“Why Are You Lying to This Committee?” Eli Crane BRUTALLY Wrecks Gov. Tim Walz With His Own Words

Some hearings are boring. Some are scripted. And then there are the rare ones where a witness walks in with talking points—and walks out buried under their own quotes.

That’s what happened when Rep. Eli Crane (R‑AZ) lit into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz during a House hearing on immigration, border security, and so‑called “sanctuary” policies. Walz tried to project calm competence and moderation.

Crane came armed with receipts.

By the time the Arizona congressman was done, Walz had been:

Accused—twice—of lying to Congress
Reminded his own attorney general refuses to enforce federal immigration law
Confronted with his past comparison of ICE agents to the Gestapo
Called out for mocking the border wall
And forced to sit through his own macho podcast quotes about “kicking asses” and “scaring MAGA voters”

Crane didn’t need over‑the‑top theatrics. He just weaponized Walz’s own words.

🧨 The Opening Hit: “Why Are You Lying to This Committee?”

The demolition started early.

In his opening statement, Walz had insisted:

“Nothing Minnesota has done stands in the way of the federal government managing its border security policy.”

On paper, that sounds bland and safe. In the hearing room, Crane turned it into a live grenade.

“Governor Walz,” Crane began, quoting that line back at him, “I want to ask you—why are you lying to this committee?”

The air instantly changed.

Walz pushed back: “I am not.”

Crane didn’t raise his voice. He went straight for the structural weak point: Minnesota’s top law enforcement official.

“Who’s the top law enforcement officer in the state of Minnesota?” Crane asked.

Walz answered: “The attorney general.”

“And what’s his name?”

Walz stumbled briefly, then answered: “AG Ellison.”

That’s when Crane pounced.

He held up an article and moved to enter it into the record:

“Minnesota AG says will not enforce federal immigration laws as DOJ threatens to prosecute officials who resist.”

No commentary. No spin. Just the headline.

Then he repeated the question, harder this time:

“Why are you lying to this committee? That is the top law enforcement officer in your state who’s saying he will not comply with the federal government.”

Walz tried to wriggle out, arguing that nothing in the AG’s opinion changed state law requirements about immigration status checks for convicted felons.

Crane didn’t let go:

“No, I’m sorry, Governor. He is saying he will not comply with federal laws… You’re lying and misrepresenting yourself to this committee.”

In less than two minutes, Crane had turned Walz’s safe, polished line into a credibility crisis: either your own attorney general is bluffing, or your testimony is.

Either way, the “we’re not standing in the way” claim was dead on arrival.

🧲 Minnesota the Magnet: Free Benefits and Sanctuary in Everything but Name

After striking at Walz’s credibility, Crane moved to policy.

He rattled off a list of Minnesota benefits for non‑citizens and undocumented immigrants:

Free health care
Food assistance
Free college tuition
Driver’s licenses
Cash assistance

Then he asked the obvious question:

“Do you think that that’s helping or hurting this government manage its border security and policies?”

Walz tried the standard progressive pivot:

“Well, Minnesota ranks first in healthcare. We rank third in—”

Crane cut him off.

“Let me answer that for you. It’s actually hurting, because what you’ve created is a state that is now a magnet.”

He pointed out that:

Minnesota may not be officially labeled a “sanctuary state” in statute,
But in practical terms, it checks every box: policies and benefits that unmistakably signal leniency and support.

In other words:

“There is no sanctuary, Congress. You guys haven’t put it that way on the books, but your state has everything, every element in it that is consistent with the sanctuary state.”

The line landed because it captured what a lot of Americans feel:

Politicians insist “we’re not a sanctuary state.”
But the policies, perks, and rhetoric say otherwise.

Crane didn’t need to scream “sanctuary state!” as a slogan. He just listed the policies, then let the label fall into place on its own.

🚔 ICE as “Modern-Day Gestapo”: Walz vs. Federal Law Enforcement

Next target: Walz’s rhetoric about ICE.

Crane asked bluntly:

“How about you calling ICE agents modern-day Gustapo [Gestapo]? Do you think that that helps our federal government carry out its law enforcement?”

Walz tried to pivot to abstract law enforcement “best practices”:

“I think best practice in law enforcement by identifying who you are, identifying the vehicles, and making sure everyone has due process helps our law enforcement. I think covering your faces—”

Crane wasn’t having it.

He dragged the conversation back to the core point:

“You think that helps? Calling our law enforcement agents that? What does ICE stand for, Governor?”

Walz: “Immigration Customs Enforcement.”

Crane:

“Right. These are the guys that are tasked with enforcing immigration—federal immigration. Federal. That’s their job… You think that calling them Gustapo is helping?”

When Walz insisted his rhetoric wasn’t standing in the way of federal enforcement, Crane pressed:

“None of the messaging, none of the rhetoric is standing in the way of this administration doing what they’ve been tasked to do? Is that what you’re saying?”

Walz tried to reframe again:

“I think what would help them is to follow due process and… do the things that we expect of law enforcement.”

But at that point the damage was already done:

Walz had publicly smeared ICE agents—the very people tasked with enforcing federal law.
He had to sit there while a member of Congress spelled out that they are federal officers, not a rogue militia.
And he had no credible answer to the core question: How does calling them Gestapo help?

Crane’s point was simple and devastating:

You can’t claim you’re not obstructing federal enforcement while simultaneously demonizing the people enforcing it.

🧱 “I’ll Build a Ladder Factory”: Walz’s Wall Joke Comes Back to Haunt Him

Crane then reached into the archive.

