← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Will Schumer REFUSE to Try Mayorkas, plus the Media Turns on Biden
00:44:42
Loading summary
Transcript39 lines
- [00:00]
Ben Ferguson
This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know, when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You, you'll meet on your schedule wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner or just need a little extra one on one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to talkspace.com match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com save $80 with code SPACE80 at talk.
- [01:02]
Ted Cruz
Welcome. It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. And Senator, we have got a lot to talk about, especially with the border as you're hearing from many Texans that are frustrated with what's going on.
- [01:12]
Well, that's exactly right. I'm in South Texas right now. Next week the Senate will receive articles of impeachment for Alejandro Mayorkas and the Senate will have to act on it. We're going to do a deep dive tonight on what to expect in the impeachment trial of Alejandro Mayorkas. How the Democrats are are gonna try to avoid this. Cover it up, hide it. How Chuck Schumer plans to ignore the constitutional responsibility of the Senate and everything to know about what to expect next week. We're also going to examine how the media is turning on Joe Biden. It's really quite remarkable. The New York Times, the Washington Post, they've all suddenly discovered the guy's old. Apparently he wasn't old a few weeks ago, but it just struck him out of nowhere. And it sure seems like, like rats are fleeing a sinking ship. In a way that makes you wonder what's next.
- [02:06]
Yeah, wait till you hear these headlines that they're actually printing. They've never done this before. The Bidens. Before we get into the border issue in my orcas, let me tell you about our friends at Patriot Mobile. If you have a cell phone, listen up. It is time for you to vote and switch with Your dollars to a company that stands for what you believe in. Get away from woke Big Mobile. You may not realize this, but Big Mobile gives massive donations to Planned Parenthood, to Democratic causes and candidates. That's why Patriot Mobile was started more than a decade ago. And when I say you're going to get incredible service, trust me, you are. I'm using Patriot Mobile right now because I get the same dependable nationwide coverage I was used to before. But the difference is this. When I pay my bill, a portion of that bill every month goes back to support free speech, religious freedom organizations, the sanctity of life, the second amendment causes, as well as supporting our military, our veterans, our first responders and wounded warriors. Yes, that's why Patriot Mobile is so special. They've got 100% US based customer service team that makes switching easy. You keep your same number you have now, keep your same phone in your hand or upgrade to a new one and their team will help you save money and get the best plan for you. Just go to patriot mobile.com verdict patriot mobile.com verdict or call 972 Patriot that's 972 Patriot get free activation when you use the offer code verdict as well. Make that switch today and get rid of Big Mobile center. You and several other senators signed a letter asking for the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to move forward quickly with impeachment hearings for mayorkas. And there are a lot of Republican establishment people that don't want this to move forward to a trial. Explain why this letter was so important and not a lot of Republicans signed this letter. You guys are truly leading the way on this.
- [04:10]
Well, next week the Senate will receive the articles of impeachment and the Senate will return from recess on February 26th. And under the Senate rules, when the Senate receives articles of impeachment, the next thing that happens is that senators are sworn in as jurors the next day and a trial is supposed to proceed. However, Chuck Schumer has made clear he doesn't want to have a trial. He doesn't want anyone in America to know about the absolute disaster that is unfolding on our southern border. And so what Schumer has indicated he intends to do is use a procedural mechanism called tabling the articles of impeachment. What does it mean to table the articles of impeachment? It means he wants the Senate to vote. Nope, we're not going to take these up. In other words, he wants the Senate not to adjudicate the articles of impeachment at all, not to conclude guilty or not guilty, simply to table it on a party line vote and move on. And the purpose of this. Look, we've talked a lot on this podcast about how the disaster on the southern border. You cannot defend it on the merits, you cannot defend it on the substance. The Democrats have one strategy and one strategy only, and that is hide it from the American people. In order to hide it from the American people, they need to make sure that the average person doesn't know the human suffering that the Democrats open borders are causing. That's why Schumer wants to table the articles of impeachment at the outset. Never have a trial, never hear the evidence, never consider anything, and never put any senator on record adjudicating the claims. And so in response to that, Mike Lee and I together led a letter to Mitch McConnell. And it's a letter that was signed by 13 senators, and it calls on Mitch McConnell to stand up and fight for the Senate to fulfill our constitutional obligation under the terms of the Constitution. When the House impeaches, we have an obligation to conduct a trial and to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the individual who's impeached. And Chuck Schumer is trying to, for the first time in our country's history in over 200 years, refuse to adjudicate an article of impeachment. Simply table it, make it go away, say, nevermind, nothing to see here. And give every Democrat senator a get out of jail free pass by avoiding the need for them to give an answer on guilt or innocence.
