WATCH: Ted Cruz Shuts Down Dem Witness to His Face after He Tries Lying, Blaming Trump for Minnesota Fraud
During a heated Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing concerning the massive, rampant fraud discovered in Minnesota being perpetrated by members of the Somali community and taking advantage of government programs such as Medicaid, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Public Citizen Co-President Robert Weissman got into an intense back-and-forth after Weissman tried to blame the fraud on Trump.
Cruz started off the conversation by providing a little background about Weissman and then asking him if he was surprised by the amount of fraud that has thus far been uncovered by the Trump administration in the state of Minnesota. “Weissman, you’re co-president of Public Citizen, which describes itself as a consumer advocate and a pro-democracy organization. Would you agree that the fraud in Minnesota was staggering and shocking?” Cruz asked in a clip of the interview going viral on social media.
Weissman responded by saying that he agreed with the findings that fraud exists in the state, but expressed skepticism about the $9 billion figure. “I agree that there is fraud in Minnesota. I don’t believe these estimates are grounded in any evidence that I’ve seen. The $9 billion figure was based on a claim. Well, I think that half of them must be fraudulent,” Weissman told Cruz.
“I just heard a comment just saying boost the number up, but to be clear and with respect, you missed my testimony. No question, there’s fraud in Minnesota, and absolutely, I share your righteous anger about whatever degree of fraud there was there,” the Democrat added. “Do you agree that any Democrat politician, or let me be clear, any Republican politician that had knowledge of the fraud and was complicit should be prosecuted?” Cruz followed up.
“I’m not sure what they’re being prosecuted for, but also in my testimony, I described also outside of Minnesota the manifold ways that this administration is enabling fraud,” Weissman said, putting the blame for the fraud at the feet of President Donald Trump and his administration instead of on the actual individuals perpetrating the fraud.
Cruz was not about to allow any blame shifting during the hearing, so he took Weissman to school. “Your organization describes itself as a pro-Democracy organization. I’m going to try to find out if you actually are pro democracy or if you’re simply pro democrat and are a partisan. We’ve seen the Democrats who want to change the topic,” Cruz said, scolding the Public Citizen co-president.
“So I get you want to testify how much you hate Donald Trump, but I’m quite certain Donald Trump was not running a fraudulent daycare center or a fraudulent autism center in Minnesota,” Cruz fired off at Weissman. “So all of the talking points about how you dislike Trump, set them aside. We will see the Democrats on this committee go down those talking points.”
This poll subscribes you to our premium network of content. Unsubscribe at any time.
“Do you believe elected politicians in Minnesota who were aware of this fraud and were complicit in it, should be prosecuted. Should there be accountability?” Cruz asked. Weissman quickly responded, “There absolutely should be accountability. It is not normal to prosecute government officials for not prosecuting fraud. That is not a standard I’m aware of that you’ve advocated or that anyone else has advocated in the Senate.”
“So do you think it’s perfectly okay?” Cruz asked. “I did not say that,” Weissman responded. “If, let’s say, Governor Walz or Attorney General Ellison knew about the fraud, benefited from the fraud in terms of bundling votes, benefited from the frauds in terms of collecting campaign finance violations, and deliberately looked the other way, you think that’s not criminal conduct?” Cruz pushed back against Weissman’s assumptions.
“In that hypothetical, it is not okay. One hundred percent not okay. But also, if you’ll permit me, that hypothetical is in fact happening throughout –” Cruz interjected and shut down the direction that Weissman wanted to take the conversation. “Yes, I get it. You dislike Trump. I understand you dislike Trump.”
Weissman started to talk over Cruz, saying the whole thing is about whether he has a standard of accountability. The two men talk over each other, with Cruz asking Weissman not to interrupt him while he is speaking, reminding the man that he is free to answer questions after they have been asked. Cruz then continued drilling Weissman.
