← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Trump's Iran Address, Pam Bondi Leaving & ActBlue Facing Criminal Liability
00:34:57
Loading summary
Transcript51 lines
- [00:00]
A
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human with verbocare. Help is always ready before, during and after your stay.
- [00:11]
B
We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of mind.
- [00:21]
C
Dear Friday Toyota says let's put good times in gear with the tundra Tacoma and 4Runner. Want some cool available features. Got power tailgates to power game days and a trailer backup guide that's the champ of the ramp. Heck, we might even cancel Monday Toyota trucks. Find yours@toyota.com Toyota let's go places.
- [00:50]
A
Welcome. It is Verdict with center Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. And if you're listening on the radio around the country, it's really nice to have you with us, Senator. We've got a lot to talk about on this show and remind people we also do this show as a podcast three days a week. So if you like the radio show show, you'll love the podcast. Make sure you download Verdict with Ted Cruz wherever you get your podcasts. And the president addressed the nation this week, made it very clear we're gonna wrap things up with Iran, but we also got some work still to get done.
- [01:17]
B
Well, the president gave a national address talking about Iran, what we're accomplishing and what the goals are. And I gotta say, if you're a caveman, the president's address was very, very good news. But if you're an ayatollah, if you are a radical mullah who chants death to America, the president's address was terrible news. We're gonna break it down, tell you exactly what he said, what it means for the Iran war, where things are going. We're also gonna talk about the fact that this week the president asked Pam Bondi for a resignation. He's gonna move to a new attorney general. Pam is a good friend. She has been a guest on this show. We're gonna talk about Pam's record and we're gonna talk about what's next at doj. And finally, the New York Times has a bombshell report that ActBlue, the big democr fundraising online apparatus, may well have committed multiple criminal acts, may well be laundering foreign money and could face criminal liability, could be shut down. This is from the New York Times. We're going to break that story down because it has potentially enormous consequences for the midterms.
- [02:24]
A
Yeah, it's a really big story and it's really interesting to see who is reporting on it. Before we get to all that, though, I want to talk to you about our friends over at Bitcoin Coin ira, I gotta ask you a question. Can you buy real bitcoin in your retirement account? Well if not, it's time to upgrade to Bitcoin IRA. It's 2026 and cryptocurrency is where so many investors are going and diversifying. You can buy and sell bitcoin inside a tax advantage IRA with Bitcoin IRA and that gives you more ways to diversify and grow your retirement savings. Security is their number one priority and your assets are protected by military grade multi key security and you're covered up to 250 million in digital asset insurance. So what are you waiting for? Get in the bitcoin game today and diversify your portfolio. You actually talk to a real person. 8666-796871-86679-7871 or bitcoin ira.com Ben that's bitcoin ira.com Ben to open a free account and earn up to a thousand dollar bonus right now. So Senator, President Trump came out, he addressed the nation about 31 days after he kind of told us what was going to go on when we were going into Iran and what the goals and objectives were. He was giving an update the American people. I really genuinely love this, this level of transparency and also explaining where we are, what is still left. And I think it landed pretty well, especially with people that voted for the President.
- [04:11]
B
Yeah, I think that's right. The President said exactly what we're doing and what's coming next here, give a listen.
- [04:17]
D
Thanks to the progress we've made. I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly, very shortly, we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.
- [04:36]
A
Center. For anybody that wants transparency, you don't get any more transparent than this President. He's like yes, we have the upper hand to the level where he can literally just say to Iran this is what we're going to do to you if you don't agree to this. If you don't open the stray, the Hormuz, well guess what, we're going to bomb the living snot out of you. And we're not bluffing. I love the fact that this President is just being like this transparent, not just with us but like with the rest of the world as well.
