is from US quote.
At the end of the day, I hope it's agreed that both Europe and the United States should move ideally in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America. So when I talked about angels and demons, Elon is one of the angels. This is a good good voice that is focused on US jobs that I hope the President is listening to. I hope the President is listening to Elon Musk. President Trump has an historic opportunity. The leverage
right now is massive. The question is will the White House make the decision to use that leverage to try to lower foreign tariffs. I mentioned something else. Very good friend of mine works in finance, very very smart finance here suggests it an idea for how to use this leverage and get even more of a win win, which is he said, Look, here's the problem. Let's say you're an American company or your foreign company, and you've got
a factory somewhere. You've got a factory abroad, you've got a factory in Vietnam, you've got a factory anywhere other than the US, and you're contemplating do I move the factory to the United States. The problem with that decision making is that move takes years. You can't do it instantaneously, even if you decide today, okay, let's build it in America. In a lot of places, just the permitting takes years to get a factory permitted, much less built. By the way,
that's why everyone should come to Texas. If you're going to build a factory, come to Texas. Permit it fast. We're not if you go to California, you deserve what you get. Come to Texas.
You should turn that into like a public service announcement, right like you go there, you go me, you deserve you want to get into business, Texas place to come. I will tell you.
As an aside, several years ago, a CEO came and met with me in DC and he was thinking of opening a new factory and he was looking at Texas, he was looking at California. And he said, all right, well tell me in Texas. What do you give me to go to Texas? And I said, not a damn thing. I said, but we won't tax you to death, won't. We won't regulate you to death, and we won't allow lawsuits just to tear you apart. And I said, you know what, if you go to California, you deserve.
What you get.
So that being said, let's say you're you're a big car company and you're trying to decide where do I put my next car factory. Just the process of getting it permitted, getting it built, putting the equipment in that takes a minimum of two, three, four, five years. That's just how long it takes.
Wow.
So the problem for your decision making is if you're looking at this, if you're doing it based on the Trump tariffs, you don't know how long they'll be place.
Sure you're trying to look at the math, you don't know a is Trump going to lift them in a deal where you may make a decision for the tariffs and then suddenly the tariffs aren't there anymore, and the math changes pretty substantially or be at a minimum in three and a half years, Trump is not going to be president, So you don't know if the next president is going to keep the tariffs or eliminate the tariffs. So the problem is by the time you opened.
Your factory, completely different group could be in charge.
So the idea that my buddy from the finance world came up with is for the president to announce a fund, an invest USA fund that individual CEOs could make it a commitment. Let's say you're the CEO of Mercedes Benz, that you could make a commitment we are going to open three new factories in America, all in Texas. We're going to open three new factories in America, and we're going to invest one hundred billion dollars in building these factories. Now the piece that is, look that has some teeth
to what my friend suggested. Look, you can make that announcement, you can put out a press release, and by the way of circumstances change, you never spend one hundred million dollars. It doesn't actually arrive. The idea is you're the CEO Mercedes Bend. You announced three new factories one hundred billion dollars. You deposit the one hundred billion dollars in the fund, the Invest America Fund. You actually spend the money on the front end. Now, two things happen when you invested
in the Invest America Fund. Number One, the United States earns interest on the money while it's sitting there, So it's benefiting the US just from the interest. If you leave it there, we'll get interest while it's there. But number two, as long as you have that money on the fund, you get a credit that you can use
against your tariffs. Maybe it's a one to one credit, maybe it's a two to one credit, but it's economically you create an incentive to put the money there for CEOs to invest in America, to create jobs in America, and to actually deploy the cash, because if you make the credit on the tariffs only dependent on the dollars actually being in the fund Let's say you give a two to one credit, so one hundred dollars deposit in the funds gets you a two hundred dollars credit on
your tariffs. Yeah, that's pretty economically compelling to lean in and invest. And what we want to see is what President Trump talks about a lot, a golden age in manufacturing where companies are profoundly incentivized to invest in.
America, not only to grow, but to stay here so we don't have to worry about them leaving in the future.
