Bonus: Obama Admin CAUGHT Deliberately Pushing Fake Russia Attack, CA Fights TX on Redistricting plus Google Suppresses GOP & Sandwich-gate!
BONUS: Verdict with Ted Cruz: Intelligence Manipulation, Big Tech Bias & Gavin Newsom’s Redistricting Hypocrisy In this explosive episode, Senator Ted Cruz and co-host Ben Ferguson dive into newly declassified revelations surrounding the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), alleging that top officials—James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey—politicized intelligence to undermine Donald Trump before his inauguration. Tulsi Gabbard’s disclosures and NSA Director Mike Rogers’ concerns add weight to claims of compromised intelligence integrity. The conversation shifts to Big Tech bias, spotlighting Google’s alleged suppression of Republican fundraising emails and its influence on elections, backed by psychologist Robert Epstein’s research. Cruz also highlights Google’s significant financial support for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Next, the episode critiques California Governor Gavin Newsom’s stance on Texas redistricting, exposing Democratic-led gerrymandering in states like California, New York, and Illinois. Cruz compares partisan representation across congressional delegations to underscore the hypocrisy. Finally, the hosts recount the bizarre “Sandwich Gate” incident, where a DOJ employee allegedly assaulted a federal officer with a Subway sandwich—used to illustrate radical behavior within leftist circles. 👉 Subscribe now to Verdict with Ted Cruz, the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson, and the Ben Ferguson Show wherever you get your podcasts! And don’t forget to follow the show on social media so you never miss a moment! YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshow See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Welcome, it is Verdict with Center Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
It's really nice to have you with us wherever you are around the country, and we've got a pack show for you, including a new shocking claim from the DI director, Tulsi Gabbard, with the classified email center.
And this is really shocking what she's now saying about manufactured intelligence assessment that was deliberate and came from the very top to go after Donald Trump.
Well, every week we're getting new revelations about just how corrupt the federal government and the deep state was under Barack Obama, how much they conspired and actively conspired to undermine President Donald Trump when he came into office in 2017.
The latest that that Tulsi Gabber just released is evidence that Jim Clapper pushed to compromise the normal steps the intelligence community would make in order to rush out a politically damaging attack on Trump.
We're going to give you all the details on this written evidence that they were ignoring the facts to push a political narrative.
Beyond that, we also have new evidence that that big tech continues to interfere in elections.
And in particular, Google was caught repeatedly flagging Republican fundraising texts and emails as spam.
And they were doing this while they were not flagging Democrat fundraising emails as spam.
We're going to lay that out as well.
On top of that, we have Gavin Newsom in California, and he is threatening to stand up to Texas.
And if Texas redistricts, California is going to as well.
We're going to explain why California is going to lose this showdown.
Gavin Newsom is going to lose this showdown.
We'll give you all the facts and all the law behind that.
And finally, the DC crime lockdown from President Trump.
Well, one of the latest manifestations of the response to it is it's really kind of funny.
It's it's it's sandwich gate.
It it is this DC leftist who got very angry, began screaming at federal law enforcement agents, uh, and then threw a subway sandwich at him and and then ran away, prancing away.
Uh, and was arrested and charged with a felony.
And then it was discovered he was an employee at the Department of Justice, and so he got fired.
And and and I gotta say, it the the whole thing embodies the the the great internet slogan of FA F O and and and he did and he found out.
Yeah, it's a great story.
We're gonna have it all for you in just a moment.
Let me also talk to you about our great friends over at Crockett Coffee.
If you start your day with coffee, uh, I I tell you, you've got to try Crockett Coffee.
Now look, I'm gonna save you somebody to try it, but let me tell you why it's so special.
Crockett coffee is roasted to perfection in small batches on purpose by experts who love the taste of amazing coffee.
It's also roasted in our nation's heartland, and then it's delivered fresh to your home or your office.
Now, you're gonna feel like a Western settler.
You're gonna be drinking amazing coffee over a morning campfire, is what you're gonna feel like.
That is the best part of a cup of crockett coffee.
The aroma, it's amazing.
Now, here's the other thing.
You can choose between fresh ground, whole bean or K cups.
You choose.
And if you're interested in mushroom coffee and the positive benefits that come with enjoying that each day, Crockett Coffee is now producing that as well.
They've got a dark roast, a mild roast, a light roast, a decaf version, and the mushroom organic blend.
You choose what you like, and here's the best part.
This is a company that was started by two fellow patriots, Buck Sexton and Clay Travis.
