← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Trump Guilty Verdict Makes a Mockery of Rule of Law-What does it Mean & What's Next?
00:44:03
Loading summary
Transcript27 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Election interference. Donald Trump found guilty on all 34 counts. Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you. Senator, you are in the car right now. I am in the studio. It's about 10:30 Central Time, 11:30 Eastern. Give me your quick thoughts on what America just witnessed.
- [00:26]
Ted Cruz
Well, it's an absolute travesty what unfolded tonight. As you noted, I am in a pickup truck driving south on the 45 Freeway. I spent all day in Dallas, Texas. I'm driving home to Houston right now. It is 10:27pm I'll get home past 2 in the morning. But we're doing this podcast on the phone. Let me apologize. Our audio is not going to be the same quality we normally do when we're using the audio equipment. But we wanted to get this out fast to address the issues tonight. Everyone on planet Earth knows what happened tonight. The New York trial convicted Donald Trump of 34 counts felony that if the sentences were consecutive, could put him in jail for more than 100 years. That's not going to happen. It was an absolute miscarriage of justice. This was not law. This was not criminal justice. This was politics. This was a political hip job. This was a spare. This was the worst instance of election interference our country has ever seen. What we're going to do tonight is we're going to break down what it means. We're going to talk about what happens next. We're going to talk about the next steps, how it impacts the elections, how it impacts Donald Trump, how it impacts the American people. All of that we're going to impact in this special issue.
- [01:43]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. I also real quick about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and important work and help that is needed. A lot of you have asked how you can help the people in Israel. Israel right now is still under attack and there's a major need that is emergency bomb shelter kits and actual bomb shelters. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is doing that right now. They are packing those emergency bomb shelter kits and they are also putting in these bomb shelters because when those bombs come at Israel and when they are shot, no one knows where they're going to land, including the terrorists. And that is why your gift is needed right now to help save lives. And thanks to a matching challenge gift from a generous IFCJ supporter, your gift will double in impact and help provide twice the support. It is amazing what your life saving donation can do. You can help assemble and place these kits with enough food and life saving emergency supplies for 20 people that are huddled in a bomb shelter. And the cost to put together and distribute these kits is just $290 each. Your gift will be doubled in impact, like I said. So if you want to help the people of Israel, the number to call to make Your gift is 888-8488, IFC. That's 888-488-IFCJ. That's 4325. You can also go online and donate to supportifcj.org to give. That's one word. Supportifcj.org or 888-488-IFCj. Senator, I, I want to talk of first, what happens next? He was found guilty on all counts. Some don't even know what they were even charging him with, including, I think, Donald Trump because the rules change at the last minute. We talked about that in the last podcast. But let's look at the immediate future. There's a sentencing is that is coming the same week as a Republican National Convention. There is a legitimate chance that A, Donald Trump could be in jail or B, could be under house arrest. And that means he wouldn't be able to go to his own convention. How is that not alone election?
