Welcome.
It is Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you and Center. I can't believe that I'm actually getting to say this because it's just so funny, but it's real. The President of the United States elect, Donald Trump is going to get a an apology from ABC News and George Stepanopolis. On top of the fact they're now forced to pay fifteen million dollars to settle a defamation lawsuit, the fact Lady's singing, the pigs are flying, Hell's freezing over.
It is truly astonishing.
ABC News apologizing to Donald Trump and ABC News writing a fifteen million dollar check to Trump's presidential library, all to settle a defamation case because George Stephanopolis went on National TV and defamed Donald Trump and they're writing a check because of it. And if you never thought it would happen, well it is. We are in a brave and extraordinary new world. We're gonna break it down and what it means also going to go back to the amazing and really sad spectacle of leftist celebrating the cold blooded murder of a healthcare CEO Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders aoc all gleefully celebrating it and sadly encouraging more. We're going to break that down as well. And finally, we're going to talk about what may have been the single most decisive factor in the twenty twenty four election, the left's utter hypocrisy on the border and the serious suffering that open borders cause. We're going to break down that hypocrisy and what may have turned the entire election, all of that on today's verdict.
Yeah, it's really going to be a good one. I want to tell you about our friends over Patriot Mobile real quick. And if you have a cell phone and your cell phone is a Big Mobile, then you need to know where your money's going. Big Mobile has been giving big donations to democratic causes, candidates and organizations radic organizations, including organizations that are fining to defund the police, organizations that are fighting to abort babies, and even paying for abortion on demand. If you don't want your money going there, then you can switch now to Patriot Mobile. They've been doing this for over a decade. And Patriot Mobile not only are they on the front lines fighting for your First and Second Amendment rights, but they also take a part of your bill every month, and they give it back to the organizations they are doing exactly that. They give it to organizations they're fighting to protect the sanctity of life, and organizations that support and defend our military, our first responders, and our wounded warrior heroes.
That's right.
Every time you make a call, every time you send a text, every time you pay your bill, you're actually proudly sending up for the values you believe in. So take a stand for conservative causes and put America first. By switching to Patriot Mobile today, you'll get the same nationwide coverage is the big providers because Patriot Mobile operates across all three major networks, plus they back their service with a coverage guarantee. They have one hundred percent US based customer service team as well that can help you with everything. You keep your same number, keep your same phone, or upgrade to a new one. Now, let me give you a free month of service and when you switch Patriot Mobile, you will love it. I've been using them now for years and I can tell you it is great coverage nationwide. Go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict It's Patriot Mobile dot com slash vertict or call them nine to seven to two Patriot right now, and you're going to get a free month when you use the offer code verdict Patriot Mobile dot com slash Verdict or nine seven to two Patriot and get a free month of service use the offer code vertict. So let's talk about how all this started from the very beginning for people that may not have been following this, because this was something that was said by George Stepanopolos on ABC News and they realize, I think pretty quick, Okay, we screwed up here because Trump won.
So now we got to deal with the consequences of this.
I'm not sure they would have done it the same way if we would have lost, but obviously ABC News now saying yeah, all right, we're gonna admit that we did something that was really stupid.
Well, this stems back to March of twenty twenty four, and in particular March tenth on ABC News with George Stefanopolis, and as part of this settlement, ABC News wrote a committed to write a fifteen million dollar check a charitable contribution to Trump's presidential library, and also to pay a million dollars in Trump's lawyer's fees so, all told, sixteen million dollars is what ABC is out of pocket. And they also had to apologize. They had to issue a statement of quote regret, and so they appended to the story from the March tenth online article the following statement quote, ABC News and George Stephanopolis regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stefanopolis with representative Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March tenth, twenty twenty four. And so what were the statements that caused this? Well, George Stefanopolis repeatedly said Trump was quote liable for rape and was found liable for rape in the civil case in New York. And Nancy Mace was was on with Stephanopoulos, and and Stephanopolis played a clip of Mace discussing being a victim of rape, and then Stephanophilis asked her, quote, how do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw? Quote You've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. And he was referencing the lawsuit by Jene Carroll. Stephanopoulos repeated that claim ten times. Ten times. He repeated that the jury has determined that Trump was liable for rape. What the jury in fact determined is that they found that that he was not liable for rape, but rather a separate crime under New York law called sexual and Trump sued ABC News, and Trump sued Stephanopolis for Stephanopolis repeatedly saying a jury had found he was liable for rape when they explicitly found he was not liable for rape. And at the end of the day, this settlement is all about that.