And I love that they decide to do this because they're like, look, why give your money to woke liberal coffee companies?
And they also give back every time you make a purchase to you will be supporting Tunnel to Towers Foundation because at Crockett Coffee that matters, and they say we will never forget.
Now let me save you some money and try this small batch coffee.
Go to CrockettCoffee.com, use my name Ben.
You're gonna get 20% off your first order.
That's CrockettCoffee.com.
Use my name Ben as your promo code and get 20% off CrockettCoffee.com.
Promo code Ben for 20% off.
All right, so this is a story that we gotta start with.
It's gonna make a lot of Americans mad.
You should be furious over this.
I want to just start with that.
It infuriates me to know that our deep state was this hardcore in to just manufacturing anything they wanted to to go after and weaponize our government against Donald Trump and anyone around him, and now we have even more evidence of this.
Well, this is a story Fox News Digital has published.
It's entitled Clapper allegedly pushed to quote compromise normal steps to rush 2017 ICA despite concerns from an NSA director.
Gabbard declassified emails, exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, allegedly revealing that this manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and came from the very top.
And here's what what Tulsi Gabber, the director of national intelligence, said quote The leading figures of the Russia hoax have spent years deceiving the American public by presenting their manufactured and politicized assessments as credical credible intelligence.
The email released today reinforces what we already exposed.
The decision to compromise standards and violate protocols in the creation of the 2017 manufactured intelligence assessment was deliberate and came from the very top.
And this was an email that was sent from Mike Rogers, who was the head of the NSA.
Was said to the director, sent to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, was sent to the CIA director, John Brennan, and was sent to the FBI director, James Comey.
It was sent on December 22nd, 2016.
Happened to be my 46th birthday.
So at 7 a.m. on December 22nd, 2016.
Here's what the head of the NSA said.
Quote, I've just returned from a TDY overseas and have been updated on the current status of our efforts to produce a joint product related to Russian attribution and intent for the DNC DCCC hacks.
I know that this activity is on a fast track, and that folks have been working very hard to put together a product that can be provided to the president.
However, I wanted to reach out to you directly to let you know of some concerns that I have with what I am hearing from my folks.
Specifically, I asked my team if they had sufficient access to the underlying intelligence and sufficient time to review that intelligence.
On both points, my team raised concerns.
They were clear that at the staff level, folks have been forward leading and trying to ensure that we have an opportunity to review and weigh in.
But I'm concerned that, given the expedited nature of this activity, my folks aren't fully comfortable saying that they have had enough time to review all of the intelligence to be absolutely confident in their assessments.
And and Rogers clarified, he said in in the email, he said he is quote not saying that we disagree substantively, but I do want to make sure that when we are asked in the future whether we can absolutely stand behind the paper, that we don't have any reason to hesitate because of the process.
I know that you agree this is something we need to be 100% comfortable with before we present it to the president.
We have one chance to get this right, and it is critical that we do so.
And he continued, quote, If the intent is to create an integrated product that is CIA slash FBI slash NSA joint authored that we can all defend, we need a process that allows all of us to be comfortable.
And I'm concerned that we are not there yet.
And the email continued.
Quote, in addition, if NSA is intended to be a co-author of this product, I personally expect to see even the most sensitive evidence related to the conclusion.
And the email finished by saying if the intent is to create a CIA only or a CIA FBI authored product, then I will stand down on these concerns.
I would welcome your thoughts on these points and any adjustments we might make to the process to ensure we have all the necessary level of confidence in the final assessment.
That's what his email said.
And moments from now, you're going to hear the response from the politicized leadership of the Obama intelligence community.
Now you just read, Senator, the email uh that that kind of opens all this up.
The response email, though, is even more shocking.
Well, as I just read, Mike Rogers, who was the director of the National Security Agency, he said in writing in December of 2016, uh, we have one chance to get this right, and it is critical that we do so.
And he further said we need a process that allows all of us to be comfortable, and I'm concerned we are not there yet.
That's what he said at 7 a.m.
Well, later in the day at 743 p.m., James Clapper replied to the Roger email and he copied Brennan and Coman.
And here's what Comey, and here's what here's what Clapper said quote, understand your concern.
It is essential that we, CIA, slash NSA, slash FBI, slash ODNI, be on the same page and are all supportive of the report.
In the highest tradition of quote, that's our story, and we're sticking to it.
He continued.
This evening CIA has provided to the NIC the complete draft generated by the ad hoc fusion cell.
