Corporate Wokeism Hits Elon, Sen Ted Cruz Takes on FBI Dir Christopher Wray, plus Van Orden v. Perry-Remembering Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the Week In Review

Summary

The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson – Detailed Summary

Episode Title: Corporate Wokeism Hits Elon, Sen Ted Cruz Takes on FBI Dir Christopher Wray, plus Van Orden v. Perry-Remembering Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the Week In Review
Release Date: December 9, 2023
Host: Ben Ferguson
Guest: Senator Ted Cruz

---

Introduction

In this episode of The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson, host Ben Ferguson delves into three major stories shaping the political landscape: the corporate backlash against Elon Musk’s platform X (formerly Twitter), Senator Ted Cruz’s confrontation with FBI Director Christopher Wray regarding the Biden administration’s alleged corruption, and a revisit of the landmark Supreme Court case Van Orden v. Perry in memory of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

---

1. Corporate Wokeism Targets Elon Musk and X

Overview:
The episode kicks off with a discussion on how major corporations are orchestrating a boycott against Elon Musk’s social media platform, X, in an apparent effort to suppress free speech and favor liberal agendas.

Key Points:

• Boycott Origins:
  Advertisers are pulling their ad dollars from X to undermine the platform’s commitment to free speech, as Musk has ceased censoring conservative viewpoints. Companies like IBM, Apple, Disney, Sony, Warner Brothers, and others have joined the boycott.

• Economic Power as a Tool:
  Senator Ted Cruz explains that corporate America has adopted a "woke" stance, using economic leverage to punish those who deviate from progressive norms. This concerted effort aims to weaken X and promote platforms that align with the Biden administration’s narratives.

• Impact on Free Speech:
  Cruz emphasizes that the boycott is a calculated attack on free speech, intending to establish a monopoly of censorship by major tech companies like Facebook, Google, and YouTube.

Notable Quotes:

• Ted Cruz [00:51]:
  "Corporate America has become woke and how they use economic power to punish those that cross them."

• Ted Cruz [03:04]:
  "The decisions of advertisers to boycott Twitter could kill the company."

• Ben Ferguson [02:33]:
  "Assassination of a free speech company orchestrated and designed to cripple them and to bring them to their knees."

Discussion Highlights:

• Ben Ferguson underscores the coordinated nature of the boycott, attributing it to leftist organizations influencing corporate decisions.
• Cruz points out specific companies pulling ads, highlighting the breadth of the boycott’s impact.
• The conversation touches on YouTube’s censorship of conservative content, including their podcast, as part of the broader suppression of dissenting voices.

---

2. Senator Ted Cruz Confronts FBI Director Christopher Wray

Overview:
A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to Senator Ted Cruz’s intense exchange with FBI Director Christopher Wray. The discussion centers on allegations of politicization within the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically regarding investigations into President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

Key Points:

• Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing:
  Cruz questioned Wray about the FBI’s handling of corruption allegations against the Bidens, focusing on claims that the DOJ is obstructing investigations.

• Allegations Against the DOJ and FBI:
  The conversation references leaked WhatsApp messages purportedly showing Hunter Biden attempting to leverage his father, Joe Biden, to influence commitments with a senior Chinese Communist official.

• Whistleblower Testimonies:
  Cruz cites IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who testified that the DOJ blocked GPS data acquisition on Joe Biden’s phone, impeding the investigation.

• Wray’s Response:
  Director Wray deflected many of Cruz’s questions, citing ongoing investigations and maintaining that policies to prevent politicization have been in place for years.

• Cruz’s Critique:
  Cruz accuses Wray of failing to hold senior officials accountable and of protecting the Biden administration from scrutiny, labeling it as an assault on the rule of law.

Notable Quotes:

• Christopher Wray [11:18]:
  "The Department of Justice has been profoundly politicized under Attorney General Merrick Garland."

• Ted Cruz [14:15]:
  "My instructions to our people on this and on every other investigation are that we are to follow the facts wherever they lead."

• Senator Cruz [20:37]:
  "He refuses to answer. And his shield, everything he says it's an ongoing investigation, but as we've discussed, it's not ongoing."

Discussion Highlights:

• The exchange reveals a stark divide between Cruz and Wray, with Cruz asserting that the FBI is not being transparent or accountable.
• Cruz highlights specific instances where he believes the DOJ hindered investigations, questioning the integrity of the agency.
• The inability of Wray to provide concrete answers fuels Cruz's argument of systemic obstruction and partisanship within federal law enforcement bodies.