- [06:49]
Let's talk about what this trial would look like and explain, because this is not something that's happened in my lifetime. It's something that's very rare when it's a Cabinet member, obviously throughout history. But. But let's talk about what a trial would actually look like. Does it look very much like what we've seen before when it comes to an impeachment trial for a president?
- [07:09]
Well, it potentially does, but there are differences. So, for example, the Constitution specifies that when the President of the United States is impeached, the Chief justice of the United States will preside by. By the way, interesting trivia. Do you know what the title of John Roberts is?
- [07:27]
What is it?
- [07:28]
John Roberts is the Chief justice of the United States. He is not the Chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Just like Joe Biden is the President of the United States, John Roberts is the Chief justice of the United States. That is the formal and technical title the Constitution provides. The Chief justice will preside over the impeachment trial of a President, because obviously mayorkas is not a president, the chief justice will not preside. Instead, the trial is typically presided over by the president pro tem, which right now is Patty Murray, Democrat senator from Washington state. Now, when it comes to cabinet members, impeaching cabinet members is exceptionally rare. In fact, Mayorkas, this is only the second time in history the House has impeached a cabinet member. And even that is overstating it because the last cabinet secretary to be impeached was secretary of war William Belknap, and that was in 1876. Now, what's interesting about Belknap is right before the house voted to impeach him, Belknap resigned. So mayorkas is actually the first sitting cabinet member ever to be impeached. And in terms of how the trial will proceed, the Senate is not obligated to hold a full trial on the floor of the Senate, as the Senate does for the impeachment of a president. And so, for example, in past impeachments, a number of judges have been impeached. And what the Senate has done in the past is appointed an impeachment committee to conduct the trial. And typically that committee consists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, members of both parties. And so it can be a smaller group of the Senate that conducts the trial. But what has always happened is that the House managers get to present their evidence, they get to prosecute the case, they get to put on the trial. And what has also always happened is the senators adjudicate. All 100 senators ultimately adjudicate guilt or innocence. So if the Senate appoints an impeachment committee, that committee makes a recommendation to the Senate. But then every senator goes on record voting. What Schumer is trying to do, he knows that if there's a trial even of a smaller committee than the full Senate, that that will force press coverage of the absolute disaster Mayorkas has been, the disaster Biden has been, the open border chaos they have produced. And Schumer doesn't want anyone to know that. And so, as I said, what he wants to do is instead, just right at the outset, before anything starts, say, we're not going to hear any evidence, we're not going to have a trial. The House managers are not going to present the evidence. They don't get to prosecute the case. No senator is going to vote guilty or not guilty. We're simply going to vote to table it and make it go away.
- [10:34]
Now, there's been a lot of media, Republican establishment rhino types have been out there saying this is A terrible decision by conservatives to do this. That this is. We already know what the outcome of the vote's gonna be. This is gonna be an embarrassing moment, slash failure. And so why the hell are they doing this? If that was the case, then Democrats wouldn't be fighting this. I don't think this is a mistake, do you? At all. I mean, this is about national security as well. And that's something that the media and these. These. These Republican talking heads, I think they're forgetting that this is about someone that is not enforcing the laws of land, not protecting a country, having an open border policy, deliberately not getting rid of people that come in this country and break our laws, who are here illegally. And on top of all that, it's a national security issue. From the domestic, from the terrorists on the terrorist watch list that are coming across the border at staggering numbers.
