Ben Ferguson (4:10)

You know, one of the interesting things that you just mentioned was the shock of how this indictment was so absurd to the fact that he's saying, well, there was a crime that was committed, possibly, but we won't tell you what the crime is. Well, the whole point of an indictment is so the accused knows what they're being accused of. Donald Trump went home not knowing what he was accused of. And even his lawyers, when they walked out of that courtroom, they seem to be dumbfounded at the idea that we were even at a point where you would have an indictment, a 34 count indictment, and you still wouldn't know what the actual crime is that they're accusing you of committing. And Alan Bragg's like, well, you know, it could be. We'll let you know. We didn't list it. We don't have to list it. Here's his attorneys, Trump's attorneys, in their.

Unnamed Speaker (4:57)

Own words, to happen to somebody who was the President of the United States. And on the one hand, on the one hand, there's not really any surprises. I know there was a lot of talk over the past several weeks, in the past several days about what's going to be in this indictment and what's going to be there that we don't know, there must be something besides what we've been talking about for the past four or five years. There wasn't. There's nothing. The indictment itself is, is boilerplate. It doesn't allege any federal crime, any state crime that's been violated. It doesn't allege what the false statement is. And it's really disappointing, it's sad and we're going to fight it. We're going to fight it hard.

Senator Ted Cruz (5:44)

Were you surprised?

Ben Ferguson (5:45)

Were you surprised by anything in the indictment? No. How about you Joe? Were you surprised?

Unnamed Speaker (5:48)

Yeah, I was surprised there were no facts in there. I mean normally in an indictment you have alleged facts. So they said that this a false business record, entry to Agent Bed another crime without saying what the other crime was.

Ben Ferguson (5:59)

I mean the last thing that he said there was, it's aiding embedding another crime. And they don't list what the other crime is. Have you ever seen something that is basically this incomplete to charge someone, especially at the level of the President of the United States of America?

Senator Ted Cruz (6:15)

Yeah, look, maybe on a half assed indictment of someone convicted of shoplifting or, or joy riding in a car, but not in a high profile serious case. Listen, the district Attorney knew that everyone on earth would fly spec this indictment. They would read it this indictment. To be honest, a first year law student could cut and paste and produce this indictment number one, the 34 counts. I have to admit I was kind of curious. Okay, what are the 34 things he's done? I didn't know about 34 things he was alleged to have done. Well, it turns out the 34 counts are just 34 individual entries in the bookkeeping. So it is the same basic crime alleged to have occurred month by month by month. Also, Alvin Bragg did something quite unusual. So he released the indictment and then he released an additional document called a statement of facts. Now usually an indictment includes some pretty specific factual allegations. This one doesn't at all. It just has the boilerplate language about false bookkeeping records in furtherance of another crime. Doesn't specify what the other crime is. The statement of facts is intended to be more of a narrative. It frankly is a media document. It was meant for media consumption and it describes what the prosecutors think went on. And it talks about several things. One of the things it talks about is the National Enquirer and the National Enquirer, their publisher, David Pecker, by the way, I will say as an aside, talk about someone named out of Charles Dickens. I am not a fan of this particular individual. It is God has a sense of humor. But the indictment describes how Trump met with David Pecker and had a plan that the National Enquirer was going to assist in Trump's presidential campaign. Now, you might like that, you might not like that, but it's not criminal. And let me be clear, I don't exactly have an absence of sentiments on this, because when the National Enquirer got in bed with the Trump campaign, the first target they directed their enmity at was me.

Ben Ferguson (8:37)

Yeah.

Senator Ted Cruz (8:38)

And they ran multiple stories, the most ludicrous of which was alleging that my father had killed jfk. Look, that is part of what David Pecker made a decision. He was essentially trying to do everything he could to elect Donald Trump. So that's part of this indictment. Not concerning me, thankfully, but concerning attacks on Donald Trump and people who came forward with allegations against Donald Trump, where the National Enquirer agreed to work to try to quash those stories. Now, listen, whether you like or dislike media outlets deciding they want to support a particular candidate and help them, that happens in politics all the time.

Ben Ferguson (9:27)

Yeah.

