Ted Cruz Falsely Accuses Merrick Garland Of Acting Out Of Malice Against Republicans

Last updated on July 18th, 2023 at 01:59 pm

Who allowed Ted Cruz to have a podcast? It might be worth getting rid of every single podcast in existence just to get rid of Ted Cruz’s disgustingly smug version of “listen to me talk more,” aka “The Verdict.” Despite the fact that everyone knew that indictments were a very good possibility (based on the fact that Trump kept Top-Secret SCI documents in his desk at Mar-a-Lago and tried to overthrow the government), Cruz says this special counsel stuff is nothing but petty retribution because mean Republicans wouldn’t let Garland be on the SCOTUS.

And Cruz goes so far over the top it is a comedy, especially given what we just went through:

“Merrick Garland is the most corrupt Attorney General we’ve ever seen in terms of being willing to corrupt the Department of Justice and FBI and use them as political weapons. And the fact that his response — Donald Trump announced for president, okay, ‘I’m appointing a special prosecutor, we’re going to indict you.’ That’s politics. It’s not justice.

Why don’t you wait to see if, A) Trump is indicted, B) The accusations in the indictment, and C) The evidence presented?

Cruz’s sidekick Ben Ferguson then proved he could read minds:

“I go back to Garland, and you and I mentioned this the other day, but I think it’s worth revisiting — Garland is the guy that was very upset because he truly believes now he should be on the Supreme Court.“

Cruz actually pushed back as Ferguson kept going, calling Garland a psychopath but Cruz only disagreed because he wanted to shoot a little higher:

I’m gonna press back on you a little bit. I wouldn’t use a word like psychopath. I think it’s a combination of things. I don’t know Merrick Garland — I’ve met him a couple of times, but I don’t know him very well personally. I think he’s a weak man. I think he’s unwilling to stand up to the partisan hacks in the White House.”

The ones who refuse to comment on any part of the case and the ones that Garland has said play no role in the matter (Neither does Garland at this point).

“I think the White House is the corruption that — the fish rots from the head. It is the Biden White House that is fundamentally corrupt. But I do think Merrick Garland is different from an Eric Holder or a Loretta Lynch who were deep partisans.”

Garland is white.

“I actually think Garland justifies to himself what he’s doing. I think he believes he’s not being partisan. I think he’s drunk the Kool-Aid so much that he’s someone who’s very self-righteous.”

By shuffling the case off to someone else to make a neutral judgment? By deciding not even to make the decision? Do either of these people understand what they are saying, or are they just throwing words out that sound good together?

• Author
• Recent Posts

Jason Miciak

@JasonMiciak believes a day without learning is a day not lived. He is a political writer, features writer, author, and attorney. He is a Canadian-born dual citizen who spent his teen and college years in the Pacific Northwest and has since lived in seven states. He now enjoys life as a single dad of a young girl, writing from the beaches of the Gulf Coast. He loves crafting his flower pots, cooking, and currently studies philosophy of science, religion, and non-math principles behind quantum mechanics and cosmology. Please feel free to contact with any concerns.

Latest posts by Jason Miciak (see all)

• White House Strongly Condemns Trump’s Call to Terminate The Constitution - Sun, Dec 4th, 2022
• DNC Makes South Carolina the State with First Democratic Primary - Fri, Dec 2nd, 2022
• Kari Lake Is Asking People To Break The Law For Her - Thu, Dec 1st, 2022