“You’ve heard the evidence and testimony about daycare centers with no children, with no toys, with no facilities, with windows that are blacked out. Do you believe it is possible that the officials sending millions of dollars to those fake daycare centers and fake autism centers didn’t know what was going on?” he asked the Democrat.
“Well, what I heard was claims about that, and I too have watched the video. We’re both parents. I’m glad that the childcare centers don’t open their door for someone who’s knocking there,” Weissman responded. “I don’t view that as evidence that the child care centers are fake child care centers. Although I’m sure there are some, my understanding is that state investigators have gone to do their duty at those exact same child care centers and have found that most of them actually are operating correctly.”
Cruz finished the confrontation between the two men by saying, “Well, I will say it is disappointing that you had a chance leading a nonprofit that is supposedly pro-democracy to take a principled stand, instead you decided to defend the Somali fraudsters because it benefits elected Democrats. That’s disappointing.”
Featured Image: screenshot from embedded video
WATCH: Marco Rubio Hilariously Shuts Down Cory Booker by Calling Out His Lies to His Face in Live Hearing Smackdown
Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismantled Sen. Cory Booker’s claims about Iran during a heated Senate hearing, bluntly asking the New Jersey Democrat where he was getting the idea that the regime had emerged stronger from its war with the United States. Rubio pointed to Iran’s destroyed navy, damaged missile capabilities, crumbling industrial base, and deteriorating economy as Booker repeatedly claimed that the Trump administration had placed Tehran in a stronger negotiating position. Booker continued speaking after his allotted time expired, leading the committee chairman to cut him off and move the hearing along.
The exchange occurred during a June 2nd hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerning the State Department’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. Rubio appeared as the hearing’s sole witness and faced questions from committee members about Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, American military expenditures, and the administration’s negotiations with the Iranian regime. Booker used his time to argue that the conflict had produced higher prices for Americans while failing to force Iran into surrender.
Booker claimed that the Trump administration had left the United States in a “stalemate” with Iran and was now attempting to return to a nuclear agreement similar to the deal President Barack Obama pursued. He accused Rubio and the administration of strengthening Iran’s bargaining position while Tehran continued using the Strait of Hormuz as leverage. Rubio immediately rejected the senator’s description of the negotiations, telling him, “We’re not begging. There’s no one begging.”
After Booker’s time expired, committee Chairman Jim Risch (R-ID)allowed Rubio to respond because the Democrat had directly addressed him. In the exchange posted online, Rubio said it was Iran, not the United States, that faced growing pressure to reach an agreement. “No one’s begging for anything here. The Iranians might be begging because their economy’s losing hundreds of millions of dollars a day,” Rubio said.
Rubio then described the economic conditions confronting Iran following the conflict. He said the regime had already faced street protests before the war and argued that nearly every economic problem that contributed to those demonstrations had grown substantially worse. “They have hyperinflation. Their currency’s completely devalued. They’re struggling to make payroll for their government workers,” he explained.
The secretary of state said members of Iran’s political class would likely make a deal quickly if the decision rested with them. He added, however, that Iran’s supreme leader and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remained somewhat insulated from the economic pressure facing the rest of the country. Rubio said that pressure was nevertheless moving Iran toward a point where its leadership could be convinced to change course.
Rubio then directly challenged the crux of Booker’s argument. “I don’t know where you’re getting this perception that Iran is stronger,” he told the senator. “Iran has no navy left. They’ve lost a substantial percentage of their defense industrial base. Iran has lost a substantial percentage of their missile launchers, and their economy is far worse today—and I mean far worse today—than it was six to nine months ago.”
This poll subscribes you to our premium network of content. Unsubscribe at any time.
Rubio added that Iran was facing “hundreds of billions of dollars of reconstruction costs” merely to restore what the country possessed before the conflict. His description presented a sharply different picture from Booker’s claim that Iran had entered the negotiations from a position of increased strength. The Democrat responded by changing the focus to fuel prices and the continued cost of American operations abroad.
