Trump Court Dates are Campaign Interference, Who is Ray Epps, and Joe Biden Shrugs off NYC Mayor Adams Week In Review

Summary

Summary of "The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson"

Episode: Trump Court Dates are Campaign Interference, Who is Ray Epps, and Joe Biden Shrugs off NYC Mayor Adams Week In Review
Release Date: September 23, 2023
Host: Ben Ferguson
Guests: Senator Ted Cruz, Michael Knowles

---

1. Trump’s Court Dates as Election Interference

Overview:
The episode kicks off with a deep dive into the multiple indictments faced by former President Donald Trump. Host Ben Ferguson and guest Senator Ted Cruz argue that these legal actions are strategically timed to hinder Trump’s ability to campaign effectively, especially during critical periods like Super Tuesday. They label this tactic as blatant election interference.

Key Points:

• Timing of Indictments: Charging Trump during pivotal election periods to disrupt his campaign efforts.
• Alleged Partisanship: Accusations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Biden is weaponizing the legal system against Trump.
• Impact on Free Speech: Discussion on proposed gag orders that could prevent Trump from criticizing his opponents, infringing on First Amendment rights.

Notable Quotes:

• Senator Ted Cruz [00:01]: "If you put Donald Trump in a courtroom on purpose on a day like, for example, Super Tuesday so he can't campaign, is that not the definition of election interference?"
• Ben Ferguson [02:06]: "Democrats have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler. And because they believe he's Hitler, anything, anything, anything is justified to stop him."
• Senator Ted Cruz [07:18]: "If this doesn't piss you off, you're not paying attention."

Discussion Highlights:

• Judicial Bias: The panel discusses the predominantly Democratic jury pool in the District of Columbia and questions the impartiality of the judicial process in Trump’s cases.
• Gag Order Implications: They explore the potential consequences of gag orders, suggesting they could criminalize Trump’s speech against his rivals, thereby manipulating the electoral process.
• Historical Context: Reference to the unprecedented nature of indicting a former president or major candidate, asserting it undermines democratic norms.

---

2. Who is Ray Epps?

Overview:
The conversation shifts to the controversial figure Ray Epps, who was recently charged with a misdemeanor related to the January 6th Capitol riot. The guests scrutinize the DOJ's handling of Epps’ case, suggesting inconsistencies and potential biases in the prosecution.

Key Points:

• Epps’ Role: Epps is portrayed as a key instigator of the January 6th events, with evidence suggesting he encouraged the breach of the Capitol.
• DOJ’s Handling: The indictment is seen as disproportionately lenient compared to other prosecutions from the same event, raising questions about selective justice.
• Government Transparency: Criticism of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s opaque responses regarding Epps’ involvement and status.

Notable Quotes:

• Thomas Massie [12:11]: "In that video, that was your answer to a question to me two years ago when I said how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5 and January 6..."
• Ben Ferguson [14:24]: "Merrick Garland now is pleading complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on January 6..."
• Michael Knowles [16:19]: "It's an explain a little... they had engaged in entrapment, that they had incited the criminality."

Discussion Highlights:

• Entrapment Concerns: The guests draw parallels between Epps’ case and other DOJ cases where entrapment was alleged, suggesting a pattern of overreach in criminal prosecutions.
• Witness Credibility: Doubts are cast on the legitimacy of testimonies against Epps, insinuating that key witnesses like Bill Barr and Mike Pence are unfairly targeted.
• Political Weaponization: The indictment is framed as another instance of the DOJ targeting political adversaries to influence electoral outcomes.

---

3. Joe Biden’s Strained Relationship with NYC Mayor Adams Over Immigration

Overview:
The final segment addresses the deteriorating relationship between President Joe Biden and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, primarily due to disagreements over immigration policies and the handling of the migrant crisis.

Key Points:

• Shift in Relations: Contrasting the previous year’s cooperative engagements, Biden's administration now distances itself from Mayor Adams as tensions over immigration intensify.
• Migrant Crisis Management: Mayor Adams criticizes the federal government's inability to effectively manage illegal immigration, leading to strained interactions.
• Federal Support Critique: Analysis of the insufficient federal aid provided to New York City to address the escalating migrant situation.