- [05:00]
B
Look that that's important for our enemies to hear. It's important for our friends to hear. Imagine for a second, you are the current Ayatollah, the previous ayatollah has gone to meet his maker. You're the new Ayatollah and you're thinking, okay, we've made it through four weeks of this. This is about to be over. The Americans are about to stop. And, and then you turn on the tv, you turn on the Internet and you see him say, we're going to bomb you back to the stone age. Look, that's not encouraging. For the people who chant Death to America, that is that, that is extremely dismaying. They're holding on by their fingernails. And he's being clear that they're going to hit very, very hard. And he's also being clear this is going to last a couple of weeks, it's not going to last months more, it's not going to last a year or longer. He's going to pound the hell out of him for the next couple of weeks. And you know, for the handful of online critics, and I do want to say, the press loves to say there's a civil war among Republicans on President Trump attacking Iran. That is objectively false. If you look at the polling, the support is between 85% and 90% of Republicans support what the President is doing. That's not a civil war. They're just a handful of really loud voices. Self proclaimed influencers and podcasters. By the way, can you stand a podcast podcaster? What an annoying class of human being, the podcasters.
- [06:28]
A
Yeah, they get quoted a lot when you need them. Right? Like they love. There's a lot of Republican podcasters that I describe as useful idiots for the left. Whenever they need one people, it's like they raise their hand like, oh, I'll do that for you. Like I'll say that for you. As long as you get my name out there. It's truly incredible.
- [06:43]
B
Yeah, these self proclaimed podcasters are fond of saying, oh, President Trump has changed his view. And he's changed his view because he's a puppet, that others are pulling his strings. Well, look, the President was clear also in his national address. This has been his view for a long, long time. Here, give a listen.
- [07:01]
D
From the very first day I announced my campaign for President in 2015, I have vowed that I would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. This vernacular regime has been chanting death to America, death to Israel for 47 years. Their proxies were behind the murder of 241Americans in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the slaughter of hundreds of our service members with roadside bombs. They were involved in the attack on the USS Cole. And they carried out the countless other heinous acts, including the blood, just horrible, bloody atrocities of October 7th in Israel. Something that most people have never seen anything like it. This murderous regime also recently killed 45,000 of their own people who were protesting in Iran. 45,000 dead. For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat. The most violent and thuggish regime on earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest, and mass murder from behind a nuclear shield. I will never let that happen. And neither should any of our past presidents.
- [08:27]
A
You know, the only difference between Donald Trump and the past presidency just mentioned there is every other president has said that you can't allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon and that they are a threat to this country directly. The only difference is Donald Trump actually did what he said he was gonna do and he was going to stop them. The other ones did not. They tried appeasement, they tried just kind of looking the other way. None of it works since 1979. So now he's doing it. That's literally the only difference here.
- [08:53]
B
Well, listen, President Trump has been absolutely clear, as he pointed out, going back to when he launched his first presidential campaign in 2015. 2015 was 11 years ago. So the naysayers online who claim there's some, like, magical realization, Donald Trump has had, have not listened to him year after year after year for more than a decade. When he said Iran will not get nuclear weapons, he meant it. And he's acting, he's carrying out on that right now.
- [09:20]
A
I want to play devil's advocate with you because there's a lot of people and some of those on the right that have said this like, we didn't need to go. Now, this was just Donald Trump wanting to get into some sort of war. And this was bad timing by him. So let me ask you, for people that are saying, why now? Explain why now Made sense.
- [09:42]
B
Well, there were two factors that were really critical. Number one, as President Trump mentioned just a minute ago, and as he said, For 11 years, we cannot allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. That. That when the Ayatollah chanted death to America, we have every reason to believe him. The Iranian regime has killed nearly a thousand Americans. They have been the number one state funder of terrorism worldwide. If they had a nuclear weapon, the odds are unacceptably high they would use it. Now, a month ago, they were not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Last year, during the 12 day war, President Trump ordered our B2 bombers to fly halfway around the world. And we dropped bunker busters on their nuclear weapons research facilities, particularly for now, which for now is a secret research bunker. It was built under a mountain and it was built to withstand bombing attacks. Because Israel did not have bombs big enough to take out Fordo. No other country on earth had bombs big enough to do that. Except for the United States were the only ones that had the bunker busters big enough to take it out. The ordinance we dropped on their nuclear research facilities last year were the equivalent of one third of a nuclear weapon. We're talking big, big bombs. And we took out their nuclear weapons facilities. So a month ago, they were not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons facilities or nuclear weapons rather. Why did President Trump act? Because Iran was building missiles, short range and medium range ballistic missiles at an incredibly rapid clip. Over 100 missiles a month. They were building. They were also building, by the way.
