Speaker 1: Welcome. In his verdict was Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you, Senator, nice to have you with us. And
Speaker 1: we've got a lot of there's a big fight brewing
Speaker 1: in Washington right now over mandates that deal with COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen vaccine mandates. We're going to get into that in
Speaker 1: a moment, but before we get to this, there's some
Speaker 1: really big news with the Biden documents classified documents scandal.
Speaker 1: And you've talked about how you think that those one thousand,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and fifty boxes of material four hundred and
Speaker 1: fifteen gigabytes of digital records that have been given to
Speaker 1: the University Delaware should be searched by authorities. And then
Speaker 1: there's something else that's come out of all this, and
Speaker 1: this is, oh, by the way, in twenty fourteen, there's
Speaker 1: a chance that Hunter Biden had information that was classified,
Speaker 1: that he had access to that he may have been
Speaker 1: able to exploit for business reasons to make more money.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that. Well, yes, and let me say
Speaker 1: the Joe Biden Hunter Biden scandal continues to get worse
Speaker 1: and worse. This podcast made news when we called for
Speaker 1: the one eight hundred and fifty plus boxes of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's Senate documents at the University of Delaware to be
Speaker 1: searched by the FBI. We subsequently made news when we
Speaker 1: called for Hunter Biden's home and work addresses to be
Speaker 1: searched by the FBI as well. And now we have
Speaker 1: even more reason that searching Hunter Biden's home and work
Speaker 1: is necessary. Which is one email in particular that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden sent to his business partner, Devin Archer, And it
Speaker 1: was on April thirteenth, twenty fourteen, so it was while
Speaker 1: his father was Vice president, and it was a week
Speaker 1: before Joe Biden was going to travel to Ukraine to
Speaker 1: meet with the Prime Minister, and Hunter Biden sent a
Speaker 1: very long, scholarly email with twenty two points of careful
Speaker 1: analysis about Ukraine's political situation and about the upcoming election
Speaker 1: and predicting an escalation of Russia's quote destabilization campaign which
Speaker 1: could lead to a full scale takeover of the Eastern region,
Speaker 1: most critically Donesque. The strategic value is to create a
Speaker 1: land bridge for Russia to Crimea the way a breviate
Speaker 1: Russia RU that won't be directly affect boris hope barisaholdings,
Speaker 1: but it will limit future UK exploration and utilization of
Speaker 1: offshore opportunities. In particular, he continued, writing, it will also
Speaker 1: result in further destabilization of UK nationally and for whatever
Speaker 1: government is in power, and the US will respond with
Speaker 1: even stronger sanctions. Those sanctions will threaten the tenuous support
Speaker 1: of the EU, which does not have the political will
Speaker 1: to incurse deep energy price increases. It's a twenty two
Speaker 1: point substantive email. Now, Hunter Biden doesn't write twenty two
Speaker 1: point substantive emails. Hunter Biden, as we know, as he
Speaker 1: has an odd proclip doing videos himself with drugs with
Speaker 1: prostitutes violating the law. This email reads as if it
Speaker 1: was cut and pasted from an official government briefing, an
Speaker 1: official government briefing that one would infer his father had received.
Speaker 1: And it reads as if it could easily have come
Speaker 1: from a classified briefing. We don't know that, but the
Speaker 1: level of geopolitical and geostrategic analysis is the sort of
Speaker 1: analysis that is often in classified briefings. And the timing
Speaker 1: of this email so this is twenty fourteen, this is
Speaker 1: right before Barisma put Hunter Biden on their board. Now
Speaker 1: We've talked at length in this podcast about how Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden didn't speak Ukrainian, didn't know anything about oil and gas,
Speaker 1: had no reason to think he was an expert in
Speaker 1: Ukraine or geopolitics, and yet when he sends this very
Speaker 1: detailed email, it certainly seems like he's advertising, Hey, you
Speaker 1: pay me eighty three thousand dollars a month, which they did,
Speaker 1: and you get access to this kind of briefing too,
Speaker 1: the briefing presumably being given to the Vice president. I
Speaker 1: think there needs to be serious examination as to where
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden got that information, and in particular, did it
Speaker 1: come from a briefing his father was given, and critically,
Speaker 1: was it from a classified briefing. On the face of it,
Speaker 1: there's an awful lot of smoke, and if this special
Speaker 1: prosecutor at the Department of Justice is taking it seriously,
Speaker 1: those are the questions he needs to be asking. It's
Speaker 1: an issue of proof for many people when you give
Speaker 1: emails like this, an information like okay, prove it to me, right,
Speaker 1: prove it to me that you have access to what
Speaker 1: you claim you have access to. We've seen this when
Speaker 1: it comes to even our sources overseas, where it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, they claim they have access to X, Y
Speaker 1: or Z or to this terror group and they have
Speaker 1: inside knowledge, and you basically say, okay, show me something
Speaker 1: that can verify that you're not just full of it.