- [04:15]
Ted Cruz
Well, Ben, that's not going to happen. But it is illustrative of just how ridiculous what's transpired is. We saw Trump convicted on all 34 counts. I have to admit, I have emotions. I am on one level furious. This is an outrage. It is a disgusting assault on democracy, on the rule of law. But I'm also heartbroken. I'm heartbroken. I believe in our justice system. Our justice system is supposed to provide equal justice under law. And you know, yesterday and we talked about on Wednesday's podcast, we talked about the different possible outcomes. We talked about the miracle that could happen, which would be an acquittal, which I would have loved to have seen. And we talked about the possibility of a hung jury. One juror out of 12 people, one juror will not be part of this farce. I will not be part of this charade. I'm done. No, no, no. The justice system is not meant to attack your political opponent. And I won't play a part. Sadly, that didn't happen. Twelve New Yorkers decided they were Democrat partisans. Now, I will say a significant part of that was no doubt driven by the absurd jury instructions given by the judge. This judge has made the New York justice system into a global laughingstock across the planet. People know that the justice system in New York doesn't follow the rule of law. It doesn't care about law. Instead, it is a Tool to attack your political enemy. That makes me sad. That's not the way our justice system is supposed to work. Now, you asked what's next. Well, Trump has been released on his own recognizance. The next step is sentencing. Sentencing is going to happen four days before the Republican National Convention. In the interim, there are a series of steps, including, including. Trump has to go to a pre sentence evaluation. He may have to submit to a psychiatrist or psychologist. They prepare a report. All of the steps that are standard after someone is convicted, that a report gets presented to the judge to help the judge make a decision about sentencing. We will find out about sentencing literally the week of the Republican National Convention. I don't think it is by accident. This entire trial is designed to interfere with the election. I'm going to make a prediction right now. The chances that this conviction is overturned on appeal, I believe are 100.0%. It will be overturned on appeal. I think the judge knows that. I think the judge in this trial bent over backwards, did everything possible, gave jury instructions that just defied U.S. supreme Court precedent, did not require the jury to be unanimous on all the elements of the trial. Let, let the jury mix and match and pick different potential other crimes to elevate this from a misdemeanor to a felony. All of that is reversible error. The judge knows that. But I don't think he cares. I don't think the prosecutor cares. Because the objective here is not to get a conviction that sticks. The objective is not to put Donald Trump in jail. The objective is to snare him. Within minutes of the verdict coming down, the Biden White House put out a statement referring to him as a, quote, convicted felon. That was the entire point of all of this. We will hear the words convicted felon referring to Donald Trump from Democrats and from the corporate media 1 billion times between now and Election Day. Every. Every other sentence they say will say, felon, felon, felon, felon, felon. That was the point. And they know it'll be reversed on appeal, but that will happen after Election Day. And this is all their effort to try to stop the American people from reelecting Trump.
- [08:19]
Ben Ferguson
All right, let me play devil's advocate with you. If we're underestimating the Democrats again, I still go back to the real question. This judge has gone rogue. He went rogue on sentencing. He went rogue from the beginning. He's a donor to Biden. If he knows, Senator, and we use what you just said, that he knows it's going to be overturned, why the hell wouldn't he throw Donald Trump in jail or under house arrest where he can't travel?
- [08:52]
Ted Cruz
Look, he might. And I fully believe this judge is partisan enough. He would love to throw Donald Trump in a deep pit, to throw him in the pit of despair. To use a Princess Bride analogy, he would do everything and anything he could. But I also, I don't have any indication that this judge is stupid. I think he's a partisan. I think he hates Trump, and I think he's willing to abuse his power. But assuming he's not stupid, I don't know that if he orders Donald Trump sent to jail, that will be subject to an immediate appeal. And I think the immediate appeal would be successful. I don't know if it would be the state courts in New York or if it would be the federal courts, but I don't think the courts are going to allow the presumptive Republican nominee, and I think likely the next president of the United States to be hauled away to Rikers Island. By the way, New York State is also a state where you can assault a police officer, you can punch a little old lady in the face on the street, you can practically rape or murder someone. And these imbeciles won't send you to jail. But if your crime is being a Republican who's the leading candidate for president, you're right, this partisan judge just might send you to jail. But I think he won't do it.
- [10:08]
Ben Ferguson
Because so is it. So you're saying that if Trump, and this is where I love your legal mind, you're saying that it's more valuable to not put him under house arrest or put him in jail because then he's the convicted felon through Election Day. Then it's overturned after election Day, and you interfere, interfere with the election results. And if you actually put him in jail or under house arrest, then it would escalate the timeline rapidly. So then he may actually be found innocent.
