Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Obama Admin CAUGHT Deliberately Pushing Fake Russia Attack, CA Fights TX on Redistricting plus Google Suppresses GOP & Sandwich-gate!

Transcript

Obama Admin CAUGHT Deliberately Pushing Fake Russia Attack, CA Fights TX on Redistricting plus Google Suppresses GOP & Sandwich-gate! · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Center, Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: with you. It's really nice to have you with us
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: wherever you are around the country, and we've got a
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: packed show for you, including a new shocking claim but
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: from the D and I director Tulca Gabbard with the
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: classified email, Senator, and this is really shocking what she's
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: now saying about manufactured intelligence assessment that was deliberate and
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: came from the very top to go after Donald Trump.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: Well, every week we're getting new revelations about just how
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: corrupt the federal government in the Deep state was under
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: Barack Obama, how much they conspired and actively conspired to
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: undermine President Donald Trump when he came into office in
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. The latest that Tulsea Gabbert just released is
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: evidence that Jim Clapper pushed to compromise the normal steps
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: the intelligence community would make in order to rush out
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: a politically damaging attack on Trump. We're going to give
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: you all the details on this. This written evidence that
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: they were ignoring the facts to push a political narrative.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: Beyond that, we also have new evidence that that big
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: tech continues to interfere in elections and In particular, Google
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: was caught repeatedly flagging Republican fundraising texts and emails as spam,
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: and and they were doing this while they were not
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: flagging Democrat fundraising emails as spam. We're gonna we're gonna
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: lay that out as well. On top of that, we
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: have Gavin Newsom in California and he is threatening to
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: stand up to Texas and if Texas redistricts, California is
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: going to as well. We're going to explain why California
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: is going to lose this showdown. Gavin Newsom is going
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: to lose this showdown. We'll give you all the facts
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: and all the law behind that. And finally, the DC
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: crime lockdown from President Trump. While one of the latest
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: men festations of the response to it is it's really
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: kind of funny. It's it's it's sandwich gate. It is
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: this this DC leftist who got very angry, began screaming
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: at federal law enforcement agents uh and then threw a
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: subway sandwich at him and and then ran away, prancing
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: away UH and was arrested and charged with a felony.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: And then it was discovered he was an employee at
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: the Department of justice. And so he got fired and
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: and and and I got to say that the whole
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: thing embodies the great Internet slogan of f A f
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: O and and and and he did and he found out.
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great story. We're gonna have it all
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: for you in just a moment. Let me also talk
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: to you about our great friends over at Crockett Coffee.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: If you start your day with coffee, uh, I tell
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: you you've got to try Crockett coffee.
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: Now.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Look, I'm gonna save you somebody to try it. But
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: let me tell you why it's so special. Crocket coffee
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: is roasted to perfection in small batches on purpose by
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: experts who love the taste of amazing coffee. It's also
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: roasted in our nation's heartland, and then it's delivered fresh
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: to your home or your office. Now you're going to
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: feel like a Western settler. You're going to be drinking
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: amazing coffee over a morning campfire, is what you're going
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: to feel like. That is the best part of a
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: cup of Crocket coffee, the aroma. It's amazing. Now here's
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: the other thing you can choose between fresh Crown, Whole
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: Bean or k cups you choose, and if you're interested
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: in mushroom coffee and the positive benefits that come with
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: enjoying that each day, Crockett Coffee is now producing that
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: as well. They've got a dark roast, a mild roast,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: a light roast, a decafed version, and the mushroom organic blend.
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: You choose what you like. And here's the best part.
