Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Corporate Wokeism Hits Elon, Sen Ted Cruz Takes on FBI Dir Christopher Wray, plus Van Orden v. Perry-Remembering Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the Week In Review

Transcript

Corporate Wokeism Hits Elon, Sen Ted Cruz Takes on FBI Dir Christopher Wray, plus Van Orden v. Perry-Remembering Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the Week In Review · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome. It is verdict or Ted Cruz Weekend Review. Ben
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Ferguson with you, and these are the stories that you
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: may have missed that we talked about this past week.
• 0:09
  Speaker 2: It started with Elon Musk.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Well, there's a new scheme now to bring him down
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: as advertisers are trying to destroy his platform x formerly
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: known as Twitter.
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: By pulling all of their ad dollars.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: So what can you do to stand by the man
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: that is standing by free speech?
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: Will explain that in a moment.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Plus, Christopher Ray, the FBI Director, had a big toe
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: to toe battle with Senator Ted Cruz, and you won't
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: want to miss the back and forth. And finally Sandrade O'Connor,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: former Supreme Court justice, passed away. Senator Ted Cruz took
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: some time to talk about some of the most historic
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: court cases and his memories of Sandrade O'Connor.
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: It's the weekend Review and it starts right now.
• 0:51
  Speaker 3: Let me ask you how many of you are grateful
• 0:55
  Speaker 3: that Elon Musk purchased Twitter. I'll tell you I'm intensely grateful.
• 0:59
  Speaker 3: I think it is the single most important development for
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: free speech in decades. But what is striking, and this
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: again is a topic I discussed at great length in
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: my brand new book, Unwoke, is how corporate America has
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: become woke and how they use economic power to punish
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: those that crossed them. So corporate America is mad at
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: Elon Musk Why because he stopped censoring views that were
• 1:30
  Speaker 3: not the orthodoxy of the Biden White House. He stopped
• 1:33
  Speaker 3: censoring conservative views, and he allowed free speech to occur. Now,
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: what was the volcanic rage of corporate America? One company
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: after another began boycotting what used to be Twitter is
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: now x. So IBM was the first to pull its ad. So, IBM,
• 1:47
  Speaker 3: if you have an IBM computer at home, you know
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: what you're supporting? A company that says we're not going
• 1:52
  Speaker 3: to advertise on a social media company that believes in
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: free speech. Now, right after IBM, what followed Apple, Disney, Sony,
• 2:01
  Speaker 3: Warner Brothers, Comcast, NBC, Universal, and Paramount. All of them
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: have said we're pulling our ads. But not only that,
• 2:11
  Speaker 3: you know who else has pulled their ads? Chevrolet, Chipotle, Ford, Jeep, Kindrel,
• 2:21
  Speaker 3: Mercant Company, Novartis AG and Eli Lilly in Company. All
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: of these companies, they are engaged in censorship. Understand when
• 2:31
  Speaker 3: they say.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: It's the corporate assassination of a free speech company, orchestrated
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: and designed to cripple them and to bring them to
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: their neees. This doesn't happen by accident. I think that's
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: what some people need to understand. When one corporation does
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: this and the others do it, don't think this isn't
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: orchestrated and being done by the left in leftist groups
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: and organizations that organize these companies and get in the
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: ear of these companies and say, hey, guys, so and
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: so is going to do it, you should do it too.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: And then they call the next one they say, hey, guys,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: we hear these two companies are about the boycott.
• 3:04
  Speaker 4: Are pull their ads?
• 3:04
  Speaker 3: You should too, and understand art. So here's what Elon
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: Muskus said about it. He said, the decisions of advertisers
• 3:12
  Speaker 3: to boycott Twitter quote could kill the company. And he
• 3:15
  Speaker 3: went on to say, quote and the whole world will
• 3:18
  Speaker 3: know that these advertisers killed the company. That is their
• 3:21
  Speaker 3: objective and what they want. They want Twitter to go under,
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: they want X to go under, and then they want
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: the only social media to be Facebook controlled by Mark Zuckerberg.
• 3:31
  Speaker 3: That sensors conservative views because they're silence that works on
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: behalf of the Biden White House. They want Google that
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: is controlled by left wing socialists, that sensors views they
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: disagree with, that skews public discourse in the favor of
• 3:44
  Speaker 3: the left. They want YouTube that actively sensors conservative views,
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: including this podcast Verdict.
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, just a few weeks ago, they censored one of
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: our one of our episodes because we were telling the
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: truth about what was going on.
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: And mind you, we were telling the truth about a
• 3:57
  Speaker 3: Palestinian who, by all appearances is a christ this actor
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: who creates false videos pretending to be a victim of
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: what he claims is Israeli aggression, when in fact he's
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: a Hamas propagandist, and we laid out the evidence for that,
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: and YouTube propatly said, oh, oh, we don't want people
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: to notice this, so they blocked so you could not
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: access our podcast on YouTube without signing in and beh verified,
• 4:23
  Speaker 3: because apparently seventeen year olds cannot know.
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: There's a crisis actor that's a Hamas warrior.