---

3. Van Orden v. Perry and the Legacy of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Overview:
In the final segment, Senator Ted Cruz reflects on the Van Orden v. Perry case, a pivotal Supreme Court decision regarding the display of the Ten Commandments monument outside the Texas State Capitol. Cruz recounts his experiences as Solicitor General and the strategic efforts to uphold the monument in court.

Key Points:

• Case Background:
  The case challenged the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in a public space. Cruz’s team successfully argued for the monument’s legality, leveraging the jurisprudence of the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

• Strategic Litigation:
  Cruz describes the meticulous preparation for the Supreme Court argument, aiming to align the brief with Justice O'Connor’s establishment clause interpretations.

• Court Outcome:
  The Supreme Court delivered a split decision, with four justices upholding the monuments and four striking them down. Notably, Justice Stephen Breyer sided with Cruz’s position, while Justice Rehnquist’s final opinion supported the display.

• Legacy and Impact:
  The decision in Van Orden v. Perry shifted legal precedents, making it more feasible to display religious symbols in public areas. Cruz credits Justice O'Connor’s influence on the case, despite her dissenting vote in a related earlier case.

Notable Quotes:

• Ted Cruz [26:29]:
  "Holy cow, in 80 years, it hadn't gotten better."

• Ted Cruz [32:12]:
  "Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote on almost every religious liberty establishment cause case in the country."

• Ted Cruz [35:40]:
  "Since then, the McCreary case out of Kentucky has proven to be a very unimportant precedent."

Discussion Highlights:

• Cruz provides a personal narrative of defending the Ten Commandments monument, highlighting the complexities of constitutional law.
• He reflects on the strategies employed to persuade the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of Justice O'Connor’s legal philosophy.
• The case’s outcome serves as a testament to the enduring influence of Justices on Supreme Court decisions and the broader implications for religious displays in public institutions.

---

Conclusion

Ben Ferguson wraps up the episode by encouraging listeners to delve deeper into these discussions by accessing the full podcast. He emphasizes the importance of staying informed on critical issues affecting free speech, governmental integrity, and constitutional law.

---

Overall Insights:

• The episode underscores a growing tension between corporate interests and free speech advocates, with significant implications for platforms like X.
• Senator Cruz’s confrontation with FBI Director Wray highlights ongoing concerns about the politicization of federal institutions and the pursuit of accountability.
• The exploration of the Van Orden v. Perry case adds a historical perspective on constitutional debates surrounding religious symbols in public spaces, commemorating Justice Sandra Day O'Connor’s legacy.

Useful for Non-Listeners:
This summary provides a comprehensive overview of the episode’s key themes and discussions, ensuring that those who haven't listened can grasp the fundamental issues and perspectives presented by Senator Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson.

Transcript

[Ben Ferguson]

Welcome. It is Verdict or 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. It started with Elon Musk. He well, there's a new scheme now to bring him down as advertisers are trying to destroy his platform X, formerly known as Twitter, by pulling all of their ad dollars. So what can you do to stand by the man that is standing by free speech? We'll explain that in a moment. Plus, Christopher Wray, the FBI director, had a big toe to battle with Senator Ted Cruz and you won't want to miss the back and forth. And Finally, Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court justice, passed away. Senator Ted Cruz took some time to talk about some of the most historic court cases and his memories of Sandra Day O'Connor. It's the week in Review and it starts right now.

[Ted Cruz]

Let me ask you how many of you are grateful that Elon Musk purchased Twitter? I'll tell you, I'm intensely grateful. I think it is the single most important development for free speech in decades. But what is striking, and this again is a topic I discuss at great length in my brand new book, unwoke, is how corporate America has become woke and how they use economic power to punish those that cross them. So corporate America is mad at Elon Musk. Why? Because he stopped censoring views that were not the orthodoxy of the Biden White House. He stopped censoring conservative views and he allowed free speech to occur. Now, what was the volcanic rage of corporate America? One company after another began boycotting what used to be Twitter is now X. So IBM was the first to pull its ads. So IBM, if you have an IBM computer at home, you know what you're supporting? A company that says we're not going to advertise on a social media company that believes in free speech. Now, right after IBM, what followed, Apple, Disney, Sony, Warner Brothers, Comcast, NBC Universal and Paramount, all of them have said we're pulling our ads. But not only that, you know who else has pulled their ads? Chevrolet, Chipotle, Ford, Jeep, Kyndryl, Merck and company Novartis AG and Eli Lillian Company all of these companies, they are engaged in censorship. Understand when they say it's a corporate.

