April 5, 2025 • 38 mins
-
Congressional Hearing:
- The CEOs of NPR and PBS faced tough questioning from Congress, reminiscent of previous hearings involving Ivy League presidents on anti-Semitism.
- Catherine Maher, the CEO of NPR, was particularly criticized for her past tweets and statements, which were scrutinized by Brandon Gill, a freshman House member from Texas.
-
Key Exchanges:
- Maher was questioned about tweets related to white supremacy, reparations, and looting. She often claimed not to recall the context or denied the implications of her tweets.
- Gill highlighted contradictions in Maher's statements, pointing out her previous calls for reparations and her views on looting.
-
Maher's Background:
- Maher has a history of working with various organizations, including the Council on Foreign Relations, UNICEF, the National Democratic Institute, the World Bank, Access Now, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Her testimony was seen as evasive and out of touch, drawing parallels to past controversial testimonies by other leaders.
-
Filibuster Record:
- We also mention Senator Cory Booker's record-breaking filibuster, surpassing Strom Thurmond's previous record.
- Senator Ted Cruz shared his experience and advice on filibustering, including practical tips like wearing comfortable shoes and drinking minimal water.
-
Tariffs and Economic Policy:
- We discuss President Trump's use of tariffs as leverage and economic policy, highlighting the immediate and long-term impacts on the economy.
- The Tax Foundation's analysis predicts significant revenue from tariffs but also potential negative effects on GDP and household income.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in his verdict with Ted Cruz a week in Review,
Ben Ferguson with you, and here are the big stories
that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
First up, NPR.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Was in front of Congress having to answer questions about
all the government funds that are going to their organization.
You're going to be shocked what the CEO had to
say and how out of touch they were with reality. Also,
you had a filibuster that happened this week. But what
was it over, Well, that's the funny part. We'll give
you the details of one senator that decided to stay
(00:32):
up all day and all night to philipbuster your vote.
And finally, Senator Cruz takes you behind the scenes so
you understand exactly what's going on with his colleagues when
it comes to the tariff situation. It's the weekend review
and it starts right now, which brings us to another
aspect of this and that was what happened in Congress
(00:53):
last week with MPR CEO and PBSS CEO there in
front of Congress having to deal with what DOGE is doing,
which is cutting waste, fraud and abuse, and it did
not go very well for those CEOs. It reminded me
an awful lot Cenator of when the presidents of the
(01:15):
Ivy League schools had to come and answer questions about
anti Semitism on college campuses after the attacks on Israel,
and people were just in shock how radical they were
and how they were not stopping it.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
That was very reminiscent of that.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
With NPR CEO very arrogant, pbsco very arrogant, like, this
is what we do. We take your money, we put
out propaganda, so sue us. That's what we've been doing forever.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Well, and Catherine Maher who's the CEO of NPR, is arrogant,
drippingly arrogant. She is hard left, and it was exactly
like you're right. The president of Harvard, the president of
Penn both of them lost their jobs over their arrogant,
out of touch testimony before the House. Where where she
(02:03):
is look she she's a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. She worked for UNISEF, She worked for the
National Democratic Institute, She worked for the World Bank and
Access Now. She worked for Wikimedia Wikimedia Foundation. She joined
the Atlantic Council. She was part of the Department of States,
Foreign Affairs Policy Board. She she is a hard leftist.
(02:23):
But look, don't take my word for it. Listen to
it out of out of, out of her own mouth.
And I want you to listen, in particular for this
back and forth with Brandon gil Brandon Gill is a
freshman House member from Texas. He's a good friend. I
campaigned hard for Brandon. I endorsed him in the primary.
Brandon is a rising star in the House. And and
(02:46):
just listen to this back and forth as he questions her,
and and and and hangs her on her own petard
with her own words. Give a listen.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?
Speaker 5 (02:57):
I believe that I tweeted that.
Speaker 6 (02:59):
And I, as I've said earlier, I believe much of
my thinking has evolved over the last half decade.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
It is okay, stop stop, stop stops.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
I want you to notice something she says there, much
of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade. Ben,
what's a half decade?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Five years?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
That would be five years. Doesn't that half decades sound long?
I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the
last half decade. Oh crap, what I said five years ago.
Oh no, that's a real problem. Run away, run away,
all right, go back to what he's playing with has evolved.
I just like that that that comment. Her idiocy only
gets me laugh.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
As soon as I heard, I was like, this is
not going well. Keep listening, it gets evolved.
Speaker 7 (03:38):
Why did you tweet that?
Speaker 6 (03:40):
I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't
be able to say.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Okay, do you believe that America believes in black plunder
and white democracy?
Speaker 5 (03:49):
I don't believe that, sir. You tweet it.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
It's reference to a book you were reading at the time,
apparently The Case for Reparations.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.
Speaker 7 (04:00):
You tweeted about it.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
You said you took a day off to fully read
The Case for Reparations.
Speaker 7 (04:06):
You put that on Twitter in January of twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
I apologies. I don't recall that I did. I don't okay.
Speaker 6 (04:12):
I'd no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but
I don't recall.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Okay, do you believe that white people and inherently feel
superior to other races?
Speaker 5 (04:21):
I do not.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
You tweeted something to that effect. You said I grew
up feeling superior. Ha, how wide of me. Why did
you tweet that?
Speaker 6 (04:30):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it was
to be to grow up in an environment where I
had lots of advantages.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I
was just reflecting on my own experience.
Speaker 7 (04:45):
Do you think the white people should pay reparations?
Speaker 5 (04:47):
I have never said that, sir.
Speaker 7 (04:49):
Yes you did.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
You said it in January of twenty twenty. You tweeted, yes,
the North, yes, all of us, yes, America, yes, our
original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparation, yes on
this day.
Speaker 6 (05:01):
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal referations, sir.
Speaker 7 (05:04):
What kind of reparations was it a reference to.
Speaker 6 (05:06):
I think it was just a reference to the idea
that we all owe much to the people who came
before us.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay,
how many How much reparations have you personally paid, sir?
Speaker 6 (05:21):
I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations.
Speaker 7 (05:24):
Okay, just for everybody else.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
I'm not asking anyone seems to.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Be what you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting is
morally wrong?
Speaker 6 (05:32):
I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to
it as counterproductive.
Speaker 5 (05:35):
I think it should be prosecuted.
Speaker 7 (05:36):
Do you believe it's morally wrong though?
Speaker 5 (05:38):
Of course?
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Of course, then why did you refer to it as
counter productive? Very different, very different way to describe it.
Speaker 6 (05:45):
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive as well as.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
Being be tweeted, it's hard to be mad about protests.
In reference to the BLM protests not prioritizing the private
property of a system of oppression, you didn't condemn the lout.
You said that it was counter productive. NPR also promoted
a book called in Defensive Looting. Do you think that
that's an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars?
Speaker 6 (06:10):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe
that was at my tweeted that you read that book,
But I don't believe that I did read that book.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
It's amazing she tweeted that she read the book. She's like,
I don't believe that I ever read that book. So
you're either lying now or you're lying. What a half
half a decade ago is she likes.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
To describe it, right, Senator, Look, that is a crushingly
effective cross examination. And if you look at at she
is running away from everything she's ever said, everything she's
ever believed, because it is indefensible when she says. You know,
(06:48):
she claimed on Twitter she took an entire day off
to read a book on reparations. It was so important
that she devoted a day of her and now she
has no recollection. I'm sorry, I you know this. This
will be before you were watching TV, but there was
an old series. You ever watch Hogan's Heroes? Yeah, gosh, yes, okay,
Well do you remember Sergeant Schultz. Yes, Sergeant Schultz would
say I see nothing, I hear nothing. That is that's
(07:11):
that is Catherine Marr. She sees nothing, she hears nothing.
Uh and and yet this is someone charged with spending
millions of taxpayer dollars running what is a left wing
propaganda network. You know her statement, I've never called for reparations.