Notable Quotes:

• Ben Ferguson [23:07]: "The President... when he was there, he was at the UN Addressing the UN he had meetings with Mayor Adams... this year things are a little different."
• Michael Knowles [26:00]: "The Secretary of Homeland Security told me under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he had no idea what they were because he simply doesn't care..."
• Ted Cruz [29:06]: "No big deal, right? No big deal."

Discussion Highlights:

• Policy Failures: The hosts criticize the Biden administration’s immigration policies, attributing the surge of illegal crossings and associated tragedies to federal inaction and poor management.
• Mayor Adams’ Stance: Mayor Adams is portrayed as a vocal critic of federal policies, advocating for stricter border control measures that clash with the federal government's approach.
• Media Coverage: The conversation touches on perceived media biases, suggesting that mainstream outlets downplay or ignore the severity of the migrant crisis and the administration’s role in it.

---

Conclusion

In this episode of The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson, the hosts provide a critical examination of current political dynamics in the United States, focusing on Trump's legal challenges, the controversial case of Ray Epps, and the fraught relationship between President Biden and NYC's Mayor Adams over immigration issues. Through incisive analysis and pointed commentary, the discussion underscores concerns about election interference, governmental overreach, and policy ineffectiveness, offering listeners a perspective that challenges mainstream narratives.

---

Note: For a more in-depth analysis and additional discussions, listeners are encouraged to download and listen to the full podcast episode available on the iHeartRadio app or your preferred podcast platform.

Transcript

[Ted Cruz]

Welcome. It is the Verdict with Ted Cruz. Weekend Review. Ben Ferguson with you. And these are the big stories that you may have missed that we talked about this week. The number one story we're going to start with today deals with election interference. And if you put Donald Trump in a courtroom on purpose on a day like, for example, Super Tuesday so he can't campaign, is that not the definition of election interference? Also, story number two, Ray Epps, you've heard the name. Well, he got indicted this week, sort of. In fact, it was almost a joke. So how did Ray Epps get away with January 6th? And why have they been protecting him at the FBI and the doj? We'll explain that. And finally, Joe Biden's not getting along very well with Democratic mayors across the country who are starting to turn on him on illegal immigration. So what does this mean for getting a deal done with Mayor Adams in New York? We'll have that for you as well. It is the Weekend Review with Ted Cruz, and it starts right now. Judges getting involved in a way that I think is pretty clear. It's election interference. We've seen court dates that have come out now for Donald Trump with all these different indictments in different states. It could be like the days before Super Tuesday when any normal candidate would be on the campaign trail. You just mentioned why you guys didn't do Secret Service. That's how important it is to be fast, to actually be campaigning. Right? To be campaigning. We're seeing two things now that seem to be marking the calendar. One, you could throw this guy in a courtroom during dates when he desperately needs to be out campaigning, taking away his ability to have a fair election against Joe Biden or whoever it may be. And two, now you may take away the president, former president of the United States of America and the leading candidate for the Republican Party's voice to talk about the accusations against him from the leftists. And These people, these DA's, are trying to lock him up by putting a gag order on what he can say. This seems un American. It seems Banana Republic esque. I think it's disgusting political ploy here. Yet that's what we're really talking about. Now is that real possibility?

[Ben Ferguson]

Look, you're exactly right. We have talked at length on this podcast about how the multiple indictments against Donald Trump are election interference. Democrats have convinced themselves that Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler. And because they believe he's Hitler, anything, anything, anything is justified to stop him. The ends justify the means and they're willing to corrupt the legal process to Turn the Department of justice into a political weapon. They're willing to do everything they can to stop the voters from daring to.

[Michael Knowles]

Make a decision to vote in the.