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: This is a company that was started by two fellow Patriots,
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Buck Sexton and Klay Travis. And I love that they
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: decide to do this because they're like, look when I
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: give your money to woke liberal coffee companies, and they
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: also get back every time you make a purchase to
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: you will be supporting Tunnel to Towers Foundation because at
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: Crockett Coffee that matters, and they say, we will never forget. Now,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: let me save you some money and try this small
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Bat's coffee. Go to Crocketcoffee dot Com. Use my name Ben.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: You're gonna get twenty percent off your first order. That's
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: Crocketcoffee dot Com. Use my name Ben as your promo
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: code and get twenty percent off Crocketcoffee dot Com. Promo
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: code Ben for twenty percent off. All Right, So this
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: is a story that we got to start with. That's
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: gonna make a lot of Americans mad. You should be
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: furious over this. I wanted to start with that. It
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: infuriates me to know that our deep state was this
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: hardcore in to just manufacturing anything they wanted to to
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: go after and weaponize our government against Donald Trump and
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: anyone around him. And now we have even more evidence
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: of this.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: Well, this is story Fox News Digital as published. It's
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: entitled Clapper allegedly pushed to quote compromised normal steps to
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: Rush twenty seventeen Ica, despite concerns from an NSSA director,
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: Gabbert de classified emails exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: allegedly revealing that this manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: came from the very top. And here's what Tulsa Gabber,
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: the Director of National Intelligence said, quote the leading figures
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: of the Russia hoax have spent years deceiving the American
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credible intelligence.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: The email released today reinforces what we already exposed, the
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: decision to compromise standards and violate protocols in the creation
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: of the twenty seventeen, manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: came from the very top. And this was an email
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: that was sent from Mike Rogers, who was the head
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: of the NSSA. Was said to the director, sent to
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, was sent to
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: the CIA Director John Brennan, and was sent to the
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: FBI Director James Comy. It was sent on December twenty second,
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: twenty sixteen. Happened to be my forty sixth birthday. So
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: at seven am on December twenty second, twenty sixteen, here's
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: what the head of the NSA said quote. I've just
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: returned from a tdy overseas and had been updated on
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: the current status of our efforts to produce a joint
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: product related to Russian attribution and intent for the DNC
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: DCCC hacks. I know that this activity is on a
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: fast track and that folks have been working very hard
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: to put together a product that can be provided to
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: the President. However, I wanted to reach out to you
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: directly to let you know of some concerns that I
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: have with what I am hearing from my folks. Specifically,
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: I asked my team if they had sufficient ACTSS to
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: the underlying intelligence and sufficient time to review that intelligence.
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: On both points, my team raised concerns. They were clear
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: that at the staff level, folks have been forward leading
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: and trying to ensure that we have an opportunity to
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: review and weigh in. But I'm concerned that given the
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren't fully comfortable
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: saying that they have had enough time to review all
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: And Rogers clarified he said in the email. He said
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: he is quote not saying that we disagree substantively, but
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: I do want to make sure that when we are
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: asked in the future whether we can absolutely stand behind
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: the paper, that we don't have any reason to hesitate
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: because of the process. I know that you agree this
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: is something we need to be one hundred percent comfortable
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: with before we present it to the President. We have
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: one chance to get this right, and it is critical
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: that we do so. And he continued, quote, if the
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: intent is to create an integrated product that is CIA
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: slash FBI slash nsa joint author that we can all defend,
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: we need a process that allows all of us to
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: be comfortable, and I'm concerned that we are not there yet.
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: And the email continued quote in addition, if NSA is
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: intended to be a co author of this product, I
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: personally expect to see even the most sensitive evidence related
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: to the conclusion. And the email finished by saying, if
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: the intent is to create a CIO only or a
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: CIA FBI authored product, then I will stand down on
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: these concerns. I would welcome your thoughts on these points
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: in any adjustments we might make to the process to
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: ensure we have all the necessary level of confidence in
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: the final assessment. That's what his email said. And moments
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: from now you're going to hear the response from the
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: politicized leadership of the Obama intelligence community.
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: You just read Center the email that kind of opens
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: all this up. The response email, though, is even more shocking.
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: Well, as I just read Mike Rogers, who was the
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: director of the National Security Agency. He said, in writing
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: in December of twenty sixteen, we have one chance to
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: get this right, and it is critical that we do so.
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: And he further said, we need a process that allows
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: all of us to be comfortable, and I'm concerned we
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: are not there yet. That's what he said at seven am.
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: Well later in the day at seven forty three pm,
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: James Clapper replied to the Roger email and he copied
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: Brennan and Coleman and here's what comy, And here's what
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: Clapper said, quote, understand your concern. It is essential that
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: we CIA, slash NSA, slash FBI, slash OD and I
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: be on the same page and are all supportive of
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: the report in the highest tradition of quote. That's our
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: story and we're sticking to it. He continued this evening.