- [10:40]
Ted Cruz
Not innocent. But listen, I think the judge is not going to put Trump in jail because it would be bad politics. This is not law. This is not criminal justice. It's politics. It would be bad politics because it would force the appellate courts to act. And I think neither the partisan judge nor the partisan DA want the appellate courts to give a victory for Donald Trump before November. So they're not going to do anything, I think, to tee up a legal victory for Donald Trump before November. They want any legal victory for Trump to be after November. Now, I will say I will give it one caveat, see some scenario where the Trump issue some sort of house arrest order says, you got to stay at Mar a Lago, you got to wear an ankle bracelet. I don't think the judge will do that, but it is conceivable. But you're allowed to go to the convention and give the convention speech. You're allowed to go to the debate, participate in the debate. That house arrest, with enough exceptions that it is not transparently election interference, it's just obvious to anyone with an IQ above 12 that it's election interference that is not outside the realm of possibility. I think that probably doesn't happen either. But I do not think the judge would be foolish enough to order him sent to jail because I think it would force a rapid appellate reversal, and that's terrible.
- [12:12]
Ben Ferguson
All right, so let me ask you this. And people are gonna say this case was extraordinary. It involves the former president, United States of America, running for office. Why can Donald Trump not get his appeal heard very quickly? Why is this going to drag on until after Election Day? Shouldn't this move its way through and the appeal move through very, very quickly? And is there anything he can do to force the hand for this case to move out and whatever this judge decides to sentence out very quickly and say, okay, no, this isn't right?
- [12:48]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, look, it's a good question. I can tell you, in any ordinary case, the answer would be no. That typically if you're facing a criminal conviction, particularly if you don't have an order to go to jail and you're allowed to be out and free pending the appeal, the way cross criminal convictions and appeals typically work, they can take years. I mean, they can take their death penalty appeals that have taken decades. Like, the wheels of justice move slowly moving through the appellate process. So in any ordinary case, you would never get the appeal resolved between now and the end of the year, just takes longer than that. And so that's. And the way it would work normally, from a trial court conviction in the New York State courts, you would appeal it typically to the New York intermediate appellate courts, and then you would appeal it to the New York Court of Appeals, which is the Supreme Court in New York. It's the, it's the top court in New York. So you would go through, you'd have two levels of appellate courts in the state court system. And then after the top state court decided your appeal, you could then appeal it to the US Supreme Court from that. So that process could, in a normal criminal appeal, easily take one, two, even three years. I mean, that process can be quite slow. Depending on how long the judges take to issue an opinion, you could try to file an emergency appeal. But in an ordinary criminal case, it would never succeed. Now, there is another avenue that the Trump lawyers, I suspect, are debating tonight. The Trump lawyers could try to file an emergency appeal straight from the trial court to the US Supreme Court. Now, that's not easy to do.
- [14:42]
Ben Ferguson
Why?
- [14:42]
Ted Cruz
Extraordinarily uncommon. Buy five quarts of Castrol Edge full synthetic motor oil and get a $15 gift card after rebate plus two times points at O'Reilly Auto Parts. Oh, oh, oh, O'Reilly Auto Parts.
- [15:01]
Ben Ferguson
This is extraordinarily uncommon. But so is trying to imprison a presidential candidate, the leading candidate who's leading in all the polls and a former president. Wouldn't that be enough for the Supreme Court to raise their eyebrows going, yeah, we might want to get involved.