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: And mind you, it's not just that they want Facebook
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: and YouTube and Google to be driving the topics. They
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: want TikTok, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist which
• 4:37
  Speaker 3: is actively pushing pro hamas propaganda. Every one of these companies,
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: So I want you to go back and look at
• 4:43
  Speaker 3: this list. Ibm Apple, Disney, Sony, Warner Brothers, Comcast, NBC, Universal, Paramount, Chevrolet, Chipotle, Ford, Jeep, Kindrel,
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: Mercan Company, novartis a g Eli Lillyan company. Every every
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: one of them is saying you Americans, you don't deserve
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: the right to speak, and even more importantly, you don't
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: deserve the right to hear the speech of others. We
• 5:09
  Speaker 3: want big tech to silence and skew and mind you,
• 5:14
  Speaker 3: this is all based on an allegation that is a
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: bogus allegation attacking Elon Musk for retweeting a tweet that
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: their claiming is antisemitic.
• 5:22
  Speaker 5: Yeah, and it was deliberate.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: They just went and met with it over in Israel.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: They just flew over there, met talked to the leadership
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: and is now clearly supporting is.
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: Look, their attack is deliberately disingenuous. But it doesn't matter,
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: It doesn't matter what the claim is. It is an
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: excuse because they want to use economic muscle to punish
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: Twitter and force either Elon musk to sell it or
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: shut it down, because once they do, then the rest
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: of big tech will have a monopoly unchecked. And this
• 5:54
  Speaker 3: is an assault on free speech. It's an intersection of
• 5:58
  Speaker 3: what I talk about in multiple chapters of my book Unwoke.
• 6:01
  Speaker 3: It's an intersection of big tech, big business, and journalism
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: all coming together, and it's designed to be dishonest and
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: to silence free speech among the American people.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: I want to talk to you real quick about your retirement.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: You've probably seen a lot of the headlines lately. We
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: are the third highest deficit in US history. We are
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: also saying that there is more than one trillion dollars
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: now in debt. When it comes to Americans on credit cards,
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: we have the highest rate of debt we've ever seen
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: this country when it comes to college debt, and we're
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: living with high interest rates, inflation issues, and then there's
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: the unpredictable world on top of that. So that's why
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about investing in gold.
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: It is weathered many storms, and gold gives you peace
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: of mind. It gives me literal peace of mind because
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: it's tangible, it's real, and I have it. I know
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: that gold is a perfect protection as part of my portfolio.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: That is exactly why I want you to talk to
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: against of Precious Metals because they can help you with
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: an IRA or a four to one K, and it's
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: time that you learn about the benefits of a gold IRA.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: From august To Precious Metals, it is where I bought
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: my gold. They're exceptional, they're honest, and they're no pressure.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: The other thing is they do a free sit down
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: with you. All you have to do is reach out
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: to them. You can go online to Augusta Precious Metals
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com. Or you
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: can get the free Investors Got on gold as well
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: as set up a one on one web conference that
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: can answer all of your questions about diversifying your portfolio,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: protecting your hard earned money with gold. In an IRA
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: or four oh one K, text the word bend to
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: six ' eight five nine to two. Text the word
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: b e N to six ' eight five nine two again,
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: that's b e in too six eight five ninety two.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Or online at Augusta Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: Precious Metals dot com. Senator, last thing I want to
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: just point out here conservative radio. And many of you
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: know I do a podcast outside of this, and I
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: do an actual terrestrial radio show every day. For about
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: ten years now, everybody in radio has had to deal
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: with what Elon Musk is dealing with now, yep, which
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: is all corporate people stop spending money on conservative talk radio.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: They went after the Great Wrestling Ball, That's where it started. Yes,
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: Then they went after Handy, then they went after Back,
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: Then they went after Leven, Then they went after guys
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: like me.
• 8:29
  Speaker 4: And what we used to have in radio was the
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: big ones. We had Chevy, we had John Dear, we
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: had you know, Mutual for None of.
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: These giant companies advertising conservative podcasts, none of that. There's
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: a funny skit that we've talked about in Verdict a
• 8:43
  Speaker 3: couple of years ago that contrast a left wing hippie
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: comy Marxist podcast saying this podcast brought to you by Pfizer,
• 8:51
  Speaker 3: get the jab right now, you need your forty second
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: booster shot, yeah, compared to they have a conservative broad
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: broadcast and they say this broadcast brought to you by
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: pay treat water, a bucket of water in your closet.
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: And and the contrast is strike striking because all of
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: the Fortune five hundred boycotts.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: None of them spend money, none of them will ever
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: reach a conservative audience. They deliberately try to destroy conservative
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: talk radio.
• 9:15
  Speaker 3: By the way, even Fox News, which is incredibly profitable
• 9:18
  Speaker 3: at the hour, spend an hour watching CNN, and spend
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: an hour watching Fox News, want right down? Who advertises CNN?
• 9:26
  Speaker 3: It's the entire Fortune one hundred. Fox News doesn't have
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: any of them. It's it's my pillow, which look, I'm grateful,
• 9:33
  Speaker 3: I'm grateful in my pillow advertises, because they are not
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: many that do. But even though Fox News has two x,
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: three x, four x five x the vie as CNN
• 9:45
  Speaker 3: on care, it's not about money. Understand, this is not
• 9:47
  Speaker 3: the economic marketplace. This is they're enforcing their ideology. They
• 9:53
  Speaker 3: don't want to support views that are right a center.