I gotta say, Brandon, I think does a fabulous shop.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Well yes you did.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Let me read you the tweet and she says reparations yes,
oh oh well, well other than when I called for reparations.
But I haven't called for it other than when I've
called for it. But but but no, no, it's not
fiscal reparations. It's it's I mean, I mean, I mean
repairing the tires on their cars. That's that, those are
the reparations.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
She has no answer because her answer is she desperately
wants to run away from everything she is ever said
or done. But but let me actually, let's actually go
to something else that that that that she said and did,
which is what do you think she has cited as
(08:12):
the number one challenge?
Speaker 7 (08:14):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
That it that that is facing uh that that is
facing journalism right now, knowing this woman have no idea. Okay,
here here is a quote from her at a panel
at the Atlantic Council Research Lab.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
The number one challenge that we see here is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
It's it's so like, it's so on Brandford, that's almost unbelievable. Though,
like a woman who says that she believes in in
the public and radio and free speed says that's the
real problem is is the First Amendment? In fact, Sedor
here's the NPR CEO in her own words, saying exactly
that the.
Speaker 8 (08:59):
Number one challenge here that we see is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit
(09:20):
trick really addressed some of the real challenges of where
does bad information come from and sort of the influence
peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I mean, you listen to her, and it's just amazing.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
If we could just do what we want and get
rid of everything we don't want and silence anybody that
says the thing that is disagreeing with us, and everything
would be fine in media and with our government, right,
we could just control everybody and shut everybody down.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
We don't like that, is the NPR CEO saying it.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Look, the left believes in censorship, that they don't believe
in journalism, they don't believe in media, they believe in propaganda.
And you and I on this podcast covered last year
a story that was written in the Free Press by
Yuri Berliner, and it was in April of twenty four
and it was entitled I've been at NPR for twenty
five years. Here's how we lost America's trust. And I
(10:14):
just want to read the beginning of it again because
we did a good chunk of a podcast just on
this story. But it really sets up the absolute disaster
that is NPR today. How Uri Billinner began. You know
the stereotype of the NPR lister, an ev driving, wordle playing,
tote bag carrying, coastal elite. It doesn't precisely describe me,
but it's not far off. I'm Sarah Lawrence, educated, was
(10:37):
raised by a lesbian peace activist mother. I drive a
super room and Spotify says my listing habits are most
similar to people in Berkeley. I fit the NPR mold.
I'll cop to that. So when I got a job
here twenty five years ago, I never looked back. As
a senior editor on the business desk, where news is
always breaking, we've covered up peebles in the workplace, supermarket prices,
(10:58):
social media, and AI. It's true NPR always had a
liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an
open minded curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, not knee
jerk activists or scolding. In recent years, however, that has changed. Today,
those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online
find something different the distilled worldview of a very small
(11:21):
segment of the US population. If you are a conservative,
you will read this and say, duh, it's always been
this way, but it hasn't.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
For decades.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Since its founding in nineteen seventy, a wide swath of
America turned into NPR for reliable journalism and gorgeous audio
pieces with birds singing in the Amazon. Millions came to
us for conversations that exposed us to voices around the country,
in the world radically different from our own, engaging precisely
because they were unguarded and unpredictable. No image generated more
(11:52):
pride within NPR than the farmer listening to Morning Edition
from his or her tractor at sunrise back in twenty eleven.
Although NPR's audience is tilted a bit to the left,
it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty
six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, twenty three
percent as middle of the road, and thirty seven percent
(12:14):
as liberal. By twenty twenty three, the picture was completely different.
Only eleven percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative,
twenty one percent as middle of the road, and sixty
seven percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal.
We weren't just losing conservatives, we were also losing moderates
and traditional liberals. An open minded spirit no longer exists
(12:37):
within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience
that reflects America.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. All right, Senator,
so let's move to another very interesting moment. One of
your colleagues in the Senate decided he was going to
take away your record on a philibuster. You guys were
(13:04):
very different and why you were philibustering. But he did
beat your record today, and you even posted something that
was hilarious online as well.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Well.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Corey Booker, Democrat from New Jersey, has now set the
record for the longest speech in history on the Senate floor,
and he spoke for twenty five hours and four minutes.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
And so it was.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
It was incredibly long. It surpassed the record had been
held by strom Thurman, who spoke for twenty four hours
and eighteen minutes in nineteen fifty seven. And he was
he was philibustering strom Thurman was philibustering the nineteen fifty
seven Civil Rights Act. And that that had been been
(13:47):
the record until until last night, when when Corey Booker
broke it. Now fourth all time, it is yours.
Speaker 7 (13:57):
Truly.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
I used to be third all time, but but Corey
knocked me down. And and so so my record in
twenty thirteen, I spoke on the Senate floor for twenty
one hours and nineteen minutes. Uh and and so Corey,
Corey just beat me. I will I will say I
tweeted out right before he broke my record. And so
(14:21):
I took to Twitter and tweeted out, as Corey Booker
approaches my twenty one hour filibuster record, I'm contemplating pulling
the fire alarm hat tip Jamal Bowman, and I sent
out a picture of Jamal and but Bowman, the Democrat congressman,
pulling the fire alarm in the Capitol to avoid a vote.
And and and I will say that that that that
(14:41):
tweet went viral, and in fact, Corey ended up at
the end of his twenty five hour filibuster reading that
tweet on the Senate floor, which which was which I
enjoyed it. I actually like Corey, and he and I
are friends, and so I'm glad he read it, and
I will. In my twenty thirteen filibuster, I read a
(15:05):
number of tweets on the Senate floor, and I believe
that was the first time in history a tweet had
ever been read on the Senate floor, and I read
a whole bunch of them. Now, there is a significant
difference between what I was filibustering over and what Corey
Booker was philibustering over. What I was filibustering over was Obamacare,
(15:27):
and I was doing so because it was right what
Obamacare was going into effect, and I was trying to
stop it from going into effect because the American people
it was having the effect of driving up premiums dramatically
reducing choices. Barack Obama famously said, if you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor, and millions of Americans discovered
(15:47):
that was not the case.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
That was a lie.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
In fact, PolitiFact named Barack Obama's if you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor the lie of the year,
and for them to admit a Democrat is lying is
really quite remarkable because effect lies for a living. And
so that filibuster, when I did it in twenty thirteen,
I was a brand new baby freshman, and it was
(16:11):
the theme of the filibuster was make DC listen. And
I will tell you it had. It had a significant effect,
and in fact, it energized people across the country. And
I'll point to what the effect was in twenty fourteen.
The next year, we had an election, and it was
(16:34):
a tsunami election. Republicans ended up winning nine Senate seats,
we retired Harry Reid as majority leader, and we ended
up winning the biggest majority in the House of Representative
since nineteen twenty eight. And if you look at exit
polling in that twenty fourteen election, the number one issue
(16:55):
in the country, according to the voters that were turning
out in massive numbers, was Obamacare, and they were saying, finally, finally,
you're fighting. Finally, Republicans are not rolling over. And so
that had I think a very significant effect on election
day and helped win back both the Senate and House
for Republicans. I don't think Corey Bookers is going to
have that same effect. And in fact, listen, I don't
(17:19):
know how many people watched it. I suspect like that
CNN and MSNBC was probably gushing about it, but I'll
confess I didn't turn on cn N or MSNBC, so
I don't know one where the other. I don't particularly care.
The seven Rabbid partisans who watched those networks probably were
quite happy with it. But at the end of the day,
(17:40):
look what was Cory Booker talking about, As best I
can tell, it was I hate Donald Trump. I'm a Democrat,
Trump bad, Orange Van bad. I'm mad at the voters.