[Ben Ferguson]

Way these angry partisan Democrats don't want the voters to vote. We've gone over 200 years of our nation's history. We've never indicted a president or a former president or a major candidate for president. In the last six months, Democrats have done so four separate times. The U.S. department of justice under Biden is the most partisan and political we've ever seen. And Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, we've talked at length. He is a partisan. He has a history of abusing power, including. This is not the first presidential candidate or potential presidential candidate he's gone after. He went after Bob McDonald, the governor of Virginia, was considered a credible presidential candidate. Jack Smith indicted him, destroyed his political career, destroyed his life. And then on appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously threw out the conviction as not being consistent with law. But he'd already done its job.

[Ted Cruz]

He took him out.

[Ben Ferguson]

He took him out. In this instance, the case in the District of Columbia is profoundly dangerous. It's profoundly dangerous because, number one, the jury pool in the District of Columbia is over 90%, about 94% Democrat. So you're going to get a jury that in all likelihood hates Donald Trump and believes he's Adolf Hitler. Now, if you believe someone's Adolf Hitler.

[Ted Cruz]

You'Re going to convict him.

[Ben Ferguson]

That's not a hard guilty for whatever the crime is.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah. It's just you hate him.

[Ben Ferguson]

If it's Adolf Hitler, turn the book at him. And yes, we also have a district judge who has demonstrated and earned a reputation as being one of the furthest left Democrat district judges on the federal bench in D.C. who is presiding. This trial is designed to directly interfere with the election. But Jack Smith said this is not enough. And so he filed a motion, a.

[Michael Knowles]

Motion for a gag order.

[Ben Ferguson]

So he's gone to this left wing district judge and he's asked for a gag order. He says defendant has repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia. That's by daring to point out that 94% of D.C. voters vote Democrat. And that's going to be the jury pool, the court. That's by pointing out that the judge has a record of being one of the most left wing Democrats on the entire federal bench. Prosecutors. That's by pointing out that Jack Smith is a hardcore partisan Democrat who's already abused his power repeatedly. And prospective witnesses. The government therefore requests that the court, quote, Enter a narrowly tailored order pursuant. Pursuant to local criminal rule 57C that restricts certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements and in particular, what they ask for.

[Michael Knowles]

The government seeks.

[Ben Ferguson]

This is a, quote, a narrow, well defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing the case. The government's proposed order specifies that such statements would include A, statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses, and B, statements about any party witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory or intimidating. Now, let's be clear. Who do they mean by potential witnesses? They mean people like Bill Barr.

[Ted Cruz]

Yep.

[Ben Ferguson]

And they mean people like Mike Pence. So Mike Pence is literally running against.

[Michael Knowles]

Donald Trump right now for the Republican nomination for president. And you have the Biden Department of Justice asking a federal judge issue an order that Donald Trump cannot say a.

[Ben Ferguson]

Critical word of Mike Pence about one.

[Michael Knowles]

Of his opponents in the primary. Like, holy crap.

[Ben Ferguson]

If this doesn't piss you off, you're not paying attention. I mean, it is truly breathtaking. You want to understand why this is election interference. DOJ believes the federal court can order one political candidate. You're not allowed to criticize your opponent. Just, just don't say a word. Don't say a word at all. Despite the fact that you're facing a political persecution designed to interfere with the election, you're not allowed to say it. And if you do, by the way, look, a gag order is typically enforced by contempt and by jail. So what the Biden DOJ is proposing is if Donald Trump says a negative word about Mike pence, that the U.S. department of justice will show up and arrest him and put him in jail for saying a negative word about one of his opponents running for president.

[Ted Cruz]

And by the way, they would do that. Let's be clear, they would love to arrest him again.

[Ben Ferguson]

That's what they want. And to keep him in jail.

[Michael Knowles]

This is election interference.

[Ben Ferguson]

It is wildly unconstitutional. It is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It is also a direct violation of.

[Michael Knowles]

The right to vote, of our democratic.