Senator Ted Cruz (9:28)

Unless you're prepared to indict abc, NBC, cbs, cnn, and MSNBC for crawling in bed and spooning with Joe Biden, then that is not, in fact, criminal conduct, whether you agree or disagree with the political decision that particular media outlet makes. So the statement of facts also details a couple of different payments. One, a payment that went to Karen McDougal for $150,000. Secondly, a payment that went to Stormy Daniels for $130,000. Now, those are both women who alleged that they had had affairs with Donald Trump. I don't know if that's true or false, but that's what they alleged and the indictment alleged that Trump paid them $150,000 and $130,000, respectively. As we've discussed on the podcast, whether that's true or false, that's not illegal. There's no law in New York State against an individual having an affair. There's no law in New York State against an individual paying anyone involved in an affair not to talk about it publicly. That is all entirely legal. What is alleged in this statement of fact is that Michael Cohen, the personal attorney to Donald Trump, paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels, and that Trump then reimbursed Michael Cohen, and we now know. So the math that's laid out in the statement of facts is that Cohen paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels and then apparently $50,000 for, quote, another expense. And it doesn't tell us what this other expense is. So that's 130,000 plus 50,000, that's 180,000. And apparently what happened is they took that 180,000, they doubled it to 360,000. Because when Michael Cohen was paid back, he would have to pay taxes, federal taxes and state taxes for the money being paid. So the basic math was if you pay him $360,000 and he pays 50% taxes, he would recoup his $180,000. And then they decided to pay him an additional $60,000 on top of that, which the statement of facts calls a supplemental year end bonus. So all in, he was paid $420,000. And that was paid in a series of payments of $35,000 a month. And by the way, what are the 34 counts? It's each of those payments. It's each of the record keeping. It's literally entering it into the books. That's account writing the check. That's account. And that's account in the month of January. It's account in the month of February, it's account in the month of March, April, May, June, July. That's how they get to their 34 counts.

Ben Ferguson (12:19)

So in translation, it's the same damn thing over and over again. And that's how they got to 34.

Senator Ted Cruz (12:25)

It's each month's payment. Yes, yes, each month's payment.

Ben Ferguson (12:29)

Wow. And when you hear it that way, it makes you even more angry at what has happened here. And, and the fact that Donald Trump is even having to sit in this scenario. And there were even people in the media that were asking questions about this, like, are you sure this is a really good idea? There was an NBC News reporter that confronted Bragg about the previous DA and the Feds not pursuing these exact charges against Trump. I want to play that. Before I get to that, I want to tell you about our friends, I guess, the precious metals. You have seen what's been going on in the economy. And if you are close to retirement, planning for retirement or in retirement, you know how important it is to preserve your wealth. Right? Now I've been using Augusta Precious Metals. They are a awesome conservative company. And if you want to understand what a gold IRA can do for you, diversifying in gold or Siri or silver, then you need to call them. I trust them. I use them. Now here's what they do that's different. Augusta Precious Metals is all about protecting IRAs and 401ks in this crazy economy. And they do a one on one web conference with you so that you understand how gold and silver can work for you. What does that cost? Nothing. You can sit down with them, talk about your financial future, Your retirement, your 401k and see if gold or silver is right for you. They'll also send you their free Gold IRA info guide as well. So give them a buzz. 8774 the number four Gold IRA 877 the number four Gold IRA or online at Augusta Precious Metals.com that's Augusta Precious Metals.com Use the promo code, Ben, and you will get 10 years of fees covered. Up to 10 years, which is pretty awesome. Augusta Precious Mails.com Senator, I want to play for you this NBC News reporter because I think the media was also honestly shocked at how weak this indictment, this 34 count indictment was for quote, felonies out of thin air. And NBC News called Bragg out for this saying like, hey, did you screw up basically. Listen, hi.

Unnamed Speaker (14:43)

You had expressed a year ago that.

Senator Ted Cruz (14:45)

You know, you have some reservations about the case's readiness. Can you talk to what were some of the questions in your mind that needed to be answered in order to bring a case of this magnitude?

Unnamed Speaker (14:57)

I'm not going to go chapter and verse into many thinking. What I will say is I believe the time period you're talking about. I'd been in office for a couple of months. The investigation, in my view, was not concluded into the conduct in particular that is the basis for the charges today. Since that time, we've had more evidence made available to the office and opportunity to meet with additional witnesses. So as I said earlier, I've been doing this for 24 years. I don't bring cases prior to a thorough and rigorous investigation. Now having done so, the case has been brought. This is Rad Garrett Hake with NBC News. Your predecessor took a hard look at this case and decided not to charge it. Federal prosecutors took a hard look at this case and decided not to charge it. Do you believe you have new evidence that led you to decide to charge this or why? Now, as I, as I just mentioned, we have had available to the office additional evidence that was not in the office's possession prior to my time here. And as to your part of your question about the federal we have a distinct and strong, I would say profound independent interest in New York State. This is the business capital of the world. We regularly do cases involving false business statements. The bedrock, in fact the basis for business integrity and a well functioning business marketplace is true and accurate record keeping. That's the charge that's brought here, falsifying New York State business records.