Why did the voters elect Trump? Whye did the voters
elector Republican Senate? Why did the voters elected Republican House? Gosh,
I'm mad at the voters. Gosh, I hate Trump. I'm
(18:00):
not sure there's anything new there. I'm not sure was
there a person in America who was confused yesterday and
didn't know that that that that saidate Democrats hate Donald Trump?
Like like, was there any new information in it? And
and and so I've got to say I'm skeptical, uh
(18:21):
that that it's going to have a meaningful impact. And
I'll point out it's not just me who's who says
said that. Take a listen to what Joe Biden's communications director,
UH Kate Bettingfield uh said about Corey booker speech.
Speaker 9 (18:37):
The Democratic base and Democratic donors are looking for signs
of life, and so I think what Senator Booker is
giving them here are some signs of life. Is it
going to have a tangible impact on business?
Speaker 5 (18:49):
I mean.
Speaker 9 (18:51):
I have a tangible impact on Booker, but I won't
have a tangible impact on business in Washington.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
I mean, that's CNN saying it, Senator. And look it
was they changed and that's Biden's communications director.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
It's Biden's communication director, amazingly enough. And so so look
Corey's that that's fine. Now now I will tell you.
So it was funny as Booker was giving his filibuster,
reporters were all rotting up to be and then they
all knew that he was. He was aiming to beat
my records. So they were asking me about it, and
they said, did you have any advice? And I will
(19:26):
I will admit Corey didn't ask me for any advice.
So now I did not give him any advice on this,
but I did share a story. So when I did
the filibuster in twenty thirteen, I had gotten some advice
from Rand Paul. So Rand Paul had done a thirteen
hour filibuster and I was planning to do mine and
(19:47):
Rand I asked him, Hey, Rand, you got any advice
because he'd just done thirteen hours, and he said, yeah.
Speaker 5 (19:52):
Two things.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
He said, Number one, wear comfortable shoes, because he said,
your feet and your legs will be killing you.
Speaker 8 (20:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
And I will confess. I I as you know, every
day in the Senate, I wear black cowboy boots, the
boo boots. I wear alligator boots, and and they have
the Senate seal on the front and on the back
of it they have the come and Take It flag
and and so that's that's that's my standard foot wear
in the Senate. But for the filibuster, I went to
the store and I bought some some black tennis shoes.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
And in the middle of the filibuster, at like two
or three in the morning, I confess to the people
of Texas. I said, look, I have to I just
have to apologize to the people of Texas. I'm sorry
I didn't have the courage of my convictions to wear
my boots. I I I weaned out and got black
tennis shoes. But but I was planning on standing here
for a really long time. And and so I will
(20:46):
admit the tennis shoes are are are are more comfortable
for for the marathon time. The second bit of advice
ran game, I gotta ask you.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Yeah, I got to ask you though, when you were
picking out the tennis shoes, did you buy brand new
or did you wear them a little bit beforehand?
Speaker 6 (20:58):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:59):
I didn't break them in and they were fine, and
and I don't think I've ever worn them since then.
Like I literally they wore them for the filibuster and
that was it. But but fortunately, even though they were new,
they were they were pretty comfortable. They were not bad
at all. The second bit of advice Rand gave me
was was if anything even more important? He said, drink
(21:22):
very little water. And in fact, Rand said when he
ended at thirteen hours, he said, my legs didn't take me.
It didn't make me give in. My bladder did. And
the most common question that that that I would get
about the filibuster is okay, what do you do about
going to the bathroom? And the real simple answer is
you don't. So the rules of a filibuster, you have
(21:45):
to stand, you cannot sit, and you have to stay
on the Senate floor. If if you sit, or if
you leave the Senate floor, you relinquish the floor, and
and and so, and that's why comfortable shoes matter, because
you're not allowed. You're technically not even allowed to lean
on the desk, although that that rule is not not
heavily enforced. You you can lean a little bit.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
But you can't.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Uh but but you can't can't sit. And and legend
has it that during strong thermons UH filibuster that that
that he had an aid hold a bucket in in
in in the Senate cloak room, and and and and
he he took a leak while filibustering while standing on
(22:28):
the Senate floor. I figured, in the in the era
of of uh C span that probably wasn't the best idea.
So I was not going to do that. And so
for the entire course of of twenty one plus hours,
I drank one tiny little glass of water and that
that's all. I basically would take a little sip just
to just to moisten my throat, and and I got
(22:51):
to say, look, I've never gone twenty one hours with
going to without go to the bathroom, and and uh,
you know, I discovered a very simple principle which is
nothing in, nothing out. And so it was fine. But
that was excellent advice.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
All right. So final question on this, and this is
I'm sure something that was going through your mind, Corey
Booker's mind. When did you know you were just going
to end it? How do you decide? Are you looking
at a certain time in your mind where you're like,
I gotta make it to X, and then as soon
as it hits I'm done.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
What is the process of that as well?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Well? Actually I could have gone longer, and the problem
was in order to do the filibuster. A pure filibuster
is when the Senate floor is wide open and you
take control of the filibuster, and it is the prerogative
of every senator have unlimited debate, and so if you
take control of the floor, you can hold it for
(23:45):
as long as you are able to hold it. When
I started the filibuster, unfortunately Harry Reid, then the majority leader,
the Democrats were in charge had locked in a unanimous
consent resolution that the next day there was a vote
scheduled I think at noon, and it was locked in,
(24:08):
which meant I had an endpoint. I had an endpoint
that was a wall because that unanimous consent had been
locked in, and so it trumps it is it's effectively
a Senate rule. And so when I was north of
twenty one hours, I had plenty of strength. I could
have kept going, and I really wanted to break strom
(24:30):
Thurman's record, and I actually sent one of my staffers
to ask Harry Reid if he would consent. I could
have asked unanimous consent to be allowed to complete my
speech and if read it aloud and I would have
been able to. So I asked my staffer, I'm like, look,
do you really want the record for the longest filibuster
(24:51):
to be to be held by a segregationist who was
filibustering against the civil rights laws? Like I'd really love
to break it? And Harry Reid, being Harry Reid, he
just said no, and so I was forced to end.
When when I did, Corey Booker that there was not
a unanimous consent in place, locking up the time and
(25:13):
so Corey was able to go long enough as long
as he wanted, and and then and he was able
to break the.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Record as before.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number
three of the week.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
You may have missed.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
All right, So then I got to ask you this
question behind the scenes. What are the conversations with your
colleagues are on a scove one to ten, how concerned
are they over the scenario that you just described forty two?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
Okay, Look, there's another point that I think is important
to understand. So you and I did a podcast I
think last week where we talked about tariffs, and I
talked about I said, listen, the present uses tariffs for
two principal purposes. One is leverage as an incentive to
incentivize other countries to enact policies that benefit America. And
(26:11):
the clearest example of that is the threatened tariffs against
Mexico and Canada unlessen until they help US secure the border. Now,
using tariffs's leverage for something like that is very effective.
The President uses it really well, and particularly using them
to push securing the border. I am emphatically in favor
of that. Is it has proven successful. It worked incredibly
(26:35):
well in the first term. It produced to remain in
Mexico agreement with Mexico. It produced the lowest rate of
illegal immigration in forty five years, stopping the border invasion
of the last four years. As an acute national security
and public safety imperative, it is a mandate from the
last election. It is massively important for Texas. So I'm
all for using the thread of tariffs's leverage to get
(26:58):
good policy that benefits America. But there's a second component,
and this is an important thing to understand, which is
Donald Trump and much of his administration believes in tariffs
as an economic policy. We've all heard Donald Trump say
tariff is the most beautiful word in the English language.