- [11:17]
A
Put that in perspective. I think people need to understand building 100amonth, that is like warp speed in the ballistic missile world. People need to understand that, like if you're building that many, it's, it's for a reason you're going to war. It's not even a defensive, that's like an offensive posture. And everybody in the world basically agreed with that.
- [11:37]
B
Well, we also know now that they had missiles that, that were sufficient that they could go all the way from Iran to Diego Garcia. Because during this war, they fired a missile at Diego Garcia, which is a British American military base in the Chagos Islands in the middle of the Indian oceans. That's a couple thousand miles away. That is the same distance from Iran that Paris and London are, which meant they had missiles far enough to get to the capital cities in Europe. They were building over 100 missiles a month. They were also building vast numbers of drones. And their plan was to have so many missiles and so many drones that it would become prohibitively costly to go in and take out their next nuclear weapons research facility. They wanted enough missiles and drones and that if we came in and took out phase two of the nuclear weapons research facility, they could inflict massive casualties on their neighbors. And look what they did when this conflict started. They fired missiles at everybody, not just at Israel, at every one of their neighbors. And so the Trump administration made the determination they needed to act now, before they had so many missiles and so many drones that there would be a massive loss of life if we acted subsequently to take out nuclear weapons research facilities. That's number one. Number two, the Iranian regime is weaker right now than it has been at any time during our lifetime. As you know, I spent the entire day, the day before this conflict began with President Trump. He and I were together in Air Force One. We flew from D.C. to Texas together. And then he asked me to join him in the beast in the presidential limo. It was just the two of us, one on one, the entire time. We were talking about what should he do in Iran. And what I was arguing to him, I support this, this attack, and I urge this attack vigorously. And I said, listen, the regime has never been more vulnerable. It is teetering, and there is very little, if anything, that you could do that would more greatly enhance American national security than to see this radical Islamist regime collapse to remove from. From power an Ayatollah who chants, death to America, who has been murdering Americans for years, and who wants to kill as many Americans as he can.
- [13:55]
A
All right, let me go back to another big question, and I would say a fallacy that's been out there that a lot of people have been talking about, and that is, well, it wasn't America's role to do this. If the neighbors were afraid, then they should have been the ones. We already went after their nuclear facilities, and that's where America should have stopped. And if others in Europe were concerned about being hit by these. By these missiles that could reach them, capital cities, then that's on them to do it, not America. Why did we have to do this? That's the isolationist viewpoint I've heard.
- [14:26]
B
Right? Look, we weren't doing it for Iran's neighbors. We weren't doing it for Saudi Arabia or UAE or Qatar. We weren't doing it for Europe, and we weren't doing it for Israel. I know all of the Jew haters online like to say, it's for Israel, it's for Israel, it's for Israel.
- [14:41]
A
Yeah.
- [14:42]
B
The Ayatollah chanted death to America. He also chanted death to Israel. But there's a reason the Ayatollah called Israel the Little Satan and America the Great Satan. I believe if the Ayatollah had a nuclear weapon, he might have detonated it in Tel Aviv and killed vast numbers of Israelis. But I actually think it is more likely if he could, he would detonate a nuclear weapon in New York City or Los Angeles and kill as many Americans as possible. That is, look, when he calls us the Great Satan, and understand this is not hypothetical, I want to underscore my view. I am, as a general matter, very reluctant to use military force. I think the Iraq war was a mistake. I have been vocal for a long time that the Iraq war was a mistake. Why do I think it was a mistake? Because Saddam Hussein was not waging war against the United States. He was not killing vast numbers of Americans. He was not pledging to kill vast numbers of Americans. The ayatollah was over 90% of the funding for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis had come from Iran. They were murdering Americans year after year after year. They were trying to murder President Trump and that is why the president acted. And look at all we've accomplished. Give a listen to the president on everything we've accomplished so far.