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: CIA is provided to the NIC the complete draft generated
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: by the ad hoc fusion cell. We will facilitate as
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report,
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: but more time is not negotiable. And then I want
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: you to listen to this next sentence. We may have
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: to compromise on our quote normal modalities since we must
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: do this on such a compressed schedule. And then the
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: email continues, quote, this is one project that has to
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: be a team sport. Now, Ben, that's a lot of things,
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: but it's not intelligence. It's not fair and objective. It's
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: not trying to get to the facts. It is saying
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: we must all be on the same page, because, as
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: he puts it, that's our story and we're sticking to it.
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: Everyone had to agree, and he said right up at
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: the front. Look, the more time is not negotiable. We
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: have to compromise the way we do things.
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: Why.
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: He doesn't specify why, but nobody who received this email
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: was confused. There wasn't an intelligence mandate. There wasn't an
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: intelligence reason why they had to have this put out
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: within days. There was a political reason. They had to
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: have it completed politically so they can run out and
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: leak it to the press and do so before Donald J.
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: Trump was sworn in on January twentieth, the twenty seventeen
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: that was the urgency. It was a partisan political objective.
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: They wanted to slam the president. And look what they
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: said in writing, we don't care if the NSA disagrees,
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: if they say we're not convinced you're right, if they
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: say the intelligence doesn't necessarily back this up. This is
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: quote a team sport that that's what Clapper said, and
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: and ultimately the intelligence report they put together assessed that
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: quote Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: and the d Triple c H and it failed to
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: mension that the FBI and the NSA had previously expressed
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: low confidence in that attribution. In other words, they reversed
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: the determination of the intelligence community for a political objective.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: I go back to that that we don't have the time, right,
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: It was all about the time. Can we talk about
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: how significant just that is, Like, Hey, we don't have
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: the time. This is a time sense of thing. AKA
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: to pull this off. We've got to expedite this or
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: we will run out of time to expedite it and
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: actually have it have influence and do what the ultimate
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: goal was.
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah, look, for folks listening, let's just ask yourself a
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: simple question. Why why didn't they have the time? What
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: was the rush? We weren't going to war. It's not
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: like we needed plans. We're dropping the bombs in three days.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: There was nothing that was urgent about assessing a retrospective
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: of what happened in the twenty sixteen election and did
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: Russia hack the election? That conclusion could have come in December,
• 13:39
  Speaker 2: It could have come in January. It could have come
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: in February, March, or April. It could have come in June.
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: It could have come the next year. I mean it
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: was a retrospective assessing something, so they had all the
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: time in the world. However, if you are a hardcore
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: partisan leftist who hates Donald Trump, who wants to corrupt
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: the intelligence community and law enforcement to attack the incoming
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: president who had just gotten elected by the American people,
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: then you have a very clear time clock, which is
• 14:08
  Speaker 2: January twentieth. Because once January twentieth comes, you're out of
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: a job. James Clapper isn't going to be there. John
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: Brennan isn't going to be there. Unfortunately, Comy remained there,
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: and then that was a serious mistake, one of the biggest,
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: if not the biggest mistake of the first term of
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: the Trump administration. But they're all looking at this saying,
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: if we are going to concoct a lie once we
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: get to January twentieth, the new team is in place,
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: the one thing they're not going to be interested in
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: doing is participating in a political lie to attack the
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: newly elected president of the United States. So the only
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: reason for urgency was a partisan political objective, and that,
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: at the end of the day, was the reason why
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: they conspired to subvert democracy. By the way, in November
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: twenty sixteen. Here's what the intelligence community concluded. Quote Russia
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: was probably not trying to influence the election using cyber means.
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: That was a month earlier, not is what they concluded
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: weeks before the emails were sent. On December seventh, Clapper's
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: talking points stated, quote, foreign adversaries did not use cyber
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: attacks on election infrastructure to alter the US presidential outcome.
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: That that was just just weeks before this election. On
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: December eighth, the presidential briefing for President Obama said, quote,
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: we assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: the election infrastructure. That was what they were concluding until
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: they made a political decision, and they made it the
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: next day on December ninth, and a meeting in the
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: Situation room for partisan political reasons, they decided, we're going
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: to accuse Russia of electing Donald Trump because we hate
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: Trump and we want to tear down the incoming administration.