And I do think the business community so look, look,
(27:20):
we had the stock market plummeted, we saw massive losses
in the stock market. We may well see more massive
losses than the stock market. I think the business community
was shocked by the magnitude of these communities, of these tariffs,
by the breadth of them. Look as we talked about
in our earlier podcast on tariffs, what I've urged the
(27:43):
President is two things. Number One, focus on China, because
delinking our economy from China is emphatically an America's national
security interests and economic security interests. And number two, focus
on reciprocity. And the reason I've said focus on reciprocity
is the upside scenario I just talked about, which is,
by focusing on reciprocity, if you incentivize other countries to
(28:03):
lower their tariffs and we lower ours, that's a win
win for America. But the thing to understand, I believe
the business community has systematically underestimated how much President Trump
and the Trump administration views tariffs as an ongoing, permanent
feature of our economic policy. I can tell you virtually
(28:23):
every time I talk with the President, I talk with
the President frequently, he goes on at length. Have you
seen the billions of dollars, the hundreds of billions of dollars,
the trillions of dollars we are raising and are going
to raise from tariffs? Now, I think a lot of
people said, oh, he's going to threaten these tariffs, but
he's going to lift them very quickly. If he does that, great.
(28:44):
If he leaves them in place and we just have
constant tariffs, that is a massive tax increase on the
American people. And I think many people are underestimating that.
The President believes and many members of his administration believe
that tariffs are just a fabulous feature of the American economy.
(29:04):
They harken back to William McKinley when he was president. Now,
now look we used to have before the income tax,
tariffs were the main source of revenue for the federal government,
and they want to go back to that scenario. And
I got to say, we're going to find out because listen,
President Trump believes in this. I think in the first
term he wanted to impose policies like this, and I
(29:28):
think many Republican senators talked him out of it, pressed
him back and said, look, their real risk, don't do this.
I think of the second term, Trump feels unchained, he
feels unburdened. He's like, screw it, let's go, and he
believes it.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
I do know, by the way, that's where the threat
could actually work, right, because every other country's looking at saying, hey,
like this is surely he's not going to do it.
He does it like he's going to finch quickly. There's
no indicasion, he's going to finch per se quickly.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Right.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
I think the real threat of it is the fact
that he's actually willing to go through with it.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
Look, I want this to succeed. I wanted to succeed,
But my definition of succeed may be different than the
White Houses. My definition of succeed is dramatically lower tariffs
abroad and result in dramatically lowering tariffs here. That's success
for the American workers, American businesses, American growth, American prosperity.
(30:21):
That's a great outcome. But look, I think we're going
to find out one hundred years ago the US economy
didn't have the leverage to have the kind of impact
we do now. But I worry there are voices within
the administration that want to see these tariffs continue forever
(30:44):
and ever and ever. They don't want a lower of them.
They think they're great. And what is particularly I think
has has startled some observers. It wasn't just directed at China,
it wasn't just directed at bad actors. It was directed
against everybody that Yeah, that is the breadth of it
is enormous and it carries it carries upside, but it
(31:06):
also carries real risk.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
All right, let's talk timeline in your definition of short
term or long term. What does that timeline look like,
because obviously people are trying to figure out weathering the storm. Right,
you talked about supply chain and the car is a
great example. You don't feel the pain till let's say June.
All right, so give us a few months for things
to kind of work its way through, work it out.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Is that a.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Timeline of short term and then after that it's it's considered.
All right, this is long term? What is that timeline
in your opinion?
Speaker 3 (31:36):
Well, let's be clear, the timeline was immediate. So so
let me read from the Wall Street Journal headline Trump
tariff send out to sixteen hundred point decline, dollar slumps
Asian stocks hit for a second day, fear as a
recession rise. And here's what the Wall Street Journal reports quote,
US markets suffer their steepest decline since twenty twenty on
fears President Trump's new terift's plan will trigger a global
(31:59):
trid war and dragged the US economy into recession. Major
stock indexes dropped as much as six percent. On Thursday,
stocks lost roughly three point one trillion dollars in market value,
their largest one day decline since March twenty twenty. Stock
index futures drifted lower Thursday evening in stocks in Japan
were hit for a second day as Friday training began.
(32:20):
In Thursday's market plunge, the Dow Industrials dropped sixteen one
hundred and seventy nine points, or four percent. The tech
heavy NAGS deck, which powered the market higher for years,
was down six percent, pulled lower by big declines at Nvidia, Apple,
and Amazon dot Com. The S and P five hundred,
which fell four point eight percent, and the other benchmark
suffered their sharpest decline since the early days of the
(32:42):
COVID nineteen pandemic. The dollar meanwhile tumbled, with a Wall
Street Journal Dollar Index suffering at sharpest decline since twenty
twenty three. Now those are immediate hits, and understand, look,
it's easy to say, okay, fine, you know, that's just
rich people. Look at this point, a majority of Americans
have money invested in four O one ks and iras,
and so that's impacting everyone. And people don't necessarily follow
(33:06):
their four a one K on a daily basis. Many
people see their four A one K statement when it
comes out at the end of the quarter. A whole
lot of people are looking at that and we'll see
if that's a temporary one day hit, but if it
continues to slide over the next few days, that's not
waiting for six months to see the impact. That's freaking
people out now. And so the consequences of this are real,
(33:31):
and I want to be clear about something. Look, it
used to be conventional wisdom in Republican politics that free
trade is wonderful and we should just have no tariffs
and lower teriffs.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
And that was almost everyone to ask you. This is
a question. I'm just going to ask it because I
know there's people listening.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
They want to know what the definition your definition of
free trade is.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
That used to be conventional wisdom. And I want to
give Donald Trump credit for something really signific again, which
is he's changed the debate on trade fundamentally. And so
I believe in free trade, but I also believe in
fair trade, and so when I talk about reciprocity, Donald
Trump has made a very clear point, and it's a
(34:14):
powerful point, which is many countries on Earth have been
taking advantage of the United States and have been imposing
really high tariffs and barriers to US goods while having
free access to the American markets. And that is unfair.
And so I love that President Trump is willing to
use leverage to lower tariffs. I think that's great and
(34:34):
that really is a change in the debate. Ten years
ago there was nobody in the Republican Party making that argument,
and that is the direct result of President Trump's leadership.
That's a good thing. Saying we should be treated fairly,
that is a good thing. That is a very different
proposition from saying it doesn't matter if other countries lower
(34:56):
their tariffs. We're going to impose tariffs on everybody because
we think r should be the principal vehicle of funding
the economy. If the outcome of this is a multi
trillion dollar tax increase on American consumers, I think that
that is really consequential and really really harmful.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
So let me ask you one other question, and that
is if these tariffs don't change center, then what would
the impact be.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
Well, let me share an analysis that a group called
the Tax Foundation did. Now, the tax Foundation is a
think tank based in Washington, they're very good. They're they're
economic experts. They analyze tax policies. They have proven to
be incredibly accurate in terms of measuring the impact of taxes.
Here's what the Tax Foundation has assessed from the announcement
(35:45):
this week. They say, if these stay in effect, the
average tariff rate on all imports will rise from two
point five percent in twenty twenty four to eighteen point
eight percent, the highest average rate since nineteen thirty three,
under the tariffs announced for twenty twenty five. The consequence
of those tariffs, they will cause imports to fall by
(36:08):
slightly more than nine hundred billion dollars in twenty twenty five,
or twenty eight percent. So that's what they're predicting, is
that imports drop nine hundred billion dollars twenty eight percent
this year. They also say the newly announced tariffs on
April second will raise one point eight trillion dollars in
revenue over the next decade and will shrink US GDP
(36:33):
by zero point five percent. The April second escalation, they note,
comes in addition to the previously announced tariffs, which will
raise another one point three trillion dollars in revenue over
the next decade and shrink US GDP by zero point
three percent. Altogether, Trump's tariffs will raise nearly three point
(36:54):
two trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade and
reduce US GDP by zero point eight percent. They further
project the tariffs will reduce after tax income by an
average of two point one percent, an amount to an
average tax increase of more than two one hundred dollars
(37:16):
per US household in twenty twenty five. Now, to be clear,
that's a prediction. If these tariffs stay in place, If
they don't change, if the upside that I described happens,
if foreign countries slash their tariffs and Trump in turn
slash these tariffs, none of those numbers hold. Instead, I
(37:37):
think we see an enormous economic boom. But if that
doesn't happen, if these tariffs stay in place as an
ongoing economic policy, we're facing very real and I think
very detrimental consequences.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each
day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome in his verdict with Ted Cruz a week in Review,
Ben Ferguson with you, and here are the big stories
that you may have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
First up, NPR.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Was in front of Congress having to answer questions about
all the government funds that are going to their organization.