- [15:58]
D
Tonight, Iran's Navy is gone. Their air force is in ruins. Their leaders, most of them terrorist regime they led are now dead. Their command and control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is being decimated as we speak. Their ability to launch missiles and drones is dramatically curtailed and their weapons factories and rocket launchers are being blown to pieces. Very few of them left. Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large scale losses in a matter of weeks.
- [16:40]
A
President Trump being very clear there.
- [16:44]
C
Dear Friday Toyota says let's put good times in gear with the Tundra Tacoma and 4Runner want some cool available features. We've got power tailgates to power game days and a trailer backup guide that's the champ of the ramp. Heck, we might even cancel Monday. Toyota trucks. Find yours@toyota.com Toyota let's go places.
- [17:13]
A
I want to move on to one of the big headlines. It's never fun when someone loses their job in the administration. The headline from the New York Post, pam Bondi speaks out for the first time after Trump fired her as the attorney general. I want to get your take on this. You know her well? I know her. We've had her on this show before. Look in cabinets. There's always people that come and go. That's just part of Washington and politics. It is what it is. There's a lot of people on the left that are just thrilled about this, that they're all, there's a turmoil and, you know, everything. I don't think it's that way at all. I think this is the president just saying, okay, I, I want to do something a little bit different and he's going to move on pretty darn quick.
- [17:53]
B
Yeah, Listen, Pam Bondi is a good friend of mine. I think she took on what may be the single hardest job in the entire administration, the Department of Justice. There is a deep state at DOJ and at the FBI who fought her from day one who have been waging war, trying to prevent her efforts to bring back integrity, to take the politicization out of the Department of Justice. And it's been an uphill battle. It's been a difficult battle. Pam was someone who, she was a guest on Verdict, literally, when she was just a couple of weeks into the job, at a very beginning, brand new ag, she came on Verdict and was a guest and talked to us about everything she was trying to accomplish. You know, she put out a tweet saying farewell. Here's what Pam had to say. Over the next month, I will be working tirelessly to transition the office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanche before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about and where I will continue fighting for President Trump in this administration. Leading President Trump's historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history. Since February 2025, we have secured the lowest murder rate in 125 years, secured first ever terrorism convictions against members of Antifa, shattered domestic and transnational gangs across the country, taken custody of more than 90 key cartel figures, and won 24 favorable rulings at the Supreme Court. I remain internally grateful for the trust that President Trump placed in me to make America safe again. And listen, I think Pam served honorably. It is the president's prerogative to choose if he wants new leadership at the Department of Justice, and he's made that choice. But I think Pam served honorably in a very difficult job. And I think her results, particularly in terms of crime, in terms of going after murderers and rapists and gang bangers and illegal aliens and the resulting 20% drop in the murder rate, is staggering and unprecedented and is something she should be very proud of. I'm certain that she is, because between that and the rate of drug overdose deaths dropping 20% nationally, there are literally thousands of Americans right now who are alive today because of the policy she and President Trump and a Republican Congress put in place. Securing the border and removing dangerous criminals. That's something to be really proud of.
- [20:42]
A
It is. And you look at my hometown, for example, where I was born in Memphis, Tennessee. Pam was there multiple times. Crime There is down 40% year over year. The president just went to Memphis, gosh, less than a week ago and talked about the success there of what he did there in Washington, D.C. pam was a large part of that as well. And as you mentioned, like that's part of legacy. Look, you and I have known people that have come and gone in cabinets before, some of them actually ags. I've known a couple that have lost their job after a while.
