Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Hard Look at Swing State Polling, SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity & How The Filibuster Effects the Supreme Court Week In Review

Transcript

Hard Look at Swing State Polling, SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity & How The Filibuster Effects the Supreme Court Week In Review · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, a weekend review.
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you as always, and there are some
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: major stories that you may have missed that we talked
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: about this week. First up, what does it look like
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: state by state right now, especially in the swing states
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: when it comes to the polling with this presidential election.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: We're going to break that down for you so you
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: know where we stand right now, just a couple less
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: than two months away from election day. Also, the Supreme
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Court is now dealing with presidential immunity, So what does
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: it mean for the sitting president and what does it
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: mean for future presidents after the Supreme Court took a
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: look at this issue. We'll explain that for you. And finally,
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: Kamala Harris comes out she wants to end the filibuster.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: So what would that look like and would it mean
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: that they would pack the Supreme Court? We break that
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: down for you as well. It is the week in
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: Review and it starts right now. All right, Senata, So
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: let's go through these states. And this is when I
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: said art listeners, grab your print and paper, because this
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: is where on election night you're gonna love watching the
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: results come in. With these different states and the knowledge
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: that we're about to give you all.
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: Right, so let's start with Arizona. The best way typically
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: to consume polling numbers is to look to the Real
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: Clear Politics average and so look their variations among poles.
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: Some polls are more accurate than others. But the way
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: most political professionals do is they look to the polling average,
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: and the theory is the averages sort of. It averages
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: out the ups and the downs. So if you look
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: to the Real Clear Politics average in Arizona, right now,
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: this is a race between Gayego the Democrat, and Kerry
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: Lake the Republican. Right now, Gayego is leading by four
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: point three points, So that's the average. That's the average
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: of the last four polls that have been done in
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: that race. Trump has a good chance of winning Arizona.
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: So right now Trump is outperforming Carrie Lake in that state,
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: but four points is very winnable. She can win that race.
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: But according to the average, right now, the Democrats are ahead.
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: Let's move to Michigan. So if you look at Michigan,
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: the two candidates are Slotkin the Democrat and Mike Rodgers
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: the Republican. In Michigan, the real Clear Politics average is
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: the Democrat at five point one percent, So again five
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: points is pretty close, but it does show an advantage
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: right now for the Democrats, and that's an average of one, two, three, four, five, six,
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: seven eight polls in the last month. The Democrat is
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: ahead by an average of five point one percent. All right,
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: let's go to Montana. Montana, I mentioned is the brightest
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: spot in terms of the pickup. This is a battle
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: between John Tester the Democrat, the incumbent, and Tim Sheehey
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: the Republican. And she He is ahead on an average
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: of five point two points. So that's that's sizeable. It's
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: not decisive. Tester could still come back and win it,
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: but that's it's been a consistent lead. If you look
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: at the last four polls, she He plus six, she
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: He plus seven, she He plus six, and she He
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: plus two, So that's been a consistent lead. All right,
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: Let's look to Nevada. So Nevada, the numbers are bumpier.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: The incumbent is Jackie Rosen. She's a Democrat. Sam Brown
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: is a Republican. The real Clear Politics average is Rosen
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: by eight point eight percent, so that's a pretty sizable lead.
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: Nevada is another state where Trump is very competitive and
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: so he could win. Trump it may be that the
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: polling numbers or understating where Brown is but eight point
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: eight percent is there's some distance to be closed on
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: the average polling there.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: I'll ask you this real quick before you move forward,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: because it's a question. I know everybody's asking their head.
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: All right, you just mentioned this state, and then you
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: mentioned Arizona earlier where Trump is leading but Krylake is
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: not there. How often do you see a presidential election
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: cycle vo historically where the Republican wins in the state
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: but the person next down the bound the senate race loses,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: where people walk in there yes for Trump and no
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: for the Senate candidate. Is that happened very often?
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that that happens with some regularity. And Trump in
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: most states is going to get more votes than the
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: down ballot Republicans. For one thing, there are people that
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: come in that just vote president and leave. And then
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: there are also there will be some voters in every
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: one of these states who votes for Trump at the
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: top of the ticket and then for a Democrat Senate candidate.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: I wish they didn't. It is frustrating as all get out,
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: but there exists.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: And to be than theird way, you're like voting against
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: your own interests of what you're saying you want for
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: the country. With the President, well he needs the votes
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: in the House and Senate to get that agenda done.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and there tend to be more crossover voters who
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: do Trump and a Democrat Senate candidate, then there are
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: crossover voters who vot Kamala Hara at a Republican senator candidate.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: It just at the end of the day, it has
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: tended to be a one way ratchet. All right, Let's
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: go to Ohio. Ohio is the next closest after Montana,
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: and the two candidates are shared Brown the Democrat, who's
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: the incumbent, Bernie Mourno the Republican. The real Clare Politics
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: average is the Democrat up by three point six percent.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: So the last three polls were plus two, plus five,
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: plus four, So Ohio is definitely winnable. Trump is extremely
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: likely to win Ohio. He could win Ohio by double digits.