[Ben Ferguson]

Assassination of a free speech company orchestrated and designed to cripple them and to bring them to their knees. This doesn't happen by accident. I think that's what some people need to understand when one corporation does this and the others do it. Don't think this isn't orchestrated and being done by the left in leftist groups and organizations that organize these companies and get in the ear of these companies and say, hey guys, so and so's gonna do it. You should do it too. And then they call the next one, they say, hey guys, we hear these two companies are about to boycott, pull their ads.

[Ted Cruz]

You should too, and understand art. So here, here's what Elon Musk has said about it. He said the decisions of advertisers to boycott Twitter, quote, could kill the company. And he went on to say, quote, and the whole world will know that these advertisers killed the company. That is their objective and what they want. They want Twitter to go under, they want X to go under. And then they want the only social media to be Facebook controlled by Mark Zuckerberg that censors conservative views because they're silent. That works on behalf of the Biden White House. They want Google that is controlled by left wing socialists that censors views they disagree with, that skews public discourse in the favor of the left. They want YouTube that actively censors conservative views, including this podcast verdict.

[Ben Ferguson]

Yeah, just a few weeks ago they censored one of our, one of our episodes because we were telling the truth about what was going on.

[Ted Cruz]

And mind you, we were telling the truth about a Palestinian who by all appearances is a crisis actor who creates false videos pretending to be a victim of what he claims is Israeli aggression, when in fact he's a Hamas propagandist. And we laid out the evidence for that. And YouTube properly said, oh, we don't want people to notice this. So they blocked. So you could not access our podcast on YouTube without signing in and be age verified because apparently 17 year olds cannot know there's a crisis actor that's.

[Ben Ferguson]

A, that's a Hamas warrior.

[Ted Cruz]

And mind you, it's not just that they want Facebook and YouTube and Google to be driving the topics. They want TikTok, which is controlled by the Chinese communists, which is actively pushing pro Hamas propaganda. Every one of these companies. So I want you to go back and look at this list. IBM, Apple, Disney, Sony, Warner Brothers, Comcast, NBC Universal, Paramount, Chevrolet, Chipotle, Ford, Jeep, Kyndryl, Merckin company, Novartis, ag, Eli Lilly and company. Every one of them is saying, you Americans, you don't deserve the right to speak. And even more importantly, you don't deserve the right to hear the speech of others. We want Big Tech to silence and skew. And mind you, this is all based on an allegation that is a bogus allegation attacking Elon Musk for retweeting a tweet that they're claiming is anti Semitic. Yeah, and it was deliberate.

[Ben Ferguson]

The same guy that just went and met with over in Israel, they just flew over there, met, talked to the leadership, and is now clearly supporting Israel.

[Ted Cruz]

Look, their attack is deliberately disingenuous, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the claim is. It is an excuse because they want to use economic muscle to punish Twitter and force either Elon Musk to sell it or shut it down. Because once they do, then the rest of big tech will have a monopoly unchecked. And this is an assault on free speech. It's an intersection of what I talk about in multiple chapters of my book on woke. It's an intersection of big tech, big business and journalism all coming together. And it's designed to be dishonest and to silence free speech among the American people.

[Ben Ferguson]

Want to talk to you real quick about your retirement. You've probably seen a lot of the headlines lately. We are the third highest deficit in US History. We are also seeing that there is more than $1 trillion now in debt when it comes to Americans on credit cards. We have the highest rate of debt we've ever seen this country when it comes to college debt. And we're living with high interest rates, inflation issues, and then there's the unpredictable world on top of that. So that's why I want to talk to you about investing in gold. It has weathered many storms and gold gives you peace of mind. It gives me literal peace of mind because it's tangible, it's real, and I have it. I know that gold is a perfect protection as part of my portfolio. That is exactly why I want you to talk to Augusta Precious Metals because they can help you with an IRA or a 401k. And it's time that you learn about the benefits of a gold IRA from Augusta Precious Metals. It is where I bought my gold. They're exceptional, they're honest and they're no pressure. The other thing is they do a free sit down with you. All you have to do is reach out to them. You can go online to Augusta precious metals.com that's Augusta precious metals.com or you can get the free investors got on gold as well as set up a one on one web conference that can answer all of your questions about diversifying your portfolio, protecting your hard earned money with gold. In an IRA or 401k. Text the word BEN to 6, 8592. Text the word BEN to 68592 again, that's BEN to 68592 or online at Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com. Senator, last thing I want to just point out here, conservative talk radio and many of you know I do a podcast outside of this and I do a actual terrestrial radio show every day for about 10 years now, everybody in radio has had to deal with what Elon Musk is dealing with now, which is all corporate people stop spending money on conservative talk radio. They went after the great Rush Limbaugh. That's where it started.