[Ben Ferguson]

Process in this country. Now, the Democrat talking heads will say, look, sometimes you have gag orders. If you're going against a Mafia boss, you're going up against Al Capone. Courts will enter orders saying, okay, you can't intimidate witnesses. You can't say things that will prejudice the jury. You're right. In an ordinary criminal trial, those things can happen. In an ordinary criminal trial, the defendant is not A leading candidate for President of the United States. Actively running for President of the United States. And my guess, I don't think the district court will grant this. I don't know that. I don't know this judge at all. I've never met her. Her record demonstrates she's left wing. But I think if the district court granted this order, it would be exceptionally foolish.

[Michael Knowles]

Why?

[Ben Ferguson]

Because the order would be appealed and it would be overturned on appeal. I do not believe there's any way the Supreme Court of the United States would allow a leading candidate for president to be enjoined to be ordered from a court. You are not allowed to criticize your political opponents.

[Michael Knowles]

I mean, if you can envision, imagine a debate.

[Ben Ferguson]

Let's we have a subsequent Republican debate. Trump shows up and Mike Pence blasts him. And Trump turns and says, I'm sorry, I'm prevented by court order from responding.

[Ted Cruz]

Responding? Yeah, from defending myself.

[Ben Ferguson]

That is not free speech. That is not democracy. That is not how our system operates.

[Ted Cruz]

And that's election interference.

[Ben Ferguson]

Exactly.

[Ted Cruz]

Perfect example of what election encapsulates.

[Ben Ferguson]

And by the way, that's what they want, actually. What they want. Look, they know in that circumstance, Donald Trump could not restrain himself.

[Ted Cruz]

Sure. And then they would arrest him.

[Ben Ferguson]

And then they would arrest him. I mean, I mean, you can almost envision the jackbooted thug sitting by the side of the debate. And as Trump blasts his opponents and he'll blast all his opponents, cuz that's what he does. You can almost envision them walking out in the middle of the debate and saying, sir, you're under arrest. If that is not election interference, Holy cow. It really shows just how extreme the Democrats have gotten. This is horrific, by the way. Let's be clear. I would be every bit as opposed to an order preventing Joe Biden from criticizing his opponents, from criticizing RFK Jr. From criticizing Donald Trump. Now, to be clear, Joe Biden couldn't get up in the morning and speak without criticizing Donald Trump. He says, good morning. Trump is the devil. That's just how he addresses it. And he also demonizes every other Republican because he's in his mental enfeeblement. He's also become an even more vicious partisan. But I would be equally and adamantly opposed to any court trying to prevent Joe Biden from attacking me or Trump or anybody else, because that's what free speech and elections are all about. But today's Democrats, they don't believe in democracy, which is why these indictments are happening. They want to stop the voters from voting in A way they don't like and they don't believe in free speech, which is why they want to muzzle their leading opponent for president. It is. It's a brave new world we're living in now.

[Ted Cruz]

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. Let's talk about Ray Epps for a second and remind people of Ray Epps. You and I have talked about this on the show before. It's something that, that came up, obviously, with, with Director, with, with the director, the FBI Director, also with the Attorney General, Merrick Garland. But Ray Epps, out of nowhere, many people believe he was an undercover Fed. There were people even chanting at January 6th, Fed, Fed, Fed. He was the guy telling people we were going to storm the place the night before. Caught on tape. He's a guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a guy that was encouraging people to break into the Capitol on January 6, had not been charged with anything. Now, fast forward multiple years later and, and we find out this last week that, that, yes, Ray Epps has now officially been charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to prison that were in and around January 6, rounding up people all over the country. Even just days ago, we saw another person rounded up. We put some, you know, some different people in jail for decades now for January 6th. But Ray Epps, who clearly was a ringleader, at least on the day before January 6th and January 6th, all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor, and we still can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want you to hear Representative Thomas Massie and his back and forth, and then your reaction.

[Thomas Massie]

You're signing the Constitution. I'm going to cite it. It's our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now, in that video, that was your answer to a question to me two years ago when I said how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5 and January 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the Capitol, and how many went into the Capitol? Can you answer that now?

[Merrick Garland]

I don't know the answer to that question.

[Thomas Massie]

Oh, last time, you don't know how many there were or there were none.