Yes, yes, and if that that has some real potency and idea like that. But if the solution is simply let's go back to the world in nineteen hundred, when you had really high tariffs, when you had you know, nineteen thirty three, you had smoot Holly that played a major role in the Great Depression. When you put up walls, it hurts America. We compete very well on the global level.
We just need to make sure we're competing fairly. And I think the president has real leverage to do that right now if he's listening to the angels and not the voices in his administration that are saying more tariffs, more tariffs, higher tariffs forever.
Let me ask you a final question on this, and you talk about the two different viewpoints here. There is a real debate. I'm having it with friends, I'm having it with colleagues. I mean, I've witnessed this on TV. There is, like you said, this core idea, there should always be tariffs. I've heard people talking about Greg Zama was China, we should always be at twenty percent or thirty percent or forty percent, whatever that number is. And
there's others saying, no, you use this as leverage. You get the better deal now, and then you have the market stabilize and people understand what the new norm is. That seems to be what you're advocating for, which is, let the market know, the CEOs, know the people that are pouring their dollars to decide what they're gonna do next, give them whatever the new normal is going to be so that we can move forward. Is that fair?
You've got to have some modicum of certainty, because if there's uncertainty. Business doesn't invest. No one invests if they don't know what the rules are going to be. If it's chaos, they sit on their cash and you don't have jobs. We want people to feel confident. And by the way, chaos under Biden came from regulatory chaos of new and job killing regulations, one after the other after
the other. But if there is uncertainty, uncertainty is an enemy of investment, and that means it's an enemy of jobs. So some limited uncertainty can be helpful to incentivize a deal, but we need to get to a deal a predictable outcome. And I will say listen, China is different. I am actually quite fine with tariffs against China because I think dlinking from China their economy, they have us in a
position where they are single greatest geopolitical threat. They are utilizing that economic interconnection as leverage against America, and so I think everything we can do to move Moving those jobs from China to Vietnam is a good move, is an important move, and moving them from China to Mexico that's a good move. Moving them from China to America is a good move. But everything we can do to d link from China's.
Not just trade, it's also national security variations, right, And I want to bonus question. I think a lot of people when you mentioned this is a different mentality with China and tarists are good there. I agree with you. My reason for it is a lot of national security reasons. I think that's something that's not been talked about as much. Give me your thoughts on that, quickly said, people understand the national security aspect of this.
So look, we saw in the middle of COVID how much our critical supply chains were dominated by China. China is fighting a thousand year war against the United States. When I arrived in the Senate thirteen years ago, I said China is the single greatest geopolitical threat at America's facing for the next one hundred years. When I started saying that, almost nobody in the Senate agreed with me. All the Democrats disagreed, and most of the Republicans disagree.
Most of the Republicans looked at China and they just saw dollar signs as far as the eye can see. A lot more people's eyes have opened up to the threat China poses today. And I think COVID did an
awful lot of that. You know, in the middle of the COVID pandemic, there was one major Chinese state owned newspaper that advocated cutting off life saving pharmaceutical drugs manufactured in China from going to America, because we've allowed much of our pharmaceutical drug industry to be manufactured in China, and they were literally threatening to take away heart medicine and cancer medicine and diabetes medicine from Americans who needed
to live. That underscored this is stupid to let a communist government who is our enemy.
Be in charge of her health in that way.
Likewise, critical minerals, critical minerals, China has a stranglehold on the production of critical minerals, which are essential for semiconductors and electronics and for defense and for all sorts of We need to move all of that out of China. We need to be able to stand on our own And I got to say President Trump has been really effective focusing on that threat. We need to accelerate the delinking from China.
Another threat, and it's not been covered in the news the way that it should have because we've been dealing with this. Obviously, we led with this issue because it's very important, But it's judicial activism that's having a major impact on this administration, and in a shocking way, I would even say historic way when you look at the numbers. You're dealing with this now in the Senate, with these judges that are basically get to be activists, but their
injunctions are having a whole nationwide. A lot of people didn't even know that was a possibility. Is an abusive power? Is there a check and balance that we need to have on that. Lit's dive into that as well.