Speaker 1: And that's what this email certainly would have done. It's
Speaker 1: not just impressing them, but showing you, hey, I can
Speaker 1: give you stuff that no one else can. And look,
Speaker 1: there is no reason, there's nothing in Hunter Biden's background
Speaker 1: to suggest that he has the geopolitical expertise to write
Speaker 1: an email like this unless he's cribbing on what Daddy has.
Speaker 1: And it's one thing. If he's getting a briefing from
Speaker 1: his father or his father's team, that's not impermissible. It's
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden selling access. But you know, to be honest,
Speaker 1: the Biden family has been selling access for decades. That's
Speaker 1: been the family business. It is qualitatively different if the
Speaker 1: access includes access to classified materials for which Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: does not have security clearances, and we don't know, but
Speaker 1: on the face of it, I think the odds are
Speaker 1: incredibly high north of ninety that Hunter Biden was reading
Speaker 1: and may well have cut and paste from an official
Speaker 1: briefing his father received, and the outstanding question was did
Speaker 1: that briefing include classified materials? Are not? Ordinarily the vice
Speaker 1: president getting ready to travel to a foreign country would
Speaker 1: get a classified briefing, so typically the vice president's briefing
Speaker 1: would have classified information. I think there needs to be
Speaker 1: a careful examination of what was the source of this,
Speaker 1: including quite literally searching. The special counsel should search the
Speaker 1: classified briefings given the Vice president in that period of time,
Speaker 1: in the period preceding that trip, and compare the language.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to posit a guess that there is
Speaker 1: language that is word for word on Hunter Biden's email.
Speaker 1: I don't know that, but it sured unread like something
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden wrote, and that is worthy of a serious investigation.
Speaker 1: But if Joe Biden did in fact allow his son
Speaker 1: access to classified materials, then they both would have committed
Speaker 1: a federal crime. I have to ask the question about
Speaker 1: classified documents and how long do they keep classified documents around,
Speaker 1: because I know there's people they're gonna be saying, well,
Speaker 1: let me guess they're gonna say, we can't find these anymore.
Speaker 1: And before I get you to answer that question about
Speaker 1: how that the storage of classified documents work, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about our friends at Patriot Mobile. If
Speaker 1: you have not checked out Patriot Mobile, they are an
Speaker 1: amazing company, a conservative Christian cell phone coming. So if
Speaker 1: you have a cell phone right now in your hand,
Speaker 1: you can keep your same cell phone, you can keep
Speaker 1: your same cell phone number, and you can use the
Speaker 1: same towers that you're on right now, except this time,
Speaker 1: when you pay your bill, you're going to be supporting
Speaker 1: First and Second Amendment causes. You're gonna be supporting protecting
Speaker 1: the rights of the unborn children, and even helping with adoptions.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile is a company where when you use your phone,
Speaker 1: you're standing up for what you believe in. Check them
Speaker 1: out Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: dot com slash verdict, or you can call them nine
Speaker 1: or eight seven eight Patriot that's their new number, eight
Speaker 1: seven eight. Patriot makes use the promo code verdict for
Speaker 1: the best savings. All right, center, The question I know
Speaker 1: everybody's going to be thinking themselves is, all right, let's
Speaker 1: say we ask for these classified documents from this time period.