- [15:17]
Ted Cruz
So it might. And the Supreme Court has a variety of jurisdiction to grant a series of writs. And the Supreme Court, it wouldn't be a direct appeal, but you could craft an appeal that went straight from the state trial court to the US Supreme Court. As I said, it is extraordinarily rare, but it is theoretically possible. And I'm sure the Trump legal team is debating that right now. Now, if they did, the risk of that, in any ordinary circumstance, the Supreme Court would never, ever, ever take it. If the court's general approach to appeals is let the process play out, let the timeline play out, maybe another court can resolve this. So if this were not the leading candidate for President United States, the Supreme Court's approach would be, even if this conviction is wrong, maybe the New York intermediate appellate court reverses it, maybe the New York top appellate court reverses it. There are lots of ways this could get fixed without the Supreme Court getting involved. And so that's the overwhelming approach of the Supreme Court in almost every case. Now, this is not almost every case. And so if I were part of Trump's legal team, I would give very serious thought to filing an extraordinary writ at the US Supreme Court. Now, to grant that, you'd take four justices and you'd have to have four justices that saw this as the outrage that it is. And I think that's probably right. And who were willing to put the court in the middle of it. And I'll tell you, the U.S. supreme Court has a very, very strong self protective instinct to keep the court out of political conflict. If you look back at 2020, 2020, when you had multiple election challenges, lawsuits all over the country, I wish the U.S. supreme Court had gotten involved, and I urged the Supreme Court to take the appeal from Pennsylvania. There was a writ of certiorari that was filed. Writ assertiorari means an appeal to the US Supreme Court that was filed from Pennsylvania. I urge the court to take that. In fact, if you remember, Donald Trump asked me if I would argue that appeal if the Supreme Court took the case from Pennsylvania. And I said, yes, I would. The court ultimately did not take the case, so I never argued it. I think the reason they didn't take the case is because of the self protective instinct of the Supreme Court that their sort of institutional approach is keep us out of a political mess. Now let me give a countervailing argument. So 24 years ago, I was a baby lawyer and I was part of the legal team that litigated Bush versus Gore. Bush versus Gore, you'll remember, happened right after the 2000 election. And in the state of Florida, there was a series of litigation challenges. George W. Bush won Florida, but Al Gore challenged the election. He filed multiple lawsuits. In today's world, I guess they call out Warren election denier, but he challenged the election. And I was part of the legal team that defended George W. Bush's victory in Florida. The votes were counted four separate times, and Bush won all four times. But the first time we went to the U.S. supreme Court and there was a legal team that came together for Bush versus Gore that I still think is the finest legal team ever assembled. It was amazing team of the best Supreme Court litigators on the planet. And I was, you know, 28, 29 years old. I was a kid carrying their bags. But I got to be a very junior part of an extraordinary team. And what was interesting is we were writing the petition for Saoirse Rorick asking the Supreme Court to take the case. And I was part of the team writing that brief. There was a real debate among the lawyers about whether the Supreme Court would take that case in 2000. And the divide, interestingly enough, was between those of us who had clerked at the Supreme Court and those of us who had not. Almost all of the lawyers who had not clerked at the Supreme Court believed the court would not take the case. They'd want to stay out of the fight. They would not want to get in the middle of this political fight. And I and most of the other lawyers who had clerked at the court believed the court would take the case. I was adamant. I thought the court would take the case, and I agreed that the court would see risk, they'd see political risk to itself as an institution. But I believe the court would also feel a responsibility to step in and act. And I personally believe I can't prove this. I have no inside information. But I personally believe that the chief Justice, Chief Justice Rehnquist, which is the justice for whom I quote. And so I knew Chief Justice Rehnquist very, very well. I think he in particular felt a great responsibility that when the country was all waiting on the resolution of the presidential race, that the court had an obligation to step in and engage. Well, I think there's a chance the court will feel that same thing. I think there are certainly justices who watching this are outraged at the lawlessness of the abuse of power. I don't know where the Chief justice will fall. John Roberts was part of that legal team down in Bush versus Gore. I worked side by side with John Roberts in writing the petition for certiorary. He was part of the team that wrote that. My recollection, although I don't have a distinct recollection, but I assume, I think he was among those of us who believed the court would take the case. Now fast forwarding, he obviously has a very different role because he's the Chief Justice. And I think he's very protective of the Court's legitimacy. And I will say the Democrats are mounting a frontal assault on the court to delegitimize the court. So I think there will be justices afraid of getting into this matter. All of which is to say, I, I don't know if the court would grant an extraordinary writ, but I'm confident the Trump legal team is debating that and debating that extensively right now.