• 9:58
  Speaker 3: They want to silence them.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Now, if you I want to hear the rest of
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: this conversation, you can go back and listen to the
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: full podcast from earlier this week. Now onto story number
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: two brings me to also the fireworks that took place
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: this week, and it was between you and the FBI director.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: I want to play a large chunk of this. But
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: before I do set the stage, why was the FBI
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: director before your committee in the Senate and what was
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: this all about?
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: Well, the FBI Director, Chris Ray was testifying before the
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: Senate Judiciary Committee, and periodically the director of the FBI
• 10:32
  Speaker 3: testifies before judiciary, and so I took the opportunity to
• 10:35
  Speaker 3: question him. And there are a lot of topics I
• 10:37
  Speaker 3: could have questioned him on. I could have questioned him
• 10:39
  Speaker 3: for hours on end, but I only had seven minutes,
• 10:42
  Speaker 3: and so I chose to use the seven minutes to
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: focus on the politicization of the FBI and the refusal
• 10:49
  Speaker 3: of the FBI to investigate the growing, the becoming overwhelming
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: evidence of Joe Biden's corruption, and so that's what I
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: asked him about.
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: I want to play a chunk of this because it's
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: really important, and I hope that every vertical listener will
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: make sure that you take this and share this podcast
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: so that you can let people know about what these
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: questions were. They're really important questions and also I would
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: argue the shocking response from the FBI Director Ray.
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: Take a listen to this.
• 11:18
  Speaker 5: Thank you, miss chairman Director Ray. Welcome.
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: As you know, I am deeply concerned about the conduct
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: of both the Department of Justice and the FBI, particularly
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: in the last three years during the Biden administration. I
• 11:32
  Speaker 3: think the Department of Justice has been profoundly politicized under
• 11:36
  Speaker 3: Attorney General Merrick Garland, and I think the FBI has
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: as well, and unfortunately, I think you've been unwilling to
• 11:46
  Speaker 3: stand up to senior career officials in the FBI who's
• 11:49
  Speaker 3: allowed the FBI to be politicized. I'll tell you I
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: regularly speak with FBI agents across the country who are
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: unhappy about the integrity of the institution being weakened because
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: DOJ is being treated as a political weapon. I want
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: to talk in particular about the investigation into multiple allegations
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, because the
• 12:17
  Speaker 3: Department of Justice has, i think from the outset, tried
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: at every step to stop investigation into corruption from Joe Biden.
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: As you're aware, a WhatsApp text message was sent to
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: Henry Zoo, a senior Chinese communist from Hunter Biden that
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: reads as follows, I'm sitting here with my father and
• 12:44
  Speaker 3: we would like to understand why the commitment made has
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: to resolve this now before it gets out of hand,
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: and now means tonight and Zee, if I get a
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: caller text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zanger,
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: the Chairman, I will make certain that between the man's
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: sitting next to me and every person he knows, and
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: my ability to hold a grudge, that you will regret
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: the call with my father.
• 13:12
  Speaker 5: Now.
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: Democrats and those in the media trying to defend the
• 13:14
  Speaker 3: White House repeatedly say there is no direct evidence of
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: Joe Biden's involvement in his son's corruption. Well, this is
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: a text that is direct evidence that is stating that
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: it is his father that is going to retaliate.
• 13:32
  Speaker 5: Now.
• 13:33
  Speaker 3: An IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, testified before the House of
• 13:37
  Speaker 3: Representatives that the natural step he wanted to follow was
• 13:42
  Speaker 3: to determine whether Joe Biden was in fact sitting next
• 13:45
  Speaker 3: to his father when this threat was made to extort
• 13:49
  Speaker 3: millions of dollars from a Chinese communist. And what the
• 13:52
  Speaker 3: IRS whistleblower testified is that when he tried to find
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: out whether Joe Biden was sitting next to Hunter that
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: the DOJ blocked getting the GPS data on Joe Biden's phone.
• 14:08
  Speaker 3: Did the FBI try to ascertain where Hunter Biden was
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: and where Joe Biden was when this text was sent?
• 14:15
  Speaker 6: Well, I think the questions you're asking go to the
• 14:18
  Speaker 6: ongoing investigation being led by a special counsel Wise, and
• 14:21
  Speaker 6: so I'm not going to be able to discuss what
• 14:23
  Speaker 6: is or is in scope.
• 14:25
  Speaker 5: Now.
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: Look, there's been testimony under oath from the IRS whistle
• 14:29
  Speaker 3: blower that you did not seek the GPS data, And
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: you're right. David Wise's special prosecutor is in charge of it.
• 14:36
  Speaker 3: And it is David Weiss and his underlings who, the
• 14:41
  Speaker 3: accord of the IRS whistle blowers have alleged that they're
• 14:44
  Speaker 3: the ones try to stop the investigation. They allow the
• 14:47
  Speaker 3: statute of limitations to run on many of the most
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: serious violations. Not only that, IRS whistleblower Shapley testified that
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: on September, third Assistant US Attorney Less Wolf explicitly told
• 15:01
  Speaker 3: investigators that, despite having probable cause to search quote, there
• 15:05
  Speaker 3: is no way a search warrant would be approved when
• 15:08
  Speaker 3: the evidence in question was located inside of Vice President
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: Biden's guest house Wolf stated that quote the optics prevented
• 15:16
  Speaker 3: such a search.