- [21:11]
D
It is.
- [21:11]
A
It's one of the hardest jobs to do. My former mentor in D.C. was John Ashcroft, and he always didn't get along with the President. United States of America, George Bush 43. And afterwards, Alberto Gonzalez came in. I mean, you know, it is part of what happens. I also think, though, based on the names we're hearing right now, somebody's gonna get this job and they're gonna do probably one hell of a job for the President. And I do think, even now, you know, even more defined what the President's gonna want out of you on the, on the second go round on this one. That also can be good for that individual coming in.
- [21:46]
B
Yeah, look, at least right now, what's been announced is that Todd Blanche, who's the Deputy Attorney General, is gonna be the acting Attorney General. I don't know how long that's gonna last. It wouldn't surprise me if President Trump gives him a little bit of time to see what kind of job he does. He may end up leaving Todd Blanche in that role. That would not shock me. Todd is a serious lawyer, has been doing a good job as Deputy Attorney General. He has been focused on a lot of the law enforcement mission, in particular locking up criminals. And so I could see him being given a shot at the top job. There's been other chatter that Lee Zeldin. Lee Zeldin has also been a guest on this podcast. He's the administrator of the epa.
- [22:25]
A
We had people, by the way, didn't realize he's a lawyer. I had multiple people text me. They're like, how is the guy in the epa? I'm like, well, he's a lawyer. And they had no idea he was a lawyer. I mean, his name has been circulating, like, inside of Washington and outside of Washington as well.
- [22:40]
B
Well, listen, Lee has done a very effective job at epa. And by the way, it is hard to do the job of head of the EPA if you're not a lawyer, because it's dense and complicated laws and regulations and understanding it. And Lee's been really effective in the regulatory reform agenda in pulling back the job killing regulations that did so much damage under the Biden administration. And I suspect that's one reason I haven't had this conversation with President Trump. But I suspect that's one reason why he's considering Lee is because he's been very, very effective in a complicated, difficult cabinet position. Now, DOJ is qualitatively different. And listen, I'll say, as for me, you know, in the first Trump administration, I talked to the President quite seriously about possibly being AG. And in Trump 1, I went in and spent about four and a half hours in Trump Tower the week after the election in November 2016. And I had a conversation with him on a number of fronts and I made what I would say would be a half hearted play for ag. What I told him at the time is I said, listen, I recognize back then that I was pretty late on the train and I said, there are others like Jeff Sessions or Giuliani or Christie, if they want to be ag, you probably should, should give it to them. But if you, if you wanted to talk to me about this, I'd be willing to have that conversation. We did talk about it. We had a good conversation. The President made the decision to go with Jeff Sessions. Jeff was a good friend of mine, was a colleague in the Senate. I was happy for him. And I will tell you, in the 11 years since that conversation, I have been grateful every day since then that I did not go down that path. Because let's be clear, if I had
- [24:29]
A
become ag, that question, I was going to ask the question like, did you ever look back and you're like, that was the best conversation ever to be late on the train?
- [24:37]
B
Oh, yes, yes, yes. And look, I made a half hearted play on purpose. I know how to make a full throated play, but I thought I perceived the downsides of the job and I liked what I was doing then. So I was like, but to be honest, the reason I made, made the, the half hearted play is, is just for love of the game. I mean, frankly, the job of Attorney General, I would really enjoy that job. It didn't make any sense. It, it wasn't consistent with what I wanted to do. But, but it just would be fun in hindsight. So I will tell you, nine months into it, there was a story in the New York Times. This is, would have been, I think, August of 2017.
- [25:17]
A
Oh, I remember, I remember well where you're going with this. Keep going.