You're going to be shocked what the CEO had to
say and how out of touch they were with reality. Also,
you had a filibuster that happened this week. But what
was it over, Well, that's the funny part. We'll give
you the details of one senator that decided to stay
(00:32):
up all day and all night to philipbuster your vote.
And finally, Senator Cruz takes you behind the scenes so
you understand exactly what's going on with his colleagues when
it comes to the tariff situation. It's the weekend review
and it starts right now, which brings us to another
aspect of this and that was what happened in Congress
(00:53):
last week with MPR CEO and PBSS CEO there in
front of Congress having to deal with what DOGE is doing,
which is cutting waste, fraud and abuse, and it did
not go very well for those CEOs. It reminded me
an awful lot Cenator of when the presidents of the
(01:15):
Ivy League schools had to come and answer questions about
anti Semitism on college campuses after the attacks on Israel,
and people were just in shock how radical they were
and how they were not stopping it.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
That was very reminiscent of that.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
With NPR CEO very arrogant, pbsco very arrogant, like, this
is what we do. We take your money, we put
out propaganda, so sue us. That's what we've been doing forever.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Well, and Catherine Maher who's the CEO of NPR, is arrogant,
drippingly arrogant. She is hard left, and it was exactly
like you're right. The president of Harvard, the president of
Penn both of them lost their jobs over their arrogant,
out of touch testimony before the House. Where where she
(02:03):
is look she she's a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations. She worked for UNISEF, She worked for the
National Democratic Institute, She worked for the World Bank and
Access Now. She worked for Wikimedia Wikimedia Foundation. She joined
the Atlantic Council. She was part of the Department of States,
Foreign Affairs Policy Board. She she is a hard leftist.
(02:23):
But look, don't take my word for it. Listen to
it out of out of, out of her own mouth.
And I want you to listen, in particular for this
back and forth with Brandon gil Brandon Gill is a
freshman House member from Texas. He's a good friend. I
campaigned hard for Brandon. I endorsed him in the primary.
Brandon is a rising star in the House. And and
(02:46):
just listen to this back and forth as he questions her,
and and and and hangs her on her own petard
with her own words. Give a listen.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Do you believe that America is addicted to white supremacy?
Speaker 5 (02:57):
I believe that I tweeted that.
Speaker 6 (02:59):
And I, as I've said earlier, I believe much of
my thinking has evolved over the last half decade.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
It is okay, stop stop, stop stops.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
I want you to notice something she says there, much
of my thinking has evolved over the last half decade. Ben,
what's a half decade?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Five years?
Speaker 3 (03:17):
That would be five years. Doesn't that half decades sound long?
I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the
last half decade. Oh crap, what I said five years ago.
Oh no, that's a real problem. Run away, run away,
all right, go back to what he's playing with has evolved.
I just like that that that comment. Her idiocy only
gets me laugh.
Speaker 2 (03:34):
As soon as I heard, I was like, this is
not going well. Keep listening, it gets evolved.
Speaker 7 (03:38):
Why did you tweet that?
Speaker 6 (03:40):
I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't
be able to say.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Okay, do you believe that America believes in black plunder
and white democracy?
Speaker 5 (03:49):
I don't believe that, sir. You tweet it.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
It's reference to a book you were reading at the time,
apparently The Case for Reparations.
Speaker 5 (03:57):
I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.
Speaker 7 (04:00):
You tweeted about it.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
You said you took a day off to fully read
The Case for Reparations.
Speaker 7 (04:06):
You put that on Twitter in January of twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (04:09):
I apologies. I don't recall that I did. I don't okay.
Speaker 6 (04:12):
I'd no doubt that your tweet there is correct, but
I don't recall.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
Okay, do you believe that white people and inherently feel
superior to other races?
Speaker 5 (04:21):
I do not.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
You tweeted something to that effect. You said I grew
up feeling superior. Ha, how wide of me. Why did
you tweet that?
Speaker 6 (04:30):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it was
to be to grow up in an environment where I
had lots of advantages.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I
was just reflecting on my own experience.
Speaker 7 (04:45):
Do you think the white people should pay reparations?
Speaker 5 (04:47):
I have never said that, sir.
Speaker 7 (04:49):
Yes you did.
Speaker 4 (04:50):
You said it in January of twenty twenty. You tweeted, yes,
the North, yes, all of us, yes, America, yes, our
original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparation, yes on
this day.
Speaker 6 (05:01):
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal referations, sir.
Speaker 7 (05:04):
What kind of reparations was it a reference to.
Speaker 6 (05:06):
I think it was just a reference to the idea
that we all owe much to the people who came
before us.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay,
how many How much reparations have you personally paid, sir?
Speaker 6 (05:21):
I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations.
Speaker 7 (05:24):
Okay, just for everybody else.
Speaker 5 (05:26):
I'm not asking anyone seems to.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
Be what you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting is
morally wrong?
Speaker 6 (05:32):
I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to
it as counterproductive.
Speaker 5 (05:35):
I think it should be prosecuted.
Speaker 7 (05:36):
Do you believe it's morally wrong though?
Speaker 5 (05:38):
Of course?
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Of course, then why did you refer to it as
counter productive? Very different, very different way to describe it.
Speaker 6 (05:45):
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive as well as.
Speaker 4 (05:48):
Being be tweeted, it's hard to be mad about protests.
In reference to the BLM protests not prioritizing the private
property of a system of oppression, you didn't condemn the lout.
You said that it was counter productive. NPR also promoted
a book called in Defensive Looting. Do you think that
that's an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars?
Speaker 6 (06:10):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe
that was at my tweeted that you read that book,
But I don't believe that I did read that book.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
It's amazing she tweeted that she read the book. She's like,
I don't believe that I ever read that book. So
you're either lying now or you're lying. What a half
half a decade ago is she likes.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
To describe it, right, Senator, Look, that is a crushingly
effective cross examination. And if you look at at she
is running away from everything she's ever said, everything she's
ever believed, because it is indefensible when she says. You know,
(06:48):
she claimed on Twitter she took an entire day off
to read a book on reparations. It was so important
that she devoted a day of her and now she
has no recollection. I'm sorry, I you know this. This
will be before you were watching TV, but there was
an old series. You ever watch Hogan's Heroes? Yeah, gosh, yes, okay,
Well do you remember Sergeant Schultz. Yes, Sergeant Schultz would
say I see nothing, I hear nothing. That is that's
(07:11):
that is Catherine Marr. She sees nothing, she hears nothing.
Uh and and yet this is someone charged with spending
millions of taxpayer dollars running what is a left wing
propaganda network. You know her statement, I've never called for reparations.
I gotta say, Brandon, I think does a fabulous shop.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Well yes you did.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Let me read you the tweet and she says reparations yes,
oh oh well, well other than when I called for reparations.
But I haven't called for it other than when I've
called for it. But but but no, no, it's not
fiscal reparations. It's it's I mean, I mean, I mean
repairing the tires on their cars. That's that, those are
the reparations.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
She has no answer because her answer is she desperately
wants to run away from everything she is ever said
or done. But but let me actually, let's actually go
to something else that that that that she said and did,
which is what do you think she has cited as
(08:12):
the number one challenge?
Speaker 7 (08:14):
Uh?