• 15:19
  Speaker 5: Is the FBI?
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: Do they make a routine practice of allowing partisan political
• 15:23
  Speaker 3: optics to prevent investigating serious evidence of corruption.
• 15:28
  Speaker 6: My instructions to our people on this and on every
• 15:31
  Speaker 6: other investigation are the weird to follow the facts wherever
• 15:35
  Speaker 6: they lead, no matter who likes it, no matter what
• 15:37
  Speaker 6: political influence.
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: And why may be a GBS state on where Hunter
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: Biden and Joe Biden were.
• 15:41
  Speaker 5: Again center with respect, I can't this.
• 15:43
  Speaker 3: It's an ongoing and Director Ray, you and I have
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: gone round a round on this, because I understand anytime
• 15:48
  Speaker 3: you're asked about this, the answer is it's an ongoing investigation.
• 15:51
  Speaker 3: Of course, the investigation is an ongoing you're not doing
• 15:54
  Speaker 3: the work. You got whistleblowers pointing out that you're not
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: doing the work and you are hiding behind the skirts
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: of the attorney general. Look, the whistleblower also testified that
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: the Attorney General, when he came before Congress. Go to
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: the next chart, came before Congress lied under oath to
• 16:11
  Speaker 3: this committee. The Attorney General testified to this committee in
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: response to my questioning, I have pledged not to interfere
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: with the Hunter Biden investigation.
• 16:20
  Speaker 5: I have carried through on that pledge.
• 16:22
  Speaker 3: The irs whistleblowers of alleged the Attorney General lied under
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: oath a felony. Was the Attorney General telling the truth
• 16:30
  Speaker 3: when he said this? Was the Attorney General telling the
• 16:33
  Speaker 3: truth when he said, I have pledged not to interfere
• 16:35
  Speaker 3: with the Hunter Biden investigation, and I have carried through.
• 16:37
  Speaker 6: In my pledge. Again, I can't speak to the Attorney
• 16:40
  Speaker 6: General's testimony. I can only tell you what my instructions
• 16:43
  Speaker 6: have been to our people.
• 16:45
  Speaker 3: Has there been political interference in the investigation into Hunter
• 16:48
  Speaker 3: Biden and Joe Biden?
• 16:49
  Speaker 5: Not that I have experienced.
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: Were the investigators allowed to investigate whether Joe Biden was
• 16:56
  Speaker 3: complicit in the corruption?
• 16:59
  Speaker 6: Again, there is an ongoing investigator asking you about corruption
• 17:03
  Speaker 6: from DJ.
• 17:05
  Speaker 3: Were they allowed to investigate Joe Biden? Or is the
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: whistleblower telling the truth that DJ said Joe Biden's off limits.
• 17:13
  Speaker 5: No questions about the big guy.
• 17:15
  Speaker 6: And as to what is in scope or not in
• 17:18
  Speaker 6: scope of the ongoing investigation, I would refer you to
• 17:20
  Speaker 6: Special Council Whites. That is not me hiding behind anything Center.
• 17:24
  Speaker 6: That is a long standing policy that has been in
• 17:26
  Speaker 6: place multiple administrations, a risk going back in years and
• 17:30
  Speaker 6: years from the responsibility to the FBI not to allow
• 17:35
  Speaker 6: it to be a partisan tool and a partisan weapon.
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: The testimony and by the way, the FBI has done nothing,
• 17:43
  Speaker 3: and I have not and I will not. Have you
• 17:45
  Speaker 3: opened an investigation and to whether the Attorney General led
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: under oath to Congress and whether the Attorney General obstructive justice.
• 17:52
  Speaker 5: I'm not going to go down that road here. I
• 17:54
  Speaker 5: know you're not. That's the point.
• 17:56
  Speaker 3: Nobody thinks you've opened an investigation because you're.
• 17:59
  Speaker 5: Not willing to.
• 18:00
  Speaker 3: And the amazing thing is, directory I've known you thirty years.
• 18:03
  Speaker 3: You're not a partisan Democrat. You're simply sitting blithely by
• 18:08
  Speaker 3: will career partisans in your agency allow it to be weaponized.
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: And you were damaging the FBI, and you were damaging
• 18:16
  Speaker 3: the Department of Justice.
• 18:18
  Speaker 5: Let me ask you.
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: Also, the whistle blower testified that investigators wanted to execute
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: a search warrant on a storage unit used by Hunter Biden,
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: and instead they tipped off Hunter Biden's lawyer before the
• 18:31
  Speaker 3: search warrant was carried out. Is a typical FBI practice
• 18:34
  Speaker 3: to tip off the subject of a search warrant before
• 18:37
  Speaker 3: the search warrant so they can remove any evidence that's incriminating.
• 18:41
  Speaker 6: What is typical is that when you're dealing with an
• 18:44
  Speaker 6: individual who has a protective detail, it is typical for
• 18:48
  Speaker 6: the agents to be in contact with.
• 18:50
  Speaker 3: Does the protective det details the protective detail guard the
• 18:53
  Speaker 3: storage unit?