[Merrick Garland]

I don't know the answer to either of those questions. If there were any. I don't know how many. I don't know whether there are any.

[Thomas Massie]

I think you may have just perjured yourself that you don't know that there were any. You want to say that again, that you don't know that there were any.

[Merrick Garland]

Personal knowledge of this matter? I think what I said the last time.

[Thomas Massie]

You've had two years to find out. And the day, by the way, that was in reference to Ray Epps. And yesterday you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor? Meanwhile, you're sending grandmas to prison. You're putting people away for 20 years for merely filming. Some people weren't even there yet. You got the guy on video saying, go into the Capitol. He's directing people to the Capitol before the speech ends. He's at the site of the first breach. You've got all the goods on him. 10 videos. And it's an. And it's an indictment for a misdemeanor. The American public isn't buying it. I yield the bounce of my time to Chairman Jordan.

[Merrick Garland]

May I answer the question?

[Ted Cruz]

I'm going to ask you one now.

[Ben Ferguson]

Let's. We'll let the.

[Merrick Garland]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

Go ahead.

[Merrick Garland]

But in discovery, in the cases that were filed with respect to January six, the Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking with respect to Mr. Epps, the FBI has said that he was not an employee or informant of the FBI. Mr. Epps has been charged, and there's a proceeding, I believe, going on today on that subject.

[Thomas Massie]

The charge is a joke. I yield to the chairman.

[Ted Cruz]

I love the end there. The charge, a joke. I yield to the chairman. He's right about that, based on everything we know about Ray Epps. So who is the guy?

[Michael Knowles]

Well, look, it's a very good question. And you see the Attorney General once again dodging. And, you know, one of the most telling moments of that exchange is, is when the. When Merrick Garland says, well, I don't even know if there were any FBI agents there. And I think. I think the point was made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look, an earlier verdict we did, actually, before you and I teamed up, back when it was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire episode of Verdict that was entitled who is Ray Epps? And you ought to go on YouTube. And it was episode 104, a verdict. Who is Ray Epps? And it followed questioning that I had done in the Judiciary Committee of senior officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI, where I asked them who Ray Epps was and if. If he had been. If he. If he was an employee of the FBI, if he was a confidential informant. They refused to answer, they stonewalled. I asked the question, did you have agents there? They refused to answer. They stonewalled. I asked whether federal agents incited violence. They refused to answer. They stonewalled. And so this has been a pattern for a long time. And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance that he has no idea what the Department of Justice involvement was in inciting violence or criminality on January 6th. I can tell you this is also in the wake of the Department of Justice losing the case they brought against the individuals that were charged with a plot to kidnap and murder the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer. And the basis of their losing was that the FBI had engaged in entrapment, that they had incited the criminality. And so it's an explain a little.

[Ted Cruz]

Bit more what that means inciting criminality so people understand it.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime. In other words, if the police send an undercover agent to you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a car parked on the street. It's got the keys in it, why don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you can do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there, turn the keys and take it. If they do that, that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones. They're the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality. And you might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you to do it. And so it's a defense that a criminal defendant can give is, look, this was the government's idea. They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis, the central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested the plot. They're the ones who drove it forward. And. And these guys were acquitted. The charges were thrown out. And the fact that the Biden DOJ is caught with. With absolute misconduct is really stunning. And of course, the corporate, the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's exactly relevant to the question that was just raised about January 6, which is to what degree did the criminal conduct that occurred, the violence that occur on that day, to what degree did law enforcement agents incited or prompted? And the reason there's so much focus on Ray Epps is he was caught on tape repeatedly saying, let's go into the Capitol, not just up to the Capitol, into the Capitol. And there's one point where his behavior was so odd that the entire crowd begins chanting Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed. And, and, and so that's why I asked a senior senior leader at the FBI if Ray Epps was a Fed, and she refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is pleading complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on January 6, except for the fact that he has told Congress repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals involved with January 6th than any other matter in DOJ's history, which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's yet another example of how the Biden DOJ is about politics all of the time. And if you could target your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.