- [21:41]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah. Great point. I want to say to many of you that are listening right now, thank you. Because a lot of you have taken the time to get involved with an amazing organization called Preborn. When a mother with an unplanned pregnancy meets her baby on ultrasound and here's their baby's heartbeat, it is a divine encounter that doubles a baby's chance at life. And every day, preborn's networks of clinics rescue 200 babies from abortion. And that's why we partner with preborn, because we need to help these precious babies. Every day, mothers have the opportunity to choose between life and an abortion. They hear that heartbeat. It is telling them their child is alive. Their heartbeat. The heartbeat begins to form at conception, and in just three weeks, it's already beating. At five weeks, a baby's heartbeat can be heard on ultrasound. And that is where you come in. You can give a gift. Yes. For just $28. You could be the difference between the life or death of a child and all gifts are tax deductible. You can donate and it's easy. You just have to dial the number £250 and say the keyword baby. That's £250. Say the keyword baby. Or you can donate securely@preborn.com verdict. That's preborn.com verdict. Make a donation. Like I said, for just $28, you can be the difference between life or death of a child. Dial on your phone £250 and say the keyword baby. That's £250. Keyword baby. Senator, let me ask you another question, and this is one that I've been asked a lot over the last 10 hours on social media. It's really been popping up and there is a divide when it comes to this court case. And there's been a lot of anger by a lot of conservatives have said, see, I told you so. We should have gone after one of the liberals out there that was committing crimes and gone after them to say to the Democrats, if you do this to Donald Trump, we're going to come back and do it to you. And now there's people that say, well, there it is. The cat's out of the bag. This is lawfare. And if we're not willing to do it back to them, they're going to keep doing it to us. Give me your reaction to people that are extremely frustrated on that aspect of us that we're playing by the rules. They're not. And yet they're winning.
- [24:24]
Ted Cruz
Look, I get that sentiment. And it's frustrating because the other side, the other side is willing to destroy the rule of law. They're willing to destroy the judiciary. They're willing to destroy our country in pursuit of partisan power. And it is, it's why I'm so sad today. You know, I was on Sean Hannity yesterday. I was on Sean Hannity tonight yesterday, Sean and I got in a little bit of an argument because the jury was still pending. And, and I said, look, I, I'm holding out hope that, that maybe one juror will say no and there'll be a hung jury. And I'll tell you, Sean laughed at me and he said, no, New York is too far gone. It's not going to happen. Donald Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York. And I didn't want to believe him. I gotta say, Sean was right. This, this justice system, the system, I don't know that it ever recovers from this, it will always be known as a Democrat banana republic if you're a Republican in New York. I think there are a lot of Republicans in New York who are calling their real estate agents who are looking to leave New York, if they say, okay, you cannot count on the rule of law in this state. I understand the sentiment. If they're going to burn it down, we ought to burn it down and abuse our power. I don't agree with that. I, at the end of the day, I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the rule of law. I don't want power abused by either side. Now that you give the other side a free pass, my view, I've said many times, I don't want a Republican Department Justice. I don't want a Democrat Department of Justice. I want a Department of justice that follows the law and that prosecutes individuals who commit crimes regardless of their party. So, for example, I hope if we in January we have a new president if Donald Trump is reelected, which is what I hope will happen. And we have a new Department of Justice. I hope right at the outset they open investigations into the funding of these anti American and anti Israel and anti Semitic protests on college campuses, and they trace down, follow the money, and they find out are terrorists financing this, are foreign countries financing this? I hope they use the full investigatory resources of the Department of Justice to get to the bottom of that. Now, note, I'm not saying that because I have a target I want to put in jail. I'm saying that because I see the evidence of a crime and I want the Justice Department to investigate that crime and to prosecute whoever is guilty. And sadly, I don't believe the Justice Department is prosecuting that crime right now, because the flip side of what they're doing is they will abuse power to target their enemies, and they will also abuse power by protecting their friends. And so I, I get the vindictive instinct, but I think it's the wrong answer. I think we should demonstrate that the rule of law matters. And by the way, there is plenty of real criminality that prosecutors can pursue without engaging in the blatant abuse of power we've seen from Democrats in these cases against Donald Trump.