• 18:54
  Speaker 5: Again, I can't speak to the storage unit specifically.
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: What I can tell you is they were Why Why
• 18:58
  Speaker 3: would the FBI tip off the subject of a search
• 19:02
  Speaker 3: warrant about the storage unit that was going to be
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: searched beforehand? Does that not undermine the very essence of
• 19:08
  Speaker 3: an investigation that DOJ is purporting to undertake.
• 19:13
  Speaker 6: Again, I'm not going to be able to discuss specific
• 19:15
  Speaker 6: investigative set.
• 19:16
  Speaker 5: Who will take it?
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: You're not.
• 19:18
  Speaker 3: Nobody answers these questions. And it's why people are furious
• 19:21
  Speaker 3: with the cover up, because you don't believe the FBI
• 19:24
  Speaker 3: is accountable to Congress or to the American people. Your
• 19:26
  Speaker 3: time is up, dirtor Rey has requested a five minute recess.
• 19:30
  Speaker 5: Five minutes, I'll just let me just send it.
• 19:33
  Speaker 6: If I might just quickly respond and then respun code
• 19:36
  Speaker 6: of the break thank you.
• 19:38
  Speaker 5: I understand why this is frustrating. I do.
• 19:42
  Speaker 6: But it is also the case that these policies that
• 19:45
  Speaker 6: I am referring to about my inability to discuss ongoing
• 19:49
  Speaker 6: investigations and certainly internal deliberations related to ongoing investigations, are
• 19:54
  Speaker 6: policies that have not only been in place for many,
• 19:57
  Speaker 6: many years through multiple administrations of both parties, but in
• 20:02
  Speaker 6: fact these were policies that were actually strengthened under the
• 20:05
  Speaker 6: last administration, and that my predecessor was faulted in a
• 20:10
  Speaker 6: fairly scathing Inspector General report for not following, and that
• 20:15
  Speaker 6: you have an obligation call it out.
• 20:16
  Speaker 5: He's engaged in this job. Thank you have an obligation
• 20:18
  Speaker 5: to call out corruption.
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: Senator.
• 20:22
  Speaker 1: I understand him saying it's an ongoing investigation, but hiding
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: behind that when you're talking about basic things that the
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: FBI didn't do clearly to protect the Biden family. He
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: should still be able to answer those questions, shouldn't he?
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: He should, and he's stonewalling, and there's an arrogance of
• 20:41
  Speaker 3: the director of the FBI. Look, as I mentioned in
• 20:43
  Speaker 3: my questioning, I've known Chris Ray for thirty years. Uh
• 20:46
  Speaker 3: he clerked for the same federal judge I clerked for.
• 20:50
  Speaker 3: He's not a liberal Democrat. That that's the amazing thing.
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: I think Chris Ray still believes he's a Republican. I
• 20:55
  Speaker 3: think he still believes he's a conservative. He just is unwilling.
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: He's a company man, unwilling to take on the career
• 21:04
  Speaker 3: officials at the FBI who were rabid partisans, who are
• 21:07
  Speaker 3: left wing zelots. And he also he buys into the
• 21:11
  Speaker 3: notion that he has no responsibility to the American people,
• 21:16
  Speaker 3: no responsibility to Congress, no responsibility to be accountable or transparent.
• 21:22
  Speaker 3: So he views his obligation no sorry, ongoing investigation piss off,
• 21:26
  Speaker 3: jumping a lake. I'm not going to answer your question. Look,
• 21:28
  Speaker 3: you've got two irs whistleblowers who come forward and alleged
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: felonies from the Attorney General. A director of the FBI
• 21:37
  Speaker 3: has an obligation to answer questions about that. I asked
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: a very simple question, did you try to ascertain the
• 21:44
  Speaker 3: GPS data about where Hunter Biden was and where Joe
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: Biden was when Hunter Biden sent the email asking for
• 21:53
  Speaker 3: bribes trying to shake down the Chinese communists for bribes.
• 21:56
  Speaker 3: The email, on its face says he's sitting next to
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: his father Biden. If he's in fact sitting next to
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: his father, it directly implicates Joe Biden in trying to
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: extort millions of dollars from Chinese communists, much of which
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: ultimately went to Joe Biden himself. What the RS whistleblower
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: said is they wanted to get that GPS data that
• 22:19
  Speaker 3: is readily ascertainable, and the Biden DOJ blocked it. There
• 22:23
  Speaker 3: is nothing to prevent Chris Ray from answering the question
• 22:26
  Speaker 3: did you try to seek that GPS data? Yes or no?
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: Did DOJ Blockett? Yes or no? He refuses to answer,
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: and his shield everything. He says it's an ongoing investigation.
• 22:37
  Speaker 3: But as we've discussed, it's not ongoing. They are deliberately
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: not investigating Joe Biden. And so it is a view
• 22:48
  Speaker 3: that there's a hubris. We are the FBI, we don't
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: have to answer your questions. And I got to say
• 22:56
  Speaker 3: it is profoundly harmful to the rule of law and
• 23:00
  Speaker 3: the integrity of the FBI to have the leadership of
• 23:03
  Speaker 3: the FBI refuse to provide even the barest minimum of
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: transparency or accountability.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: So our last question for you, and I want to
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: go back to the FBI director and really the advantage
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: that the Biden family has, which it seems that everybody
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: is covering for them. The House Oversight Committee put out
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: this tweet saying Hunter Biden must appear for his deposition
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: on de Ever, the thirteenth Chairman, Comer and Jim Jordan
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings if Hunter does not appear.