Ben Ferguson (16:29)

So Senator, he's making up two different things here. One is, well, we have this new evidence. Does he have to share that with Donald Trump in this indictment? Wouldn't you have to say what that new evidence is? Number one and two, Then he, then he basically doesn't tell you what it is and goes back to the original statement.

Senator Ted Cruz (16:47)

Yeah. There's virtually no new evidence in this indictment or this statement of fact. This is all based on allegations that have been around for years, have been around for many years, that prosecutor after prosecutor have looked at and concluded that there was not a crime they could prosecute. Where are we now? Trump came into court, he pleaded not guilty, he left. It ended up the DA Made an interesting decision. They didn't do the mug shot. And by the way, the decision not to do the mug shot was entirely political. You and I predicted on this podcast. By the way, I want to take a moment of victory lap on this podcast. On Monday, I said, Trump will come in wearing a crisp blue, a beautiful blue blue suit, a crisp white shirt, and a bright red Donald J. Trump tie. That is exactly what he was wearing. The only piece I did not accurately predict is I didn't realize that Alvin Bragg would be so political. He'd decide, okay, we now have the first defendant in the history of New York City who doesn't get a mug shot. So they skipped the mug shot because they didn't want to give the picture to Trump. So instead we have pictures from him in the courtroom in exactly the attire that we predicted on this podcast.

Ben Ferguson (18:04)

Does that not just go to scream to the politics of this, though, that's so political that you didn't even give the mug shot because you didn't want him to use it?

Senator Ted Cruz (18:11)

Yes.

Ben Ferguson (18:12)

Can you use that in your opinion?

Senator Ted Cruz (18:14)

They realize the mug shot. Well, so the next step, Trump is scheduled to go back to court December 4th. Now, listen, it's early April. December 4th is a really long time away. That's weird. That's weird that it's dragging along that slowly. In the meantime, it is a virtual certainty that Trump's legal team will file a motion to dismiss. And they might file a motion to dismiss on multiple grounds. One ground they could file is that the indictment is deficient. The entire basis for getting around the statute of limitations and making it a felony is that the false business records allegedly were in furtherance of another crime. They don't specify what that crime is. That's one of the first grounds on which you'd file a motion is to say if you don't specify what the crime is you have not pleaded the crime under New York State law. I think that a motion to dismiss on that basis is quite likely. I think you're also likely to see a motion to dismiss, maybe the same motion, maybe a different motion based on vindictive or selective prosecution. Alvin Bragg ran for office and on his campaign, on the campaign trail, he promised to, quote, get Trump. That is, on its face, it screams of selective prosecution that this is a political left wing Democrat who wanted to go after a political opponent that he hated, and that's what was going on here. I think we will see that issue litigated early on at the outset. I think another issue that you're likely to see raised, the entire basis of this crime, alleged crime, is that these were false business records. It's not clear that the records at issue are business records at all. Donald Trump paid these funds from his personal accounts or from the blind trust that was erected to hold his assets while he was president. In other words, it wasn't from the Trump Corporation, it wasn't a business entity. Now, the statement of facts refers to some personnel in the Trump Organization who were involved in cutting the checks, but the checks they cut were not business checks. They were checks from Trump's personal funds. And so, listen, if Ben Ferguson writes a check to somebody, that is not a business record under the ordinary interpretation of it. So that's another ground on which I would expect this to be litigated and challenged. And I think all of those are serious grounds. This indictment was not brought to get a conviction. This indictment was not brought to try to actually put Trump in jail. This indictment was brought to be a political smear. And the irony is in that one regard, as a political smear, it is horrendously inept. In other words, listen, I'll be surprised if next week Trump is not at 60% in the GOP primary. I've already described how this is the single greatest in kind contribution to the Trump 2024 campaign that I've ever seen brought by Alvin Bragg, the left wing. George Soros, Democrat, DA So if their purpose was a political smear, it titillated the excitement of the left, who hates Trump. But I don't think it succeeded in the purpose that they hoped it would.