So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse than it has ever been seen against Donald Trump. In the first two months of administration, more nationwide injunctions issued against President Trump than in the entirety of the George W. Bush administration all eight years, the entirety of the Barack Obama administration all eight years, the entirety of the Joe Biden administration all four years. More in two months than in those twenty years.
We have two months and twenty years. You say it, You said it quickly. I want people to just pause and think about how much of abuse of power there has to be if they're doing it that much like this is deliberate.
Well, and listen to Attorney General Pambondi talk about this.
The president is going to comply with the law. He was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the United States citizens to be our commander in chief, and that's what he's been doing, Shannon. Just since January twentieth, we've had over one hundred and seventy lawsuits filed against us. That should be the constitutional crisis right there. Fifty in junctions. They're popping up every single day, trying to control his executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax
dollars should be allocated. And saying he won by an overwhelming majority is so important because that's what the American people want, what President Trump campaigned on and what he won on, and he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed. None of us can keep up with them every single day. And so it's just we're going after all of these lawsuits, we're defending them all. We just got a great win, and we'll continue to fight.
I talked to a judge this week and he described it this way, because I was wanting to understand this subject. Obviously, we were going to talk about it. It's important and we haven't dealt with this a lot. He said. In essence, what the court's doing, Ben is they are doing a coup against Donald Trump by neutering him with his agenda.
And he said that is not how the constitution was set up, Like you should not be able to neuter a president in this way, saying we know you won, we know the American people support you, they voted for you, but we're not going to let you do what you're supposed to do as president anyway.
Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left wing radicals on the courts, and then this is Democrat state attorneys general and left wing radical groups going and seeking out these radical judges, many of whom, by the way, used to work for the groups that are suing. I mean, I mean it is. It is fundamentally corrupt, and it
is one judge. Normally a judge has the authority over the parties before him or her, but these judges are issuing nationwide orders trying to stop everything President Trump is trying to do. We had a hearing of the Judiciary Committee last week on this that was focusing on the threat to democracy and the rule of law from these nationwide injunctions. Here's what I had to say at the hearing. It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that
vice pays to virtue. I have to admit I'm enjoying listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law after four years where they brazenly supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most
politically weaponized department justice our nation has ever seen. We just heard the Senator from Rhye Island talk about the imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up outside Supreme Court justices homes, including I might note female justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett threatening their family. And Joe Biden's Attorney General didn't do a damn thing and refused
to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted to intimidate and threaten those judges, Professor Bray, Under our constitution, who should decide elections the voters or on elected judges.
The voters are the ones who should vote in the election according to the laws, and the laws sometimes have to be applied by the judges if they're anse.
And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions? Elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges.
I think the question of policy, Senator is a little broader than the particular case. So the basic laws should be enacted by Congress. That's where the fountain of.
La policy decisions are the elected branch. Right, law is the province of the court. Policy is the province of the elected branches. These are not complicated, Professor Bry, Let me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case?
That's the question, I agree is not complicated. They do not have that power.
Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere in the Constitution?
It is not first chart the.
First one hundred and fifty years of our republic. How many nationwide injunctions were issued?
My view is that there were not any until nineteen sixty three zero.
Now fast forward, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire twentieth century?
It's a small number. I would I would think it would be a dozen. Giver take it's not large.
Twenty seven actually, excluding Trump's first term. How many nationwide injunctions were issued in the last twenty years far more than that thirty two from twenty one to twenty twenty four against Biden, Obama and Bush thirty two. And how many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone, there have been quite a few thirty seven. Let that sink in. There have been more nationwide injunctions in the past two months against President Trump than in
the entire twentieth century. There have been more nationwide injunction against President Trump in the last two months than both terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama, and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency law Fair indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery of justice to attack him, and that was an attack
on democracy because democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are angry at the voters for re electing Donald Trump and electing a Republican Senate in a Republican House, and they engaged in Lawfair to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this is the second phase of lawfair. Second chart. This is the second phase of lawfair. Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from re electing him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical
judges to try to shut down policies. And they are forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with the policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore US immigration law concerning TPS being revoked. US law explicitly said there's no judicial review for that. But hey, they found a judge who says, you know what, what we the Democrat Party, we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the party of murderers and rapists and gang members.