- [27:42]
Ben Ferguson
All right, let's talk about the politics of what we mentioned at the very beginning. We know from the White House that the words that we're going to hear over and over again between now and November 5th are convicted felon, convicted felon, convicted felon. There is. Yeah, right, exactly. So how powerful is that going to be politically? It is clearly engaged people. Today on Trump's side, I had. I had two people walk up to me today, this afternoon, and they said, I've never given a political donation in my life. But damn it, tonight when the website gets back up, it crashed multiple times because some of you were going to donate. They said, I'm going to write a big check. And. And one of them said to me, you know how much I'm going to donate? 1776. That's my number. I'm donating. And this is someone that had, no, never donated, he said, in his entire life, to any political campaign, local, state or national. And he said, this is our country under siege, and I'm going to get involved now. Now, I think there's a lot of patriots out there and new patriots who are going to probably make that decision. But there's also center, the other side. Democrats are going to be inspired by this. It's no longer looking at an incompetent Joe Biden. Their hatred for Donald Trump is now back, front and center.
- [29:09]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, look, this will inspire both sides. I don't believe this decision will change the outcome of the election in November. I think it's baked in the cake. I think rabid, partisan Democrats hate Trump so much, they were going to vote against him in November, they're still going to vote against him. And this is revenge porn for them. They're just living their fantasy. In terms of Republicans, I think this energizes Republicans. You're right that the Trump website collapsed Win Read, which is the portal to contribute to Trump to Republican senators. That portal collapsed tonight. So I think a lot of people went and said, I want to contribute to the Republicans who are running this cycle precisely because of that. I think this will energize Republicans and this may well energize people. Let's say you're not a Donald Trump fan. Let's say you say you don't particularly like it, maybe you strongly oppose it. If you care about the rule of law, you ought to be outraged about this. If you care about actually a justice system that is not simply a tool to attack your enemies, you ought to be horrified by this. Because, listen, you go down Latin America, America, you'd have banana republics. My dad's from Cuba. Cuba understands what happened tonight. There are banana republics throughout this country that understand what happened tonight, which is one party gets in power and they use the justice system to try to lock up their predecessors. They'll try to lock up their opponents. If you don't want that to happen to America, Even if you might even despise Donald Trump, you should be very upset about what happened tonight. The Democrats calculus at the beginning of this is that there would be 2 to 3 to 5% of voters who are not very engaged, who are not paying attention a lot, who will decide the last couple of weeks before Election Day. And if they hear the word felon, felon, felon repeated a gazillion times will say, oh, I can't vote for a felon, and so we'll vote for Biden. I'm really skeptical. I don't think it's played out that way. I think most Americans, other than the rabid Democrat partisans, recognize this was a political persecution. And so I don't see this changing votes. And I think even some Democrats and some of the media have backed away from their fervor, from this, because they see it backfire to some extent now, not tonight. They're not backing away because they're too jubilant. This is too much. This is cathartic, and this is ecstasy and this is schadenfreude all unfolding at once. But, but at the end of the day, I don't see this changing the outcome on Election Day.
- [32:02]
Ben Ferguson
You've been in a lot of debates, Senator, and, and you've been on the presidential debate stage. You've debated Donald Trump. But I, and I, one of my things that I love is debate prep. And I was putting myself in the room tonight, mentally. All right, if I'm in the room before the debate with Joe Biden, I know Joe Biden at some point is gonna look over at Donald Trump and say, well, you're a convicted felon. How does Trump respond to that? And that's, I mean, that's a pretty hardcore line that they have been obsessed with, and they've got it now. How do you overcome that when there's people watching that I'm sure are gonna watch this thing and maybe just engage the very first time, weren't watching the trial, don't understand how corrupt it was, don't understand how these charges shouldn't have ever been used, how they change things to get rid of the statute of limitations, how the federal government didn't bring these charges eight years ago for a reason. I mean, all of that they made missed. And they look at a president, sitting president, look at Donald Trump, you're a convicted felon. What do you do with that?