- [11:33]
Yeah, so. So I don't know who's been going on TV saying that. So I can say this with. With complete free cons, because I don't know who I'm talking about. But anyone who says that is a blithering idiot with an IQ below room temperature to say it is a mistake to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas for aiding and abetting a criminal invasion of the United States of America by global cartels that have sent 10 million people illegally into this country, that are bringing murderers and rapists and gang members into this country, that are abusing children, that are raping women, that are potentially smuggling in Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, to say that it is a mistake for Republicans to fight for the House to impeach Mayorkas. They should have done this two years ago. You and I have both been calling for this for two years. And in the Senate, look, is the Chuck Schumer Democrat Senate going to vote to convict? No, obviously not. Why? Because the Democrats are partisan hacks. They don't care about the facts. They don't care about the truth. They are going to vote with the Democrats because that's what Democrats do. When Schumer cracks the whip, every Democrat obeys. That's what's going to happen. But why is it that Biden has been able to get away with this? So the biggest reason is the media is utterly corrupt and they don't cover this. If you watch Fox News, if you watch Newsmax or O, if you listen to Verdict, you know about what's happening at the border. But if you watch CNN or MSNBC or abc, NBC, cbs, if you read the Washington Post or the New York Times, there is no border crisis, Nothing is happening. The corrupt corporate media covers it up. The reason this impeachment is important is to put the evidence before the American people. And I gotta say, and it's why, you know, the amazing thing is the Democrats get this. Why do you think Schumer wants to table this at the outset? Because he knows a trial would be terrible. Why? Because the facts are terrible. What they are doing, the Democrats are doing, is grossly inhumane. It is cruel. It is evil. Schumer and Biden do not want the American people to know that, so they want the issue to go away. But I got to say, any Republican that, like a docile little sheep, rolls over and starts buying, the hell is wrong with them. And there's a reason that 13 of us wrote a letter to our leadership, because Republican leadership, when they see a fight, typically turn around and charge the opposite direction. And so we ought to stand united and say, listen, we have a constitutional obligation. Listen, I'm going to read you the letter we sent, because it's not a long letter. Dear Leader McConnell, our Republican colleagues in the House have recently passed two articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law as well as the breach of public trust. These articles will soon be transmitted to the Senate. It is imperative that the Senate Republican Conference prepare to fully engage our constitutional duty and hold a trial. According to multiple briefings by your staff, Majority Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats intend to dispose with the articles of impeachment simply by tabling both individually. This is an action rarely contemplated and never taken by the US Senate in the history of our Republic. It remains to be seen if the Senate rules will even allow us to brush aside our duty in this manner. But one thing is sure. If a similar strategy was contemplated by Senate Republicans when we were in the majority with a Republican occupying the White House, the opposition would be fierce and the volume from Democrats would be deafening. We call on you to join us in our efforts to jettison this approach by Democrats to shirk their constitutional duty, ensure that the Senate conducts a proper trial, and that every Senator, Republican and Democrat, adjudicates this matter when the Senate returns. And Mike Lee and I let it sign by a total of 13 senators.
- [15:49]
I want to ask you about strategy here of laying this out to the American people, because that's going to be obviously something we got to get right at the very beginning. As you know, Republicans sometimes are accused of screwing up the basics. So I want to get your perspective on what the strategy should be laying this out. The American people that maybe haven't been listening to this podcast or watching, as you mentioned, Fox or Newsmax or oan. Let me first say about Freedom Gold, though, real quick. If you have been looking at what's been happening with our economy, with inflation, with the ups and downs in the stock market, you may have seen that your purchasing power has been disappearing. Well, that's happening because of inflation. Maybe it's putting your savings, your retirement accounts at risk. And then you have the other problem. You have things going on like wars around the world, national debt exceeding 34 trillion and counting. That is why so many are now actually protecting their hard earned dollars by investing in gold and silver. That's why I want you to know about Freedom Gold usa. They're a company that I use and a company that you can sit down with and talk to about protecting your hard earned money. If you have 50,000 or more in retirement savings, you may be at risk in times of economic uncertainty. Securing your family's financial future is essential. Call Freedom Gold and they are here to help you navigate all of this. 1800-655-8843 that's 1-800-655-8843. You can also visit them online at freedomgoldusa.com that's freedomgoldusa.com verdict. Now, here's the other great thing. When you switch over investments or buy gold and silver, you may qualify for up to $10,000 in free silver. Learn how to add gold and silver to your IRA or have it shipped to your home. Safeguard your wealth with physical gold and silver and take control of your financial future today. 1-800-655-8843 or freedomgold USA.com Verdict center laying all this out and, and the threat from my orcas and not doing his job, which is what this is basically about. How do the Republicans do this the right way? Do you, do you break it up into, hey, the fentanyl coming across the southern border, because it's open is the number one killer people under the age of 49. And you go through that, do you then go through the sex trafficking, the human smuggling? Do you then go to the terrorists on the terrorist watch list? Do you then go to the financial aspects? I mean, is that how we need to break this down so the American people understand just how catastrophic this is?