- [25:21]
B
And the story said Trump is thinking about firing Jeff Sessions and he's talking to Cruz about replacing him. And look, Sessions has been a friend of mine forever. So I called Jeff and by the way, Jeff knew that I talked to him about it. He was in Trump Tower the day I was there talking to him about it. We were very open and transparent with Each other. And I called Jeff the day that story came out and I said, hey, Jeff, I just wanted you to hear from me. This is B.S. like, I have not. I said, you knew. I had a conversation with the President back November of last year. I said, since then, I've not had another conversation about ag. And I just told Jeff, I want you to hear from me. I don't want the job and I wouldn't take it if offered. So this is not coming from me. And listen, Jeff had a rough time in that position. Bill Barr, who succeeded him, started out really well, but at the end, he had a rough time in that position. That has been a job. Pam Bondi did a lot of good, but getting fired in front of the world is not fun. It's not fun. I put out a statement saying how much I support and like her. And I sent her a text just saying, hey, I'm praying for you and thinking of you and thank you for being a patriot and answering the call. But all of which is to say I am immensely glad that I stayed in the Senate. I've been Donald Trump's single strongest ally in the Senate for more than a decade, but I very much like the arrangement of working hand in hand with the President from the Senate rather than doj. Whoever gets the nod, whether it's Todd Blanche or Lee Zeldin or whoever, I will work with them to help them get confirmed. I will work hand in hand with them, just like I did with Pam Bondi and Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions, because the mission of DOJ is massively important and President Trump deserves a strong, effective, incredibly principled Attorney General.
- [27:16]
A
Mark Wayne got confirmed. It was actually pretty easy. Do you expect the same thing for whoever the President picks real quick in this position as well, even with a slim majority?
- [27:25]
B
Probably. Although like Mark Wayne, I think it'll be largely a party line vote. Mark Wayne got only two Democrats who voted for him. I think no matter who, who the President appoints, the Democrats will, will, will party line vote against him, with a possible exception of one or two. But if it's anything like, if it's any reasonable appointment, appointment, I think you'll see the Republicans line up and give the president at least 51 votes.
- [27:50]
A
All right, Senator, there was something very interesting that happened this week. No one was really covering it. The New York Times, however, did report on this that that radical leftist organization Act Blue may have misled Congress on, and I'm quoting here, vetting foreign donations. Its lawyers said so just to be clear, another example of Democrats Taking foreign interference, something I thought they were totally against in our elections and our, in our laws. But yeah, not on this one. Apparently foreign dollars coming in and they may not have vetted the money at all.
- [28:24]
B
So in a shocking development, rain fell upwards, fish began flying, birds began swimming, and the New York Times actually reported news.
- [28:40]
A
Do we do a golf clap for that? Like a little Masters golf clap? There you go.
- [28:44]
B
It is shocking, this story, and this is actually a bombshell story that, that could potentially have very real consequences. It's in the New York Times. The headline is ActBlue may have misled Congress on vetting foreign donations. Its lawyers warned. So understand the source of this is Covington and Burling, which is a blue chip law firm in D.C. that where Joe Biden's former White House counsel was the lawyer for ActBlue. And Act Blue is, is a powerhouse. It has raised billions and billions of dollars for.
- [29:21]
A
Say that again, people understand. Not millions, billions raids just for Democrats.