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: But right now Brown is polling substantially ahead of where
• 5:40
  Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is in Ohio. And so Ohio is a
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: state where there are a number of voters right now
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: who say they're voting for Donald Trump, and yet a
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: Democrat senator who will fight to undermine everything Trump does
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: every single day in the Senate, Which is why I
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: wish voters wouldn't do that. I don't think that makes sense,
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: and I think it ends up working against yourself. Less,
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: there's some voters that do all right. Pennsylvania. So Pennsylvania
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: is probably the most important battleground in the country. It
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: is the state most likely to decide the presidential race.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: The incumbent is Bob Casey is a Democrat. Dave McCormick
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: the Republican, a very good friend of mine who I've
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: endorsed in campaigned with multiple times. Across Pennsylvania. The Real
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: Clear Politics average is four point nine percent. And so
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: starting from so back in August, there was a tie,
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: then Casey plus one, then Casey plus seven, then case
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: plus eighth andk C plus four, then Casey plus nine,
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: then Casey plus five, and Casey plus five, and Casey
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: plus five, then Casey plus nine, and then the Washington
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: Post the most recent poll showed it as a tie. So, look,
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: there's some there's some variability on that. So the last
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: two polls were Casey plus nined and a tie. I mean,
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: that's a big delta between those two. Yeah, and so,
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: and so it's why you tend to look to the average,
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: because the average kind of takes out the highs and lows.
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: And so four point nine percent, you would say, right now,
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: the Democrats have an advantage, But four point nine percent
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: you can definitely close between now an election day, and
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: I think the issue set favors us. All right, Maryland.
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: Maryland is a state that shouldn't be a battleground. It's
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: a very blue state. It is going to go it
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: is going to go for Kamala Harris by double digits.
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: And yet you've got Larry Hogan, Larry Hogan, the former governor.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: There is a Republican, very popular governor running against a
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: Democrat also Brooks. The Real Clear Politics average is six
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: point eight percent. But again there's been a lot of
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: variability on this. So back in in August there was
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: a poll that was a tie, and then Democrat plus five,
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: Democrat plus seven, and then and there was one just
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: recently Democrat plus fifteen. So Maryland is a race that
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: is winnable. But to do that, Hogan is going to
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: have to outperform Trump by twenty points or more. That
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: ain't easy to do. That, that is a big, big delta.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: He was the governor there, he was very popular and
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: he's the only he's the only Republican who has a
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: prayer to win in Maryland. But Maryland is not an
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: easy state for a Republican to win. And the final
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: battleground is Wisconsin. Wisconsin is Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who's
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: the incumbent. Eric Hovedy is the Republican running against her.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: The real Clear Politics average is Democrat four point six percent,
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: so again close winnable, but right now the Democrats have
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: the advantage. Although it's interesting if you look at the polls,
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: but going back to August, it was Democrat plus six,
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: Democrat plus five, Democrat plus eight, But then the last
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: four polls have been Democrat plus three, Democrat plus three,
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: Democrat plus four, Democrat plus three. So the race is
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: tightened in the last couple of weeks and it's about
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: a three and a half point differential in the last
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: four polls, which means Wisconsin is very winnable. And look,
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: every one of these states that I mentioned is winnable
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: by the Republicans. But for us to win, the numbers
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: need to shift four or five points, and to do that,
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: we've got to focus on the issues. And the issues
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: are the same issues as the presidential the economy, inflation,
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: illegal immigration, and crime. And if we focus on those,
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: I think we've got a real shot at winning every
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: one of those.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. I
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: want to move on also to something else that you
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: mentioned earlier, and it's happened today. Uh set the stage
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: for everybody in Congress and explain exactly what was going on,
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: and it dealt with presidential immunity.