Ben Ferguson (21:58)

Yeah, I don't think it did either. But I also think that there's a problem now for this president, and that is the political side of, can he get this dismissed, Senator, before December? Are his hands literally tied and his legal team's hands tied until December, which, you know, means then this is gonna. This is going to be an issue well into this election cycle.

Senator Ted Cruz (22:23)

Look, this is going to be an issue into this election cycle. There was no getting around that the Democrats hate Trump, and so they were gonna argue about indicting him, potentially indicting him, wanting to indict him right up until Election Day. That was going to happen. Regardless. I would like to see this resolved quickly. I don't know if the New York State courts will operate quickly. I do think there's another whole set of issues. The judge admonished Trump about his rhetoric, I gotta say. So there's not a gag order in place, but if the judge tried to put a gag order in place, I think that would raise very significant First Amendment issues. Trump is not an ordinary defendant. He is a leading candidate for President of the United States. And the idea that a New York State judge would try to impose legal penalties on one of the leading candidates for President of the United States, who happens to be a former president, from speaking his mind about just about any issue of public concern, is really an astonishing and an unprecedented notion. And so I don't think the judge will try to enter a gag order, because it really is. To say that playing with dynamite would be an understatement, but I was more than a little concerned by the judge admonishing rhetoric because it's none of his damn business. This is not a mob boss who is threatening retaliation against a prosecutor. This is, in fact, a partisan prosecutor who ran promising retaliation against a political opponent whom he hates. And so I think that there's a whole world of potential problems that could rise, but they haven't risen yet, and I actually don't think they will. I don't know this judge, but I would be surprised if the judge were that foolish, because any effort to silence a leading contender for president I think would be doomed to failure.

Ben Ferguson (24:23)

I want to ask you about another shock, and that was the media spreading what I would refer to as fake news about some of these charges. And before I play that, I want to tell you about our friends over chalk. If you're a guy and you're getting a little bit older and you feel like you're losing a little bit of that edge, you're losing some of that strength and vitality, and you want to figure out how to fight back, you can do it now with the Patriots at chalk. They are here to help real American men take back their right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterone levels up to 20% over 90 days. I've been taking chalk. You can check them out. Chalk choq.com for now, almost two months and I've been taking the male vitality stack. It works. You should look at it. If you feel like you're losing a little bit of that edge, then check it out and see what chalk can do for you. Manufactured right here in the usa, Chalk's natural supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects on your energy and your focus as well. Maximize your masculinity today. Go to chalk choq.com use the code BEN for 35% off. Any Chalk subscription for life. Cancel anytime. Chok.com use promo code BEN for 35% off. Senator, the media was also out there and they were obsessed. It was almost like the word was sent out to everybody in the media. Abc, NBC, cnn, msnbc, the list goes on. To use a big word to make this sound like Donald Trump's in deep, you know what? And the word they were obsessed with today was the word conspiracy. I'm going to play this montage for you and I want to get your reaction.

Unnamed Speaker (26:03)

Trump pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan courtroom again to 34 counts of falsifying business records and conspiracy. Conspiracy is a very effective tool used by prosecutors to charge someone, charge groups of people and hold them accountable for all acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. But the big question now arises, who is the conspiracy with?

Ben Ferguson (26:25)

It's 34 counts of falsifying records and.

Unnamed Speaker (26:29)

Conspiracy is 34 counts of falsifying business records and conspiracy. More information we need to see what was the purpose of the conspiracy, who was in the conspiracy, what were the so called overt acts. You actually have to take a step in first servants of the sir of that conspiracy. You don't actually have to complete the conspiracy. You don't actually have to go through with it. You can just intend to go through with it.

Ben Ferguson (26:57)

Now Senator, I've got a whole nother minute of this type of talk. I'm not going to. I think everybody gets the point here. They were obsessed with this word conspiracy. Was the President charged with conspiracy today?

Senator Ted Cruz (27:10)

No. Ok, look, listening to that montage, you want to know the definition of fake news? You just saw it. You can read the indictment. There are 34 counts, there are 34 counts of all the same thing, which is a fraudulent business record in furtherance of another crime. There is no conspiracy count. You know, one of those commentators said a conspiracy count can be a very powerful tool. That's actually accurate. But that's not what Alvin Bragg brought. There was no conspiracy charge. And every one of those commentators, assuming every one of them is talking after the indictment came out, those news organizations should all issue retractions or corrections because there is no conspiracy charge and any news organization saying to the contrary is lying to the American people.