- [18:36]
Well, listen, what you say makes a lot of sense and what you're doing there is telling a story. And I will say that's one thing Republicans are typically horrible at doing is telling a story, and that's what we desperately need to do. At the end of the day, the choice of how to present the evidence is not going to be one for the Senate to make. The way an impeachment trial works, the House managers are the prosecutors, so they will present their case. And so it will be ultimately the manager selected by the speaker of the House who will present the evidence and lay it out. And they could very well follow the pattern you laid out. It should be a systematic presentation of the evidence. I think it should focus on the harms. It should focus on who is hurt. It should focus on the dead bodies, the Biden body bags that have piled up one after the other after the other. It should focus on the children who've been physically and sexually abused over and over and over again. It should focus on the women who've been violently raped. It should focus on. On the disease that has come in over our open border. It should focus on the more than 100,000 drug overdoses last year, the highest in recorded history, 70% of which came from Chinese fentanyl coming across our southern border. It should focus on the terror threat, Hamas, Hezbollah, the open borders we have and the exposure we have to a major terrorist attack, higher, I believe right now than. Than any time since September 11th. All of that they should do. But what Chuck Schumer is trying to do is prevent all of that. He wants to table the articles before any evidence is presented, before the Senate considers anything. And he wants to spare Democrat senators. Understand there are a bunch of Democrat senators running in red and purple states that that Schumer doesn't want to have them vote not guilty because Mayorkas is obviously guilty. And so he doesn't want to get them on record. And tabling it is a much simpler and less painful way to do it. Now, I can tell you, a week ago, Mike Lee and I together went to the Senate parliamentarian's office and we presented an argument, the two of us. It's quite rare for senators to go directly to the parliamentarian. Typically, staff lawyers on our staff make those arguments. Mike and I made these arguments ourselves, and he and I have both done this a couple of different times over the last decade. But the argument we presented is we wanted to walk through the parliamentarian, the history and the precedent in this case. And in particular, because Schumer wants to table the articles. We wanted to underscore that in over two centuries, the Senate has never once tabled articles of impeachment. There was a previous impeachment in which The Senate tabled the procedural rules, but that's different than tabling the actual articles of impeachment, refusing to adjudicate. And the point we made, which the parliamentarian agreed with, is every single time when an impeachment came over, the Senate adjudicated the merits. It reached the merits. The one exception was a case where the individual resigned. And in that case, the House basically withdrew the articles of impeachment. So every time there was an impeachment and the House was pressing the impeachment, the end of it was every senator saying guilty or not guilty. And what Chuck Schumer is trying to do is throw away 200 years of our nation's history, all in an effort to give political protection to vulnerable Democrats and to avoid any media coverage of the disaster at our southern border.
- [22:10]
Ben Ferguson
This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. You know, when you're really stressed or not feeling so great about your life or about yourself, talking to someone who understands can really help. But who is that person? How do you find them? Where do you even start? Talkspace. Talkspace makes it easy to get the support you need. With Talkspace, you can go online, answer a few questions about your preferences, and be matched with a therapist. And because you'll meet your therapist online, you don't have to take time off work or arrange childcare. You'll meet on your schedule wherever you feel most at ease. If you're depressed, stressed, struggling with a relationship, or if you want some counseling for you and your partner or just need a little extra one on one support, Talkspace is here for you. Plus, Talkspace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a $0 copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off of your first month with promo code SPACE80 when you go to talkspace.com, match with a licensed therapist. Today at talkspace.com Save $80 with code.
- [23:08]
Ted Cruz
SPACE80@Talkspace.com One other question on this, and that is who is going to run this? I mean, will this be you and Senator Lee and others heav or is this going to be lawyers representing the Republicans that would be asking the questions? How does that play out?
