← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Nick Saban Addresses NIL in College Sports, Hunter Calls for Public Hearing then Bails, & NY Wants $500MILL from Trump Week In Review
00:33:09
Loading summary
Transcript53 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz Week in Review. Ben Ferguson with you. And these are the stories that you may have missed that we talked about this past week. First up, Nick Saban testifies about the importance of nil, the deals with athletes, students, and how it could help or even hurt and destroy college sports. We'll take a look at what Congress may do to get involved. Also, Hunter Biden runs away from the public hearing that he demanded. So when is he going to be seen again in Washington? We'll talk about those developments as well. And finally, New York wants 500 million, a half a billion dollars from Donald Trump by Tuesday. And if he doesn't come up with the money, they want to seize his assets. So what will Trump do next? We'll dive into that. It's the Weekend Review and it starts right now. Senator, you mentioned this roundtable and I want to play some of your opening remarks. You were sitting there next next to Nick Saban, which is, by the way, if you're a sports fan, it's just cool. He's, he's, he's a legendary coach. I'm so glad he retired so I don't have to deal with him playing him every year because he's a brilliant mind in football. But here's part of what you had to say.
- [01:16]
Ted Cruz
Fear and many others, fear threatens to jeopardize all that is working so well with college athletics. More and more, there is agreement that Congress needs to act to ensure that we have a level playing field, that we have real competition, that college sports can continue to thrive in the decades going forward. And this roundtable is designed to be a discussion with numerous stakeholders who are engaged in the process to get perspectives on what is needed and what is not. Right now we have the brave new world of nil and college athletes now, many of them earning very significant sums of money. I, for one, think that's a good thing. I think it is good that young men and young women who've worked incredibly hard to develop fantastic skills that in turn can generate enormous economic activity should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor, should be entitled to benefit. But we also need a system where we have real competition and fair competition and not just one or two monster schools and everyone else as a hanger on, but real competition throughout the league to make for good games. We also need to make sure the rules that are in place don't just focus on Power 5 conferences, don't just focus on football and basketball, which generate most of the revenue. But we need to keep in mind and keep our focus on smaller schools, Division 2 schools, Division 3 schools, and we need to focus on the many other sports that are not going to be playing on ESPN but nonetheless provide.
- [03:00]
Nick Saban
An avenue for young women and young.
- [03:01]
Ted Cruz
Men to go to school and to get an education. We now have a patchwork of nil laws state by state that makes it difficult to navigate. We have multiple active litigation going on that prevents the NCAA and conferences and universities from enforcing rules or even knowing what the rules are. And we have a lot of uncertainty for student athletes and for agents and collectives who are trying to navigate the evolving and unpredictable rules, but uncertain what they're going to be today and even more so what they're going to be tomorrow. The purpose of this discussion is to listen. If we do it right, a number of senators are expected to join us. We have with us today Senator Moran and Senator Tillis and I think others will be coming in and out throughout the day. There are many members, both Republicans and Democrats, very interested in this topic. And I will say, if we're going to go forward, and I very much want Congress to pass meaningful legislation addressing nil, but if we're going to go forward, it is going to take bipartisan cooperation. If this simply becomes a partisan exercise of shirts and skins, we know how that ends. That ends with a vote that doesn't pass through Congress. So we have, and I will say.
- [04:19]
Nick Saban
Many of us here at this table.
- [04:20]
Ted Cruz
Have had multiple good, productive conversations with senators on the other side of the aisle. And I think we are coming towards some outlines of consensus, but we're not there yet. And I'm hopeful this conversation will help move the process forward.
- [04:36]
Ben Ferguson
You talked about this being bipartisan, Senator. Rarely in Congress do you get something. I think everybody kind of agrees, hey, we need to make sure this is done right. And you mentioned every different state's got different things. And this has become the nil's kind of become the wild, wild West. But, but having this discussion, does there seem to be a lot of consensus here on both sides of the aisle. And pretty easy to get people at the table here to say, hey, let's do this in a responsible manner.