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: Well, Senate Democrats for two years have been engaged in
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: a relentless assault on the Supreme Court and trying to
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: undermine the Supreme Court. And so today the Senate Judiciary
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: Committee held a hearing on the Supreme Court's decision on
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: presidential immunity, and the whole purpose of the hearing was
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: to say that the Supreme Court decision is ridiculous, that
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: it's out of bounds, that it basically said Trump is
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: a King, that he's unaccountable, that it's some you know,
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: bizarre decision, and they're trying both to attack Trump and
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: to delegitimize the Supreme Court. And so among the witnesses
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: testifying was was Michael Mukasey, who was the former Attorney
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: General of the United States under George W. Bush, and
• 10:53
  Speaker 2: he was a federal judge for nearly twenty years before that,
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: and he was one of the witnesses. And so I
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: took the opportunity to actually question the former Attorney general
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: and to lay out the utterly false narrative the Democrats
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: we're putting forward. Give a listen to my questioning of
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: Attorney General Mucasey.
• 11:14
  Speaker 3: Thank you, mister Chairman.
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: The novel of the Democrats argument today is that the
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: concept of presidential immunity is somehow unprecedented, is somehow remarkable.
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: That claim is utterly a historical and disconnected from the
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: entire constitutional history of the Republic. General Mucasey before twenty
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: twenty three, How many times has the President of the
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: United States been indicted? John before twenty twenty three? How
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: many times has the former president of the United States
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: been indicted in the last two years? How many times.
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: Has President Donald J. Trump been indicted four times?
• 11:51
  Speaker 4: I believe.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Now many presidents of both parties have engaged in controversial actions.
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: None of them have been indicted. Let me ask you,
• 12:02
  Speaker 3: General mc caasey.
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: If a private citizen were to erect an internment camp
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: and to forcibly kidnap American citizens, to single them out
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: because of race, and to imprison them based on their race,
• 12:17
  Speaker 2: would that private citizen be subject to criminal prosecution?
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: Would?
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: When President Franklin delan Or Roosevelt did the exact same
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: thing and erected Japanese internment camps, was fdr prosecuted?
• 12:29
  Speaker 4: He was not.
• 12:30
  Speaker 3: Let me ask you.
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: Similarly, if a private citizen were, say, to detonate a
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: nuclear weapon over a city and kill over one hundred
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: and forty thousand people, and then if that private citizen
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: a few days later detonated another nuclear bomb over another
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: city and killed seventy five thousand people, could that private
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: citizen be criminally prosecuted?
• 12:53
  Speaker 4: He would?
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: Was President Harry Truman prosecuted for detonating nuclear weapons over here,
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: Sshima and Nagasaki?
• 13:01
  Speaker 4: He was not?
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: All right?
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: How about this?
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: If a private citizen launched a weaponized drove and killed
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: a United States citizen. Could that private citizen be criminally prosecuted?
• 13:14
  Speaker 4: He would?
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: Was President Barack Obama criminally prosecuted when he killed United
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: States citizens using drones without notice and without due process?
• 13:25
  Speaker 4: He was not? Although as far as due process is concerned,
• 13:29
  Speaker 4: I believe the comment of my successor to that question
• 13:32
  Speaker 4: was that anaral Alaki got quote all of the process
• 13:36
  Speaker 4: that was necessary.
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: Well, although I suspect he might disagree with that assessment
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: were he able to present his case. Right, all right,
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: Let's contrast that with the rules that govern other federal officials.
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: You were a judge for nineteen years as a federal judge.
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: Did you have in community from your.
• 14:00
  Speaker 4: Official acts from my official act? Yes?
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: Do federal prosecutors have an immunity from their official acts?
• 14:08
  Speaker 4: They do?
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: Now, the distinction between official acts and personal acts is
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: not a terribly shocking distinction. Under the decision of Trump
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: versus United States, if any president walks the walks onto
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: the sidewalk and just shoots a citizen, is that president
• 14:25
  Speaker 2: libel to be prosecuted?
• 14:28
  Speaker 4: He is?
• 14:29
  Speaker 3: How about this?
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: If a president steals funds from his campaign, does that
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: president face criminal liability?
• 14:36
  Speaker 4: He does.
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: How about this, If a president sexually assaults let's say
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: an intern in the Oval office, is the president subject
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: criminal prosecution for that?
• 14:49
  Speaker 4: He could be?