We will facilitate as much mutual transparency as possible as we complete the report, but more time is not negotiable.
and then i want you to listen to this next sentence we may have to compromise on our quote normal modalities since we must do this on such a compressed schedule.
And then the email continues, quote, this is one project that has to be a team sport.
Now, Ben, that's a lot of things, but it's not intelligence.
Yeah.
It's not fair and objective.
It's not trying to get to the facts.
It is saying we must all be on the same page because, as he puts it, that's our story and we're sticking to it.
Everyone had to agree.
And he said right up at the front, look, more time is not negotiable.
We have to compromise the way we do things.
Why?
He doesn't specify why, but nobody who received this email was confused.
That there wasn't an intelligence mandate.
There wasn't an intelligence reason why they had to have this put out within days.
There was a political reason.
They had to have it completed politically so they can run out and leak it to the press and do so before Donald J. Trump was sworn in on January 20th of 2017.
That was the urgency.
It was a partisan political objective.
They wanted to slam the president.
And look what they said in writing.
We don't care if the NSA disagrees, if they say we're not convinced you're right, if they say the intelligence doesn't necessarily back this up.
This is quote a team sport.
That that's what Clapper said.
And ultimately, the intelligence report they put together assessed that, quote, Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and the D triple C. Uh, and it failed to mention that the FBI and the NSA had previously expressed low confidence in that attribution.
In other words, they reversed the determination of the intelligence community for a political objective.
I go back to that that we don't have the time, right?
It was all about the time.
Can we talk about how significant just that is?
Like, hey, we don't have the time.
This is a time sensitive thing, aka to pull this off.
We've got to expedite this, or we will run out of time to expedite it and actually have it have influence and do what the ultimate goal was.
Yeah, look, for folks listening, look just ask yourself a simple question.
Why?
What why didn't they have the time?
What was the rush?
We weren't going to war.
It's not like we needed plans, we're dropping the bombs in three days.
Uh, there was nothing that was urgent uh about assessing a retrospective of what happened in the 2016 election and did Russia hack the election.
That conclusion could have come in December, it could have come in January, it could have come in February, March or April, it could have come in June, it could have come the next year.
I mean, it was a retrospective assessing something.
So they had all the time in the world.
However, if you are a hardcore partisan leftist who hates Donald Trump, who wants to corrupt the intelligence community and law enforcement to attack the incoming president who just gotten elected by the American people, then you have a very clear time clock, which is January twentieth.
Because once January 20th comes, you're out of a job.
James Clapper isn't gonna be there.
John Brennan isn't gonna be there.
Unfortunately, Comey remained there, and then that was a serious mistake, one of the biggest, if not the biggest mistake of the first term of the Trump administration.
But they're all looking at this saying if we are going to concoct a lie, once we get to January 20th, and new the new team is in place, the one thing they're not going to be interested in doing is participating in a political lie to attack the newly elected president of the United States.
So the only reason for urgency was a partisan political objective, and and that at the end of the day was the reason uh why they they conspired to subvert democracy.
By the way, in November 2016, here's what the intelligence community concluded quote, Russia was probably not trying to influence the election using cyber means.
That was a month earlier.
Not is what they concluded.
Weeks before the emails were sent on December 7th, Clapper's talking point stated, quote, foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential outcome.
That that that was just weeks before this election.
On December eighth, the presidential briefing for President Obama said, quote, we assess that Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent U.S. election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against the election infrastructure.
That was what they were concluding until they made a political decision, and they made it the next day on December 9th in a meeting in the Situation Room for partisan political reasons.
They decided we're going to accuse Russia of electing Donald Trump because we hate Trump and we want to tear down the incoming administration.
And that is, to use a term the Democrats like, an absolute assault on democracy.
All right, I want to switch gears, Senator, to California Democrats are now saying they're going to redistrict in California to counter what Texas is doing after they waved the white flag Democrats did in Texas.
Now uh Gavin Newsom is, I guess, trying to turn this into like a presidential campaign issue for him where he's like, Well, if you do X in Texas, we're gonna we're just gonna counter it out here in California.
The funny part is they've been gerrymandering in California for decades, and it's like he's acting like this is the first time they'll ever do it.
It's pretty laughable.
Well, as we covered on Wednesday's pod, the Texas Democrats have surrendered.
They fled the state, they they defeated a quorum, and yet they were facing serious repercussions from the governor, from the speaker of the House, that they were facing five hundred dollars a day fines they had to pay from their personal uh personal bank account, not from their campaign accounts.