Speaker 1: What do you know they're not gonna be able to
Speaker 1: find them, or they're gonna say they're destroyed or they're
Speaker 1: gonna have an excuse to call this paranoid. But a
Speaker 1: lot of people expect that's how the government works. Now,
Speaker 1: every time you need to see something, you can't find it.
Speaker 1: So how does it work with classified documents? How long
Speaker 1: do they keep them before there's no more, no longer
Speaker 1: a record of them. Is there a chance these documents
Speaker 1: are are saved somewhere and still exists. Well, it so happens.
Speaker 1: There's a federal statue that answers that question, and it
Speaker 1: is the Presidential Records Act, which requires, as a matter
Speaker 1: of federal law, that all of the president's records and
Speaker 1: all of the vice president's records, including any classified documents,
Speaker 1: must be turned over to the Archives by the end
Speaker 1: of their terms. So, assuming that the Vice president's office
Speaker 1: complied with that federal law, the Archives should have every
Speaker 1: classified briefing Joe Biden received, and so that those records.
Speaker 1: You would need obviously clearance to read them. But I
Speaker 1: think the special counsel needs to read those briefings and
Speaker 1: compare them to Hunter Biden's email to see if the
Speaker 1: language is identical or substantially similar, because there's a very
Speaker 1: strong inference from the face of it that that that
Speaker 1: they are last question on this There does still seem
Speaker 1: to be to many of us a disconnect that between
Speaker 1: the prosecution in Delaware, the prosecutor Delaware with the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden and some of the tax issues and everything he's
Speaker 1: looking into, and now what's happened with a special prosecutor
Speaker 1: that is looking into these classified documents they keep finding
Speaker 1: of the president, the former vice president Joe Biden. When
Speaker 1: you start looking at these connections here, the way that
Speaker 1: you're describing them is, how are these two individuals not
Speaker 1: going to interconnect at some point and say here, I
Speaker 1: have something you need to see or you have something
Speaker 1: I need to see. Well, you know, when you play poker,
Speaker 1: sometimes people have what's called a tell, and they do
Speaker 1: something that illustrates whether they have a good, good hand
Speaker 1: or a bad hand. Maybe they twist their ring, maybe
Speaker 1: their eye twitches that they have something that gives away
Speaker 1: their hand. The tell from this Department of Justice as
Speaker 1: to whether it is trying to be political and protect
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and Democrats on these issues is very simple.
Speaker 1: If they are trying to keep Hunter Biden and Joe
Speaker 1: Biden all together separate, they are engaged in politics not law.
Speaker 1: If they're trying to say they're totally different, they're totally separate.
Speaker 1: If they want the Hunter Biden investigation to be about, well,
Speaker 1: did the guy who drugs? Did he violate the tax laws?
Speaker 1: Did he do things that affect a poor, troubled guy
Speaker 1: with a serious substance abuse issue. Anyone focusing on that
Speaker 1: is doing it for a reason, and that is to
Speaker 1: insulate the big guy, to insulate Joe Biden. Look, my
Speaker 1: interest in Hunter Biden is not his personal demons. The
Speaker 1: reason this is an issue of public concern is the
Speaker 1: extent to which Hunter Biden implicates his father, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: the president and then the vice president, in official corruption.
Speaker 1: And so it is the connection between the two. When
Speaker 1: they're examining Hunter Biden, they need to be examining what
Speaker 1: was it that Hunter Biden sold to Barisma for a
Speaker 1: million bucks a year? What was it that Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: sold to the Chinese communist for millions of dollars a year?
Speaker 1: And when they're examining Joe Biden. Now, to be clear,
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel's mandate is to focus on the classified
Speaker 1: documents in Joe Biden's home. The Special Council can put
Speaker 1: blinders on and say, well, we're just looking at these documents.