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: So that distinction, again is not a shocking distinction. The
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: founding fathers vested the executive power in a single president
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: of the United States. What we have seen in the
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: last two years is we have seen Democrats deliberately weaponizing
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: the Department of Justice and our legal system to target
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: their political opposition. It is not an accident that every
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: indictment against President Trump was brought by a Democrat and
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: was brought after he announced his campaign for president of
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: the United States. Understand, the target of those indictments was
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: not ultimately President Trump. It was the voters. It was
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: prosecutors who were terrified that the voters would choose to
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: re elect President Trump. One of the great things about
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: the United States is we're not a ban out of republic.
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: Since two thousand, the nation of Pakistan has had six
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: former prime ministers prosecuted and convicted. Brazil has had three
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: former presidents arrested and imprisoned. Last your, Nicaraguan president Daniel
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: or Tega arrested, charged, and imprisoned forty political opponents. General
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: Man Casey, youu are Attorney General of the United States,
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: it is Is it the proper role of the Department
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: of Justice to prosecute and target the political opponents of
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: whoever happens to be President of the United States?
• 16:18
  Speaker 4: It is most assuredly not, thank you.
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: He says, it most certainly is not.
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: But the reality is Donald Trump keeps getting attacked by
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: the left, and they keep trying to lock up their
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: political opponent.
• 16:32
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: No, that's exactly what they're doing. And their claim that
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: the ruling that a president can't be criminally prosecuted for
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: his official acts is contrary to the law.
• 16:43
  Speaker 3: It's what's why I use the examples I used.
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: It's why I use Look, the Japanese and Tournament Camp
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: presidents can do a lot of things in exercising their
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: official power that ordinary citizens cannot. And we would want
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: our commander in chief. Our commander in chief can send
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: our troops into combat, can use lethal force, and they
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: do regularly. And so the Supreme Court naturally said, well,
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: we don't want a situation where each new president who
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: comes in the first order of business is let's criminally
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: prosecute the last guy for the things he did as
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: president that I disagreed with, and so you know, the
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: hearing was really a dog and pony show by the
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: Democrats to mischaracterize the Supreme Court decision.
• 17:30
  Speaker 3: So I thought it was important to.
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: Explain the actual law in the real context.
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: Me let me ask you another question about this. Will
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: there be a correction? I mean, if Donald Trump is
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: the president next time, will there be a correction? Or
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: once the cats out of the bag, is there any
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: way of getting it back to where we were before
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: as you described it twenty twenty three.
• 17:54
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: I certainly hope we are not in a world where
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: we are a banana republic where it is routine to
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: prosecute your predecessors. I don't know, but I do think
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: the Democrats have gone down a road that it's very
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: hard to turn around and come back from.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and it is going to be very very tough,
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: to put it mildly, to turn this thing around. And
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: I think once they realize they can do this, I
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: don't see Democrats being responsible moving forward with it. That's
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: my biggest concern. So is there anything we can do
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: to protect former presidents or it is something need to
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: change with the law.
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: Look, the biggest thing we can and should do is
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: reelect Donald Trump as president. Elections have consequences. We're six
• 18:38
  Speaker 2: weeks away from election day. The outcome of this election
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: matters immensely.
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: As before.
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: podcasts from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: three of the week. You may have missed you look
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: at the Democrats. They have for the last several years
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: really been trying to undermine the Supreme Court. They have
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: leaked from the Supreme Court the Roe v. Wade decision,
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: for example. The Democrats have been trying to intimidate Supreme
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: Court justices, and we saw just how hostile they allowed
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: people to get towards the Supreme Court justice in their homes.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: I mean that the media has been undermining the Supreme
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: Court as well and acting like the Supreme Court is
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: this outdated body that should be changed. So when you
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: say that we're one vote away and this is what
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: would happen, they're the ones that have been doing all
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: the things you would do for this possible opportunity if
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: it actually arises, and you can say, yeah, like we've
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: been saying this for years, we think the Supreme Court
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: should be.
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: Packed, right, Yeah, look that that's correct. And and here's
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: the math. Today there's a fifty one forty nine Democrat
• 20:00
  Speaker 2: majority in the Senate. However, of those fifty one, they're
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: two Democrats, Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema, who have both
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: voted against ending the filibuster. So Chuck Schumer tried to
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: end the filibuster. They had a vote on it, and
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: forty nine Democrats voted to end the filibuster. Had either
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: Mansion or Cinema flipped, they would have had the votes.
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: But the two of them are the only things that
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: stopped it. Now, I'm going to tell you something we
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: know for an absolute certainty, in January of next year,
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: neither Mansion nor Cinema will be there.
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: Very true.