They were facing the governor declaring their offices vacant and replacing them in the state legislature, and they were also facing being arrested and forcibly having their bodies produced on the floor of the House.
And so the Texas House Democrats caved and said, We're coming back, we're done fighting.
That that news had broken.
And and and so then the latest what what has broken just just this week after that, is Gavin Newsom's left leapt forward.
And and Ben, have you noticed that that Gavin Newsom is just a little bit thirsty?
Yes.
It's I mean, this is like I don't know what reincarnation of his career this is.
It feels like it's like seven or eight, but he is obsessed right now with being in the media.
I I gotta say, a bit of advice if any of you, God forbid, find yourself in the vicinity of Gavin Newsom, under no circumstances should you place your body between Governor Newsom and a T V camera.
He will run you over, you will be roadkill, you will be an armadilla with a smear in the center of the highway because that man, oh, if there's a headline to be to be had, he is chasing it.
And so he's decided he is the great liberal hope.
He's gonna stand up and fight against Texas.
I gotta say as an aside, um, I've said more than once that I think we should nominate Gavin Newsom as the Texas Republic of the Year, because there is no human being on planet Earth who has ever sold more homes in the great state of Texas than Gavin Newsom.
He sells thousands of homes in Texas every year.
It is incredible.
All he has to do is continue mucking up California and people rent U-Hauls and get the heck out of Dodge.
Well, his latest statement is okay, Texas, if you redistrict, California is going to as well, and we're gonna get even more Democrats.
Now let me give you some facts that the New York Times won't tell you, that the Washington Post won't tell you, that CNN won't tell you, that MSNBC won't tell you, that the corporate media does not want you to know.
Virtually every big Democrat state in the Union is egregiously gerrymandered right now, massively more than Republican states.
And let's put some numbers to it.
So California, in 2024, 58% of Californians voted Democrat.
The congressional delegation in California has 52 members of Congress.
It's currently divided, 43 Democrats, nine Republicans.
That means 58% of California voters get to be represented by 83% of the congressional delegation.
It's a massive gerrymander.
By the way, California is not alone.
If you look at New York, 56% of New Yorkers voted for Democrats, and yet 73% of the congressional delegation is Democrat.
Illinois, Illinois is massive.
54% of the state vote Democrat.
Illinois is not nearly as Democrat as people think.
Just 54%.
You know how much of the congressional delegation is Democrat?
82%.
And I'll tell you one of the most stunning is the state of Massachusetts.
State of Massachusetts.
You have about 36% of the state that votes Republican.
You know how many members of Congress that 36% gets?
How many?
Zero.
Yeah.
Not a single one.
There are nine congressional seats in Massachusetts.
All nine are Democrat.
None are Republican.
That's a Democrat gerrymander.
By the way, Texas by comparison.
So Texas in 2024, 56% of Texans voted Republican.
And the congressional delegation is 38 seats.
24 of those are Republican, 14 are Democrat.
That means 56% of Texas voters are getting 63% of the congressional delegation.
So it is much more mild.
63% in Texas, 83% in California.
So it is a massive gerrymander in California.
Now, what is Texas proposing doing?
Well, the Texas legislature has put out a map to increase the Republican representation by five seats.
So instead of 2414, it will be 29.
So we'll add five Republicans, take away five Democrats.
That will take it from 63% Republican to 76% Republican.
Now, 76% Republican is an increase from 63%, but it's not nearly as much as 83%, which is where California is.
So what does Gavin Newsom say?
If you dare draw a map that's not nearly as skewed as California, what are we going to do in California?
We're going to skew our map even more.
Now to be clear, there are only nine Republicans elected in California.
He has very few seats to get rid of because it's 43-9 to begin with.
But essentially what he's threatening is instead of making it 43-9, he wants to make it 52 to 0.
He wants to make 100% of the congressional seats in California.
Democrat.
That would mean 58% of the voters in California get 100% of the congressional delegation, and the 38% of Californians that vote Republican get zero.
I'll tell you, I I took on Gavin Newsom today on Twitter and I said, look, if you want to do that, if California is going to go a hundred percent Dem, why shouldn't Texas go a hundred percent Republican instead of going, well, right now at 2414, the proposal is to take it to 299.
But if California is going to do that, Texas ought to go to 38-0.
Now, I'm not advocating that.
I actually think neither state should do that.
I think you should have a congressional delegation that reflects the values and views of the state.
But if if Democrats are going to utterly abuse their power to disproportionately favor Democrats in Congress, and the only response I think Republican states can have is to counter that and to be a check and balance, but of course, the media wants you to know none of these facts.