Ben Ferguson (28:04)

Let's talk about another aspect of this and that is how do you move forward if you're running for President with this hanging over your head? And also I think it's pretty clear now that other indictments could happen. We may have mug shots of the President in the next couple of months, depending on these other cases. This is a distraction. It's going to be a big distraction. It's going to take time, energy, money, focus away. And they're trying to place doubt in the voters heads that you can't vote for Donald Trump because if you do vote for a guy like Donald Trump, he might go to jail and therefore you're wasting your vote. That's obviously what the media is trying to do here and what the Democrats are hoping is going to happen. So how do the American people look at this moving forward? And if it grows, Senator, is that a, is that a reason to bail on and say, all right, they've done their damage, fine, we'll figure out something else.

Senator Ted Cruz (29:04)

Look, this is blatant election interference by rabid Democrats. Whether it is Alvin Bragg, whether it is the Biden White House and the Biden Department of Justice. And we've talked at great length about how I believe Merrick Garland desperately wants to indict Donald Trump, or whether it is a left wing Georgia prosecutor with a grand jury who is a self described witch. All of these, I believe, are partisan efforts to use the criminal justice system to subvert the will of the voters. If you're a Democrat and you don't want Donald Trump to win, there's an obvious avenue to pursue which is try to beat him in an election. If you're a Republican, and there are certainly some Republicans who don't want Donald Trump to win, the obvious answer is to beat him in a primary election. That's actually how our political process works. We're going to have primaries to select the Republican nominee and the Democrat nominee. And we should be debating who the best nominee is, who has the best record, who is the most likely to win, who would make the best president. That's the essence of politics. What is happening is these left wing Democrats, they don't trust the voters. They don't want to have the voters make that determination. They don't actually want to have to make their case to the voters. Instead, they're trying to end run the will of the voters by pursuing bogus and abusive prosecutions. I think that is an endeavor doomed to fail. And ironically, the more they do it, the more they end up politically benefiting and boosting Donald Trump. And so I'd like to see all these ridiculous prosecutions stop and let the voters decide. Let's have a real and meaningful debate about the right direction for the country, not a partisan witch hunt driven by Democrats who ultimately are angry with the voters in 2016 for having dared to elect Donald Trump in the first place.

Ben Ferguson (31:26)

I want to ask you one other question politically about this. And there was a lot of conservatives I saw today that were saying, if this is how the game's going to be played, then there needs to be conservative DA's around the country that go ahead and jump in and start charging Democrats with crimes. Hunter Biden, James Biden, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on. On to show them if they're going to do it, we'll do it, too. What is your reaction to that strategy where they're saying, all right, they want to go to the mattresses. We can't just keep sitting back here acting like we're statesmen. If they want to play by these rules, then let's play by these rules.

Senator Ted Cruz (32:02)

Look, at some level, it may be inevitable. We talked about when Verdict launched. The first night this podcast came into existence was the first night of the very first impeachment of Donald Trump. One of the things that we said in the opening days of Verdict is the Democrats are crossing a Rubicon and they are creating a new environment where whenever you have a House of Representatives from one party and a president from the opposing party, the odds of impeachment being used as a means of political warfare have risen dramatically. Now, I wish the Democrats had not crossed that line. And I think our country is worse off when you have the impeachment of the president as a routine matter, a political battle. But I think the Democrats have pushed us in that direction. I think what Alvin Bragg has done and I think what Merrick Garland wants to do would push us dramatically more in that direction, where it's not just impeachment, which the American people do understand, it's politicians attacking politicians. There is inevitably some element of politics to it. An indictment and a prosecution is meant to be separate and apart from politics. So listen, part of me, my heart hurts when I hear people saying, all right, Republicans, go indict the Democrats. Now, I don't want to see our legal system used as a weapon and tool of political retribution. Now, to be clear, I've said repeatedly the Department of Justice should investigate the Biden family, and Joe Biden in particular for corruption. Official public corruption is a responsibility of the Department of Justice. And I think there is significant evidence that Joe Biden personally has profited and that his family has profited from Communist China and also from Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Those investigations are perfectly appropriate. Ideally, they should happen in the Department of Justice, even though it is headed by a Democrat Attorney General. But I do think we've got a good possibility of seeing some Republican DA somewhere who decides. All right, I want to be famous like Alvin Bragg. I'm going to go do this too. And I got to say that is much worse for the rule of law. It's worse for the Constitution. It's worse for our democratically elected government if we go down that road. But Alvin Bragg and Merrick Garland have pushed us a long, long way down that road. And I understand the rage and fury that is leading people to call for that.