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: He has obviously said I will only appear before a
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: public hearing. That's not what they're subpoenating for. In your gut,
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: will Hunter Biden appear or will he be a no show?
• 23:44
  Speaker 5: Look, I put the odds at about fifty to fifty
• 23:46
  Speaker 5: on that. I think it could go either way.
• 23:49
  Speaker 3: I think there's a chance Hunter appeers, and I think
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: he could be defiant. He could be he could be
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: hiding behind his lawyers. I also think there's a very
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: real chance he just and show up. He just says,
• 24:01
  Speaker 3: go pound sand if he does. If he refuses to
• 24:04
  Speaker 3: show up, the House will vote have in contempt. But
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: once the House votes him in contempt, nothing will happen
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: because the Biden DOJ will not do anything to enforce
• 24:13
  Speaker 3: the contempt sanctioned. Remember the House Representatives held Eric Holder
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: in contempt when he was Attorney General under Barack Obama
• 24:20
  Speaker 3: and nothing happened. Now why did nothing happen Because to
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: enforce the contempt finding, DOJ has to bring it. And
• 24:27
  Speaker 3: you know what, Eric Holder was in charge of DJ,
• 24:29
  Speaker 3: and so magically, Eric Holder said, you know, when I
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: think of things that I want to prosecute, the contempt
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: finding against me is not one of them. I think
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: the chances of Merrick Garland doing anything to enforce a
• 24:41
  Speaker 3: contempt finding against Hunter Biden are very close to zero.
• 24:45
  Speaker 3: And so look, there's a chance Hunter shows up. He
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: did publicly say he was willing to show up. It
• 24:51
  Speaker 3: was in public, but either way, I do not expect
• 24:55
  Speaker 3: him to be forthcoming. Whether if he shows up, he's
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: not going to say much of substance. If he doesn't
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: show up, he feels he can defy the subpoena without
• 25:04
  Speaker 3: meaningful consequence.
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: dow the podcast from earlier this week to hear the
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: story number three of the week.
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: You may have missed all.
• 25:20
  Speaker 3: Right, one more Santredaly O'Connor story. So I was Slicer
• 25:24
  Speaker 3: General five and a half years. We ended up being
• 25:27
  Speaker 3: very fortunate.
• 25:27
  Speaker 5: We had some.
• 25:30
  Speaker 3: Really big constitutional law cases that just through serendipity came
• 25:33
  Speaker 3: down the road and we ended up litigating and we won.
• 25:36
  Speaker 5: Most of them.
• 25:38
  Speaker 3: One of the biggest cases it was a case called
• 25:40
  Speaker 3: Van Orden versus Perry. Now Van Orden versus Perry was
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: a challenge to the Ten Commandments monument outside of the
• 25:49
  Speaker 3: Texas State Capitol. And let me set a little bit
• 25:51
  Speaker 3: of context for it, because it's relevant to O'Connor, it's
• 25:54
  Speaker 3: relevant to Renquist in the court. So this is the
• 25:58
  Speaker 3: mid two thousands. There had been mitigation all over the
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: country challenging the public display of Ten Commandments all over
• 26:04
  Speaker 3: the country. The history of the Texas Ten Commandments Monument
• 26:09
  Speaker 3: it was erected in nineteen sixty one, but its history
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: actually goes back to the nineteen fifties. The nineteen fifties,
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: there was a Minnesota state judge named E. J. Rugemeier
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: who in the nineteen fifties was upset about the diminishing
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: morals of the youth in America. By the way, pause
• 26:26
  Speaker 3: and thinking the nineteen fifties, he was worried about youth morals.
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: Think about today, like Holy Cow, in eighty years it
• 26:32
  Speaker 3: hadn't gotten better. Yeah, And he came up with the
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: idea to help the morals of the youth in America,
• 26:38
  Speaker 3: let's publicly display the Ten Commandments in public areas across
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: the nation. And he went to a public service organization,
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: the Fraternal Order of Eagles, sort of like the Rotary
• 26:47
  Speaker 3: Club or Quanas Club. He said, Hey, what do y'all
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: think of this idea? And they said, great idea, We're
• 26:53
  Speaker 3: all for it all right now, Ben, this is where
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: the story takes a weird turn. This is exactly coterminous
• 27:01
  Speaker 3: with the release of Cecil B. De Mill's movie The
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: Ten Commandments. No way, you know, Charlton Heston comes down
• 27:08
  Speaker 3: from Mount Sinai carrying the Ten Commandments and Cecil B.
• 27:11
  Speaker 5: De Mill was a larger than life Hollywood character.
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: And Mill gets wind of this and he and he
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: was thinking like a Hollywood producer. He's like, hey, this
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: is a great idea, but I don't want a piece
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: of paper on a frame posted on the wall.
• 27:25
  Speaker 5: If you're going to erect this.