[Ted Cruz]

Senator, finally, there was one part that I really thought wrapped up. Just how bad this back and forth was this testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight when Merrick Garland was asked to preach pretty simple question, and that's, hey, why do you act like you're the President's lawyer? That's not your job.

[Merrick Garland]

Our job is not to do what is politically convenient. Our job is not to take orders from the President, from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what to criminally investigate. As the President himself has said, and I reaffirmed today, I am not the President's lawyer. I will add, I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people. Our job is to follow the facts and the law, and that is what we do.

[Ted Cruz]

I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar at this point. I don't think he can be trusted. And I think he's weaponized the DOJ and turned it into a weapon of the President of the United States of America. No matter what he says, with his rhetoric there in those prescripted, clear talking points, they knew this was a problem for them, and so that's why they had him say it this way.

[Michael Knowles]

Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John Mitchell was Richard Nixon's Attorney General. He was indicted, he was prosecuted. He served 22 months in jail for his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen as Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland, look in the New York Times reported that Joe Biden, quote, told confidence that he wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to stop acting like a ponderous judge and to take decisive action. Joe Biden knew exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland. He was getting someone willing to use the weaponry of the Department of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the President, to protect Hunter Biden to protect Democrats. And I will underscore again, we've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the IRS who've come forward, two different whistleblowers, to say what Merrick Garland just said there is flat out false because the Department of Justice has systematically obstructed justice, obstructed the investigation into Hunter Biden and especially into Joe Biden. And so he can say over and over again, I'm not the president's lawyer. And yet he behaves exactly like he's the president's lawyer.

[Ted Cruz]

Should this be an election year issue, just the way that the DOJ has been weaponized? And specifically, should Republicans be targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting?

[Michael Knowles]

The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think is a major election issue and it is a major reason to throw these clowns out because it has done more to undermine the rule of law that then then anything that we have seen in, in decades, if ever.

[Ted Cruz]

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. There was also something else that happened a year ago if you go backwards. The President of the United States of America was in New York City. And when he was there, he was at the UN Addressing the UN he had meetings with Mayor Adams, the mayor of New York City, and even did fundraisers with the mayor of New York City. This year things are a little different. He's not going to sit down and meet with Mayor Adams because Mayor Adams has been critical of the migrant crisis, the illegal immigrant crisis that is, you know, destroying in his words, his city. And he's not even going to go to the migrant center that's just two blocks away. Listen to this.

[Bill Mulligian]

Despite the UN being just four avenues away from the Roosevelt Hotel, which is the migrant intake center here in New York City, the President has no plans to visit or address the migrant crisis here in New York. In fact, he has no plans to meet with Mayor Adams during his three day visit, a departure from last year when the two met and attended fundraisers together. The federal government also making no indication that they intend to increase funding to New York city. FEMA providing $104 million. For context, that covers just 13 days of the crisis here. The Biden administration, frustrated with Adams response and his inability to stop the crisis Also pointing the finger at Congress to do more.

[Ted Cruz]

I mean, it's amazing how your best friend and your, in the guy that you're campaigning with and fundraising with a year ago, now you won't even give him the time of day because he won't get in line and say what you're saying yet. The real coward here, Senator, seems to be Adams and every other Democrat, whether it's in San Diego, whether it's on the border, or whether it's in New York City, who refused to say out loud, president Joe Biden, do your job and close the border. Secure the border. They will not say those words.

[Michael Knowles]