- [33:14]
Ted Cruz
Well, look, I think the Biden debate prep team is going to spend a lot of time trying to convince Biden and try to help Biden not to seem like a smug sop. His instinct is going to be smug and sanctimonious and to rub Trump. Trump's facing it. I think that is a bad look for Biden. If he does it, my prediction is they'll fail. By the way that Biden can't resist being smug and sanctimonious on this. I think he probably just will. But if his debate prep team is any good, they will try to get him to resist that on Trump's side on this whole topic and more broadly on everything in the debate. I think they're going to try to stop Trump from just being volcanically angry. Look, Trump typically engages in very little debate prep. He is not. You're right. I have debated Trump many, many, many times. He doesn't engage in extensive debate prep to the extent they have debate prep. I think the team around him, if they're any good, likely will try to get him to be calm and matter of fact and not angry and combative. If you go back and look at the 2020 debates, the first debate, Trump was angry and combative. And many observers believe that that hurt Trump because he was too angry and combative in the debate. I think that will be an instinct here. And Trump has reason to be pissed. Look, he was just railroad. He was railroaded by a kangaroo court. Any natural person, any person's natural reaction would be pissed. And Trump is not someone who generally hides his emotions. You know, I'm reminded of back in 2000. So we were talking about Bush versus Gore earlier in the pod, after Bush won, after the Supreme Court resolved the case. And after he came in, he appointed his Attorney general, John Astronomy. And I was part of the team that prepared John Ascroft for his confirmation hearings. And so we mooted John Ascroft multiple times for his confirmation hearings as Attorney General. And you know, I'm a young, at this point, 30 year old lawyer and there were several of us in the room. But we would try to get obnoxious with Ashcroft in the preparation for confirmation. We try to pull him off, we try to insult him. And in the prep sessions, he would blow his top, he'd yell at us, he'd get mad and we were asking obnoxious questions and he would scream at us and then we'd say, okay, Senator, because he was Senator at the time. We said, senator, I get what you're saying. You're right. That was a totally unfair question. It was completely wrong. You are perfectly justified yelling at this. Here's the problem. They don't have the votes to defeat you right now, the only way they defeat your confirmation is if they provoke you to say something stupid at the hearing. And what you say tanks your nomination. And so we worked with it. We said, okay, yell at us. Get all of your anger out at us. But when you get in the hearing, don't yell at the senators. Give them nothing, because they have nothing to defeat you and they can only win as if you give it to them. So you fast forward to the hearing and you had Democrat senators that just made fools of themselves. I remember Ted Kennedy at one point leaning forward. He was reading something Ashcroft has read about the Second Amendment. And he talked about the Second Amendment being as the first, as James Madison and other framers wrote about it. A check on tyranny. And Ted Kennedy and his Boston Brahmin voice goes tyranny in the United States. What? You know what that is? That is treason, I tell you. Treason. And John Ashcroft, to his credit, he had Ted Kennedy screaming at him and calling him a traitor. And John Ashcroft said, senator, if confirmed as attorney General, I will follow the law. And I don't know that his heartbeat got about 65 and he got confirmed. You know, John Astronaut well, you and here are good friends.
- [37:35]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, he's. He's one of my mentors.
- [37:38]
Ted Cruz
Yes. His confirmation hearing, he didn't take the bait. I promise you, in the prep sessions, he did it, got it out of his system. I think the Trump debate prep sessions will be similar. They will try to get out of his system. I don't know if it will succeed or not.
- [37:57]
Ben Ferguson
Final question for you on this. And it deals with the presidency and Joe Biden. I don't know how you can separate what this judge did from the corruption of the Biden White House. We know the attorneys that left the DOJ to go work on this case. We know that Alvin Bragg ran on this. We know he raised money off of it. We know that this judge has a daughter that's heavily involved in fundraising in the Democratic Party. And this all was orchestrated from the Biden administration down. They're trying to act like now they're separate from it. Like this is. We stood back, we were just watching the wills of justice and a man be found accountable by a jury of his peers. That is clearly going to be their line. But make no mistake, none of this would have happened without the direction of Biden. I said, today, America has its own Vladimir Putin. Now. His name is Biden. Joe Biden is America's Putin. Right now going after his political opponent and trying to lock them up.