- [23:28]
Well, actually, when it comes to questions, unfortunately, the Senate doesn't get to ask questions. And so if you remember back look when Verdict launched, the very first episode of this podcast was the first night of the first Trump impeachment. And if you remember what happened in impeachment number one and impeachment number two, when we sat there as jurors, we couldn't Speak. I'll admit that was frustrating. You know, among things I like to do, I do kind of enjoy talking. I do it a lot. And we were not allowed to say a word. We were to sit there and listen. And we listened to the presentation of the House impeachment managers. We listened to the presentation of the president's defense team. Now, as I discussed at great length in those opening verdict episodes, I spoke frequently with President Trump's defense team. And by the way, some observers said at the time, oh, that's terrible. You're supposed to be jurors. You're supposed to be impartial, and that's not actually right. It is true that we are jurors in one sense and that we adjudicate guilt or innocence. But senators are not designed to be impartial. Frequently in impeachment, you have senators who are very close to the individual being impeached or very antagonistic to the individual being impeached. Impeachments occur in a partisan context, and senators are elected in partisan elections. The framers knew that that was the world in which impeachments would occur, and they placed it in a political body to have an exercise of judgment. And importantly, actually, during the Bill Clinton impeachment, Tom Harkin, the senator from Iowa at the time, stood up and raised a point of order and asked for clarification from the presiding chief justice. That was William Rehnquist, my former boss, the previous chief justice. And Harkin raised a point of order and said, to clarify, we are not jurors in the sense of a jury in a criminal case, where we simply have to review the evidence and make a determination. And the Chief justice ruled, that is correct. The Constitution empowers you to adjudicate this matter and to consider issues of fact and law and policy and politics and everything else. But during that trial, I spoke frequently with President Trump's lawyers. More than once, I told them I thought a strategy they were pursuing was boneheaded. A number of times I told them there were strategies they were pursuing that were quite good and they should do more of it. And I was trying to give my judgment in terms I thought both Trump impeachments were completely bogus. They were not supported by either the facts or the law. And I wanted that to be the outcome. And so I was actively involved in giving my thoughts and counsel to the Trump impeachment defense. Now, you'll recall, the questions we asked in the full trial were asked. We wrote them on note cards and then submitted them to the bench. And actually, the Chief justice read the questions. And so that's how it proceeded on the floor of the Senate. In this instance, if we have a trial, if the Senate follows the procedure, I think it is more likely than not that a trial would be conducted by a smaller committee, not the full Senate. I don't think we're likely to spend weeks on the Senate floor. If we had a Republican majority, I would be arguing vociferously for us to spend weeks on the Senate floor trying this. But with Schumer as majority leader, that argument is going to fail. So I think it is likely instead to go to a smaller committee appointed to hear the trial. But then the trial will be driven by the presentation of evidence by the House managers. If, if, if the Senate actually does its job and Republicans don't roll over quietly while Schumer tables the whole matter to make it go away.
- [27:36]
One last question. Because this is incredibly complicated, but also unbelievably interesting, there are going to be a ton of people that say this is a frivolous waste of taxpayers money and time because you can count the votes and you know, the Democrats are going to be able to defeat this, therefore Republicans shouldn't do this. What is your counter to that?
- [28:01]
That it's obviously false. And by the way, that was true of the Trump impeachment. The Trump impeachment, the Clinton impeachment before that. That's been true of a lot of impeachments. But there is a value. You know, look, Schumer gets the value of it. It's why he's scared of this. The problem is Republican leadership doesn't get the value of it. Our leadership is from a prior generation where they do not understand that what we do in the Senate actually influences public opinion. A lot of our leadership comes from an era where they say, look, we make decisions in smoke filled rooms in Washington and then we go back to our home states and we tell the silly constituents there whatever it is they want to hear. And there's no connection between the two, that they think public opinion is exogenous. It is, it is separate and not impacted by what we're doing. I think that is a fundamental mistake, that a major part of our job is to present facts and argument in a way that move public opinion. Our leadership fundamentally doesn't think that way. Ironically, the Democrats do. Everything they do is designed to move public opinion. Virtually nothing Republican leadership does is designed to move public opinion because they don't view that as our job. I think it is critical to our job. And all right, let's just go through some facts. So since 1789, the Senate has completed 17 impeachment trials. Of those 17 trials completed the Senate, seven of them were conducted in the last 80 years, and four of them were federal judges. In those four cases, the Senate appointed a trial committee composed of an equal number of senators from each party to hear and consider evidence and report to the Senate. The trial committees were not used for presidential impeachments. And the three trials since 1836 conducted without a committee were Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Donald Trump. Every single instance in over 200 years of our nation's history, the Senate has never once, not even a single time, tabled articles of impeachment. Every single time, the Senate has voted on either guilt or innocence, or the House has withdrawn the impeachment. And so this is an opportunity for Senate Republican leadership just to stand and fight. And I hope that they do. I don't know if they will, but I hope that they do.