Let me ask you this question.
If if this does continue to go the way that Democrats are advocating for it, where they say, hey, forget us just like kind of gerrymandering, we're just going to go full blown get rid of every Republican district.
What what then happens?
Like, where does this stop in this insanity?
I I do think it's great that the American people now understand just how gerrymandered so many Democratic states have been for decades and decades, and they didn't even realize how how blatant it was.
Now it's getting the coverage that it deserves.
But where does this all end?
What's the best case scenario?
Well, look, Republican states have much more room.
So if this becomes an escalation, the Democrats lose.
Because the Democrats have already gerrymandered the hell out of their states, so they don't have that much room to grow.
And the funniest example of that is the Democrat governor of Massachusetts.
She got all worked up and said, Oh, yeah, well, if Texas does this, we're going to redistrict two.
Massachusetts is already 100% Democrat in their congressional delegation.
They have gerrymandered to the maximum extent possible.
What exactly can Massachusetts do to gerrymander more?
There are no Republican members of Congress they elect by design, and it can't get any worse.
And so if this becomes an escalation, the Democrats lose.
Now, interestingly enough, Newsom is mostly playing politics.
He's mostly wanting headlines.
He's mostly wanting to impress Democrat presidential primary voters because it it ain't complicated.
Gavin is running in 2028.
He is running full speed ahead.
Now, what's funny is it's like watching a rerun of Sybil late on TV.
He's got 142 personalities, so on day one, he is hard-left progressive social justice warrior.
On day two, he is reasonable moderate, and today he is partisan partisan gladiator.
But but but he'll do do all of them.
He does have a challenge in that California state law provides that redistricting is not done by the legislature, which is what the Constitution provides, but rather by a so-called independent commission.
And so Newsom is proposing putting on the ballot, changing the map.
And Politico did a poll that they released this week.
Uh and and it shows that California voters prefer keeping an independent line drawing panel to determine the state's House seats by nearly a two to one margin, 64%, while only 36% of respondents back returning to congressional redistricting authority to state lawmakers.
So Newsom's got a problem because if this goes to the ballot, right now at least, he's got to convince the voters to allow his partisan power grab.
I don't think actually Newsome is focused on winning.
I think he just is trying to show off in Peacock for the Democrat primary voters.
Senator, it's time we talk a little bit about Google.
Uh and it is another bombshell that's come out showing massive bias with Google, their search engines, also the emails that make it to your inbox and those they decide purposely to send a spam.
Uh there's even shocking revelations now that sending a firm that sent the same email, the same exact wording, one with a link to a conservative group went to spam, but if it had a link to a hardcore lefty group, it went straight to the top of your inbox.
How the hell are they getting away with this?
Well, unfortunately, it appears to be blatant bias.
And listen, I have long believed that big tech censorship and bias poses the single greatest threat we have to free speech in America, and the single greatest threat we have to free and fair elections in America.
And big tech, the giant tech oligarchs have been hardcore leftists and they have abused their monopoly power to try to elect Democrats.
And by by far, the worst actor in this historically has been Google.
Google openly censors conservative speech.
It skews its search results to favor Democrats.
In in the 2016 election, the employer for the largest amount of campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton was Google.
And so they are all in with the Democrats.
Hold on, hold on.
Say that again so people really understand how biased they are.
Say that one more time.
Okay, in 2016, think of all of the people that made campaign contributions to Donald Trump and to Hillary Clinton.
So when you make a campaign contribution, you report on the FEC, you put your name, you put your address, you put your employer, and any contribution, $200 and above, gets reported.
And so then they make reports, and you can see all right, where does the most money come from?
The number one source, not number two, not number three, number one source for campaign contributions, hard money contributions to Hillary Clinton was Google.
Actually, technically was Alphabet, which is which is Google's parent company, but that's Google.
They were her number one donor.
And and by the way, uh there is a uh psychologist, Robert Epstein, who I've had testify in front of my committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, who did empirical research on Google and found that Google skewed search results and moved millions of votes from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.
And by the way, Dr. Epstein was a liberal Democrat who voted for Hillary, he was still horrified at the results.
Well, the latest report I'm going to read from the New York Post, quote, Google caught flagging GOP fundraiser emails as suspicious, sending them directly to spam.
Google is at it again.
The GOP campaign donations could be a casualty.
The search giant has been caught this summer flagging Republican fundraising emails as quote dangerous spam, keeping them from hitting Gmail users' inboxes while leaving similar solicitations from Democrats untouched.