Speaker 3 (08:15):
That it that that is facing uh that that is
facing journalism right now, knowing this woman have no idea. Okay,
here here is a quote from her at a panel
at the Atlantic Council Research Lab.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
The number one challenge that we see here is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
It's it's so like, it's so on Brandford, that's almost unbelievable. Though,
like a woman who says that she believes in in
the public and radio and free speed says that's the
real problem is is the First Amendment? In fact, Sedor
here's the NPR CEO in her own words, saying exactly
that the.
Speaker 8 (08:59):
Number one challenge here that we see is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights, and that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit
(09:20):
trick really addressed some of the real challenges of where
does bad information come from and sort of the influence
peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I mean, you listen to her, and it's just amazing.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
If we could just do what we want and get
rid of everything we don't want and silence anybody that
says the thing that is disagreeing with us, and everything
would be fine in media and with our government, right,
we could just control everybody and shut everybody down.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
We don't like that, is the NPR CEO saying it.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Look, the left believes in censorship, that they don't believe
in journalism, they don't believe in media, they believe in propaganda.
And you and I on this podcast covered last year
a story that was written in the Free Press by
Yuri Berliner, and it was in April of twenty four
and it was entitled I've been at NPR for twenty
five years. Here's how we lost America's trust. And I
(10:14):
just want to read the beginning of it again because
we did a good chunk of a podcast just on
this story. But it really sets up the absolute disaster
that is NPR today. How Uri Billinner began. You know
the stereotype of the NPR lister, an ev driving, wordle playing,
tote bag carrying, coastal elite. It doesn't precisely describe me,
but it's not far off. I'm Sarah Lawrence, educated, was
(10:37):
raised by a lesbian peace activist mother. I drive a
super room and Spotify says my listing habits are most
similar to people in Berkeley. I fit the NPR mold.
I'll cop to that. So when I got a job
here twenty five years ago, I never looked back. As
a senior editor on the business desk, where news is
always breaking, we've covered up peebles in the workplace, supermarket prices,
(10:58):
social media, and AI. It's true NPR always had a
liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an
open minded curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, not knee
jerk activists or scolding. In recent years, however, that has changed. Today,
those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online
find something different the distilled worldview of a very small
(11:21):
segment of the US population. If you are a conservative,
you will read this and say, duh, it's always been
this way, but it hasn't.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
For decades.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Since its founding in nineteen seventy, a wide swath of
America turned into NPR for reliable journalism and gorgeous audio
pieces with birds singing in the Amazon. Millions came to
us for conversations that exposed us to voices around the country,
in the world radically different from our own, engaging precisely
because they were unguarded and unpredictable. No image generated more
(11:52):
pride within NPR than the farmer listening to Morning Edition
from his or her tractor at sunrise back in twenty eleven.
Although NPR's audience is tilted a bit to the left,
it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty
six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, twenty three
percent as middle of the road, and thirty seven percent
(12:14):
as liberal. By twenty twenty three, the picture was completely different.
Only eleven percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative,
twenty one percent as middle of the road, and sixty
seven percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal.
We weren't just losing conservatives, we were also losing moderates
and traditional liberals. An open minded spirit no longer exists
(12:37):
within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience
that reflects America.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. All right, Senator,
so let's move to another very interesting moment. One of
your colleagues in the Senate decided he was going to
take away your record on a philibuster. You guys were
(13:04):
very different and why you were philibustering. But he did
beat your record today, and you even posted something that
was hilarious online as well.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
Well.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
Corey Booker, Democrat from New Jersey, has now set the
record for the longest speech in history on the Senate floor,
and he spoke for twenty five hours and four minutes.
Speaker 7 (13:24):
And so it was.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
It was incredibly long. It surpassed the record had been
held by strom Thurman, who spoke for twenty four hours
and eighteen minutes in nineteen fifty seven. And he was
he was philibustering strom Thurman was philibustering the nineteen fifty
seven Civil Rights Act. And that that had been been
(13:47):
the record until until last night, when when Corey Booker
broke it. Now fourth all time, it is yours.
Speaker 7 (13:57):
Truly.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
I used to be third all time, but but Corey
knocked me down. And and so so my record in
twenty thirteen, I spoke on the Senate floor for twenty
one hours and nineteen minutes. Uh and and so Corey,
Corey just beat me. I will I will say I
tweeted out right before he broke my record. And so
(14:21):
I took to Twitter and tweeted out, as Corey Booker
approaches my twenty one hour filibuster record, I'm contemplating pulling
the fire alarm hat tip Jamal Bowman, and I sent
out a picture of Jamal and but Bowman, the Democrat congressman,
pulling the fire alarm in the Capitol to avoid a vote.
And and and I will say that that that that
(14:41):
tweet went viral, and in fact, Corey ended up at
the end of his twenty five hour filibuster reading that
tweet on the Senate floor, which which was which I
enjoyed it. I actually like Corey, and he and I
are friends, and so I'm glad he read it, and
I will. In my twenty thirteen filibuster, I read a
(15:05):
number of tweets on the Senate floor, and I believe
that was the first time in history a tweet had
ever been read on the Senate floor, and I read
a whole bunch of them. Now, there is a significant
difference between what I was filibustering over and what Corey
Booker was philibustering over. What I was filibustering over was Obamacare,
(15:27):
and I was doing so because it was right what
Obamacare was going into effect, and I was trying to
stop it from going into effect because the American people
it was having the effect of driving up premiums dramatically
reducing choices. Barack Obama famously said, if you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor, and millions of Americans discovered
(15:47):
that was not the case.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
That was a lie.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
In fact, PolitiFact named Barack Obama's if you like your doctor,
you can keep your doctor the lie of the year,
and for them to admit a Democrat is lying is
really quite remarkable because effect lies for a living. And
so that filibuster, when I did it in twenty thirteen,
I was a brand new baby freshman, and it was
(16:11):
the theme of the filibuster was make DC listen. And
I will tell you it had. It had a significant effect,
and in fact, it energized people across the country. And
I'll point to what the effect was in twenty fourteen.
The next year, we had an election, and it was
(16:34):
a tsunami election. Republicans ended up winning nine Senate seats,
we retired Harry Reid as majority leader, and we ended
up winning the biggest majority in the House of Representative
since nineteen twenty eight. And if you look at exit
polling in that twenty fourteen election, the number one issue
(16:55):
in the country, according to the voters that were turning
out in massive numbers, was Obamacare, and they were saying, finally, finally,
you're fighting. Finally, Republicans are not rolling over. And so
that had I think a very significant effect on election
day and helped win back both the Senate and House
for Republicans. I don't think Corey Bookers is going to
have that same effect. And in fact, listen, I don't
(17:19):
know how many people watched it. I suspect like that
CNN and MSNBC was probably gushing about it, but I'll
confess I didn't turn on cn N or MSNBC, so
I don't know one where the other. I don't particularly care.
The seven Rabbid partisans who watched those networks probably were
quite happy with it. But at the end of the day,
(17:40):
look what was Cory Booker talking about, As best I
can tell, it was I hate Donald Trump. I'm a Democrat,
Trump bad, Orange Van bad. I'm mad at the voters.
Why did the voters elect Trump? Whye did the voters
elector Republican Senate? Why did the voters elected Republican House? Gosh,
I'm mad at the voters. Gosh, I hate Trump. I'm
(18:00):
not sure there's anything new there. I'm not sure was
there a person in America who was confused yesterday and
didn't know that that that that saidate Democrats hate Donald Trump?
Like like, was there any new information in it? And
and and so I've got to say I'm skeptical, uh
(18:21):
that that it's going to have a meaningful impact. And
I'll point out it's not just me who's who says
said that. Take a listen to what Joe Biden's communications director,
UH Kate Bettingfield uh said about Corey booker speech.
Speaker 9 (18:37):
The Democratic base and Democratic donors are looking for signs
of life, and so I think what Senator Booker is
giving them here are some signs of life. Is it
going to have a tangible impact on business?