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: And that is, to use a term the Democrats like,
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: an absolute assault on democracy.
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: All right, I want to switch gears center to California.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Democrats are now saying they're going to redistrict in California
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: to counter what Texas is doing after they waive the
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: right the white flag Democrats it in Texas. Now, Gavin
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: Newsom is, I guess trying to turn this into like
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: a presidential campaign issue for him, where he's like, well,
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: if you do acts in Texas, we're gonna we're just
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: gonna counter it out here in California. The funny part
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: is they've been jerrymandering in California for decades, and it's
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: like he's acting like this the first time they'll ever
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: do it.
• 16:53
  Speaker 3: It's pretty laughable.
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: Well, as we covered on Wednesday's pod, the Texas Democrats
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: have surrendered. They fled the date, they defeated a quorum,
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: and yet they were facing serious repercussions from the governor,
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: from the Speaker of the House that they were facing
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: five hundred dollars a day fines they had to pay
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: from their personal personal bank account, not from their campaign accounts.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: They were facing the governor declaring their offices vacant and
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: replacing them in the state legislature. And they were also
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: facing being arrested and forcibly having their bodies produced on
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: the floor of the House. And so the Texas House
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: Democrats caved and said we're coming back, We're done fighting
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: that that news had broken. And so then the latest
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: what has broken just just this week at that is
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom has left leapt forward and Ben, have you
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: noticed that that Gavin Newsom is just a little bit thirsty.
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: Yes, it's I mean, this is like, I don't know
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: what reincarnation of his career this is. It feels like
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: it's like seven or eight. But he is obsessed right
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: now with being in the media.
• 17:57
  Speaker 3: I got to say a bit.
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: Of advice if any of you got for find yourself
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: in the vicinity of Gavin Newsom, under no circumstances should
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: you place your body between Governor Newsom and a TV camera,
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: he will run you over. You will be roadkill. You
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: will be an armadilla with a smear in the center
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: of the highway. Because that man, Oh, if there's a
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: headline to be had, he is chasing it. And so
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: he's decided he is the great liberal hope. He's going
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: to stand up and fight against Texas. I got to say,
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: as an aside, I've said more than once that I
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: think we should nominate Gavin Newsom as the Texas realature
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: of the year, because there is no human being on
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: planet Earth who has ever sold more homes in the
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: great State of Texas than Gavin Newsom. He sells thousands
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: of homes in Texas every year. It is incredible. All
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: he has to do is continue mucking up California and
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: people rent you hauls and get the heck out of
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: Dodge Well. His latest statement is, okay, Texas, if you redistrict,
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: California is going to as well, and we're going to
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: get even more Democrats. Now, let me give you some
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: facts that the New York Times won't tell you, that
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: the Washington Post won't tell you, that CNN won't tell you,
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: that MSNBC won't tell you that the corporate media does
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: not want you to know. Virtually every big Democrat state
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: in the Union is egregiously jerrymanner right now, massively more
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: than Republican states. And let's put some numbers to it.
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: So California in twenty twenty four, fifty eight percent of
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: California's voted Democrat. The congressional delegation in California has fifty
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: two members of Congress. It's currently divided forty three Democrats,
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: nine Republicans. That means fifty eight percent of California voters
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: get to be represented by eighty three percent of the
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: congressional delegation. It's a massive jerrymander. By the way, California
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: is not alone. If you look at New York, fifty
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: six percent of New Yorkers voted for Democrats, and yet
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: seventy three percent of the congressional delegation is Democrat. Illinois,
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: Illinois is massive. Fifty four percent of the state vote Democrat.
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: Illinois is not nearly as Democrat as people think, just
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: fifty four percent. You know how much of the congressional
• 20:22
  Speaker 2: delegation is Democrat eighty two percent. And I'll tell you
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: one of the most stunning is the state of Massachusetts.
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: State of Massachusetts, you have about thirty six percent of
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: the state that votes Republican. You know how many members
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: of Congress that thirty six percent gets.
• 20:39
  Speaker 3: How many? Zero?