- [05:02]
Nick Saban
Well, yes and no. I would say there's bipartisan agreement that Congress needs to act. And I think senators on both sides are realizing, hey, we've got a real problem here. What is not clear is if we can reach consensus on what acting looks like. I think there's a need for federal legislation. We got a bunch of states stepping in, passing their own nil legislation. But you end up having this conflicting patchwork. So for example, Texas has passed nil legislation. It did something I've never seen the state of Texas do before, or for that matter, any state legislature. In the Texas state bill, it explicitly calls on Congress to act. It says, look, it's not great for each of the states to be doing this. This ought to be a federal rule that applies to everyone. And so I've drafted legislation, I've circulated it. I spent the better part of a year listening to stakeholders, listening to universities, listening to athletic conferences, listening to players, listening to all sorts of players across, across the world of college athletics and trying to capture their best practices. So the legislation that I've put forward, number one, number one, it protects the ability of student athletes to earn from their name, image and likeness. And I think it's only fair. If you've worked incredibly hard, you developed fantastic skills, you should be able to reap the rewards, the fruits of your labor. But number two, it empowers the NCAA to set rules and set standards. Now, there have been some other senators that have introduced legislation that would put the federal government in charge of setting the rules and standards. Either the government or a quasi governmental organization. I think that's a mistake. I think if you have politicians or bureaucrats, I mean, can you imagine what a nightmare it would be to have congressional hearings on what constitutes pass interference?
- [06:45]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, bad.
- [06:46]
Nick Saban
That's bad.
- [06:47]
Ben Ferguson
So it would never get, it would never get agreed upon, ever.
- [06:50]
Nick Saban
Right. Are there problems with the ncaa? Yes, but it's the least worst option out there. And so my legislation protects the ability of the NCAA to set rules. It also provides for things like the registration of agents. Right now you have 17, 18, 19 year old students who are being represented by agents. They don't know if these guys are honest. They don't know their background. There's no, there's no transparency. And it's really setting kids up to be swindled by people taking advantage of them. So it sets up a system of registration of agents. It also sets up a system of transparency where you can see what the name, image and likeness market is. You can see what other schools, what other positions are paying so that you're not operating in the dark. And I've introduced this legislation, I put it out there, and I have been in the process of negotiating with several Democrats to see if we can get to common ground. One of the important things my legislation also provides is that student athletes are not employees. This is a big question. It's being litigated right now. I think it'd be a disaster if student athletes were treated as employees. I think if that happened, if student athletes were treated as employees, it would end up badly damaging, particularly smaller schools, Division 2 schools, Division 3 schools, and it would badly damage non revenue sports. So football and basketball would be fine. But look, you played men's tennis, women's golf, volleyball, swimming, track and field. You know, universities are saying across the board those sports would be obliterated by treating student athletes as employees. I'll say the historically black colleges and universities have come in and said likewise, please do not make student athletes employees. It will decimate our athletic programs. And so I'm in the process of negotiating and trying to find Democrats who are willing to find common ground on this. If we can't get common ground, the bill's not going to pass. I think we're close, but we're not there yet. But I will say, you know, sitting at the roundtable with Nick Saban, it was, it was striking. I asked Coach Saban, I mean, he just stepped down from, from being one of the most successful college football coaches in all time. And I asked him, I said, coach, was the current chaos of NIL and the transfer portal and everything, was that a factor in your stepping down? And listen to what Nick Saban said in response to my question.
- [09:20]
All the things that I believed in for all these years, 50 years of coaching no longer exist in college athletics. So it's always about developing players. It was always about helping people be more successful in life. My wife even said to me, we'd have all the recruits over on Sunday with their parents for breakfast, and she would always meet with the mothers and talk about how she was going to help and impact their sons and how they would be well taken care of. And she came to me, you know, like right before I retired and said, why are we doing this? And I said, what do you mean? She said, all they care about is how much you're going to pay them. They don't care about how you're going to develop them, which is what we've always done. So why are we doing this?
- [10:07]
Ben Ferguson
I mean, it drove him, I think, from the game.
- [10:10]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Yeah, no, it's striking.
- [10:12]
Nick Saban
And listen, if Nick Saban stand it anymore, how the heck is anyone else supposed to? And I gotta say, the genuine concern I've heard from coach after coach after coach, from athletic director after athletic director from the heads of conferences, they are genuinely afraid that we've got a short window of maybe a year or two to act to preserve college sports. Or else we are risking major and permanent damage. So I hope we see Congress act.