Ben Ferguson (35:07)

Last question for you. And I want to ask you about these future indictments. Before we get to that, I want to remind you about our friends at Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is the only conservative Christian cell phone company in the US and they are a company where every single time that you pay your bill you actually are supporting the causes and organizations that fight for our values. If you want to know that when you are writing a check, when you're spending money each month, it's going to companies that stand up for what you believe in instead of woke companies fighting against what you believe in. Patriot Mobile is where you need to be. Switching is easy. You get to keep your same cell phone number. You can keep your same cell phone you have right now in your hand or you can upgrade to a new one. And many times you'll actually save money over what you're spending right now. And on top of that, they take a percentage of your bill every month and they give it back to conservative causes that fight for first Amendment rights or second amendment rights, rights of unborn children, even help now with adoptions in a post Roe v. Wade world. This is a company I've been using for years. They're amazing. So stand with other conservatives and make a difference with every phone call. Call Patriot Mobile today or go online to patriot mobile.com Ben patriot mobile.com Ben or you can go to 878patriot that's 878-patriot or patriot mobile.com Ben last question for you, Senator, and that is with this indictment today, is do you believe it's going to be pretty easy now to get these other indictments against Donald Trump? Because those grand juries are going to say, and those prosecutors say, hey, they've already done it in New York. You're not going to be the first. Go ahead and take the leap.

Senator Ted Cruz (36:51)

Maybe. Look, I think it makes it a little bit easier, but I don't think it makes it much easier. The Atlanta investigation, I don't really know. I don't know that prosecutor, as we discussed, the grand jury forewoman, the fact that she went on a media tour broadcasting her partisan dislike for Trump, that's a real problem for the prosecutors, I promise you. The Atlanta prosecutors were horrified when she did that. It will raise, if there is an indictment, it will raise an obvious ground for challenging that indictment. The greatest peril legally has always been the Department of Justice. And listen, the Department of Justice has a unique role. It is the exclusive enforcer of federal law. We've discussed at great length. I believe Merrick Garland has made the political decision. He wants to indict Donald Trump. It's why, and we've talked about this before, DOJ leaked that they intended to indict Hunter Biden for purely personal crimes that had nothing to do with Joe Biden because A, they wanted to insulate Joe Biden in the White House from liability and complicity in corruption with foreign governments. But B, because it gave a easy appearance of balance for Garland to say, look, I indicted a Biden, I indicted a Trump. Look how even handed I am. I think that plan hit a major, major impediment when it was suddenly discovered that Joe Biden had classified documents seemingly everywhere. I think prior to the Biden documents being discovered, the odds were extremely high that Merrick Garland was going to indict Trump for the possession of classified documents. Now, it is really tough. It is really tough to bring that case against Trump and not bring it against Biden. Everyone, even msnbc, the partisan shills there, would be forced to ask, wait a second, why is this only a crime when Republicans do it? And so I think yesterday's indictment, well, last week's indictment and yesterday's not guilty plea marginally increases the chances of future indictments. But at the end of the day, I think there are real impediments to the other cases, and those impediments may be sufficient to prevent the indictments from coming.

Ben Ferguson (39:35)

We're going to keep covering this here and we'll let you. We'll keep you updated on all of this as it continues to move forward and these possible other indictments. As you said, Senator, this is a sad day for this country and it's going to be very hard to get the genie back in the bottle after what the Democrats have done to the president of the United States of America, former President Donald Trump. And I think like you said, his approval rating and his numbers are going to skyrocket in this primary. He's going to be the overwhelming front runner on steroids after this. And that may be the biggest backfire of all for what the Democrats thought they were going to get out of this one. Don't forget we do this podcast three days a week. One day we do audio and video. The other two are audio only. So make sure you hit subscribe and the hit that auto subscriber, auto download button. Right. It's a five star review so it can help reach more people. And please share it with your family and your friends. Senator Cruz and I will see you back here in a couple of days.