Speaker 5 (18:49):
I mean.
Speaker 9 (18:51):
I have a tangible impact on Booker, but I won't
have a tangible impact on business in Washington.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
I mean, that's CNN saying it, Senator. And look it
was they changed and that's Biden's communications director.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
It's Biden's communication director, amazingly enough. And so so look
Corey's that that's fine. Now now I will tell you.
So it was funny as Booker was giving his filibuster,
reporters were all rotting up to be and then they
all knew that he was. He was aiming to beat
my records. So they were asking me about it, and
they said, did you have any advice? And I will
(19:26):
I will admit Corey didn't ask me for any advice.
So now I did not give him any advice on this,
but I did share a story. So when I did
the filibuster in twenty thirteen, I had gotten some advice
from Rand Paul. So Rand Paul had done a thirteen
hour filibuster and I was planning to do mine and
(19:47):
Rand I asked him, Hey, Rand, you got any advice
because he'd just done thirteen hours, and he said, yeah.
Speaker 5 (19:52):
Two things.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
He said, Number one, wear comfortable shoes, because he said,
your feet and your legs will be killing you.
Speaker 8 (20:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
And I will confess. I I as you know, every
day in the Senate, I wear black cowboy boots, the
boo boots. I wear alligator boots, and and they have
the Senate seal on the front and on the back
of it they have the come and Take It flag
and and so that's that's that's my standard foot wear
in the Senate. But for the filibuster, I went to
the store and I bought some some black tennis shoes.
Speaker 7 (20:25):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
And in the middle of the filibuster, at like two
or three in the morning, I confess to the people
of Texas. I said, look, I have to I just
have to apologize to the people of Texas. I'm sorry
I didn't have the courage of my convictions to wear
my boots. I I I weaned out and got black
tennis shoes. But but I was planning on standing here
for a really long time. And and so I will
(20:46):
admit the tennis shoes are are are are more comfortable
for for the marathon time. The second bit of advice
ran game, I gotta ask you.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Yeah, I got to ask you though, when you were
picking out the tennis shoes, did you buy brand new
or did you wear them a little bit beforehand?
Speaker 6 (20:58):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (20:59):
I didn't break them in and they were fine, and
and I don't think I've ever worn them since then.
Like I literally they wore them for the filibuster and
that was it. But but fortunately, even though they were new,
they were they were pretty comfortable. They were not bad
at all. The second bit of advice Rand gave me
was was if anything even more important? He said, drink
(21:22):
very little water. And in fact, Rand said when he
ended at thirteen hours, he said, my legs didn't take me.
It didn't make me give in. My bladder did. And
the most common question that that that I would get
about the filibuster is okay, what do you do about
going to the bathroom? And the real simple answer is
you don't. So the rules of a filibuster, you have
(21:45):
to stand, you cannot sit, and you have to stay
on the Senate floor. If if you sit, or if
you leave the Senate floor, you relinquish the floor, and
and and so, and that's why comfortable shoes matter, because
you're not allowed. You're technically not even allowed to lean
on the desk, although that that rule is not not
heavily enforced. You you can lean a little bit.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
But you can't.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Uh but but you can't can't sit. And and legend
has it that during strong thermons UH filibuster that that
that he had an aid hold a bucket in in
in in the Senate cloak room, and and and and
he he took a leak while filibustering while standing on
(22:28):
the Senate floor. I figured, in the in the era
of of uh C span that probably wasn't the best idea.
So I was not going to do that. And so
for the entire course of of twenty one plus hours,
I drank one tiny little glass of water and that
that's all. I basically would take a little sip just
to just to moisten my throat, and and I got
(22:51):
to say, look, I've never gone twenty one hours with
going to without go to the bathroom, and and uh,
you know, I discovered a very simple principle which is
nothing in, nothing out. And so it was fine. But
that was excellent advice.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
All right. So final question on this, and this is
I'm sure something that was going through your mind, Corey
Booker's mind. When did you know you were just going
to end it? How do you decide? Are you looking
at a certain time in your mind where you're like,
I gotta make it to X, and then as soon
as it hits I'm done.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
What is the process of that as well?
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Well? Actually I could have gone longer, and the problem
was in order to do the filibuster. A pure filibuster
is when the Senate floor is wide open and you
take control of the filibuster, and it is the prerogative
of every senator have unlimited debate, and so if you
take control of the floor, you can hold it for
(23:45):
as long as you are able to hold it. When
I started the filibuster, unfortunately Harry Reid, then the majority leader,
the Democrats were in charge had locked in a unanimous
consent resolution that the next day there was a vote
scheduled I think at noon, and it was locked in,
(24:08):
which meant I had an endpoint. I had an endpoint
that was a wall because that unanimous consent had been
locked in, and so it trumps it is it's effectively
a Senate rule. And so when I was north of
twenty one hours, I had plenty of strength. I could
have kept going, and I really wanted to break strom
(24:30):
Thurman's record, and I actually sent one of my staffers
to ask Harry Reid if he would consent. I could
have asked unanimous consent to be allowed to complete my
speech and if read it aloud and I would have
been able to. So I asked my staffer, I'm like, look,
do you really want the record for the longest filibuster
(24:51):
to be to be held by a segregationist who was
filibustering against the civil rights laws? Like I'd really love
to break it? And Harry Reid, being Harry Reid, he
just said no, and so I was forced to end.
When when I did, Corey Booker that there was not
a unanimous consent in place, locking up the time and
(25:13):
so Corey was able to go long enough as long
as he wanted, and and then and he was able
to break the.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Record as before.
Speaker 1 (25:20):
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
on this topic, you can go back and dow the
podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
I want to get back to the big story number
three of the week.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
You may have missed.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
All right, So then I got to ask you this
question behind the scenes. What are the conversations with your
colleagues are on a scove one to ten, how concerned
are they over the scenario that you just described forty two?
Speaker 3 (25:49):
Okay, Look, there's another point that I think is important
to understand. So you and I did a podcast I
think last week where we talked about tariffs, and I
talked about I said, listen, the present uses tariffs for
two principal purposes. One is leverage as an incentive to
incentivize other countries to enact policies that benefit America. And
(26:11):
the clearest example of that is the threatened tariffs against
Mexico and Canada unlessen until they help US secure the border. Now,
using tariffs's leverage for something like that is very effective.
The President uses it really well, and particularly using them
to push securing the border. I am emphatically in favor
of that. Is it has proven successful. It worked incredibly
(26:35):
well in the first term. It produced to remain in
Mexico agreement with Mexico. It produced the lowest rate of
illegal immigration in forty five years, stopping the border invasion
of the last four years. As an acute national security
and public safety imperative, it is a mandate from the
last election. It is massively important for Texas. So I'm
all for using the thread of tariffs's leverage to get
(26:58):
good policy that benefits America. But there's a second component,
and this is an important thing to understand, which is
Donald Trump and much of his administration believes in tariffs
as an economic policy. We've all heard Donald Trump say
tariff is the most beautiful word in the English language.
And I do think the business community so look, look,
(27:20):
we had the stock market plummeted, we saw massive losses
in the stock market. We may well see more massive
losses than the stock market. I think the business community
was shocked by the magnitude of these communities, of these tariffs,
by the breadth of them. Look as we talked about
in our earlier podcast on tariffs, what I've urged the
(27:43):
President is two things. Number One, focus on China, because
delinking our economy from China is emphatically an America's national
security interests and economic security interests. And number two, focus
on reciprocity. And the reason I've said focus on reciprocity
is the upside scenario I just talked about, which is,
by focusing on reciprocity, if you incentivize other countries to
(28:03):
lower their tariffs and we lower ours, that's a win
win for America. But the thing to understand, I believe
the business community has systematically underestimated how much President Trump
and the Trump administration views tariffs as an ongoing, permanent
feature of our economic policy. I can tell you virtually
(28:23):
every time I talk with the President, I talk with
the President frequently, he goes on at length. Have you
seen the billions of dollars, the hundreds of billions of dollars,
the trillions of dollars we are raising and are going
to raise from tariffs? Now, I think a lot of
people said, oh, he's going to threaten these tariffs, but
he's going to lift them very quickly. If he does that, great.