Speaker 1: We're not asking who might have contacted them. We're not
Speaker 1: asking who might have examined them illegally. We're not asking
Speaker 1: if Hunter Biden, who has a long pattern of corruption
Speaker 1: with selling access to these documents, if the special counsel
Speaker 1: from the other side of the issue puts blinders on
Speaker 1: and refuses to examine the connections to Hunter Biden, that
Speaker 1: would raise the very strong implication that the special counsel
Speaker 1: is trying to politically protect the White House. What is
Speaker 1: a matter of public concern is the intersection between the
Speaker 1: two that, on the face of it screams corruption. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it certainly does. And this is gonna It's gonna see
Speaker 1: how long they can keep these two at bay and
Speaker 1: how long they can try to disconnect them. But it
Speaker 1: looks like even the White Houses have a hard time
Speaker 1: controlling this story now at all. I want to move
Speaker 1: to something by the way, before we move to this topic,
Speaker 1: I will say I feel kind of bad that this
Speaker 1: podcast may have played a role in getting Karine Jean
Speaker 1: Pierre yanked from the podium. You saw that her answers
Speaker 1: were so bleedingly bad as we've talked about on previous pods,
Speaker 1: that they ended up putting John Kirby up there because
Speaker 1: there are only so many times she could say, good morning,
Speaker 1: what time of day it is? Talk to the White
Speaker 1: House counsel, you know what? What what color is the sky?
Speaker 1: Talk to the White House Council. They finally got John Kirby,
Speaker 1: who could at least answer a simple and straightforward question.
Speaker 1: I you know if this podcast played a role in that, well,
Speaker 1: I think it definitely did. When they start quoting you
Speaker 1: and the show, you know it's a good day. You
Speaker 1: know it's a good day, and you know it's a
Speaker 1: bad day for that White House. There's another big fight
Speaker 1: center that's happening, and it's an important fight in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people may not realize this is
Speaker 1: even happening because it's not being covered, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: the way that it should. And this comes down to
Speaker 1: the No Vaccine Passport Act. There are multiple aspects of
Speaker 1: this that I want to go through because part of
Speaker 1: its No Vaccine Passport Act. Among its many provisions, the
Speaker 1: No Vaccine Passport Act would stop the federal government from
Speaker 1: establishing COVID nineteen passports or working with third parties to
Speaker 1: establish their own vaccine passports. This is a really important
Speaker 1: fight that's happening, and there's several different aspects of it.
Speaker 1: It's also No Vaccine Mandates Act, the No Mass Mandate Act.
Speaker 1: This is not just one thing. It's several different big
Speaker 1: fights happening. Well, let's let's start out at a broader level,
Speaker 1: at a meta level, and then we'll get down to
Speaker 1: the specifics. The broader level, the question for the federal
Speaker 1: government is COVID over or not now? Joe Biden famously
Speaker 1: walking along in an interview, said the pandemic is over.
Speaker 1: And the political voices in the White House that want
Speaker 1: to portray sunny optimism and look at the great job
Speaker 1: Democrats are doing, want to say, Okay, we've cured COVID,
Speaker 1: we solve the pandemic now. That happens to be largely accurate.
Speaker 1: I think the pandemic is over. Doesn't mean that people,
Speaker 1: particularly very elderly and very vulnerable people, can't get sick
Speaker 1: and dangerously sick from COVID. But we are not in
Speaker 1: the midst of the pandemic anymore, and most of us
Speaker 1: have moved on with our damn life and that's I
Speaker 1: think the vast majority of America. I will say, by
Speaker 1: the way, when you go to an airport, this is
Speaker 1: an aside, isn't it fascinating? I think it's now about
Speaker 1: ten percent of the people who still persist in wearing
Speaker 1: a mask, And it's almost like self identifying, And I
Speaker 1: really do. I walk through an airport and I look
Speaker 1: at them, and I'm like, Okay, you're crazy people. Now look,
Speaker 1: maybe you're someone who's severely immunocompromise, or there's some reason
Speaker 1: you might have a personal health reason that you need
Speaker 1: to do so, and I certainly respect that, but I
Speaker 1: just look around at what appeared to be young, healthy
Speaker 1: people that are masked, or parents that put little kids
Speaker 1: in mask, and You're just like, is it a spirit
Speaker 1: of fear? Is it a spirit of ideology? Is it?