That it is.
It is been black letter law for a long time that when you falsely accused someone of a felony, that that that is defamation. And ABC News just repeatedly said he was liable for rape, liable for rape, that's what the jury found. That's what the jury found. And there was one minor problem. It wasn't true. And and so you know, you mentioned they settled this because Trump won. It's true that Trump won, and it's true they settled this, but I guarantee you their lawyers were telling them, listen when you say over and over again, a jury has find found someone guilty of a felony and the jury found the opposite. That's defamation. And you're gonna end up writing a much bigger check if you don't settle this this lawsuit. And and and it happened right after the magistrate judge ordered both Trump and Stephanopolis on Friday to sit for depositions next week, uh and and answer questions under oath. And I think ABC realized they were going to have to sit George Stephanopolis down, and Trump's lawyers were going to get to ask him, Okay, did the jury find him liable for rape?
Yes?
Or no?
And Stephanopolis would be forced to say no, did you say that the jury found him liable for rape? And Stephanopolis would have to be forced to say yes, did you say ten separate times on National TV the jury found him liable for rape? And Stephanopolis would grumble a lot of times and be forced to say yes. And here here's the interesting question there. There they were going to ask him, did you know at the time that you said ten separate times the jury found him liable for rape that the jury explicitly had had found him not liable for rape. And I don't know how Stephanopolis would answer that. My guess is he'd be forced to say yes. But he was either deliberately lying or he was utterly indifferent to what the truth or falsity of what he was saying is. Either way, it is a real problem. And I think they looked at that and they probably had started prepping him for that deposition and realize there is no good answer for him to give, because look, they just hate Trump and so they were happy to say it. It sounds much more sensationialistic to say that, and truth be damned. I think that's why they ended up writing the check.
So can we just talk about the humor of this for a second. The fact that ABC News is going to have to write a check for fifteen million dollars to the Trump Presidential Library, Like, do you name part of the library the ABC Settlement Center.
I mean, this is amazing, It is truly astonishing.
And by the way, there's some lefty voices on Twitter saying, oh, free speech is dead. Look, you need to understand, defamation has always been part of free speech. You have a right to speak freely, but you don't have a right to defame someone. You don't have a right to say something that is deliberately false and deliberately defamatory. And it has always been the case that you can be held liable for slander or libel. Slander is saying it saying it orally. Libel is saying it and writing. They're both species of defamation if you deliberately say something false that is harmful to the character. But other and particularly when you're a news organization, there's an expectation that you have some modicum of integrity, some standards, and I think in this case, ABC realized they couldn't defend what they've done.
So let's talk about this administration coming in January twentieth. And look, we know that there was a lot of reporting that was on the term administration back in sixteen that was a lie. Russia collusion was a great example of that. And then we know that the media lied to us about, for example, Hunter Biden's laptop that was a lie, And there was a lot of things said that we're not true about people in and around Trump.
Is this a.
Reminder, now that we've learned to fight it maybe a little bit differently, that we understand the court system can be used to hold the media accountable when they lie about people in the trum administration. Is this something that actually could change the game a little bit.
Perhaps, Look, this is a situation where it was clear and objective that the what ABC said was wrong, that it was false, that that that ABC repeatedly said a jury had found them liable for rape, and that was explicitly the opposite of what they've done. I will say, most of the examples you've given, where the media is saying horrible things about Trump over and over and over again, it's much harder to prove defamation. It's harder to prove that it's objectively false. Like on Russia, Russia, Russia, they will say, well, look, we were just reporting what the allegations were. We were reporting what Muller said, we were reporting what so and so said. You know, they can hide behind he said.
She said.