[Ted Cruz]

Yes.

[Ben Ferguson]

Then they went after Hannity, then they went after Beck, then they went after Levin, then they went guys like me and, and what we used to have in radio was the big ones. We had Chevy, we had John Deere, we had, you know, mutual funds.

[Ted Cruz]

None of these giant companies advertising conservative podcasts.

[Ben Ferguson]

None of that.

[Ted Cruz]

There's that. There's a funny skit that we've talked about in Verdict a couple of years ago that contrast a left wing hippie commie Marxist podcast saying this podcast brought to you by Pfizer, get the jab right now you need your 42nd booster shot. Compared to they have a conservative broadcast and they say this broadcast brought to you by Patriot Water a bucket of water in your closet. And the contrast is striking because all of the Fortune 500 boycotts, none of.

[Ben Ferguson]

Them spend money, none of them will ever reach a conservative audience. They deliberately tried to destroy conservative talk.

[Ted Cruz]

Radio, by the way, even Fox News, which is incredibly profitable. Look at the advertisers hour. Spend an hour watching CNN and spend an hour watching Fox News. Write down who advertises CNN. It's the entire Fortune 100. Fox News doesn't have any of them. It's my pillow which look, I'm grateful, I'm grateful mypillow advertises because there are not many that do. But even though Fox News has 2x3x4x5x the viewers 6x7x yeah, as CNN, they still don't get anything. The CNN 100 doesn't care. It's not about money. Understand this is not the economic marketplace. This is their enforcing their ideology. They don't want to support views that are right of center. They want to silence them.

[Ben Ferguson]

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 on to story number two. Brings me to also the fireworks that took place this week. And it was between you and the FBI director. I want to play a large chunk of this, but before I do set the stage, why was the FBI director before your committee in the Senate, and what was this all about?

[Ted Cruz]

Well, the FBI director, Chris Wray, was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And periodically the director of the FBI testifies before Judiciary. And so I took the opportunity to question him, and there are a lot of topics I could have questioned him on. I could have questioned him for hours on end, but we only had seven minutes. And so I chose to use the seven minutes to focus on the politicization of the FBI and the refusal of the FBI to investigate the growing. The becoming overwhelming evidence of Joe Biden's corruption. And so that's what I asked him about.

[Ben Ferguson]

I want to play a chunk of this because it's really important, and I hope that every verdict listener will make sure that you take this and share this podcast so that you can let people know about what these questions were. They're really important questions. And also, I would argue, the shocking response from the FBI director. Ray, take a listen to this.

[Christopher Wray]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, welcome. As you know, I am deeply concerned about the conduct of both the Department of Justice and the FBI, particularly in the last three years during the Biden administration. I think the Department of Justice has been profoundly politicized under Attorney General Merrick Garland, and I think the FBI has as well. And unfortunately, I think you've been unwilling to stand up to senior career officials in the FBI who's allowed the FBI to be politicized. I'll tell you, I regularly speak with FBI agents across the country who are unhappy about the integrity of the institution being weakened because DOJ is being treated as a political weapon. I want to talk in particular about the investigation into multiple allegations of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, because the Department of Justice has, I think, from the outset, tried at every step to stop investigation into corruption from Joe Biden. As you're aware, a WhatsApp text message was sent to Henry Zhao, a senior Chinese Communist, from Hunter Biden that reads as follows. I'm sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the Director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand. And now means tonight. And Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this, other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father. Now, Democrats and those in the media trying to defend the White House repeatedly say there is no direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement in his son's corruption. Well, this is a text that is direct evidence that is stating that it is his father that is going to retaliate. Now, an IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, testified before the House of Representatives that the natural step he wanted to follow was to determine whether Joe Biden was in fact sitting next to his father when this threat was made to extort millions of dollars from a Chinese Communist. And what the IRS whistleblower testified is that when he tried to find out whether Joe Biden was sitting next to Hunter, that the DOJ blocked getting the GPS data on Joe Biden's phone. Did the FBI try to ascertain where Hunter Biden was and where Joe Biden was when this text was sent?