Speaker 1: Are you just so woke that you've got a virtue signal?
Speaker 1: But it is a fascinating self identification, and the numbers
Speaker 1: are dwindling. It's only the hardcore that keep with it.
Speaker 1: But the meta issue for the federal government is is
Speaker 1: the pandemic over or not? And the reason it matters
Speaker 1: is Democrats and Biden in particular wants to cling to
Speaker 1: all the power the pandemic gave. The pandemic was an
Speaker 1: excuse for a massive expansion in the size of the
Speaker 1: federal government and government spending, in government debt, and in
Speaker 1: the power of the federal government. We saw abuses. We
Speaker 1: saw abuses at every level of government, but especially the
Speaker 1: federal government. And I got to tell you, I have
Speaker 1: been now for over two years leading the fight in
Speaker 1: the Senate against these abuses, and so I've introduced legislation
Speaker 1: after legislation after legislation to stop these abuses. So as
Speaker 1: you noted, I have one bill to ban vaccine passports
Speaker 1: to say you cannot require vaccine passports of any individual
Speaker 1: dealing with a government. I have another bill that bans
Speaker 1: vaccine mandates, that says you cannot require a COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: You can't require it in the military, you can't require
Speaker 1: it in the federal government. You can't require it a
Speaker 1: DOJ or the FBI or the Border Patrol. You can't
Speaker 1: require it in a private business. I have another bill
Speaker 1: that ends mask mandates to say you can't force mask
Speaker 1: mandates on people. I have another bill that ends discriminate
Speaker 1: nation in COVID treatments. I have another bill that ends
Speaker 1: the DC school vaccine mandate, where they are claiming they're
Speaker 1: going to throw forty percent of the school kids, forty
Speaker 1: percent of the African American kids out of the DC
Speaker 1: public schools. All of these are bills that I am
Speaker 1: fighting actively right now in the federal government. We just
Speaker 1: want a big victory on military vaccines, where for two
Speaker 1: years I've been fighting to end Biden's vaccine mandate in
Speaker 1: the military. Last month we succeeded. We passed it into law.
Speaker 1: We had to kick drag Joe Biden, kicking and screaming
Speaker 1: to sign that in the law. But it is only prospective.
Speaker 1: The Democrats price was that it is only applicable going forward.
Speaker 1: It doesn't provide relief for the thousands of servicemen and
Speaker 1: women who were terminated because they decline to get the
Speaker 1: COVID vaccine. I've introduced legislation called the Americans Act to
Speaker 1: give them relief, to reinstate them in the military they
Speaker 1: want to go back at their original rank, to give
Speaker 1: them the benefits their due, and if they choose not
Speaker 1: to go back into the military, to ensure that they
Speaker 1: have an honorable discharge and not merely a general discharge
Speaker 1: so that they receive the benefits they've earned by fighting
Speaker 1: for a country. Our Democrats still digging in on that.
Speaker 1: I know that, and so they're just not wavering. In
Speaker 1: other words, are saying, forget taking care of these people.
Speaker 1: They didn't bow to our demand with the vaccine mandate.
Speaker 1: They don't deserve to have health coverage, no matter how
Speaker 1: long they were serving their country. If we get rid
Speaker 1: of them this way, that there is no movement from them,
Speaker 1: no remorse, no compromise, no spirit of compromise, or forget that.
Speaker 1: Let's just bring it down to spirit of humanity, spirit
Speaker 1: of compassion for many men and women the military that
Speaker 1: have lost their health benefits that were desperately needed for
Speaker 1: chronic conditions for them and their children. Well, look, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to speak to the hearts of Democrats Senators.
Speaker 1: I will speak to their votes. Their votes are consistently
Speaker 1: against the servicemen and women who were unjustly terminated. We
Speaker 1: don't even know the numbers. The Biden administration won't answered.