- [10:42]
Unnamed Political Analyst
I'll tell you, I put the odds.
- [10:44]
Nick Saban
At about 50, 50. I think we're close to getting bipartisan agreement. I'm spending a lot of time talking with several Democrats. And we're close. And it was good. A number of Republicans and Democrats came to this roundtable, participated. It was a good conversation. What was nice about it is it wasn't a hearing where there was showboating and grandstanding. It was a real conversation. And I do think there's a desire to act to make sure we preserve something amazing. Because I gotta say, when you're cheering for your school, it brings people together across party lines, across races, across ethnicities, across everything.
- [11:20]
Unnamed Political Analyst
When you're cheering together.
- [11:21]
Nick Saban
And that's something amazing and special. And it's also such a powerful pipeline. There's so many young men and women who are getting college educations who wouldn't get it without college athletics, that if we screw this up, it would be enormously damaging.
- [11:37]
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. Joe Biden. They had no, they had no problem talking about his son, Hunter Biden, when he went to Washington, D.C. when he had that press conference, when he said, I will not testify behind closed doors because the Republicans are going to lie about what I say, and I will only do it in a public hearing. I demand a public hearing. And there was a big charade, and it was in front of the Capitol where you serve, Senator. And now we found out that there is a public hearing that's coming. And Hunter Biden has rejected the GOP invitation for the public hearing after demanding that the same GOP give him a damn public hearing and demanded it in Washington in front of the Capitol.
- [12:29]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Well, this was all theatrics and it was all dishonest theatrics by Hunter Biden and his legal team and by Joe Biden and the White House. But. But as you noted, Hunter Biden said from the beginning that he only wanted to testify in public. He didn't trust a closed door event. He said he was happy to testify in public. So the House has taken him up on it and invited him, said, come testify. On March 20, we've got a hearing. Devin Archer, Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis are testifying. By the way, these are individuals Hunter knows very well that he's done business with. Come testify publicly and immediately. The lie was Apparent because Hunter Biden said no. Hunter Biden's lawyer refused to go, calling the public hearing a, quote, blatant planned for media event. And in fact, let me read what, what, what Abby Lowell, who's Hunter Biden's lawyer, wrote, quote, your blatant plan for media event is not a proper proceeding, but an obvious attempt to throw a Hail Mary pass after the game has ended. Let me remind you of a statement you made about how witnesses, and specifically Mr. Biden, could satisfy your prior requests. At your press conference after the January 10, 2024 committee hearing to hold Mr. Biden in contempt, you stated, quote, all we need are people to come in for the depositions and then we'll be finished. We just need people to show up to the depositions and we'll wrap this up. Nobody wants to wrap this up more than I do. Mr. Biden did just as you asked. And as you. As you did when you announced that witnesses could choose depositions. You want to ignore what you said. Now, let me note. You and I had this conversation with James Comer at the time. And James Comer is a good man. He's a friend. He's doing a very good job. I told him then on this podcast, forget about the closed door deposition. Hunter is saying he will testify publicly. Do it tomorrow. Get him on record publicly tomorrow. I wish I could say I'm surprised. I'm not surprised. Hunter Biden is playing games. He is trying to delay this until after the election. And as I reminded James Comer, Hunter Biden's not the target here. He's not the reason. This is a matter of public concern. Joe Biden, the corruption of the President of the United States is the target. And so listen nothing of me, no part of me is surprised that Hunter's now saying, oh, no, I did the deposition, now I'm not going to do it. I think the next step is obvious. The House needs to issue a subpoena for Hunter Biden to testify publicly. Hunter will have a choice. Comply with the subpoena or defy the subpoena. And if he defies the subpoena, the House needs to hold him in contempt. That needs to happen fast. Time is running out. But. But I gotta say, you know, all of the bravado. Remember we talked about on. On verdict also, how when the House was having a hearing, Hunter Biden showed up in the hearing room just, just gloating, in my view. I wish they had right then said, Mr. Biden, come down to the table. We're swear you in. Let's go. That's what they should have done. I still think and hope they will get him to testify publicly. But if he avoids public testimony through these games, it will be tragic because this is an effort at obfuscation. This is an effort at cover up. This is an effort at hiding the criminal behavior of Joe Biden, the President of the United States.