• 27:27
  Speaker 3: I want big honkin granite Ten Commandments monuments, just like
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: I'm gonna have Charlton Heston coming down the mountain with.
• 27:37
  Speaker 3: There are dozens of what are called Eagles monuments all
• 27:41
  Speaker 3: over the country and they're all identical Texas. At six
• 27:44
  Speaker 3: foot three inches tall three foot six inches wide, it
• 27:47
  Speaker 3: is red granite. It looks exactly like the tablets that
• 27:51
  Speaker 3: Charlton Heston carried. And actually, I'm going to take a
• 27:55
  Speaker 3: brief aside and say, if you ever are argue you
• 28:00
  Speaker 3: a case in court, since you're not a lawyer, something
• 28:02
  Speaker 3: would have to go terribly wrong for you.
• 28:04
  Speaker 5: To be arguing a case in court.
• 28:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but if you're convicted of murder and you're defending yourself.
• 28:11
  Speaker 3: The advice that I have given lawyers is never ever
• 28:14
  Speaker 3: ever try to be funny. It is the province of
• 28:17
  Speaker 3: judges to be funny, It is not the province of lawyers. Now,
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: that is excellent advice, But I will tell you I
• 28:23
  Speaker 3: have twice in my career broken that advice, and I've
• 28:26
  Speaker 3: been very lucky. The gods of litigation have spared me
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: my just deserts. Both times when I was arguing the
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: defense of the Texas ten Commandments case in the Fifth
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: Circuit Court of Appeals. The process that the Eagles use
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: to develop the text of the Ten Commandments. There are
• 28:45
  Speaker 3: differences across the dominations, and so what the Eagles did
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: is they brought together a committee that consisted of a pastor,
• 28:52
  Speaker 3: a priest, and a rabbi. So an oral argument, I said,
• 28:56
  Speaker 3: this was drafted by a pastor, a priest, and a rabbi.
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: And one of the judges of the Fifth Circuit, Judge Prato,
• 29:01
  Speaker 3: leans forward and says, Council, that sounds like the beginning
• 29:04
  Speaker 3: of a joke. And I immediately said, yes, your honor,
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: but nobody walked into a bar. And miraculously, the judges
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: took pity on me and laughed. It was stupid, but
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: I was grateful for their mercy. Were in front of
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: the U. S. Supreme Court on the Texas Ten Commandments monument,
• 29:23
  Speaker 3: and at the time there had been dozens of cases
• 29:27
  Speaker 3: challenging Ten Commandments monuments. Almost all of the monuments had
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: lost the weight of the case. Law was headed very
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: significantly against the public display of the Ten Commandments as
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: the case was being appealed. So we had won in
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals. The plain iff, a
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: guy named Thomas van Orden, who was an atheist. He
• 29:47
  Speaker 3: was a homeless man who had walked past the monument,
• 29:50
  Speaker 3: was offended by it and filed a lawsuit seeking to
• 29:52
  Speaker 3: tear it down. He filed a cert petition asking the
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court to take the case. Now, normally, if you've
• 29:57
  Speaker 3: won and the other side appeals to the Supreme Court,
• 30:00
  Speaker 3: what you do is you fight against it. You say no, no,
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: don't take this case. There is no split of authority.
• 30:05
  Speaker 3: It's not consequential. You don't need this say no, because
• 30:07
  Speaker 3: if they say no, you've won. Here was the problem.
• 30:10
  Speaker 3: There was an enormous split of authority. I thought the
• 30:13
  Speaker 3: court was going to take one of these cases very
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: very soon, and we might have won a pyrrhic victory
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: of a short term victory, but if a bad decision
• 30:21
  Speaker 3: came down to the Supreme Court, we'd lose in the
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: long term and lose our monument. So I went to
• 30:25
  Speaker 3: my boss, Greg Abbott, and I said, general, I think
• 30:29
  Speaker 3: we should do something that's called acquiescing insert, which is
• 30:32
  Speaker 3: we should agree, yes, Supreme Court, you should take this case.
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: And we drafted a brief in opposition where we said,
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: there is a split of authority. It is real, it
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: is deep, it is wide, it is significant. And what
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: we wrote in the brief was, if the Court is
• 30:50
  Speaker 3: inclined to resolve this issue, this case presents the single
• 30:56
  Speaker 3: best fact pattern to uphold a permissible display of the
• 31:00
  Speaker 3: Ten Commandments.
• 31:02
  Speaker 5: It was very risky because if the.
• 31:04
  Speaker 3: Court took the case and we lost, everyone would pillory
• 31:07
  Speaker 3: both Abbot and me. You idiots asked them to take
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: this case, and then you got your butt kicked. Well,
• 31:13
  Speaker 3: it ended up we were right. They were going to
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: take a case. They took the Texas case, and they
• 31:17
  Speaker 3: took a case out of Kentucky. They took them both,
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: and they scheduled them for argument on the same day.
• 31:24
  Speaker 3: As we're preparing the case. Abbot, my boss, who was
• 31:27
  Speaker 3: attorney Generally, he told me when he started, he said, look,
• 31:29
  Speaker 3: I want to argue one Supreme Court case while I'm
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: ag and let me know which one I should do.