- [29:27]
B
They flood money and they have all of these donors or their credit card information is set in there on auto contribute month after month after month. And it just floods cash. Now here's what the New York Times reported. The Democratic fundraising group is facing investigations from the Justice Department and congressional Republicans ahead of midterm elections. In early 2025, a law firm working for Act Blue, the Democratic fundraising behemoth, delivered the organization a startling warning. The firm concluded that ActBlue's chief executive had given a potentially misleading response to congressional Republican investigators in a 2023 letter explaining how the organization vetted donations to ensure that they were not illegally coming from foreign citizens. Quote, this presents a substantial risk for Act Blue, the law firm Covington and Burling wrote in one of the two memos. One memo raised the specter of criminal investigation if Prosecutors believe that ActBlue had tried to conceal facts about its efforts to prevent foreign contributions. The memos instigated a meltdown at the highest levels of ActBlue, one of the Democratic Party's most vital financial organs. A series of top officials resigned in quick succession. ActBlue is now all but declaring war on its past lawyers. An extraordinary turn of events at a moment when President Trump has already ordered a Justice Department investigation into the organization. Democrats are nervous that any additional upheaval at ActBlue could destabilize the critical fundraising apparatus ahead of the midterm elections. All levels of Democratic candidates, from incumbent presidents to school board aspirants, use ActBlue to raise campaign money from online donors. The platform has processed. Get this number nearly 19 billion with a B billion dollars in contributions since its founding in 20 2004. Building a donor database with millions of credit card numbers that is unmatched in American politics. Nearly 23,000 candidates and groups used the site in 2025. In one year, nearly 23,000 candidates and groups and raised almost $1.8 billion from 52 million contributions, some of which recur every month. And what is striking is the Covington memos said, and here's the really killer sentence, quote, it can be alleged that ActBlue accepted and or facilitated the acceptance of foreign national contributions into American elections. In addition, because ActBlue staff was aware that its system was not as robust as necessary, it could be alleged that these violations were knowing and willful, a standard that both increases the penalties the FEC might seek and gives the Justice Department jurisdiction for a potential criminal investigation. This is a big, big deal.
- [32:48]
A
Yeah, when you say big deal, and I'm, I'm a pessimist now, like a lot of people, and, and every time we see something like this happen, then it's like, all right, well, is there going to be people that go to jail and be arrested? And then it seems like nothing ever happens. So when you say this is a big, big deal, are you saying that there could actually genuinely be people that get in trouble for this? Or is it just gonna be like some little fine and we move on or even nothing at all?
- [33:12]
B
Look, there could be people criminally prosecuted. There could be people going to jail, but that's not really the biggest consequence. The biggest consequence is if there's a criminal investigation. And this is, this is Covington and Burling, a big Democrat law firm. That was the lawyer for ActBlue telling them, Holy crap, you guys have screwed up and you've got real exposure. And then this is the New York Times, the official mouthpiece for the Democrats reporting on it. The biggest political consequence would be if a criminal investigation shuts down ActBlue between now and the election. Because ActBlue, if nothing else happens, ActBlue will raise billions of dollars for Democrats between now and November. And by the way, ActBlue's defense, one of their defense is, well, well, we, we, we. Less than 1% of contributions in 2024 were from foreign countries. Well, less than 1% out of $19 billion is a crap ton of money, and it is illegal. And that dynamic. And I'll give you some other, other stats. So here, here's something Greg Price tweeted with all the headwinds facing the gop National Democrat groups have a serious fundraising problem going into the midterm. The DNC currently has more debt than cash on hand, while the RNC has over $100 million on hand. The SLF, CLF, NRCC, and NRSC, which are all the different committees on the Republican side, all have more cash than their Democrat counterparts. And now this, with ActBlue, the Democrat crown jewel of their fundraising. The big, big political consequence. If Act Blue has committed criminal conduct, laundering foreign money into American elections, and if they actively covered it up, which is what Covington and Burling suggests there's evidence of, that could be more than sufficient for the Department of Justice to shut Act Blue down. And if that money spigot is cut off from Democrat candidates in November, that has massive, massive consequences.
- [35:31]
A
And it shuts off the foreign money. Right? That's also another big part of this. And so even if they try to morph into a new group, right, people eat that.
- [35:39]
B
And by the way, look, the foreign money is not just some hypothetical specter. In fact, if you're the Chinese, if you're the Russians, if you're the Iranians, if you're the Venezuelans, if you're the Cubans, it is objectively in your interest to have Democrats win in November. Donald Trump has made your life a living hell. And so you want Congress to declare war on President Trump. You want a Democrat House and Senate that impeaches the President, that investigates the president, that prevents the president from doing what he's done to the enemies of America?
- [36:10]
A
Yeah, you're exactly right. You've been listening to Verdict with Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. We'll see you on the podcast this week.