- [15:58]
Ben Ferguson
Senator, how important is it that we get Hunter Biden on the record publicly? It's one thing to read the transcripts. You've read them. What's been released. I've read what's been released. We've had reporting on it. But look, there, there, there's an aspect of Hunter Biden that could offer, in my opinion a huge opportunity for conservatives to capitalize on just how corrupt Joe Biden is. Because you never know what he's going to say or how angry he's going to get or how self righteous he's going to be. And part of having a public hearing is getting to ask him those uncomfortable questions that need to be answered but you don't know what he's gonna do. And that is a. I think something the American people deserve to see.
- [16:45]
Unnamed Political Analyst
It's incredibly important. Look, Hunter Biden I believe is lying. I think he lied in his closed door deposition. I think if he has a public hearing he will lie. But I also think he's not a very good liar. His lies are facially inconsistent, they're contradictory. And competent cross examination can demonstrate how he is lying to cover up for his father. Now we have a closed door deposition. We have a transcript. A transcript is dry. A transcript is lifeless. A transcript is not going to dominate the evening news. A transcript people are not going to watch and see for themselves and understand the context of it. The context of this is very much like going into the 2020 election. The 2020 election. In October of 2020, the news broke of the Hunter Biden laptop. The New York Post broke the story and we saw Big Tech silence and censor it. We saw Facebook and Twitter block anyone sharing it. We saw Big Tech threaten to de platform any media outlets that reported on it. And media outlets like Politico happily obeyed Big Tech and simply kept it secret. What was in the Hunter Biden laptop? Mind you, the Hunter Biden laptop was real. It was accurate. It had evidence of multiple felonies. And mind you, also the Department of Justice and the FBI knew that it was real and accurate because they had the laptop in their possessions and they had had it for over a year. But particularly as you get closer to an election. Their objective is do not let the American people see things that demonstrate Joe Biden's criminal culpability. The same thing is true here. The reason to have Hunter Biden testify is so the American people can look him in the eye. You know, the American people are very good at judging credibility. They can tell when somebody is spouting bs. They can tell when they're not telling the truth. And it's harder to tell that when you're reading a transcript. And so, in my view, it is critically important to get Hunter Biden in sworn testimony alone. I actually don't think it was a great idea to have him testifying alongside a bunch of other people. I get there's some value in saying, well, so and so said this, how about you? But I think Hunter Biden ought to be alone at that table. I think every question ought to be directed to him and you can use the answers from the other witnesses to cross examine him. I also hope if and when Hunter testifies, that there's a degree of coordination. One of the problems when you have a hearing is if you've got lots of individual members, lots of House members, each of whom has five minutes, you will often have people go on, on marches in one direction or another, and they don't follow up on anything. And it's kind of whatever any individual member wants to do. They just ask that. And some of them are not very good cross examiners, so they can't follow up. And it doesn't present a coherent storyline. It doesn't systematically dismantle the lies. What I hope is that James Comer and or Jim Jordan, the chairman, sit down with their Republican members, that they plan out a strategy for the hearing, a strategy for the cross examination that they assign each member of the committee. Okay, you've got this point, this point here. Here are the questions that will be helpful to ask and you drive a systematic message. That's something in the Commerce Committee. I'm the ranking member on the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation on major hearings. That's exactly what I try to do in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have done that on, on multiple hearings. For example, the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, what, that was a major fight. We sat and we strategized exactly how we were going to handle the cross examination, the messaging. I hope the House does that. But none of that matters unless you get Hunter at the witness stand, sworn in and on national television. Because, listen, if Hunter's testifying, as much as the media wants to hide it from the American people, they cannot completely do so. And it gives the American people the chance to decide. Is the President of the United States corrupt? Has he taken bribes from Chinese Communists, from Russians, from Ukrainians, from. From foreign oligarchs? It lets the American people decide. When Hunter sent a WhatsApp text to a Chinese Communist threatening his father's punishment if the Chinese Communists didn't send him millions of dollars, was dad complicit in that shakedown? I think the answer is obviously yes. But seeing Hunter being forced to answer those questions goes a long way to letting the American people decide based on the facts.