[Ted Cruz]

Well, I think the questions you're asking go to the ongoing investigation being led by Special Counsel Weiss. And so I'm not going to be able to discuss what is or isn't in scope.

[Christopher Wray]

So, look, there's been testimony under oath from the IRS whistleblower that you did not seek the GPS data. And you're right. David Weiss, the special prosecutor, is in charge of it. And it is David Weiss and his underlings who the according to the IRS whistleblowers have alleged that they're the ones trying to stop the investigation. They allowed the statute of limitations to run on many of the most serious violations. Not only that, IRS whistleblower Shapley testified that on September 3rd, Assistant U.S. attorney Leslie Wolf explicitly told investigators that despite having probable cause to search, quote, there is no way a search warrant would be approved when the evidence in question was located inside of Vice President Biden's guest house. Wolf stated that, quote, the optics prevented such a search. Is the FBI, do they make a routine practice of allowing partisan political optics to prevent investigating serious evidence of corruption?

[Ted Cruz]

My instructions to our people on this and on every other investigation are that we are to follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it, no matter what political influence.

[Christopher Wray]

Then why did GPS state on where Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were?

[Ted Cruz]

Again, Senator, with respect, I can't. But it's an ongoing investigation.

[Christopher Wray]

And Director Wray, you and I have gone round and round on this because I understand anytime you're asked about this, the answer is it's an ongoing investigation. Of course the investigation isn't ongoing. You're not doing the work. You got whistleblowers pointing out that you're not doing the work and you are hiding behind the skirts of the Attorney General. Look. The whistleblower also testified that the Attorney General, when he came before Congress. Go to the next chart. Came before Congress, lied under oath to this committee. The Attorney General testified to this committee. In response to my questioning, I have pledged not to interfere with the Hunter Biden investigation. I have carried through on that pledge. The IRS whistleblowers have alleged the Attorney General lied under oath, a felony. Was the Attorney General telling the truth when he said this? Was the Attorney General telling the truth when he said, I have pledged not to interfere with the Hunter Biden investigation and I have carried through on my pledge?

[Ted Cruz]

Again, I can't speak to the Attorney General's testimony. I can only tell you what my instructions have been to our people.

[Christopher Wray]

Has there been political interference in the investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden?

[Ted Cruz]

Not that I have experienced.

[Christopher Wray]

Were the investigators allowed to investigate whether Joe Biden was complicit in the corruption?

[Ted Cruz]

Again, there is an ongoing investigation asking.

[Christopher Wray]

You about corruption from doj. Were they allowed to investigate Joe Biden or is the whistleblower telling the truth that DOJ said Joe Biden's off limits, no questions about the Big guy.

[Ted Cruz]

And as to what is in scope or not in scope of the ongoing investigation, I would refer you to Special Counsel Weiss. That is not me hiding behind anything, Senator. That is a long standing policy that has been in place multiple administrations going back years and years and years.

[Christopher Wray]

Responsibility to the FBI not to allow it to be a partisan tool and a partisan weapon. The testimony. And by the way, the FBI has done nothing.

[Ted Cruz]

And I have not and I will.

[Christopher Wray]

Not have you opened an investigation into whether the Attorney General lied under oath to Congress and whether the Attorney General obstructed justice?

[Ted Cruz]

I'm not going to go down that road here.

[Christopher Wray]

I know you're not. That's the point. Nobody thinks you've opened an investigation because you're not willing to. And the amazing thing is, Director Wray, I've known you 30 years. You're not a partisan Democrat. You're simply sitting blithely by while career partisans in your agency allow it to be weaponized. And you are damaging the FBI and you are damaging the Department of Justice. Let me ask you also. The whistleblower testified that investigators wanted to execute a search warrant on a storage unit used by Hunter Biden, and instead they tipped off Hunter Biden's lawyer before the search warrant was carried out. Is it typical FBI practice to tip off the subject of a search warrant before the search warrant so they can remove any evidence that's incriminating?

[Ted Cruz]

What is typical is that when you're dealing with an individual who has a protective detail, it is typical for agents to be in contact with detail.

[Christopher Wray]

Does the protective detail guard the storage unit?

[Ted Cruz]

Again, I can't speak to the storage unit specifically. What I can tell you is that.

[Christopher Wray]

Why would the FBI tip off the subject of a search warrant about the storage unit that was going to be searched beforehand? Does that not undermine the very essence of an investigation that DOJ is purporting to undertake?

[Ted Cruz]

Again, I'm not going to be able to discuss specific investigatives.