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: Both of them their terms are done, neither of them
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: are running for reelection. It's one hundred percent they will
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: be gone. That means that Schumer is going into this
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: election with forty nine votes to end the filibuster. If
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: he picks up one anywhere, he gets to fifty, and
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: if Tim Waltz is the vice president. He has everything
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: he needs needs to end the filibuster. And I want
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: to make a point here. Also, you notice none of
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: the things I listed were economic. I didn't list in
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: the calamity in the Parade of Horribles. I didn't list
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: seventy percent marginal tax rates. I didn't list massively confiscatory
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: death taxes. I didn't list wealth taxes that tax you
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: on unrealized capital gains. I didn't list banning fracking and
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: shutting it down oil and gas exploration in the United States.
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: I didn't list nationalization of mineral rights. Look to be honest,
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: the economic stuff, the socialism that follows like night follows day,
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: because the Democrat's top priority, the four things I listed
• 21:53
  Speaker 2: are all about seizing control and making it permanent, making
• 21:56
  Speaker 2: it impossible that democrat ever lose. And you know, there's
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: something deeply Freudian about how democrats behave because they talk
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: incessantly about saving democracy, and yet today's Democrats are profoundly
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: anti democratic. Their number one priority is making it so
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: the voters can never ever, ever, ever ever vote them
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: out of power. And once they're in power, look on
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: the economic stuff. The only constraints are just how crazy
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren willing to go? But
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: it is look at countries like Venezuela. Once you get
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: one party locked in power with no ability to constrain them,
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: the country goes downhill incredibly quickly, and I think terrible policies.
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: Look policies. I didn't mention gun confiscation, going after the
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: Second Amendment, going after religious liberty, going after the First Amendment.
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: They packed the Supreme Court not to have the courts
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: backstopping any of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: All of that happens as a matter of course. Schumer's
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: first focus is power, and if he can lock in
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: power forever, that really is the end of our democracy,
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: and ironically it's the number one priority of today's Democrats.
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: Let me go back to a very consequential vote, and
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: I just want to remind people perspective on this filibuster.
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: In the sixty plus, when we go back to Obamacare,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: what was the number on Obamacare? How many votes did
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: that pass with? Do you remember?
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: Well, the way they passed to Obamacare was through a
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: special budget procedure called budget reconciliation and budget reconciliation is
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: the most important exception to the filibuster. Budget reconciliation comes
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: from a law called the Budget Act of nineteen seventy five,
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: and it's a special procedure for adopting a budget, and
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: under that statute, it is exempt from the filibuster, so
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: you can pass it with a majority. That's how they
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: did Obamacare, as they did it using budget reconciliation. By
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: the way, the Trump tax cuts were passed using budget reconciliation,
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: so they were not subject to the filibuster. No Democrat
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: voted for the Trump tax cuts. If you look at
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: things like the Orwellian named Inflation Reduction Act that was
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: passed by the Democrats using budget reconciliation. So there are
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: things that can be done that typically involve spending and
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: taxing that can be done with just fifty votes. But
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: the structural changes to our republic, things like the federal
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: takeover of all elections in this country, or adding two
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: new states to the Union, or granting immediate voting rights
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: to every illegal alien in America, that cannot be done
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: through budget reconciliation. Packing the Supreme Court cannot be done
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: through budget reconciliation. The statute lays out specific categories of
• 25:07
  Speaker 2: what can and can't be done through reconciliation. So the
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: sort of simplest way to think about it is spending
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: in taxes you can get around the filibuster. Everything else
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: as a general matter, you can't see.
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: And that's why I want to remind people, because we
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: were talking about that during the time, and it came
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: up that you know, the sixty votes and how important
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: it is, and it's a hard threshold if you change it,
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: and you think about how consequential, for example, Obamacare was
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: and during that time when there was almost a super majority,
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: and YadA, YadA, YadA, and you go, okay, there's a
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: reason why it was set up this way. The entire
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: United States of America's history changes if you get rid
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: of this. Am I wrong?
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: You are absolutely right.
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: Look, if Schumer ends the filibuster, no Republican ever wins again.
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: It is one party rule.
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: And so ask yourself, how has Hugo Chaves and Nicholas
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: Maduro been for Venezuela that will be and listen, some
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: people listening might say, oh, come on, that's too much.
• 26:10
  Speaker 2: You shouldn't compare Kamala Harris to Nicholas Maduro. Well, if
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: their policy is to lock themselves and their party into
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: power forever and to disempower the voters from ever ever
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: ever being able to take them out of power, that
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: is exactly what Chavez and Maduro have done. That's what
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: Castro have done. It is the strategy of dictators and
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: it is a shocking thing that today's Democrats no longer
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: believe in order to save democracy, they're willing to destroy democracy.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: Senator, let me ask two questions to wrap this up.