- [21:31]
Ben Ferguson
As before. 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, Senator. While they're trying to destroy our country and not going after the people that are breaking in, there's one thing that is very clear and that is public enemy number one of this administration, the Democrats, is Donald Trump. We now are seeing them trying to break Trump financially. I would assume that you would agree this is certainly a level of election interference that's shocking. But let's talk about the money now. The, the A.G. james, who said, vote for me and I'll go after Trump has now asked the court to deny Donald Trump's $454 million bond appeal. This is unprecedented in American society. This is what would happen in communist countries, yet it's happening right now in America.
- [22:30]
Nick Saban
Well, we are seeing across the country, Democrat prosecutors abusing the justice system to try to, number one, destroy Donald Trump, but to try to, number two, subvert democracy. They are terrified that the voters in November will vote to reelect Donald Trump, and so they want to abuse their power to stop the voters from doing that. What Letitia James has done, she ran for attorney general promising, I'm going to get Trump. And I'll say, at least so far, she's delivered on that promise. She went after him with everything she had. In a fraud case that, that is under a New York statute that is really a ridiculous statute because it, it, it. She alleged fraud with no victims. She alleged that he had borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars from sophisticated banks like Deutsche Bank. And, and, and Deutsche bank didn't lose money. In fact, they made money on the loans. Trump repaid the loans, and Deutsche bank.
- [23:26]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Said they were thrilled to make the.
- [23:27]
Nick Saban
Loans and would happily make them again. And the argument was that he valued his real estate more than it was worth. Deutsche bank is not some, like, poor little old lady who's a vulnerable consumer. They're a multi billion dollar global bank. They valued the real estate on their own damn thing. You know, if I come in and.
- [23:47]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Tell my mortgage company, hey, my home.
- [23:50]
Nick Saban
Is worth $10 million, they're gonna send their own appraiser to go figure out what my home is worth. They're gonna laugh at me. So an alleged offense with no victim, no injury and no harm. The judgment with interest is $454 million, half a billion dollars. And then New York has a provision that you see in a number of states that to appeal that you've Gotta put the $454 million in cash, either.
- [24:22]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Liquid or so either cash or securities.
- [24:24]
Nick Saban
Liquid, or you have to have a bond that covers that amount. And so Trump went and tried to get a bond and he went to 30 different surety companies and all of them turned him down. And, and, and he, he filed an affidavit. So he, he's raised an issue on appeal to say, look, you can't require.
- [24:46]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Me to put up a half billion.
- [24:47]
Nick Saban
Dollars just to be able to appeal. And Letitia James just opposed that and said, oh, yep, he doesn't put that money up. We're coming to take his property. So understand what she wants to do. And she wants to do this as soon as potentially next week, she wants to show up and physically seize his properties, literally go and seize properties that he has in New York or elsewhere. Uh, it could literally come down to her trying to essentially put a padlock on Trump Tower. And I say that not really with hyperbole, because this is a political jihad for her. So I think she will look for the most visible political way to attack her opponent. And, and, and here's what, here's what Trump's lawyers told the New York appellate court. The attorneys wrote that, quote, it is not possible under the circumstances presented. They said the underwriters insisted on cash or other liquid, liquid assets instead of.
- [25:46]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Real estate as collateral.
- [25:48]
Nick Saban
So Trump has lots of real estate, but apparently the underwriter said, nope, it's.
- [25:52]
Unnamed Political Analyst
Gotta be cash or liquid.
- [25:53]
Nick Saban
And he didn't have a half billion dollars sitting around. And they insisted on cash to cover 120% of the judgment, which is $557 million. An insurance broker, Gary Giuletti, wrote in a sworn statement that, quote, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever seen. And, and Letitia James responded, well, no, no, that's not true. There have been billion dollar bonds before. Yes, for massive Public corporations. But, but Trump's business is not a public corporation.
- [26:29]
Unnamed Political Analyst
It is a private company.
- [26:32]
Nick Saban
And to get a half billion dollar bond is incredibly difficult. And so understand the impact. If Trump is not able to post this bond, the effect would be to deny him the right to even appeal the absurd partisan decision from the, from the District Court.
- [26:51]
Unnamed Political Analyst
I gotta say, this is, is, is.
- [26:54]
Nick Saban
Such a profound abuse. Now, that doesn't mean Trump would be out of options, because if the New.
- [26:59]
Unnamed Political Analyst
York courts insist you gotta put up a half billion dollars in order to.