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, not a single one. There are nine congressional seats
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: in Massachusetts. All nine are Democrat, none are Republican. That's
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: a Democrat jerrymander. By the way, Texas, by comparison, so
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: Texas in twenty twenty four, fifty six percent of Texans
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: voted Republican, and the congressional delegation is thirty eight seats,
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: twenty four of those are Republican, fourteen or Democrat. That
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: means fifty six percent of Texas voters are getting sixty
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: three percent of the congressional delegation. So it is much
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: more mild. Sixty three percent in Texas eighty three percent
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: in California. So it is a massive gerrymander in California. Now,
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: what is Texas proposing doing? Well? The Texas legislatures put
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: out a map to increase the Republican representation by five seats,
• 21:31
  Speaker 2: so instead of twenty four to fourteen, it will be
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: twenty nine nine. So we'll add five Republicans, take away
• 21:39
  Speaker 2: five Democrats. That will take it from sixty three percent
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: Republican to seventy six percent Republican. Now, seventy six percent
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: Republican is an increase from sixty three but it's not
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: nearly as much as eighty three percent, which is where
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: California is. So what does Gavin Newsom say, if you
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: dare draw map that's not nearly as skewed as California,
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: what are we going to do in California? We're gonna
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: skew our map even more. Now. To be clear, there
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: are only nine Republicans elected in California. He has very
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: few seats to get rid of because it's forty three
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: nine to begin with. But essentially what he's threatening is,
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: instead of making it forty three to nine, he wants
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: to make it fifty two to zero. He wants to
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: make one hundred percent of the congressional seats in California Democrat.
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: That would mean fifty eight percent of the voters in
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: California get one hundred percent of the congressional delegation and
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: the thirty eight percent of Californians that vote Republican get zero.
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: I'll tell you I took on Gavin Newsom today on
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: Twitter and I said, look, if you want to do that,
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: if California is going to go one hundred percent dem,
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: why shouldn't Texas go one hundred percent Republican instead of
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: going right now at twenty four fourteen. The proposal is
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: to take it to twenty nine to nine. But if
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: California is going to do that, Texas ought to go
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: to thirty eight zero. Now I'm not advocating that. I
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: actually think neither state should do that. I think you
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: should have a congressional delegation that reflects the values and
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: views of the state. But if Democrats are going to
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: utterly abuse their power to disproportionately favor Democrats in Congress,
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: and the only response I think Republican states can have
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: is to counter that and to be a check in balance.
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: But of course the media wants you to know none
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: of these facts.
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: Let me ask you this question.
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: If this does continue to go the way that Democrats
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: are advocating for it, where they say, hey, forget us,
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: just like kind of jerry mannering, We're just going to
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: go full blown get rid of every Republican district, what
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: then happens, Like, where does this stop in this insanty?
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: I do think it's great that the American people now
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: understand just how jerrymandered so many Democratic states have been.
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: For decades and decades. They didn't even realize how blatant
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: it was. Now it's getting the coverage it deserves. But
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: where does this all end? What's the best case scenario?
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: Well, look, Republican states have much more room. So if
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: this becomes an escalation, the Democrats lose because the Democrats
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: have already jerrymandered the hell out of their states, so
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: they don't have that much room to grow. And the
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: funniest example of that is the Democrat governor of Massachusetts.
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: She got all worked up and said, oh, yeah, well,
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: if Texas does this, we're going to redistrict too. Massachusetts
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: has already one hundred percent Democrat in their congressional delegation.
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: They have jerrymandered to the maximum extent possible. What exactly
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: can Massachusetts do to jerrymander more? There are no Republican
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: members of Congress. They elect by design, and it can't
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: get any worse. And so if this becomes an escalation,
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: the Democrats lose. Now, interestingly enough, Newsom is mostly playing politics.
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: He's mostly wanting headlines. He's mostly wanting to impress Democrat
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: presidential primary voters because it ain't complicated. Gavin is running
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: in twenty twenty eight. He is running full speed ahead. Now,
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: what's funny is it's like watching a rerun of Sibyl
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: Late on TV. He's got one hundred and forty two personalities.
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: So on day one he is hard left progressive social
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: justice warrior, on day two he is reasonable moderate, and
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: today he is partisan partisan gladiator. But he'll do all
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: of them. He does have a challenge in that California
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: state law provides that redistricting is not done by the legislature,
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: which is what the constitution provides, but rather by a
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: so called independent commission. And so Newsom is proposing putting
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: on the ballot changing the map. And Politico did a
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: poll that they released this week and it shows that
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: California voters prefer keeping an independent line drawing panel to
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: determine the state's House seats by nearly a two to
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: one margin sixty four percent, while only thirty six percent
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: of respondents back returning to congressional redistricting authority to state lawmakers.