Nope, not. None of them will. And they still claim to be sanctuary cities. They say it's destroying their city, but they're still a sanctuary city. You know, the fact that, that, that Mayor Adams uses the phrase that madman in Texas and blames it all on Greg Adams, on Greg Abbott. Look, from his perspective, he knows it's the Democrats who've caused this, but. But at this point, his partisan loyalty is just greater. So he's not willing to call out Joe Biden. He's not willing to call out Kamala Harris. He's certainly not willing to call out Chuck Schumer or any of the Senate Democrats or Congressional Democrats. He's not calling out aoc although, you know, as we talked about when AOC and Jerry Nadler and other Congressional Democrats recently had a press conference in New York, even New Yorkers were fed up and screaming at them. And yet, at the end of the day, the hypocrisy is, is so massive. But even acknowledging it's a problem is too much for Joe Biden. And so now Mayor Adams is Persona non grata because he acknowledges that it's a problem. You're supposed to utterly ignore it and, and just let people suffer. And it is. You know, I get asked a question over and over again, why would the Democrats do this? And I don't know for sure. Listen, I'm not, I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm not Sigmund Freud. So I don't know what's going on in their head. I know, number one, they don't care. And the reason I know they don't care, because if they care, they would do something about it. They would stop the policy decisions that are causing it to happen, that are causing people to be killed, that are causing children to be brutalized, that are causing women to be sexually assaulted. If they cared, they would behave differently tomorrow. And they don't. Biden doesn't. Kamala Harris doesn't. Alejandro Mayorkas doesn't. But the only explanation I can come up with is really twofold. Number one, that, that they've handed the policy agenda over to the real radicals, to the open border nuts on the extreme left of the Democrat Party and they've done that on almost every single issue. But number two is I think the Democrats rationalize to themselves there's a long term political benefit. They see that they view every one of the 7.2 million illegal immigrants. They view them as likely future Democrat voters. And their view is, well, if we stay in power, the ends justify the means. If some people have to die for Democrats to stay in power, well, that's okay with them. And it's look, saying that that sounds horrendously callous and heartless. But I guess, Ben, what I would say is if I'm wrong, if I'm ascribing too callous and heartless a motive, what other explanation is there besides that? Because I don't know of one.

[Ted Cruz]

Yeah, great point. I want to end with what you mentioned, that reporting that's being done down at the border by FOX reporter Bill Mulligian. And he said this on Fox that I think perfectly wraps up the last 72 hours.

[Eric Adams]

Hi, Martha. Well, these surging border numbers are really put into context when you think about the fact that New York City Mayor Eric Adams said his city can't handle 10,000 migrants per month. Well, they're getting 9,000 a day down here at the southern border. A lot of them crossing right here in Eagle Pass. Take a look at this video our fantastic drone team shot showing a mass illegal crossing in the river right behind where I'm standing. You'll see a human chain in the water as they're trying to get across the river. Very dangerous spot. A 10 year old boy drowned in this area last week. The port of entry is right next to these people just 100 yards away. They don't care though. They want to cross illegally because they feel if they can step foot in the United States, they're going to be released into the country. I also want to show you human smuggling pursuit. Take a look at this video. Texas DPS chasing a human smuggler in Kinney County. High speed chase. The driver, an illegal immigrant driving a stolen truck loaded with illegal immigrants. They spike his tires. He goes off road into the brush, loses control. And then you'll see on the thermal camera, everybody goes bailing out of that vehicle, running off in all different directions. Texas DPS arrested the driver and six Illegal immigrants. Last thing to show you down in the Rio Grande Valley with Texas DPS troopers in the brush as they are arresting illegal immigrants trying to evade capture from Border Patrol. Several of them were wearing cartel wristbands indicating they had paid a cartel to get across illegally and back out here live. Martha, concerning Border Patrol agents reporting that right here in Eagle Pass they just arrested an illegal immigrant with a murder conviction and another illegal immigrant with a conviction for sexual assault of a child. Send it back to you.

[Ted Cruz]

No big deal, right? No big deal.

[Michael Knowles]

Yeah.

[Ted Cruz]

Just people that are killing people and people that are raping children. That's who we're catching when we do catch them coming, coming across the border, you and you heard him mention those wristbands, the same wristbands that the man who's in charge of the border said he didn't know what they were when you showed them to them before Congress.

[Michael Knowles]

No, that's exactly right. That Bill Belugian is actually down on the border who's reporting on what's happening. He knows what the wristbands are. They're color coded for how many thousands of dollars they owe the cartels. And yet the Secretary of Homeland Security told me under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he had no idea what they were because he simply doesn't care and neither do his political superiors.

[Ted Cruz]

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 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.