[Christopher Wray]

Said who? You're not. Nobody answers these questions. And it's why people are furious with a cover up because you don't believe the FBI is accountable to Congress or.

[Ted Cruz]

To the American people. Your time is up. Director Ray has requested a five minute recess. Five minutes.

I'll just.

[Ben Ferguson]

Let me just.

[Ted Cruz]

Senator, if I might just quickly respond and then respond. Go to the break. Thank you. I understand why this is frustrating. I do. But it is also the case that these policies that I am referring to about my inability to discuss ongoing investigations and certainly internal deliberations related to ongoing investigations are policies that have not only been in place for many, many years through multiple administrations of both parties, but. But in fact these were policies that were actually strengthened under the last administration and that my predecessor was faulted in a fairly scathing inspector general report for not following inspectors.

When you speak that in my mind.

[Christopher Wray]

You have an obligation to call it out.

[Ted Cruz]

Engaged in this job, you have an.

[Christopher Wray]

Obligation to call out corruption.

[Ben Ferguson]

Senator, I understand him saying it's an ongoing investigation, but hiding behind that when you're talking about basic things that the FBI did, didn't do clearly to protect the Biden family. He should still be able to answer those questions, shouldn't he?

[Ted Cruz]

He should and he's stonewalling. And there's an arrogance of the director of the FBI. Look, as I mentioned in my questioning, I've known Chris Wray for 30 years. He clerked for the same federal judge I clerked for. He's not a liberal Democrat. That's the amazing thing. I think Chris Wray still believes he's a Republican. I think he still believes he's a conservative. He just is unwilling. He's a company man. He's unwilling to take on the career officials at the FBI who are rabid partisans who are left wing zealots. And he also, he buys into the notion that he has no responsibility to the American people, no responsibility to Congress, no responsibility to be accountable or transparent. So he views his obligation. Nope, sorry. Ongoing investigation. Off jump in a lake. I'm not going to answer your question. Look, you've got two IRS whistleblowers who've come forward and alleged felonies from the Attorney General. A director of the FBI has an obligation to answer questions about that. I asked a very simple question. Did you try to ascertain the GPS data about where Hunter Biden was and where Joe Biden was when Hunter Biden sent the email asking for bribes, trying to shake down the Chinese Communist for bribes? The email on its face says he's sitting next to his father, Joe Biden. If he's in fact sitting next to his father, it directly implicates Joe Biden in trying to extort millions of dollars from Chinese Communists. Much of wit which ultimately went to Joe Biden himself. What the IRS whistleblower said is they wanted to get that GPS data. That, that is readily ascertainable and the Biden DOJ blocked it. There is nothing to prevent Chris Wray from answering the question. Did you try to seek that GPS data, yes or no? Did DOJ block it, yes or no? He refuses to answer. And his shield, everything he says it's an ongoing investigation, but as we've discussed, it's not ongoing. They are deliberately not, not not investigating Joe Biden. And so it is a view that there's a hubris. We are the FBI. We don't have to answer your questions. And I gotta say, it is profoundly harmful to the rule of law and the integrity of the FBI to have the leadership of the FBI refuse to provide even the barest minimum of transparency or accountability.

[Ben Ferguson]

Senator, last question for you. And I want to go back to the. The FBI director and, and really the advantage that the Biden family has, which it seems that everybody is covering for them. The House Oversight Committee put out this tweet saying Hunter Biden must appear for his deposition. On December 13, Chairman Comer and Jim Jordan will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings if Hunter does not appear. He has obviously said, I will only appear before a public hearing. That's not what they're subpoenaing for. In your gut, will Hunter Biden appear or will he be a no show?

[Ted Cruz]

Look, I put the odds at about 50, 50 on that. I think it could go either way. I think there's a chance Hunter appears and I think he could be defiant. He could be hiding behind his lawyers. I also think there's a very real chance he just doesn't show up. He just says, go pound sand. If he does, if he refuses to show up, the House will vote him in contempt. But once the House votes him in contempt, nothing will happen because the Biden DOJ will not do anything to enforce the contempt sanction. Remember, the House of Representatives held Eric Holder in contempt when he was Attorney General under Barack Obama, and nothing happened. Now, why did nothing happen? Because to enforce the contempt finding, DOJ has to bring it. And you know what? Eric Holder was in charge of doj. And so magically, Eric Holder said, you know, when I think of things that I want to prosecute, the contempt finding against me is not one of them. I think the chances of Merrick Garland doing anything to enforce a contempt finding against Hunter Biden are very close to zero. And so, look, there's a chance Hunter shows up. He did publicly say he was willing to show up. It was in public. But either way, I do not expect him to be forthcoming. Whether if he shows up, he's not going to say much of substance. And if he doesn't show up, he feels he can defy the subpoena without meaningful consequence as before.