A consulting firm warned.
That's despite repeatedly sparking headlines and lawsuits in recent years over this allegedly partisan practice.
This is something this has been a pattern, it's been a problem, it's been going on for a long time, and it appears Google is doubling down and continuing to block Republican fundraising emails while greenlighting Democrat fundraising emails.
It really is incredible.
And this just goes, I think, to the radicalness of the left.
Whether it's Google or we now have a guy that is apparently was in the Department of Justice who just decided I got a subway sandwich, I'm going to throw it at police officers and run away.
And now we find out even the people that are still working in the deep state are willing to do things like this.
We've now found out who he is.
He's lost his job and he's been arrested.
Well, listen, i we we've talked a lot on this podcast about how the Democrats have have lost their ever-loving mind.
they hate Donald Trump so much that they've just gone to crazy town.
They've, they've taken just about every 80, 20 issue in America.
They've decided to embrace the 20% side.
So when it comes to immigration, they're for open borders.
When it comes to sports, they want boys competing in girls' sports.
When it comes to kids, they want children being sterilized and having uh mute gender mutilating surgeries.
And and and when it comes to criminals, they're in favor of them.
They're in favor of releasing murderers and rapists and and Venezuelan gang members.
And the left right now is losing their mind about DC and the fact that Donald Trump is exercising clear constitutional authority, clear constutory authority To ensure law and order in DC and to keep people safe.
DC has the fourth highest murder rate in America.
It has a higher murder rate than Bogota Columbia.
It has a higher murder rate than Mexico City.
The murder rate in Washington, D.C. is six times the murder rate in New York.
And yet, leftists are furious that Trump is saying we're going to stop murderers.
And so what happened this week is you had a leftist on the streets who saw a federal law enforcement officer, and in this case a customs and border patrol agent.
And this leftist began jumping up and down and screaming, screaming and cursing at him and calling him a fascist, calling him a fascist.
And you gotta, if you haven't seen the video, you got a picture.
This guy is jumping up and down, jumping up and down.
He's wearing a pink polo shirt and these incredibly tight shorts that uh let me just say it looks like a costume.
And he's jumping up and down, he's behaving like a five-year-old.
And he's screaming and screaming at this federal law enforcement agent, and then he's holding in his hand a subway sandwich.
And he turns to walk away, and then he turns around and he just throws as hard as he can the subway sandwich into the chest of the federal law enforcement officer.
And then suddenly he realizes, oh, maybe that was a mistake, and he turns around and runs away.
Well, federal law enforcement pursues him.
They catch him and they arrest him.
Now, this is when the story changes.
Under Joe Biden, nothing would have happened.
Under Barack Obama, nothing would have happened.
Well, under Donald Trump, he's being prosecuted.
He's being prosecuted for a felony.
It is assault to throw anything at someone.
You don't have the right to throw something.
And even if it is a sandwich, which looks a sandwich is not a deadly item, but it is assault to throw it.
And what what Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said, and what the U.S. attorney Janine Piro said is we're going to protect law enforcement.
If you assault a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted, you will go to jail.
And then this is where the case took a strange turn that this pink polo clad, jumping up and down nutcase.
Turns out he was actually an employee of the Department of Justice, a current employee.
Now, Ben, I used to work at the DOJ.
I've worked a lot of years in law enforcement.
It is not complicated if you're an employee at the Department of Justice to learn to treat federal law enforcement agencies with respect.
I gotta say I'm 54 years old.
I've never had to restrain myself once from a desire to assault a federal law enforcement officer, and yet the left, they are so radicalized, they're so their worldview is so full of rage and anger that when they see a federal law enforcement officer there to stop murderers, there to stop crime.
This DOJ employee entered into sandwich gate.
Uh and I will say I I did laugh out loud at Janine Perrot when she put out a video saying, well, uh he he he may have to stick that sandwich uh somewhere else instead, which which uh it it was it it was not subtle what she was saying.
Uh uh as they might say in the South, you know, stick it somewhere the sun don't shine.
Yeah, it's nice to see that in Washington, D.C., certainly in the Trump administration, they're not messing around anymore.
They're going after these uh criminals and they're also your dad was a cop.
I mean, how glad are you to see an administration that defends cops and says you can't assault them?
Absolutely, and it's long overdue for an administration to do this.
Don't forget we do the show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Makes you download Verdict with Ted Cruz wherever you get your podcast.
And the Senator and I will see you on the podcast all week.
Thanks for listening to Verdict with Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