- [30:40]
Senator, you said something there was very interesting, and you got to really pay attention to the words. And you said there were 17 completed impeachment. So the question I have to ask is, well, then, how many others weren't completed? And what's the difference between the two? Is it meaning that the Senate decides guilt or innocence and that is completed?
- [30:59]
That's a very good question. In total, there have been 21 impeachments sent to the Senate. And look, we're well over 200 years old, so it averages a little less frequently than once every 10 years. Of the 21 impeachments, 21 individuals who were impeached by the House of Representatives and transmitted to the Senate, 17 of them were completed, had a trial, and they ended in an adjudication of guilty or not guilty. One of the 21 never got started. And the Senate didn't take action because the person resigned. And so it became mooted. And then three of them were dismissed. One of them was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and two of them were dismissed because the people resigned and the House asked for the proceedings to be halted. The one that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds was the first ever impeachment, and it was the impeachment of a senator. And the Senate concluded they had no jurisdiction over the impeachment of a senator. That impeachment applies to executive officers or judicial officers, but not to members of the legislature. And so it was dismissed on the basis of jurisdiction. The other two that were dismissed were judges who resigned. And so the House asked the Senate to end the proceedings. And the ones that were dismissed. The most recent one was Samuel Kent, who was a district judge in Texas, who was impeached and then he resigned. Right. And so the house asked the senate to dismiss the matter. Before that was George W. English, who was a district judge from Illinois who was impeached by the house in 1926. And likewise the judge resigned. And so the House asked the senate not to proceed. And then the very first one that I mentioned was senator William Blount. And Blount was a senator from Tennessee, and he was charged with conspiring with British forces and Indian tribes to seize Spanish held lands in the lower Mississippi valley in order to open the area to more settlers and to increase his personal land holdings. So, I mean, you want to talk about salacious charges, it was literally treason with our enemies to enrich himself. And what happened there was that the house impeached him and the Senate. And this was in 1797. So it was very early in our country's history. And over the next several months, the senate spent a lot of time preparing for the trial. Uh, and the senate trial began on December 17, 1798. And the house managers and blounts defense counsel presented arguments, but ultimately the question came down to whether Congress could impeach a former member. And on January 14, 1799, the Senate dismissed the case, doing so on jurisdictional grounds, holding that that impeachment did not lie again against a member of the legislature. What that means is unless there's a jurisdictional claim, and there's not, and unless mayorkas resigns and he hasn't, that in every single instance for more than 200 years when the House has impeached someone, the Senate has adjudicated the matter and has come to a conclusion, guilty or not guilty. That's the argument I presented and Mike Lee presented to the parliamentarian. I think that's consistent with the Constitution and our rules. And I very much hope that we see Republicans united in holding Democrats to follow the constitution and follow the rules of the Senate.
- [34:47]
Last question for you. And that is there are people that are going to be listening and they're going to be saying to themselves, how do I get involved? To make sure Republican leadership does the right thing? Is this that moment of call to arms or you say, hey, call your senator, regardless if they're Republican or Democrat, Call the Senate minority leader's office as well. What should people do now?
- [35:11]
Well, that is always effective. Picking up the phone and calling your senator and saying, follow the law. Convict Mayorkas, remove him from office. The invasion at Our southern border is threatening the safety and security of my family. It is threatening this country. It is inhumane, it is cruel. It is a grotesque violation of the obligations of a cabinet member. And, and, and look, every senator, it makes a difference when their constituent calls that, that that can be very effective and speak out and, and make the case to your friends and family and on social media and to anyone else who, who will listen that the right thing to do here was to impeach him. And now it's to convict it.