“Mr. Rubio, you keep telling us how we’re winning this war,” Booker said, accusing President Donald Trump of repeatedly announcing that Iran had been “obliterated” or “annihilated” while the United States continued spending billions of dollars. Rubio interrupted his question with a straightforward correction. “Well, the war’s over now,” he said.
Politicaldebate analysis
Booker insisted that the war was not over and continued speaking despite having already exceeded his allotted time. Risch stepped in again, telling him, “Senator Booker, you’ve gone way over.” Booker attempted to get in one final complaint about the hearing before Risch ended the exchange: “Thank you, Senator Booker. Senator Scott.”
Trump vs. Murkowski Over the SAVE America Act: What the Fight Is Actually About
President Donald Trump is publicly pressuring Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, after she declined to support the SAVE America Act — a bill that would change how voters register and prove eligibility in federal elections. Trump blames Murkowski for stalling one of his priorities. Murkowski says she agrees with the goal but believes the bill goes too far. The dispute matters because it exposes a split inside the Republican Party over election rules, Senate procedure, and how far to bend for the president’s agenda.
What the bill would do
The SAVE America Act — the name is used by supporters to describe legislation aimed at election security — would set new nationwide rules for federal elections. Two changes stand out:
Proof of citizenship. Anyone registering to vote in a federal election would have to show documentary evidence that they are a U.S. citizen, such as a passport or birth certificate.
Voter identification. The bill would establish identification requirements for casting a ballot.
Supporters argue these steps would strengthen public confidence that only eligible citizens vote. Opponents warn that many lawful citizens do not have a passport or an easy-to-find birth certificate, and could be blocked or delayed even though they are entitled to vote.
Why Murkowski is a holdout
Murkowski says she supports requiring voter identification and agrees that only citizens should vote. Her objection is to the scope of the bill, which she considers too broad.
She points to conditions specific to Alaska to explain her concern:
Isolated communities that are hard to reach and far from government offices.
Limited local government services in some areas.
Residents who may struggle to obtain replacement documents in time for an election.
In her framing, a well-intentioned rule could still keep eligible Alaskans from voting if they cannot quickly produce the required paperwork. Trump’s framing is different: he treats her refusal as blocking a measure needed to protect federal elections.
Why one senator is not the only obstacle
Even if Murkowski changed her position, the bill would still face a steep path. The reason is the math of the Senate.
Republicans hold 53 of the 100 Senate seats.
Most legislation needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster — a procedural tactic that lets a minority block a bill unless 60 senators agree to move forward.
That means Republicans would need Democratic votes, or a change to the Senate’s rules, to pass the bill on party lines.
Trump has pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune to keep senators in Washington to force action, and has floated eliminating the filibuster altogether. But several Republican senators oppose changing that rule, wary of the precedent it would set. So the roadblock is bigger than one Alaska senator — it is the 60-vote threshold and internal resistance to removing it.
Why it matters
This is a fight over three things at once:
Election policy — whether new citizenship and ID requirements are the right way to secure federal elections.
Senate procedure — whether Republicans should change long-standing rules to pass legislation without Democratic support.
Party loyalty — how much dissent Trump will tolerate from Republicans who do not back his priorities. His allies have called for voting out any Republican who stands in the way.
May you like
What remains unknown is whether the bill will ever reach a floor vote, whether Murkowski will shift, and whether enough Republicans would agree to weaken the filibuster. None of that is settled.
The practical takeaway
The SAVE America Act is stalled not because of a single senator’s objection, but because it lacks the 60 votes needed to pass and because Republicans disagree about changing the rules to get around that. Trump’s public criticism of Murkowski is the visible part of a larger question the party has not resolved: how to balance tighter election requirements against the risk of burdening eligible voters. Watch for whether Senate leaders bring the bill to a vote — that step will show whether this is a real legislative push or a political pressure campaign.