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: And so when this case was granted, I said, General,
• 31:36
  Speaker 3: this is the one.
• 31:37
  Speaker 5: You should do.
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: It's a discreet issue of law, it's incredibly important. He
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: spent two months preparing for the argument. I put together
• 31:45
  Speaker 3: some moot courts, I did moot court in DC with
• 31:49
  Speaker 3: a murderer's row of Supreme Court advocates. They had collectively
• 31:52
  Speaker 3: over one hundred oral arguments between them, and they just
• 31:57
  Speaker 3: beat him senseless. I actually felt really nervous, Like when
• 32:00
  Speaker 3: you put your boss in front of a moot that
• 32:02
  Speaker 3: like pounds them senseless, You're like, uh, General, I hope
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: that was productive. Yeah, please tell me I'm not unemployed.
• 32:09
  Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, please tell me I'm not get my walk
• 32:11
  Speaker 4: in papers a day.
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: But look, if you do it right, you want the
• 32:13
  Speaker 3: mood to be harder than the actual argument. So he
• 32:15
  Speaker 3: went through, did several moods. He was ready for it,
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: and in the brief I told him, I said, okay, General,
• 32:20
  Speaker 3: I've got a plan. So for about three decades, Sandarday
• 32:23
  Speaker 3: O'Connor was the deciding vote on every almost every religious
• 32:28
  Speaker 3: liberty establishment cause case in the country. And I read
• 32:33
  Speaker 3: every opinion she'd written over and over and over again.
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: And I told my team as we're drafting the brief,
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: I said, I want us to swim in Sandraday O'Connor's
• 32:44
  Speaker 3: establishment clause jurisprudence. I want I want this to embody
• 32:48
  Speaker 3: everything she's ever thought or said about the First Amendment,
• 32:52
  Speaker 3: And in fact I told my lawyers, I said, I
• 32:54
  Speaker 3: want the most frequent words in the brief to be
• 32:57
  Speaker 3: O'Connor Comma jay.
• 32:58
  Speaker 5: I want them to occur more frequently than and or THEE.
• 33:02
  Speaker 5: And one of my.
• 33:03
  Speaker 3: Lawyers said, well, Ted, is it possible to be too
• 33:07
  Speaker 3: obsequious to Justice O'Connor in this brief? I said no,
• 33:11
  Speaker 3: If we can put an oil portrait of Sanderdale O'Connor
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: in the cover of our brief, we should do so.
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: And again I was, you know, probably I was a
• 33:21
  Speaker 3: cocky thirty four thirty five year old. I went to
• 33:24
  Speaker 3: Abbott and I said, General, we are we're living in
• 33:28
  Speaker 3: her psyche. This brief is exactly what Saturday O'Connor thinks.
• 33:34
  Speaker 5: Well.
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: At the oral argument, I'm sorry to say we missed horribly.
• 33:40
  Speaker 3: She was utterly unpersuaded. She voted to strike down the
• 33:44
  Speaker 3: Texas ten Commandments.
• 33:45
  Speaker 5: Mindment.
• 33:45
  Speaker 3: Now here's where Spring Court arguments are weird. Every argument
• 33:49
  Speaker 3: we'd aimed at Sanderdale O'Connor missed her, but bizarrely enough
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: struck Steve Bryer. Wow, Bill Clinton appointee relatively liberal justice.
• 34:01
  Speaker 3: And the two cases I told you there was Kentucky
• 34:03
  Speaker 3: in Texas. Four justices voted to strike down both monuments,
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: four justices voted to uphold both monuments. Steve Bryer voted
• 34:12
  Speaker 3: to strike down Kentucky and to uphold Texas, which, among
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: other things, was a vindication of If we hadn't acquiesced insert,
• 34:23
  Speaker 3: the only opinion would have been Kentucky, and it would
• 34:25
  Speaker 3: have been devastating for Ten Commandments monuments across the country.
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: There was also a really nice kind of personal vindication
• 34:31
  Speaker 3: in this. So Chief Justice Renquist had been an original
• 34:36
  Speaker 3: dissenter in a case called Stone versus Graham, which struck
• 34:41
  Speaker 3: down the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools
• 34:43
  Speaker 3: across the country, and he had dissented. He said, this
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: is not the first amendment, this is not right Van
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: Orden versus Perry. Chief Justice Renquist wrote the plurality opinion
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: for the court upholding Texas's display of the Ten Commandments,
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: the very last opinion Chief Justice Renquist ever wrote, and
• 35:03
  Speaker 3: he passed away later that summer. And so, as his
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: former clerk, it was really cool to have been part
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: of a case where he was able to vindicate a
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: view he had articulated two decades earlier and Sanderday O'Connor.
• 35:18
  Speaker 3: When it came to the standards, we didn't meet her standards,
• 35:21
  Speaker 3: but miraculously enough Steve Bryer liked what we had to say,
• 35:24
  Speaker 3: and so we entered. And by the way, since then,
• 35:27
  Speaker 3: the McCreary case out of Kentucky has proven to be
• 35:29
  Speaker 3: a very unimportant precedent. It is rarely cited, and the
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: Van Orden case changed the entire direction of case law
• 35:36
  Speaker 3: so that Ten Commandments displays are now routinely uphill.
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again, Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.