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: There may be people that say, look, if there is
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: a let's say they get it and they get rid
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: of the filibuster, it'll come back in a couple of years.
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: Maybe there's like a little bit of an overreaction here.
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: I go back in history, and I'm a student of history.
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: You are, and you love history as well. When consequential
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: things usually happen within our government, A great example is Obamacare.
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: Once it's done, it is extremely hard to undo it.
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: And so if people think, well, maybe they do it
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: and we'll get it back. Maybe they throw four more
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: people on the Supreme Court, but we could get it
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: back to nine if we really wanted to. How impossible
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: would it be to undo some of the things you
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: talked about if it actually went into effect because the
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: Democrats win in November.
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: Well, understand that the four things I listed are all structural,
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: so once they happen, you can undo them. If you
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: have twenty million illegal immigrants voting Democrats win. Texas isn't
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: the only state that turns blue. North Carolina turns blue,
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: Georgia turns blue, Arizona turns blue. I mean you have
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: suddenly swing states that are not swing states anymore. This
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: is why the Democrats, they're just focused on power. You
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: look at if it's right, DC will elect Democrats for
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: all eternity if it becomes a state. Puerto Rico, I
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: don't think it's one hundred percent correct that Puerto Rico
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: would only elect Democrats. We have seen Republicans elected in
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: Puerto Rico, although partisan politics doesn't line up in Puerto
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: Rico exactly like it does.
• 28:21
  Speaker 3: In the mainland.
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: But if the Democrats are correct that that's four new
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: Democrats in the Senate. It is very difficult to see
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: a map that ever again elects a Republican majority in
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: the Senate. So there will never be an opportunity to
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: reverse it. And by the way, you can look to
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: what happened with the Supreme Court. So if you look
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: at Supreme Court nominations, Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option,
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: the same method for ending the filibuster for legislation. Harry
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: Reid exercised the nuclear option to end the filibuster for
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: judicial nominations, and he did so. When he did so,
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: I remember I was on the Senate floor, and he
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: did exactly what I said.
• 29:08
  Speaker 3: He asked for a ruling from the chair.
• 29:10
  Speaker 2: He appealed the ruling of the chair, and all the
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: Democrats voted with him, and they overturned it. And so
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: to confirm a judge, you only need now fifty votes
• 29:21
  Speaker 2: plus the Vice President. And I remember being on the
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: Senate floor. I turned to Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota,
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: and all the Democrats were voting like lemmings to and
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: the filibuster. And I told her then, I said, you
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: realize the consequence of this. We are going to get
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: more justices like Clarence Thomas and antonin Scalia. And that
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: is unequivocally correct. And in fact, if you want to
• 29:48
  Speaker 2: know why, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and Neil
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: Gorsich were confirmed. It is because the Democrats ended the
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: filibuster for judicial nominations. If they hadn't, there is no
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: chairance on Earth Cavanaugh or Amy Cody Barrett gets confirmed
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: because it would have taken sixty votes and there weren't
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: going to be sixty votes for any nominee that had
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: a proven record of being conservative. So it changed markedly
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: the kinds of judges that Trump could nominate. Once the
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: change is made procedurally, it never ever ever goes back.
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: Final question for you, and that is you look at
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: what you just said in this show, and it changes
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: my perspective. And I do this with you three days
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: a week and talk politics every day because the easy issue,
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: right is the economy stupid? And that's the number one issue.
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: Most voters say number two, they say the border. This
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: issue to me now after we've gone through it is
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: even bigger than those two issues when it comes to
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: the future of this country. Is that a fair take.
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: In terms of law long term future? Yes, it is
• 31:02
  Speaker 2: absolutely a fair take. It is, as I said, the
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: single thing that keeps me up at night that we
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: are that close to losing our entire country. And I
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: think almost everyone is oblivious to it. I look, you
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: and I are both Texans. How many Texans do you
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: know that realize that we could be three months away
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: from Texas becoming California, becoming a bright blue plate state.
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: By the way, if that happens, I'll make a crazy
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: prediction that I hope and pray never comes true. If
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: the Democrats and the Filibuster, if they grant voting rights
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: to every illegal alien in America and every illegal alien
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: in Texas, Beto O'Rourke would be the next governor of
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: the state of Texas. I don't think that's an exaggeration.
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: I think that is actually quite likely.
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.