- [27:03]
Nick Saban
Appeal this decision, I am confident that Trump will appeal that and potentially appeal that all the way to the U.S.
- [27:10]
Ted Cruz
Supreme Court and the U.S. supreme Court.
- [27:13]
Nick Saban
He would have multiple arguments, constitutional arguments, including the Constitution prohibits denying an individual, depriving an individual of property without due process of law. And there would be an argument that this is such an excessive bond that it constitutes a violation of due process. He would also have an argument under the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment specifies excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now, the Eighth Amendment typically applies in, in, in a criminal context, but given the magnitude here, I would expect him to make both an Eighth Amendment argument and a due process argument. And it is entirely possible that would prevail ultimately. But what New York is doing, what the New York Attorney General is doing, is the conduct of a banana Republic.
- [28:12]
Ben Ferguson
Kevin O'Leary, who many people know from Shark Tank, not the most political guy, he talked about the business fallout of this and asking, where are the adults in the room? Because we can't let this stand in the United States of America. Here's part of what he said, which I thought was really interesting.
- [28:29]
Kevin O'Leary
But more importantly, the message about the American brand, you think about America, the reason this is the number one economy on earth is that we have laws and we have due process and we have property rights. It attracts foreign capital from all around the world. All of that is being shaken to the core here. The concept of seizing assets in 30 days on a bond number that's never been issued. No insurance bond company company's ever issued anything near this. So there was no chance it was going to happen. And only giving 30 days notice in time, that's a really bad message. And I think New Yorkers should think well past Trump, whether he's president or not, or whether this attorneys general is gone in four years or not, it's irrelevant. This is case setting against the American brand, the most stable country on earth anywhere to put capital to work over a long period of time, particularly in real estate is the United States of America. This is. This is an assault on what we believe to be core, and I find it extraordinary. I think it's very troubling. It has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump at this point, in my view, and it is completely bipartisan. This is an attack on America. And I don't know how you can look at it any other way. And as a. As an investor, and I know plenty of investors are completely disturbed by this, but, I mean, no one is going to put any money to work in New York in these amounts until this thing settles down. The whole world is watching, and everybody's waiting for one thing we haven't got yet. Adult supervision. Where is it, where are the adults in this crazy narrative? Certainly there's got to be adult supervision at some point. And I understand, you know, the war going on here and all the political yada, yada, woof, woof, woof, but we need an adult in the room now. This is the United States of America under siege.
- [30:34]
Ben Ferguson
Under siege. I mean, he's not joking around. He says, where are the adult center? I'm going to ask you this. Where are. At what point do the adults get a hold of this?
- [30:43]
Nick Saban
Well, at this point, it's not clear to me that there are any adults left in New York. There certainly are. Not among politicians.
- [30:50]
Ted Cruz
I don't know of a single Democrat.
- [30:52]
Nick Saban
Politician who has spoken out against this abuse. Certainly Chuck Schumer hasn't. The governor hasn't. The mayor of New York City hasn't. Letitia James is auditioning to be governor. She's clearly ambitious. She views this as the path to success in the Democrat Party in New York. And I gotta say, look, I think they rationalize in their own mind this is a special rule just for Donald Trump. We hate Trump so much, they think Trump is the devil. And so this applies just to Trump. But this precedent can apply to anyone. If. If simply claiming that you overstated the value of your real estate gives the Attorney General the justification to seize hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, what real estate developer in their right mind would continue to do business? Every real estate developer, just as a starting point, is subject to this kind of shakedown. And if you don't think that Letitia James or the next ambitious Attorney General will use that power, then you're smoking something. Because, look, it is arbitrary. It's unreviewable. And by the way, if you can't get a bond to appeal it, there is no appellate review. So it's the ability to shake it down. And so if she wants to negotiate a settlement, suppose she comes in, that gives this politician the ability to terrorize businesses, to terrorize foreign corporations, anyone that they decide we don't like essentially empowers the politicians to terrorize individuals and companies and force them to comply with whatever their demand is or else we will seize your assets and you can't even appeal it. And yet why is not a single Democrat in New York worried about this or speaking out about it? You know, it's astonishing.
- [32:50]
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 every other day. You're not listening to Verdict, 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.