[Ben Ferguson]

If you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and download 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.

[Ted Cruz]

All right, one more Sandra Day O'Connor story. So I was solicitor general five and a half years. We ended up being very fortunate. We had some really big constitutional law cases that just through serendipity came down the road, and we ended up litigating. We won most of them. One of the biggest cases was a case called Van Orden versus Perry. Now, Van Orden versus Perry was a challenge to the Ten Commandments Monument outside of the Texas State Capitol. And let me set a little bit of context for it, because it's relevant to O'Connor, it's relevant to Rehnquist in the court. So this is the mid 2000s. There had been litigation all over the country challenging the public display of Ten Commandments all over the country. The history of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, it was erected in 1961, but its history actually goes back to the 1950s. In the 1950s, there was a Minnesota state judge named E.J. ruegemeier who in the 1950s, was upset about the diminishing morals of the Youth in America, by the way. Pause and think. In the 1950s, he was worried about youth morals. Think about today.

[Ben Ferguson]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

Like, Holy cow, in 80 years, it hadn't gotten better. Yeah. And he came up with the idea to help the morals of the youth in America. Let's publicly display the Ten Commandments in public areas across the nation. And he went to a public service organization, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, sort of like the Rotary Club or Kiwanis Club. He said, hey, what do you all think of this idea? And they said, great idea. We're all for it. All right now, Ben, this is where the story takes a weird turn. This is exactly coterminous with the release of Cecil B. DeMille's movie, the Ten Commandments.

[Ben Ferguson]

No way.

[Ted Cruz]

You know, Charlton Heston comes down from Mount Sinai carrying the Ten Commandments, and Cecil B. DeMille was a larger than life Hollywood character. And DeMille gets wind of this, and he was thinking like a Hollywood producer. He's like, hey, this is a great idea, but I don't want a piece of paper on a frame posted on the wall. If you're going to erect this, I want big honkin granite Ten Commandments monuments. Just like I'm going to have Charlton Heston coming down the mountain with. There are dozens of what are called Eagles monuments all over the country, and they're all identical. Texas, it's 6 foot, 3 inches tall, 3 foot, 6 inches wide. It is red granite. It looks exactly like the tablets that Charlton Heston carried. And actually, I'm going to take a brief aside and say, if you ever are arguing a case in court, since you're not a lawyer, something would have to go terribly wrong for you to be arguing a case in court. Yeah, but if you're convicted of murder and you're defending yourself, the advice that I have given lawyers is, never, ever, ever try to be funny. It is the province of judges to be funny. It is not the province of lawyers. Now, that is excellent advice, but I will tell you, I have twice in my career broken that advice. And I've been very lucky. The gods of litigation have spared me my just desserts both times. When I was arguing the defense of the Texas Ten Commandments case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the process that the Eagles used to develop the text of the Ten Commandments, there are differences across denominations. And so what the Eagles did is they brought together a committee that consisted of a pastor, a priest and a rabbi. So at oral argument, I said, this was drafted by a pastor, a priest, and a Rabbi. And one of the Judges on the 5th Circuit, Judge Prado leans forward and says, counsel, that sounds like the beginning of a joke. And I immediately said, yes, your honor. But nobody walked into a bar. And miraculously, it worked. The judge. Judges took pity on me and laughed. It was stupid, but I was grateful for their mercy. We're in front of the U.S. supreme Court on the Texas Ten Commandments monument. And at the time, there had been dozens of cases challenging Ten Commandments monuments. Almost all of the monuments had lost. The weight of the case law was headed very significantly against the public display of the Ten Commandments as the case was being appealed. So we had won in the fifth circuit court of appeals, the plaintiff, a guy named Thomas Van Orden, who was an atheist. He was a homeless man who had walked past the monument, was offended by it, and filed a lawsuit seeking to tear it down. He filed a cert petition asking the supreme court to take the case. Now, normally, if you've won and the other side appeals to the supreme court, what you do is you fight against it. You say, no, no, don't take this case. There is no split of authority. It's not consequential. You don't need this. Say no, because if they say, no, you've won. Here was the problem. There was an enormous split of authority. I thought the court was going to take one of these cases very, very soon, and we might have won a pyrrhic victory of a short term victory. But if a bad decision came down to the supreme court, we'd lose in the long term and lose our monument. So I went to my boss, Greg Abbott, and I said, general, I think we should do something that's called acquiescing insert. Which is we should agree, yes, supreme court, you should take this case. And we drafted a brief in opposition where we said, there is a split of authority. It is real, it is deep, it is wide, it is significant. And what we wrote in the. In the brief was if the court is inclined to resolve this issue, this case presents the single best fact pattern to uphold a permissible display of the Ten Commandments. It was very risky because if the court took the case and we lost, everyone would pillory both Abbott and me. You idiots. Ask them to take this case, and then you got your butt kicked. Well, it ended up we were right. They were going to take a case. They took the Texas case, and they took a case out of Kentucky. They took them both and they scheduled them for argument on the same day as we're preparing the case. Abbott, my boss, who was Attorney General, he told me when he started, he said, look, I want to argue one Supreme Court case while I'm AG and let me know which one I should do. And so when this case was granted, I said, general, this is the one you should do. It's a discrete issue of law. It's incredibly important. He spent two months preparing for the argument. I put together some moot courts. I did a moot court in D.C. with a murderer's row of Supreme Court advocates. They had collectively over 100 oral arguments between them, and they just beat him senseless. I actually felt really nervous. Like when you put your boss in front of a moot that, like, pounds him senseless, you're like, general, I hope that was productive. Yeah, please tell me I'm not unemployed.