In this instance, what gave them particular exposure is there was a jury verdict and ABC simply reported it wrong and did so somebody knew, whether stuff Stephanopoulos knew or not, somebody knew. And I will say it is harder to win a defamation case if you're Donald Trump, or if you're any public figure, because the Supreme Court the standard for defamation. They made it much harder for a public figure to win a defamation case. And there's a landmark decision from the Supreme Court called New York Times versus Sullivan. It was nineteen sixty four, and what the court concluded is that you have to demonstrate quote actual malice before you can find defamation if it's against a public figure. And here's the quote from the Supreme Court quote. The constitutional guarantees require, we think a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood related to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with quote actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Now that's a very high standard to prove. And so as a general matter, if someone's a public figure, by the way, if someone is not a public figure, someone's an ordinary citizen, defamation is much easier to prove. You don't have to prove actual malice. But if you are a public figure, and the President of the United States is the quintessential public figure, then you've got to meet that higher threshold. Now, there are at least two arguments that Trump's legal team would make. One was, in this case, the defamation was not relating to his official conduct. He was not president of the United States at the time the interaction with Jean Carroll did or did not occur, and so it was not a defamatory falsehood related to his official conduct, but rather his personal life before he was president of the United States. So that would certainly be what Trump's lawyers would argue is that the New York Times versus Sullivan stand doesn't apply. But secondly, even if you had to demonstrate actual malice. Notice a second ago, when I was saying, when they were prepping Stephanopolis for his deposition, they would have to walk through did he know.
It was false?
Well, i't. I didn't have in front of me the standard. But it turns out I was quoting the standard back at you. Let me read it again. The Supreme Court defined actual malice as quote that is, with knowledge that it was false, or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. So one or the two you've got to demonstrate for actual malice. And the problem I think that that ABC had is I think it was very clear that they did it with actual malice. I think there was certainly a producer or somebody knew for a fact it was false to say he'd been found liable for rape. It wouldn't surprise me if a producer had told Stephanopolis, don't say liable for rape, And it wouldn't surprise me if Stephanopolis decided how I'm going to say it anyway. It's close enough for government work, and it's much more sensationalistic than to report accurately. And I think when they found themselves trying to defend the lawsuit, that it was going to be clear that they either knew what they were saying were false, or at a very minimum, they were engaged in reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. And so they were going to get popped and they were going to lose. And that's why they're apologizing, that's why they're writing a big, big check.
And it also made Stepanoplis very vulnerable, right. I think that was part of his preserving their anchor here, because if they went into a deposition and they really got to rough him up, that would hurt his brand, and that would hurt the brand of ABC. I think as well, because they still want you to believe that he is the most non biased, hardcore news guy at ABC News.
Well, that's right, and look, jerk, George Stephanie worked in the Clinton white House. He was a Democrat operative for years before he became an ABC journalist, And I have no doubt that there were going to be lots of questions from Trump lawyers about, Okay, mister Stephanopolis, what are your communications with Democrats, what are your communications with the White House? What are your communications with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris? To what extent are you acting as as a Democrat attack dog? And it may well be I don't know this to be the case. I'm sure they were going to ask those questions, and I suspect that ABC was very nervous about what kind of answer Stephanopolis would give under oath and potentially vulnerable and for the world to know the frequency with which he is explicitly reading the talking points from the Democrat Party.
One thing's for sure.
When the library opens up, it's going to be really fun to see how they make sure that everyone going through the library knows that this part of the library is brought to you by ABC News and to Stepanopolis. I cannot wait to see the trolling there because I don't believe that Donald Trump is going to let that opportunity pass.
I just I don't believe it. It's going to be really fun to see what happens.
I think that is a fair prediction. I would not wager on the other side of you on that one.
I want to move on to this other big shocking story, and it is the normalization of kill your political enemy, kill anybody that you don't like, that you think is evil, justify it publicly so we can normalize it. We've seen this with the assassination attempts on Donald Trump. We have now seen this turn really ugly when it comes to the murder of this CEO of New York City, the cold blooded murder of this CEO, and people have turned him into some sort of hero. We now have elected officials, Senator, some that you serve with getting in on this, allowing for this almost justification of well, we understand why people would want to do that.
Well.
And we did an entire podcast on this last week last Wednesday at Courge. You go back and listen to it, because I really think what is happening here. It is dangerous and it is grotesque. This healthcare CEO was gunned down in broad daylight in New York City and this deranged killer walked up and shot him multiple times in the back. After a two day man hunt, he was caught and the left lost their mind. They have lionized him because and we did a deep dive, this is because of the cultural Marxism. This is because their ideology says that that anytime the quote oppressor engages in violence or rather the quote victim engages in violence against the quote oppressor, that that violence is justified and to be celebrated. And we went through the number of leftists, including Taylor Lorenz, a you know, a quote unquote journalist for both the Washington Post and the New York Times, who described how she felt joy that was her term, joy at this guy being murdered.
It's sick. And we talked about as.