- [35:57]
Want to tell you about something that is really cool. Many of you may know this. I was an owner of a gun store for, for years. And during COVID there was a massive shortage that happened with ammo. We saw ammo prices skyrocket and people coming in that just want to make sure they could protect and defend themselves and their family and they couldn't find what they needed. I back then thought, man, I wish there was a way that you could just get ammo and store it. Well, there is a way now, and it's called Ammo Squared. It's helping people just like you and I stay stocked up on ammunition. Automatically, ammo is delivered on demand or automatically when you need it and stored for free when you don't. It's customizable to your budget. You can buy as little as a few dollars a month and let it grow over time, or buy a bunch all at once. And you have it when you need it. It's truly automatic. Set it and forget it. Ammo purchasing. You pick your calibers, you set your budget, you select a shipping trigger, and that's it. Ammo builds up over time and it delivered automatically when you want it, no matter what's going on in the market, because you already own it. In 2020, when the store shelves were empty and everyone had trouble finding ammo locally or online, Ammo Squared customers just need to ship their ammo stored at Ammo Squared and get it all immediately delivered with just the click of a single button. So forget about dealing with a moving heavy case of ammunition in your garage or having to figure out how to store it, or worried about prices skyrocketing when you need it the most. Check out ammo squared.com Ben that's ammo squared.com Ben to sign up and get free ammo in your account. It's effortless ammunition management. Ammo squared.com Ben to sign up and get free ammo in your account today. Senator, I want to move lastly to this other issue, and that is it is weird. The Media seems to be turning on Joe Biden. Headlines now coming from major news organizations. The Washington Post, for example, had this headline, what happens if Trump or Biden can no longer run for president? Obviously, they're trying to act like Donald Trump is in cognitive decline. It's not happening. And we know it's different with Joe Biden. The New York Times even said this. How old is too old to be president? An uncomfortable question arises again. And now the New York Times taking heat for that headline. I want to get your reaction to this moment on FOX News Channel as they describe this turning on the president on the story.
- [38:39]
Ben Ferguson
Thanks for being here this afternoon with us, everybody. Interesting. When you take a look at a theme that seems to be emerging, emerging in the coverage of this campaign, this presidential race, right. Check out some of these recent headlines. Quote, what we know about cognitive decline. Quote, what happens if Trump or Biden can no longer run for president? How old is too old to be president? These are not your typical election year headlines, but this is clearly not a typical election year matchup if it turns out to be these two presumed nominees. So the publisher of the New York Times is standing by his papers reporting on the president's, quote, unpopularity and his age, but says that the White House is not happy. In fact, he says they're extremely upset about the coverage that they're getting at the New York Times. And take a listen to this exchange. Just a short time ago, as President Biden left for a fundraising trip to California.
- [39:40]
Ted Cruz
Watch. Are you ready?
- [39:49]
Yes, sir.
- [39:49]
Well, I'm looking for, I'm looking at you. We're looking at you.
- [39:53]
Ben Ferguson
Okay with that, we bring in our.
- [39:55]
Ted Cruz
I mean, he didn't even know what they were talking about, Senator. And you can see the media flipping on him. Is this the beginning of the end of his presidency with the Democratic Party figuring out how to offload him?
- [40:07]
Yeah, look, that was weird, that exchange at the end, being asked, are you going to California for a plan B to talk to Gavin Newsom? Look, that was a nasty little question, but his answer was bizarre. It was a non sequitur. It made no sense. And you know those three headlines that the Fox story just read? The first one was from the Wall Street Journal. The second one was from the Washington Post. The third one was from the New York Times. And I do think we are seeing the corporate media starting to turn on Joe Biden. And we've talked at length. Listen, it was this podcast that drove news and drove news across the country. When we said months ago that I believe there was a very significant chance the Democrat Party would pull the cord on Joe Biden, yank him out and replace him with Michelle Obama. And I think if they do that, they're likely to do it either at the Democrat convention this summer or shortly thereafter. And we're seeing the corporate media, which is one in the same with the Democrat Party. But in many ways, they're the left wing of the Democrat Party. They're starting to get nervous. They're starting to realize, crap, if it's Biden against Trump, we think Trump's gonna win. And so they're hitting the panic button. And I think we're gonna see more of these stories as the media turns on em. I do think you're seeing both Democrats and the media getting very, very worried about Joe Biden's ability to win in November.