- [39:12]
Ted Cruz
You know, in law, if you look at something like antitrust law, there's a concept in law called conscious parallelism, which is people that all have similar incentives behaving similarly, but it's not a conspiracy. They just all are acting according to the same incentives. I don't know that Alvin Bragg is taking orders from the Biden White House. I agree that Joe Biden has been dictatorial, he's abused his power. But I think Alvin Bragg is a petty dictator of his own. He's George Soros da. He ran on getting Joe Biden. You know, when his was the first indictment, I think a lot of Democrats were kind of sheepish. They said, okay, this one is really sketchy. They didn't want this to be the lead kids. And look, ultimately the Biden doj, they sent the number three lawyer at doj, who had been a Democrat donor before and a Democrat consultant, they sent him to be part of the trial team. So the Biden DOJ got in bed with this partisan prosecution. But I'm not convinced that Alvin Bragg did so at the direction of the White House. I just think he hates Trump's guts. So does everyone in the Biden doj, Biden White House, so does Fannie Willis down in Georgia. So does just about every wild eyed partisan Democrat. And so I wouldn't say it is as much a direction from the White House as that they're all suffering from the same Trump derangement syndrome where they're willing to burn it all down to destroy the rule of law, to abuse the justice system, because they hate Trump so much and they've convinced themselves if he is reelected, if he's president, it's the end of democracy. I mean, we played on Wednesday's pod, Robert De Niro going on and on. That'll be the last election ever if Trump is elected, which is just. It's the range, it's unhinged. But I don't think De Niro is lying in that. I think he believes every word he said. I suspect Alvin Bragg does too, and I suspect the Biden White House and DOJ does as well.
- [41:25]
Ben Ferguson
Final question. You're a poll guy. I love polls. I want your prediction. The first major polls that come out after this verdict has obviously come down, will they show that Donald Trump starts to lose momentum? Do you think he'll go backwards in the polls nationally or in swing states? Do you think this could even backfire more? Because you did say, and I agreed with you, that if they indicted make him more powerful, his poll numbers would go up. That happened when the court case started. You said it's going to make people solidify their support behind Donald Trump. But now that he has the. He's a convicted felon around his neck and that, yeah, what happens in the polls.
- [42:10]
Ted Cruz
So when the indictment first came down, the first indictment, I said on this podcast, this indictment will be worth 10 points for Donald Trump in the polls. Now, that's in the primaries. A week later, Trump was up 10. That prediction proved exactly accurate. Now, to be fair, that's a primary poll. Primary polls are different than general election polls. And so it caused Republicans to rally around Trump, even some Republicans who were not supporting Trump at that time. The general election, it's a little harder. I think most of the views on both sides are baked in. But if you force me to make a prediction, my prediction right now is Trump. I think it is mildly beneficial for Trump in the polls. I don't think it is major league because I think most of the people on both sides are baked in. And it almost doesn't matter at this point. They're not moving. But if you press me, I would say I don't think it's going to cause in the polls, and I would say I think it's likely to be a mild positive benefit for Trump in the polls. And he's already leading the polls right now.
- [43:18]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it is a shocking day. It's a sad day for this country. Senator, I love doing the show with you three days a week. I really love it when we get to cover news that is so important to the American people, like this one today, even if it means you're in the car on the way driving home in the middle of the night. I say this, and I mean it sincerely from everybody listening. Thank you for clarifying so much, explaining it, and also standing up for the rule of law as you described it earlier. Don't forget, we do this show Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. Hit that subscriber auto download button. There's going to be a lot of breaking news. So on those in between days, grab my podcast and I'll keep you up to date day. Ben Ferguson podcast the center and I will see you back here on Saturday for the week in review. And make sure you share this podcast right now so other people will hear it, especially your family and friends that may not have been into the case, so they know what's actually going on. And we'll see you back here Saturday morning.