Well, how the view Joy Bihar unloaded on me because I pointed out that these were left as a leftists just celebrating cold blooded murder, and she said, it's not leftists, it's not us at all. Well, Joy Bihar, guess what your message didn't get to Bernie Sanders. Your message didn't get to AOC, your message didn't get to Elizabeth Warren because all of them in the last few days have been on TV justifying, rationalizing, giving excuses for the cold blooded murder. I want you to listen to this montage of comments from them, and then we're going to talk about it more.
And this is not to say that an act of violence is justified, but I think for anyone who is confused or shocked or appalled, they need to understand that people interpret and fee and experience denied claims as an act of violence against them. People go homeless over the financial devastation of a diagnosis that doesn't get addressed, or you know, the amount that they're going to have to cover with a surprise bill and things like that. And when we kind of talk about how systems are violent in this country in this passive way, our privatized healthcare system is like that for a huge amount of American Yeah.
And we'll say it over and over. Violence is never the answer. This guy gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of United Health that you can only push people so far and then they start to take matters in their own hands.
Yeah, Elizabeth Warren obviously understands killing again and murder and shooting somebody in the back is totally unacceptable. But what I think has happened in the last few month once is that what you have seen rising up is people's anger at a health insurance industry which denies people the healthchaed that they desperately need while they make billions and billions of dollars in profit.
Anytime you say something's terrible, but it means you're saying, but we understand it. It's okay, we get it, we comprehend it. We see how you got from point AT to point B. We have video of a cod blooded murderer who goes up and assassinates an individual, and they're justifying the understanding of why he should be, why he and others are angry at all these healthcare se years. This is dehumanizing people who you don't like, the same way they've done it with Trump.
It is so dangerous.
Look at it's exactly the same as with Trump. It's exactly the same as these leftists have done with Amas on October seventh, where they'll all say in obligatory violence is wrong, but then they immediately start justifying the violence. And they immediately say, well, yes, the rape and murder of twelve hundred Israeli.
Said that's wrong.
But but the Palestinians are oppressed, and we should celebrate the Palestinians and is it wonderful?
And then that's what the leftists do. You know, yes, yes.
Yes, murdering the guy was wrong, I suppose, But you know what, every healthcare ceo needs to be murdered, Every ceo needs to be murdered, and they immediately their ideology goes to celebrating violence. And let me just once, I would like to see someone on the left be clear and unequivocal that violence is wrong, period the end. This murder was grotesque, it was evil, It was wrong. There is no justification for it whatsoever. Even if your political ideology is you've decided you hate this healthcare ceo that you've never met. You don't know what he's done, you don't know anything about him other than that he was the CEO of a healthcare company. And because because your ideology is so railing against capitalism, you think murder is a great thing. It's it's as I said, it's the same. These are the same people who buy coffee cups that say, you know, I wish wish the guy in Butler, Pennsylvania hadn't missed because violence is okay to them. These are the same people that's celebrated the Black Lives Matter ANTIFA riots. This is this is Kamala Harris raising money to bail people out of jail who are violent rioters. Because for today's radical left, the ends justify the means, and violence is okay. And I want to be absolutely clear, violence is never okay, whether I agree with your ideology or not. Nobody should engage in violence against anyone else and if you do, if you engage in violence, you should face serious consequences.
How much do you worry about this becoming normalized? I mean, we got over as Donald trump first assassination incredibly quick. It was like, okay, it happened, but he's so live, what's.
Immediately move on?
And then we have another attempted assassination on him down at his golf course and be like, well, I mean it's Donald Trump. You kind of gotta expect this now. That was the demeanor of many on the left. And then there was part of the left that is exactly as you described it, they were like, well, the guy should have not missed, and it was almost anger at the at the shooters. I think that's the most shocking part to me is we are dehumanizing people in a way that is now putting other people lives at risk.
Well, and and for too many on the left, politics is everything. It is life and death is identity. I mean, I mean, look, I get to say politics is very different than twelve years ago when I first got elected. It's so nasty and personal. You know, we used to be able to disagree without without hating each other, without demonizing each other, with without cheering at at violence and the murder of those you may disagree with. And unfortunately, I don't see a whole lot of public democrats speaking out against this.
It.
I wish we had more that had the courage to speak out and say this is unequivocally wrong. Look, well let's talk this strange killer. His lawyers are being paid for by leftists who are celebrating what he did.
