00:00:19.100And we're going to cover exactly what this means moving forward.
00:00:22.480As Democrats are now pushing to get rid of Joe Biden altogether.
00:00:27.260Will it work? We're going to break that down.
00:00:29.300Plus another important story that you may have missed.
00:00:33.500We now have unknown the whereabouts of 50 ISIS related illegal immigrants that were smuggled into this country by an ISIS human smuggling network.
00:00:45.940The White House wants you to believe that everything's under control.
00:00:49.500Well, where are these 50 people with ties to ISIS?
00:21:21.840There may be terrorists to get in here.
00:21:23.560Oh, wait, there are terrorists to get in here.
00:21:25.160We know there's people on the terrorist watch list, and we're just going to do it anyway.
00:21:28.420But right before the election, we're going to clean it up a little bit and look like we're being proactive.
00:21:33.740I've said this multiple times, but I very much believe it.
00:21:37.420We are today at a greater risk of a major terrorist attack than we have been any time since September 11th.
00:21:43.660And the director of the FBI has been saying that over and over and over again in congressional testimony.
00:21:51.600What the FBI is looking at, I'm confident, is even worse than what we're talking about.
00:21:57.100And that is the direct consequence of utterly reckless policies of open borders.
00:22:05.480And to tie this to what we started at the beginning, I think this should be front and center what Trump is talking about tonight at the debate.
00:22:13.540I was going to ask you, that was going to be my final question for you is, if CNN doesn't bring it up, do you force the issue?
00:22:21.040Because I have a feeling they're going to be playing defense for Joe Biden.
00:22:24.860So, does the president go all in on these type of issues, even if they don't bring them up?
00:22:31.720As before, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and download the podcast from early this week to hear the entire thing.
00:28:25.220Gene Scher is a very, very well-respected Supreme Court litigator.
00:28:30.900Scher is the name partner in Scher Jaffe.
00:28:33.480Jaffe is Eric Jaffe, who clerked with me.
00:28:36.080He was a Clarence Thomas clerk the same year I clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
00:28:40.040I've known both of them a very, very long time.
00:28:43.120Ed Meese, former attorney general, who has brought this argument and has filed an amicus brief,
00:28:49.540arguing that Jack Smith is not appointed legally.
00:28:52.960And the argument, first of all, they say there's no federal statute that establishes an office of special counsel in the Department of Justice.
00:29:01.680So there's not a statutory basis for creating this role.
00:29:07.220Secondly, they argue that even if you ignore that there isn't a statute,
00:29:12.180there is also no statute authorizing the attorney general rather than the president
00:29:16.760with the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint such a special counsel.
00:29:20.760The special counsel, the way it's structured right now,
00:29:24.560has more power than any of the 94 U.S. attorneys who prosecute cases across the country.
00:29:31.180So all across the country, there are 94 U.S. attorneys.
00:29:33.580Every single one of them has been nominated by the president of the United States,
00:29:37.860and every single one of them has been confirmed by the Senate.
00:31:08.500Every one of them had been nominated by the president, had been confirmed by the Senate at the time of their appointments.
00:31:16.140And so what they argue is you can't just make an appointment as attorney general
00:31:20.500and create a roving U.S. attorney with national authority greater than any U.S. attorney without the Senate having the right to engage in advice and consent.
00:31:36.760I mean, you're obviously a guy that did this for a very long time in that role as a lawyer.
00:31:42.100So the question I ask you is when you hear this argument, you see names like Meese and others that are getting involved and you hear the argument they're making.
00:33:44.700The Independent Counsel statute is no longer the law.
00:33:47.160And neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted to authorize it.
00:33:50.560I think Democrats were really unhappy with the job Ken Starr had done going after Bill Clinton, so they didn't want that to happen again.
00:33:58.300Republicans had seen it abused going after Republicans.
00:34:01.700And so both parties said, let's let this statute expire, which means you don't have a special statute authorizing Jack Smith the way you would otherwise.
00:34:20.960I think we'll get a decision relatively quickly.
00:34:23.320My suspicion is that we'll get it within the next few months.
00:34:26.900Best case scenario for Trump, what would that look like?
00:34:29.840Well, if Judge Cannon rules that Jack Smith is illegally appointed, that he does not have the authority to bring the case, that decision presumably would be appealed.
00:34:42.340But that would permanently put on hold the case in Florida, but it would naturally have an implication on the D.C. case because Jack Smith is the prosecutor who's brought the D.C. case as well.
00:34:55.920Now, technically speaking, the D.C. judge would not be bound by the decision of the Florida judge.
00:35:02.960Nonetheless, how those two interact, it would become a major issue in every case, both cases being brought by Jack Smith.
00:35:10.320As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
00:35:15.540Don't forget to download my podcast and you can listen to my podcast every other day.
00:35:19.200You're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards.
00:35:22.160I'd love to have you as a listener to, again, the Ben Ferguson podcast.
00:35:26.320And we will see you back here on Monday morning.