And the Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason the Democrat Party is at twenty six percent approval nationwide because they put radical policies ahead of rule
of law nationwide. Injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this committee and this body to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided.
So here's my question you just teased at the end, and that is it's our job to look at raining them in. How long does that take? Can it be done through legislation? What are the options here? And how quick can we get this under control?
Well, it could be done quickly. There's legislation. In fact, there's legislation we were talking about at that hearing that Chuck Grassley's introduced that I'm a co sponsor of that would remove the power of a district judge to issue nationwide injunctions. I think that makes an awful lot of sense. Is that going to pass? Probably not, because for it to pass in the Senate would take sixty votes, which would mean we would need seven Democrats to support it.
Every Democrat they're enthusiastic about this lawfare. They want to see more of it, so they are dug in. That remedy is not there. The other remedy that you and I have talked about before is impeachment. Impeachment, you can impeach a judge in the House with a majority vote to utter and eighteen votes. It may well make sense that that one or more of the most egregious district judges who are who are defying their oath of office,
should and perhaps will be impeached by the House. However, if and when that happens, it'll come over to the Senate for the trial. And under the Constitution it takes two thirds to convict. That means we'd need Democrats, and the Democrats are not going to convict. There may be value in impeaching one or more of these judges anyway to highlight the utter, brazen lawlessness of it, and doing so would mean we could have a trial on the floor of the Senate to lay out just how lawless
their conduct was. But the judge is not going to be removed because the Democrats are all in in support of illegal aliens and against the rule of law. That means the remedy are number one, the court of public opinion making people understand sure just what an abuse of power this is, and number two the appellate process, the
courts of appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court. Now, I will say, immediately after I finished my questioning Amy Klobuchar spoke next, and I think my comments rattled her because she tried to respond, and I got to say what she was saying made so little sense. I couldn't resist jumping in and and and we had some real fireworks. So here, give a listen.
And the only reason there's all these injunction, center Cruise, is because he's violating the constitution. Why would Trump appointed judges?
Why don't you file him in red red districts?
Senator cru Why what did you just say?
Why don't you file him in red districts? Why are the Democratic tonator generals seeking out Senator Cruz left wing.
Senor Cruse's activity in this I'm just gonna ask for a point of order. Clob center center, Moody.
We have debates on this committee that that.
Let's let her have her time and then we'll get back to that. If you want to wait, we'll get back to senator.
Question ahead, choice, go ahead.
So I was following Senator Cruise once again, but I will excuse me, I didn't hear you. What did you say to be following him? He and I have a permitting you your time to continue. You would be following him in order excuse me, go ahead, Senator klob during hearing, Go ahead, Satric what I'm rehiring to go ahead? And I will take more than my time since he's taken more than his time to yell at me.
Good, I'm not yelling. I asked a question, Senator.
Crmes, Please, I'll give you time.
I do have to say, I've seen you yell. That was not yelling. I didn't raise my voice at all. And by the way, Amy Klobachar had no answer none. She's like, well, oh, these injunctions are issuing because everything he's doing is illegal. It's like, great, why don't they file him in red districts? Why are you seeking out the most left wing judges in the country who used to be radical activists, who were nominated because they're radical activists who used to work for the left wing groups
that are now bringing the lawsuits. Why are you only filing them in their in their courts. If it was so clear, if it was such a slam dunk, you ought to be able to file them in in red districts and Nope, Nope, they ain't gonna do that. She had no answer whatsoever. Because this is about power and abuse power. This is not about the rule of law.
Don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscriber auto download button if you're watching us in the video on YouTube. Make sure that you subscribe. You don't miss a single episode on YouTube. We put out a lot of stuff on YouTube, so we want to make you get all of that as well, and grab my show, the Ben Ferguson Podcast on those in
between days. I'll keep you up today in the latest breaking news because there's a lot happening in Washington the Senate, and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.