Yeah, and that's the part I think that when I look at this, I'm like, if you said this ten years ago, fifteen years ago, you'd probably have people calling for you to resign of all the people we just paid.
That's not happening.
There would have been like reporters saying, hey, like you need to answer for this these you know, these statements that you made, do you want to clarify them or clean them up. There's none of that this time. It's like, oh yeah, yeah, of course it makes sense.
You know.
It is.
It is the reality of where we are today.
It's sad.
I pray for this country and I hope that at some point people will start to reject this type of rhetoric and not norm wise it like we are like it, like it's happened so far. Everybody's looking for the perfect gift for the holidays. And if you've got a hunter, if you've got a shoot in your family, you've got to sign them up for Ammo squared. And I'm going to give you some free AMMO in your account right now now.
Amo squared is amazing.
And if you had a hard time finding MO during COVID and you saw the prices go up three x four x, five x six x, it was insane. I owned a gun store and a gun range. Dead I've never seen what happened during that time. You literally couldn't get Ammo. Well, Ammo Squared ensures that you never have that problem again, that you have Ammo when you need it, and it's an automated approach to purchasing Ammo on any budget.
It's simple.
You pick your calibers, you set your budget, and you select a shipping trigger.
That's it.
Your AMMO grows slowly over time and is stored for free as it builds up, and is shipped with a click of a button. Now, unlike a traditional subscription service, you aren't forcing into a set budge and or a monthly shipment. You decide your budget and you can change your budget whenever you want to, and you schedule when you get your ammoship to you. Now, Ammo Squared offers nearly seventy different caliber options. And let's say you store up one caliber and then you sell that firearm and you change to a different caliber.
Not a problem.
You can trade it back in without even having to take the shipment. You just say I want to switch from nine to this, or I want to switch from this a rifle to that rifle caliber.
It's no problem at all.
It's budget friendly and customizable, and you can buy as little as a few dollars a month, and then everything's managed online. Forget about moving a heavy case of Ammo in your garage or trying to sell Ammo as well. Online you can exchange your AMO squared inventory from one caliber to another, or you can sell it and make big money if the price in fact goes up.
So let me give you some free AMO in your account right now.
Go to amosquared dot com, slash bend today, squared dot com slash bend today to get free AMO on your account. There's no minimum to buy, no memberships needed, and no extra fees. You can buy Ammo on the small budget amosquare dot com, slash ben and get free AMO in your account today. Finally, Senator, this is another story and the media is trying to figure this out. The Democratic Party is trying to figure it out. How did we lose this last selection? What caused it? Was it really our policy on migrants and illegal immigrants. And there was a very interesting conversation that took place, and people even on the left.
Like, is this aha moment?
And I laughed because it's something that you actually said on this show a couple of years ago.
Jessica Tarlove and Katie Kuric.
We're talking about GOP governors sending illegal immigrants to other parts of the country from border states, and I want to play this clip for people's and they specifically, we're talking about Rod DeSantis in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and this is what they said.
In reaction on.
The immigration front, there was a tendency amongst Democrats, and especially Democrats were discussing the issues of people who do interviews or are part of the media to minimize it over the first two and a half years when there were a lot of people coming in here, and I thought that it was a stunt. You know, when they started bussing migrants they go to markets, vineyards. Yeah, it was the smartest thing they ever did.
Well. It's interesting because I have a friend who lives in Florida, and I said, what did you think of of Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott taking some of these immigrants and moving them to northern states? And she said, I thought it was great because nobody really was paying attention before that. And I do think that this untold story was the strain on social services and communities, particularly along the border. This influx huge influx of immigrants was having and I think the mainstream media, however you define that these days, kind of ignored that story to its peril.
I mean, wow, right, Like, at least they're figuring it out. I don't want to say that all the media is figuring it out, but it is pretty funny they figured out. The only problem is they were just a couple of years too late.