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: So Newsom's got a problem because if this goes to
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: the ballot right now, at least he's got to convince
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: the voters to allow his partisan power grab. I don't
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: think actually Candusom is focused on winning. I think he
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: just is trying to show off in Peacock for the
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: Democrat primary voters.
• 26:37
  Speaker 3: Center.
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: It's time we talk a little bit about Google, and
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: it is another bombshell that's come out showing massive bias
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: with Google their search engines. Also the emails that make
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: it to your inbox and those they decide purposely to
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: send a spam. There's even shocking revelations now that sending
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: a firm that sent the same email the same exact wording,
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: one with a link to a conservative group went to spam,
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: but if it had a link to a hardcore lefty group,
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: it went straight to the top of your inbox.
• 27:12
  Speaker 3: How the hell are they getting away with this?
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: Well, unfortunately it appears to be blatant by us. And listen,
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: I have long believed that big tech censorship in bias
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: poses the single greatest threat we have to free speech
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: in America and the single greatest threat we have to
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: free and fair elections in America. And big tech, the
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: giant tech oligarchs have been hardcore leftists, and they have
• 27:36
  Speaker 2: abused their monopoly power to try to elect Democrats. And
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: by far the worst actor in this historically has been Google.
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: Google openly censors conservative speech, it skews its search results
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: to favor Democrats. In the twenty sixteen election, the employer
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: for the largest amount of campaign contributions to Hillary Clint
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: was Google. And so they are all in.
• 28:03
  Speaker 3: With the Democrats.
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, say that again, so people really
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: understand how biased they are say that one more time.
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: Okay, in twenty sixteen, think of all of the people
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: that made campaign contributions to Donald Trump and to Hillary Clinton.
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: So when you make a campaign contribution, you report on
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: the FEC. You put your name, you put your address,
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: you put your employer, and any contribution two hundred dollars
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: and above gets reported. And so then they make reports
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: and you can see, all right, where does the most
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: money come from? The number one source, not number two,
• 28:36
  Speaker 2: not number three, number one source for campaign contributions hard
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: money contributions to Hillary Clinton was Google. Actually technically was Alphabet,
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: which is which is Google's parent company, But that's Google.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: They were her number one donor. And and by the way,
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: there is a psychologist, Robert Epstein, who I've had testify
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: in front of my committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, who
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: did empirical research on Google and found that Google skewed
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: search results and moved millions of votes from Donald Trump
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: to Hillary Clinton. And by the way, doctor Epstein was
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary. He was still
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: horrified at the results. Well, the latest report I'm going
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: to read from the New York Post quote Google caught
• 29:18
  Speaker 2: flagging gop fundraiser emails as suspicious, sending them directly to spam.
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: Google is added again the GOP campaign donations could be
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: a casualty. The search giant has been caught this summer
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: flagging Republican fundraising emails as quote dangerous spam, keeping them
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: from hitting Gmail users' inboxes, while leaving similar solicitations from
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: Democrats untouched. A consulting firm warned that's despite repeatedly sparking
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: headlines and lawsuits in recent years over this allegedly partisan practice.
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: This is something, this has been a pattern, it's been
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: a problem, it's been going on for a long time,
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: and it appears Google is doubling down and continuing to
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: block Republican fundraising emails while green lighting Democrat fundraising emails.
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: It really is incredible, and this just goes, I think,
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: to the radicalness of the left, whether it's Google or
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: We now have a guy that is apparently he was
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice who just decided, I got
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: a subway, Salwench, I'm gonna throw it at police officers.
• 30:25
  Speaker 3: And run away. And now we find out even.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: The people that are still working the deep state are
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: willing to do things like this. We've now found out
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: who he is. He's lost his job, and he's been arrested.
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: Well, listen, we've talked a lot on this podcast about
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: how the Democrats have lost their ever loving mind. They
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: hate Donald Trump so much that they've just gone to
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: crazy town that they've taken just about every eighty twenty
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: issue in America. They've decided to embrace the twenty percent side.