“How about when you went on Anderson Cooper, Governor Walz, and you said, ‘How high is this wall? If it’s 25 feet, then I’ll invest in a 30-foot ladder factory.’ Do you think that helps our federal government carry out its border security?”

Walz seemed caught off guard:

“When did I say that?”

Crane:

“You went on Anderson Cooper and said that. Do you not remember saying that? Because you’ve said so many outlandish things that you can’t even keep track of them.”

The punchline:

“The clip is there for everybody. It’s there for all Americans. If you guys want to go watch it, it’s an easy Google.”

In one sequence, Crane highlighted three themes:

Walz trivialized border security with a smug ladder joke.
He now claims Minnesota “doesn’t stand in the way” of federal policy.
He can’t—or won’t—own what he said when it’s thrown back at him under oath.

The combination made Walz look less like a serious governor and more like a cable‑news pundit caught freelancing on policy he now has to defend in a very different setting.

🥊 “I Could Kick Most of Their Asses”: Walz’s Podcast Bravado Meets Reality

Then Crane shifted from policy to personality.

He cited Walz’s appearance on Gavin Newsom’s podcast, where the Minnesota governor bragged about:

“Scaring” MAGA voters
Being able to “fix a truck”
And this choice line:

“I think I could kick most of their asses.”

Crane quoted him directly and then applied the political torque:

“I want to be very clear with you, Governor. You do scare us a bit, but it’s not because you can fix a truck or change a tire. It’s actually because of your radical left-wing agenda.”

Then he listed what he meant:

Supporting tampons in boys’ bathrooms
Advocating stricter gun control and restrictions on Second Amendment rights
Supporting sanctuary-style policies and benefits
Claiming there’s “no guarantee to free speech” when it comes to “misinformation” and “hate speech”

“That right there,” Crane said, “is why the American people have such a hard time with you. It’s not because we’re crazy MAGA people. It’s because of your radical left-wing agenda.”

Then he went for the jugular with a question dripping in sarcasm:

“On that last one—where you claim there’s no guarantee to free speech—did you pick that up on one of your 30 trips to communist China, Governor? That sounds a lot like something that they would do. Yes or no?”

Walz sidestepped again:

“I don’t believe hate speech has a place… Hate speech that incites violence.”

Which, of course, is exactly the vague and flexible standard that critics fear will be used to censor dissent.

Crane’s underlying point was clear:

Walz talks tough on podcasts.
He preens about “kicking asses” and “scaring” voters.
But when pressed in a real hearing about his actual record and statements, he defaults to evasions and soft platitudes.

📉 “Code-Talking to White Guys”: The Electoral Scorecard

To finish the dismantling, Crane tied Walz’s rhetoric back to electoral reality.

He cited another Walz quote: that Kamala Harris supposedly chose him as VP “to code talk to white guys.”

Then Crane asked the obvious follow‑up:

“How did that work out for this administration? How well did you do with white guys?”

Walz didn’t have the numbers at hand.

Crane did:

“You lost by 22 points to white guys. And it’s because you talk like the way you do. You say the things you do, and you have this radical left-wing ideology.”

The finish was as cold as it was confident:

“So if you want to continue that rhetoric, go on, brother. Keep doing it. We’ll keep destroying you in elections.”

It wasn’t shouted. It wasn’t angry. It was delivered like a verdict.

🎯 Why Crane’s Attack Landed So Hard

The beating Walz took wasn’t about volume. It was about structure.

Eli Crane built his case in layers:

Credibility:

Walz: “We don’t stand in the way of federal border policy.”
Crane: Your AG refuses to enforce federal immigration law. Why are you lying?

Policy Incentives:

Walz: Minnesota is successful, top‑ranked, compassionate.
Crane: Your benefits package makes your state a magnet and functionally a sanctuary state.

Rhetoric vs. Responsibility:

Walz: ICE are “modern-day Gestapo,” walls are a joke, MAGA voters should be scared.
Crane: Those aren’t just jokes—they undermine law enforcement and alienate voters you claim to represent.

Constitutional Values:

Walz: “No guarantee to free speech” around “misinformation” and “hate.”
Crane: That echoes authoritarian regimes, not American constitutionalism.

Electoral Consequences:

Walz brags about his appeal and toughness.
Crane reminds him: you lost white voters by 22 points. Your own rhetoric is killing you at the ballot box.

Crane’s strategy was brutally simple:

Don’t embellish.
Don’t overcomplicate.
Just hold up Walz’s own quotes next to his public posture and let the clash do the work.

Watching Walz struggle to reconcile those two versions of himself—podcast tough guy vs. under‑oath governor—was exactly what made the exchange so devastating.

🔚 Final Verdict: Words Have Consequences

In a hearing that was supposed to spotlight Republican “extremism” and state-level resistance to federal policy, the script flipped.

The moment Crane asked, “Why are you lying to this committee?” the center of gravity shifted.

Over the next few minutes:

Walz’s carefully crafted talking points unraveled.
His “sanctuary but not sanctuary” posture was exposed.
His attacks on ICE, his ladder jokes, and his podcast bravado all boomeranged back at him.
And the math—losing white voters by 22 points—put a number on the damage.

Eli Crane didn’t just land a good line.
He demonstrated something more basic and more important:

If you’re going to run a state like a sanctuary, talk like a pundit, and posture like a brawler, you should be ready when someone shows up with your own words on the record.

Tim Walz wasn’t ready.
And that’s why this hearing felt less like a debate—and more like a political demolition.