- [41:35]
When you are running for president, you've done this before and you see something this significant of a change in the news cycle. Joe Biden has had three years of basically a media that's been covering for him. I think that's why he was so shocked when he had the report that came out about his cognitive decline and couldn't answer basic questions. And then he came out with that very angry, really dysfunctional press conference at night. And the media didn't get back in line since then. So when you see this, who is moving the needle? Is it donors who are saying, we're not going to give money anymore, or is it the leadership of the Democratic Party saying, we got to figure something out, we got to figure it out fast? Or could it even be both?
- [42:19]
So I don't think it's donors, and I don't think it's anyone cutting off money. And understand the Democrats and the media would be perfectly happy if they could wave a wand and put Joe Biden there four years more. They're not worried that he's incompetent to be president. They're not worried that the Department of Justice says he's not competent to stand trial. They're not worried that he's such a weak commander in chief that our enemies are attacking our allies and threatening America. They're not worried that he lacks the competence to do the job, that there's only one thing they're worried about, that he would lose if they believed he would win. They'd be perfectly fine to weekend at Bernie's, him to stand him up as a corpse and say, joe Biden's there and let's keep pulling the puppet strings. Their concern is they're worried he's Going to lose. And that is a very real and acute concern on their part. It's also worth noting you were talking about the press turning on him. You know, there's a real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Look on, on my end, the press has always turned on me. They're always hostile. Every question they're asking, they're looking to screw me nine ways to Sunday. That, that's just when, when you're. And by the way, and you've been in the Capitol with me, Ben, as you know, when I walk from my office to the Senate floor and I do so repeatedly, whether it is to vote or to go to meetings or to go to committee hearings, I'm walking back and forth through the Capitol and there's a cluster of reporters that surround you, and they ask you hostile question after hostile question on every topic under the sun. And if you're Republican, especially conservative Republican, you're used to just getting constant barrages of attacks. The Democrats don't get that. They get the kind of questions. Remember Joe Biden in his first year in the White House? The reporters would ask him things like, Mr. President, what's your favorite flavor of ice cream? I mean, that was.
- [44:13]
What are you eating, Mr. President? I mean, it's embarrassing.
- [44:18]
It's, it's. They're like groupies chasing the Beatles, throwing their panties at him. And that's just the guys. I mean, I mean, it is. It's pitiful. And so he is really startled because he's not used to any scrutiny. He's not used to journalists actually being journalists. By the way, there is this phenomenon for Republicans as well. If you remember John McCain. John McCain used to get lots of adoring press coverage because when he was a Republican senator, he would often attack other Republicans and the press, and he would attack them from the left. And the press loves it when a Republican attacks other Republicans from the left. It's the best way to get good press. You get called a bipartisan statesman when you agree with the Democrats and attack your fellow Republicans. Well, when John McCain got the Republican nomination, and you and I Both supported John McCain once, he was our nominee.
- [45:12]
Yeah.
- [45:13]
But the press turned on him and turned viciously on him. If you remember, McCain made a comment something like, I don't understand. I thought you guys were my base. And he was completely startled because that. It's the same sentiment Biden's having. When you're used to just getting your, your hindquarters kissed by the media when they start biting. You don't know how to handle it.
- [45:38]
And one of two things is going to happen when it comes to this senator. They're either going to get back in line after trying to, you know, step out and see will others follow us. Right. And test the waters, or they're going to keep going. What's your prediction?
- [45:53]
Well, if he stays the nominee, they'll get back in line and they'll immediately begin saying it's ageist and racist and horrible to even ask these questions. And they have no shame. So this is the moment where they're trying to see if they can push him out and replace him with Michelle Obama. If they can't, if he doesn't go, if, if we get to September and Biden's the nominee, the media will suddenly be completely silent on this front and will attack anyone who dares raise the same questions they're raising right now.
- [46:24]
Don't forget, we do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. We have a week in review on Saturdays. Make sure you grab that wherever you get your podcast, hit that subscribe, subscribe, auto, download or follow button as well. And the senator and I will be back with you on Friday morning.