Yeah, look at striking to hear Kittie Kurk admitting that now, as you know, this was an idea that I suggested three years ago. In October of twenty twenty one, I introduced a bill called the Surge Act. And the Surge Act was designed to create thirteen new ports of entry to send illegal immigrants. And here's here's what my press really said at the time. If Washington Democrats had to endure even a fraction of the suffering South Texas families, farmers, ranchers, and small businesses have had to face, our nation's immigration laws would be in force. The wall would be built and remain in Mexico. Policy would be implemented. And so I introduced legislation to change the points of entry and add thirteen new places block island Rhode Island, Greenwich, Connecticut, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Governor's Island, New York, Rehobeth Beach, Delaware, Nantucket, Massachusetts, Newport, Rhode Island, Scarsdale, New York, Palo Alto, California, Yuntville, California, Saint Helena, California, and North Hero, Vermont, which is where Bernie Sanders vacations. And the idea was all the places where rich liberals sit and sip chardonnay and look down on people concerned about the open borders. And it was really striking. At the time I introduced this legislation, the leftist media went crazy, and in fact, the county executive at Martha's Vineyard attacked me, attacked me by name, and he said Cruise doesn't understand immigration, said we and Martha's Vineyard would welcome illegal immigrants. Well, several months later, Ron de Santis and Greg Abbott took me up on what I had suggested, and they did exactly that. They sent fifty illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, and of course that same county executive within twenty four hours declared an emergency and ended up deporting the fifty who had been sent. And I'll tell you we actually covered this on Verdict several years ago, So I want you to play an old segment from Verdict. This is actually pre pre the great Ben Ferguson. This is back when when Michael Noles and I were doing it.
Our good Ford. Yeah, yes, the voice is about to change a little bit, right.
But this is us talking about it three years ago, and it had a bit of foreshadowing.
So give a listen.
They've just sent airplanes full of illegal aliens to Martha's vineyard. And I cheered when I saw the headline, and then I had to think, you know, there's a certain podcast hosted by a certain senator from Texas that has been calling exactly for that for many weeks now, and I just can't help but wonder if that may have had some effect on this policy going into effect.
I was thrilled when the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, took me up on the idea and began sending illegal immigrants, first to d c, then to New York, then to Chicago. It's had a fantastic event as these democratic mayors have lost their minds and declared national emergencies. The mayor of d C declared a national emergency or a city emergency because six thousand illegal immigrants were sent to d C. Of course, we've had since Joe Biden became president. We have had four point two million illegal immigrants cross illegally with Biden as president.
It is horrific. That's a crazy number. Four point two million. That is a crazy number. It is larger than many of the states of our union. I mean four point two million since Joe Biden put his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office. That's what's come and it continues to get worse. And what is amazing about when red state governors, first Texas now Florida are shipping to blue strongholds is the Democrats, who talk a good game immediately flipped tailed. So I want to give you a quote on the from Martha's Vineyard. When I introduced the legislation, you had Democrats, democrats and the House of Representatives slamm me. But I want to read from the county commissioner of Martha's Vineyard, Keith Chattenover, And here's the quote he said about my legislation. I would love to see Martha's Vineyard become a haven for new immigrants in the country. But Senator Cruz has no idea what he's talking about regarding a border crisis. He went on to say, immigrants make our country stronger, as evidence by immigration from Brazil and other countries to the vineyard. And he is trying to whip up racial anxieties for political gain, which is essentially the entire GOP platform. Anyhow, that's before they arrived. I want to see if after two, three, four, five, six ' ten, one hundred planeloads or bus loads, if the county commissioner has the same view.
Three years ago you said that, Senator, and now we're seeing that Democrats are actually saying, man, this is really effective, Like this was really really effective. You did this as stopped the Surge Act in October twenty twenty one.
And by the way, three years ago, notice that number four point two million illegal immigrants were now over twelve million. What has happened at our southern border is an experiment in radicalism that has never been tried in the United States of America. Our country is struggling the suffering that has occurred, and I will say the actual sending of planeloads and bus loads of illegal immigrants to Blue strongholds. It showed the complete and utter hypocrisy as every Democrat mayor, every Democrat governor, every Democrat county executive completely demonstrated everything they'd been saying was a lie, and it broke through the media freeze out in a way nothing else did. I think Katie Kirk's right that that single action of demonstrating Democrat hypocrisy on this issue could well have decided the presidential election last month.
Now, I'll say this job well done. Center.
That was something you said way beforehand, and it clearly they're even admitting now had a massive impact on the outcome of this election. Don't forget we did the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Hit that subscribe auto download button so that you can always make sure you get every episode. Also make sure you write us a five star review to help us grow so we can reach new people that may not have listened to the show yet. And on those in between days, grab my show the Ben Ferguson podcasts as well. I'll keep you up to day on the latest breaking news there as well, and we will see you back here on Wednesday morning.