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: So when it comes to immigration, there for open borders.
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: When it comes to sports, they want boys girls sports.
• 31:01
  Speaker 2: When it comes to kids, they want children being sterilized
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: and having gender mutilating surgeries. And when it comes to criminals,
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: they're in favor of them. They're in favor of releasing
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: murderers and rapists and Venezuelan gang members. And the left
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: right now is losing their mind about d C and
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: the fact that Donald Trump is exercising clear constitutional authority,
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: clear statutory authority to ensure law and order in d
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: C and to keep people safe. DC has the fourth
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: highest murder rate in America. It has a higher murder
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: rate than Bogota, Colombia, has a higher murder rate than
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: Mexico City. The murder rate in Washington, d C is
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: six times the murder rate in New York. And yet
• 31:48
  Speaker 2: leftists are furious that Trump is saying we're going to
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: stop murderers. And so what happened this week is you
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: had a leftist on the streets who saw a federal
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: lawforcement officers and in this case, the Customs and Border
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: Patrol agent. And this leftist began jumping up and down
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: and screaming, screaming and cursing at him and calling him
• 32:09
  Speaker 2: a fascist, calling him a fascist. And you, if you
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: haven't seen the video, you got a picture. This guy
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: is jumping up and down, jumping up and down. He's
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: wearing a pink polo shirt and these incredibly tight shorts that,
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: let me just say it looks like a costume. And
• 32:25
  Speaker 2: he's jumping up and down. He's behaving like a five
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: year old, and he's screaming and screaming at this federal
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: law enforcement agent. And then he's holding in his hand
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: a subway sandwich and he turns to walk away, and
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: then he turns around and he just throws as hard
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: as he can the subway sandwich into the chest of
• 32:44
  Speaker 2: the federal law enforcement officer. And then suddenly he realizes, oh,
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: maybe that was a mistake and he turns around and
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: runs away. Well, federal law enforcement pursues him, they catch him,
• 32:56
  Speaker 2: and they arrest him. Now this is when the story changes.
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: Under Joe Biden, nothing would have happened. Under Barack Obama,
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: nothing would have happened. Well, under Donald Trump, he's being prosecuted.
• 33:09
  Speaker 2: He's being prosecuted for a felony. It is assault to
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: throw anything at someone. You don't have the right to
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: throw something. And even if it is a sandwich, which
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: looks a sandwich is not a deadly item, but it
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: is assault to throw it. And what Pambondi, the Attorney
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: General said, and what the US Attorney Jeanine Piro said
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: is is we're going to protect law enforcement. If you
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: assault a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted, you
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: will go to jail. And then this is where the
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: case took a strange turn that this pink polo clad
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: jumping up and down nutcase turns out he was actually
• 33:45
  Speaker 2: an employee of the Department of Justice, a current employee,
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: not now. Ben I used to work at the DOJ.
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: I've worked a lot of years in law enforcement. It
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: is not complicated if you're an employee at the Department
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: of Justice to learn to treat federal law enforcement agencies
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: with respect. I gotta say, I'm fifty four years old.
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: I've never had to restrain myself once from a desire
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: to assault a federal law enforcement officer. And yet the left,
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: they are so radicalized, they're so that their their worldview
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: is so full of rage and anger that that when
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: they see a federal law enforcement officer, they're to stop murderers, there,
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: to stop crime. This DOJ employee entered into sandwich gait,
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: and I will say I did laugh out loud at
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: Janeine Pero when she put out a video saying, well,
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: he may have to stick that sandwich somewhere else instead,
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: which it was. It was not subtle what she was saying,
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: as they might say in the South, you know, stick
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: it somewhere the sun don't shine.
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's nice to see that in Washingt d C.
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: Certainly in the Trum administration, they're messing around anymore. They're
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: going after these criminals and.
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: Invest your dad was a cop. I mean, how glad
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: are you to see an administration that defends cops and
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: says you can't assault them.
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: Absolutely, And it's long overdue for an administration to do this.
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: Don't forget we do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: Makes you download Vertic with Ted Cruise wherever you get
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: your podcasts and the Senat and I will see you
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: on the podcast all week. Thanks for listening to Vertic
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: with Ted Cruise. Ben Ferguson with you have a safe week.