[Ben Ferguson]

Yeah, yeah, please tell me I'm not getting my walking papers today.

[Ted Cruz]

But look, if you do it right, you want the mood to be harder than the actual argument. So he went through, did several moots. He was ready for it. And in the brief, I told him, I said, okay, General, I've got a plan. So for about three decades, Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote on almost every religious liberty establishment cause case in the country. And I read every opinion she'd written over and over and over again. And I told my team, as we're drafting the brief, I said, I want us to swim in Sandra Day O'Connor's establishment clause jurisprudence. I want this to embody everything she's ever thought or said about the First Amendment. And in fact, I told my lawyers, I said, I want the most frequent words in the brief to be O'Connor comma J. I want them to occur more frequently than and. Or the. And one of my lawyers said, well, Ted, is it possible to be too obsequious to Justice O'Connor in this brief? I said, no. If we can put an oil portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor in the COVID of our brief, we should do so. And again, I was, you know, probably. I was a cocky 34, 35 year old. I went to Abbott and I said, general, we are. We're living in her psyche. This brief is exactly, exactly what Sandra Day O'Connor thinks. Well, at the oral argument, I'm sorry to say we missed horribly, she was utterly unpersuaded. She voted to strike down the Texas Ten Commandments Monument. Now, here's where Supreme Court arguments are weird. Every argument we'd aimed at Sandra Day O'Connor missed her, but bizarrely enough, struck Steve Breyer.

[Ben Ferguson]

Wow.

[Ted Cruz]

Bill Clinton appointee, relatively liberal justice. And the two cases I told you there was Kentucky and Texas. Four justices voted to strike down both monuments. Four justices voted to uphold both monuments. Steve Breyer voted to strike down Kentucky and to uphold Texas, which, among other things, was a vindication of. If we hadn't acquiesced in certified, the only opinion would have been Kentucky, and it would have been devastating for Ten Commandments monuments across the country. There was also a really nice kind of personal vindication in this. So Chief Justice Rehnquist had been an original dissenter in a case called Stone vs Graham, which struck down the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools across the country. And he had dissented. He said, this is not the First Amendment. This is not right. Van Orden versus Perry. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the plurality opinion for the court upholding Texas's display of the Ten Commandments. It was the very last opinion Chief Justice Rehnquist ever wrote, and he passed away later that summer. And so as his former clerk, it was really cool to have been part of a case where he was able to vindicate a view he had articulated two decades earlier. And Sandra Day O'Connor, when it came to the standards, we didn't meet her standards. But miraculously enough, Steve Breyer liked what we had to say. And so we entered. And by the way, since then, the McCreary case out of Kentucky has proven to be a very unimportant precedent. It is rarely cited, and the Van Orden case changed the entire direction of case law so that 10 Commandments displays are now routinely upheld.

[Ben Ferguson]

As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. Don't forget to download my podcast and you can listen to my podcast podcast every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards. I'd love to have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcast and we will see you back here on Monday morning.