(28:44):
If he leaves them in place and we just have
constant tariffs, that is a massive tax increase on the
American people. And I think many people are underestimating that.
The President believes and many members of his administration believe
that tariffs are just a fabulous feature of the American economy.
(29:04):
They harken back to William McKinley when he was president. Now,
now look we used to have before the income tax,
tariffs were the main source of revenue for the federal government,
and they want to go back to that scenario. And
I got to say, we're going to find out because listen,
President Trump believes in this. I think in the first
term he wanted to impose policies like this, and I
(29:28):
think many Republican senators talked him out of it, pressed
him back and said, look, their real risk, don't do this.
I think of the second term, Trump feels unchained, he
feels unburdened. He's like, screw it, let's go, and he
believes it.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
I do know, by the way, that's where the threat
could actually work, right, because every other country's looking at saying, hey,
like this is surely he's not going to do it.
He does it like he's going to finch quickly. There's
no indicasion, he's going to finch per se quickly.
Speaker 3 (29:56):
Right.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
I think the real threat of it is the fact
that he's actually willing to go through with it.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
Look, I want this to succeed. I wanted to succeed,
But my definition of succeed may be different than the
White Houses. My definition of succeed is dramatically lower tariffs
abroad and result in dramatically lowering tariffs here. That's success
for the American workers, American businesses, American growth, American prosperity.
(30:21):
That's a great outcome. But look, I think we're going
to find out one hundred years ago the US economy
didn't have the leverage to have the kind of impact
we do now. But I worry there are voices within
the administration that want to see these tariffs continue forever
(30:44):
and ever and ever. They don't want a lower of them.
They think they're great. And what is particularly I think
has has startled some observers. It wasn't just directed at China,
it wasn't just directed at bad actors. It was directed
against everybody that Yeah, that is the breadth of it
is enormous and it carries it carries upside, but it
(31:06):
also carries real risk.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
All right, let's talk timeline in your definition of short
term or long term. What does that timeline look like,
because obviously people are trying to figure out weathering the storm. Right,
you talked about supply chain and the car is a
great example. You don't feel the pain till let's say June.
All right, so give us a few months for things
to kind of work its way through, work it out.
Speaker 2 (31:29):
Is that a.
Speaker 1 (31:30):
Timeline of short term and then after that it's it's considered.
All right, this is long term? What is that timeline
in your opinion?
Speaker 3 (31:36):
Well, let's be clear, the timeline was immediate. So so
let me read from the Wall Street Journal headline Trump
tariff send out to sixteen hundred point decline, dollar slumps
Asian stocks hit for a second day, fear as a
recession rise. And here's what the Wall Street Journal reports quote,
US markets suffer their steepest decline since twenty twenty on
fears President Trump's new terift's plan will trigger a global
(31:59):
trid war and dragged the US economy into recession. Major
stock indexes dropped as much as six percent. On Thursday,
stocks lost roughly three point one trillion dollars in market value,
their largest one day decline since March twenty twenty. Stock
index futures drifted lower Thursday evening in stocks in Japan
were hit for a second day as Friday training began.
(32:20):
In Thursday's market plunge, the Dow Industrials dropped sixteen one
hundred and seventy nine points, or four percent. The tech
heavy NAGS deck, which powered the market higher for years,
was down six percent, pulled lower by big declines at Nvidia, Apple,
and Amazon dot Com. The S and P five hundred,
which fell four point eight percent, and the other benchmark
suffered their sharpest decline since the early days of the
(32:42):
COVID nineteen pandemic. The dollar meanwhile tumbled, with a Wall
Street Journal Dollar Index suffering at sharpest decline since twenty
twenty three. Now those are immediate hits, and understand, look,
it's easy to say, okay, fine, you know, that's just
rich people. Look at this point, a majority of Americans
have money invested in four O one ks and iras,
and so that's impacting everyone. And people don't necessarily follow
(33:06):
their four a one K on a daily basis. Many
people see their four A one K statement when it
comes out at the end of the quarter. A whole
lot of people are looking at that and we'll see
if that's a temporary one day hit, but if it
continues to slide over the next few days, that's not
waiting for six months to see the impact. That's freaking
people out now. And so the consequences of this are real,
(33:31):
and I want to be clear about something. Look, it
used to be conventional wisdom in Republican politics that free
trade is wonderful and we should just have no tariffs
and lower teriffs.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
And that was almost everyone to ask you. This is
a question. I'm just going to ask it because I
know there's people listening.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
They want to know what the definition your definition of
free trade is.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
That used to be conventional wisdom. And I want to
give Donald Trump credit for something really signific again, which
is he's changed the debate on trade fundamentally. And so
I believe in free trade, but I also believe in
fair trade, and so when I talk about reciprocity, Donald
Trump has made a very clear point, and it's a
(34:14):
powerful point, which is many countries on Earth have been
taking advantage of the United States and have been imposing
really high tariffs and barriers to US goods while having
free access to the American markets. And that is unfair.
And so I love that President Trump is willing to
use leverage to lower tariffs. I think that's great and
(34:34):
that really is a change in the debate. Ten years
ago there was nobody in the Republican Party making that argument,
and that is the direct result of President Trump's leadership.
That's a good thing. Saying we should be treated fairly,
that is a good thing. That is a very different
proposition from saying it doesn't matter if other countries lower
(34:56):
their tariffs. We're going to impose tariffs on everybody because
we think r should be the principal vehicle of funding
the economy. If the outcome of this is a multi
trillion dollar tax increase on American consumers, I think that
that is really consequential and really really harmful.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
So let me ask you one other question, and that
is if these tariffs don't change center, then what would
the impact be.
Speaker 3 (35:23):
Well, let me share an analysis that a group called
the Tax Foundation did. Now, the tax Foundation is a
think tank based in Washington, they're very good. They're they're
economic experts. They analyze tax policies. They have proven to
be incredibly accurate in terms of measuring the impact of taxes.
Here's what the Tax Foundation has assessed from the announcement
(35:45):
this week. They say, if these stay in effect, the
average tariff rate on all imports will rise from two
point five percent in twenty twenty four to eighteen point
eight percent, the highest average rate since nineteen thirty three,
under the tariffs announced for twenty twenty five. The consequence
of those tariffs, they will cause imports to fall by
(36:08):
slightly more than nine hundred billion dollars in twenty twenty five,
or twenty eight percent. So that's what they're predicting, is
that imports drop nine hundred billion dollars twenty eight percent
this year. They also say the newly announced tariffs on
April second will raise one point eight trillion dollars in
revenue over the next decade and will shrink US GDP
(36:33):
by zero point five percent. The April second escalation, they note,
comes in addition to the previously announced tariffs, which will
raise another one point three trillion dollars in revenue over
the next decade and shrink US GDP by zero point
three percent. Altogether, Trump's tariffs will raise nearly three point
(36:54):
two trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade and
reduce US GDP by zero point eight percent. They further
project the tariffs will reduce after tax income by an
average of two point one percent, an amount to an
average tax increase of more than two one hundred dollars
(37:16):
per US household in twenty twenty five. Now, to be clear,
that's a prediction. If these tariffs stay in place, If
they don't change, if the upside that I described happens,
if foreign countries slash their tariffs and Trump in turn
slash these tariffs, none of those numbers hold. Instead, I
(37:37):
think we see an enormous economic boom. But if that
doesn't happen, if these tariffs stay in place as an
ongoing economic policy, we're facing very real and I think
very detrimental consequences.
Speaker 1 (37:51):
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
every other day. You're not listening to Verdict or each
day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson Podcasts,
and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.