Speaker 1: I've repeatedly tried to get answers. We know it's in
Speaker 1: the thousands, it may well be an excess of ten thousand,
Speaker 1: but they won't answer the question, and I will commit,
Speaker 1: and I have committed unequivocally that I am going to
Speaker 1: keep fighting for every soldier, every sailor, every airman, every marine,
Speaker 1: every Coast guardsman who was wrongfully terminated, who was wrongfully demoted,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to keep fighting for them until they
Speaker 1: get justice. What they did is wrong. And I'll tell you, Ben,
Speaker 1: I mean, I've when you talk with Navy seals as
Speaker 1: I have, when you look in their eyes and they're angry. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm not remotely bad enough to be badass enough to
Speaker 1: be a Davy Seal. I couldn't survive buds. I'd drown
Speaker 1: in the seashore. I respect what those guys do. They're
Speaker 1: American heroes and they go in harm's way without blinking.
Speaker 1: And for these partisan hacks to just throw their service
Speaker 1: in the waistbin not care about it at all. Say
Speaker 1: you're terminated, you're out of luck, it doesn't matter. And
Speaker 1: mind you, we've got a shortage of new recruits. It's
Speaker 1: hurting military readiness at the same time. But what I
Speaker 1: believe is happening is I think the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: using vaccine mandates politically to purge the federal government of
Speaker 1: conservatives and of troublesome people. I think they're doing it
Speaker 1: in the military. I think they're doing it at DOJ.
Speaker 1: I think they're doing it the FBI. I think they're
Speaker 1: doing it at the border patrol. Throughout the federal government.
Speaker 1: They view it. It's actually the merry image. I talked
Speaker 1: before about how in airports wacky lefties self identified by
Speaker 1: wearing their pink masks walking down the aisle. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: it's the flip side, which is in the federal government.
Speaker 1: A lot of conservatives self identify by saying, I ain't
Speaker 1: getting this vaccine and you're not going to make me.
Speaker 1: And I think the Biden Dems are thrilled and saying, okay, good,
Speaker 1: you're fired. We're gonna purge you out of the federal government.
Speaker 1: I think it is a shamelessly political objective, and whether
Speaker 1: any Democrat feels something in their heart for them, they
Speaker 1: certainly are not willing to vote for them. But I
Speaker 1: think we can still get more done the way we
Speaker 1: repealed the COVID vaccine mandate in the military, which is
Speaker 1: using leverage on must pass legislation, and so I'm going
Speaker 1: to keep pressing to do that and mind you, the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is utterly schizophrenic on this. They want to
Speaker 1: have it both ways. So they on the one hand,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden trumpets the pandemic is over, yea, we solved it.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, the Biden administration is actively appealing
Speaker 1: in the Federal Court of Appeal to have the authority
Speaker 1: to reinstate the mask mandate on planes, while at the
Speaker 1: same time they are trying to end the use of
Speaker 1: Title forty two. And they say COVID exists everywhere on
Speaker 1: Earth except our southern border. And we have last month,
Speaker 1: we had over two hundred and fifty thousand encounters with
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants in December. It is the worst month at
Speaker 1: the border in the history of our country. Let me
Speaker 1: repeat that, December of twenty twenty two was the highest
Speaker 1: level of illegal immigration ever recorded in the history of
Speaker 1: the United States of America, over two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand illegal encounters. And it's the tenth consecutive month with
Speaker 1: encounters over two hundred thousand. And yet the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is saying COVID doesn't exist at the border, just in
Speaker 1: every kindergarten, in every hospital, in the federal government, everywhere
Speaker 1: they want to have their tentacles of power, except when
Speaker 1: it comes to securing the border. Yeah it is. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you quickly about my orchism. Before we
Speaker 1: get to that, I want to tell you real quick
Speaker 1: about our friends at August of Precious Metals. If you
Speaker 1: have saved a long time for retirement, then you understand
Speaker 1: how important is to protect your money and you can
Speaker 1: do that with a gold Ira. I'm excited to tell
Speaker 1: you about a company that I trust and use, a
Speaker 1: Gust of Precious Medals. They're different because they will even
Speaker 1: tell you if a gold Ira isn't your answer, No pressure,
Speaker 1: just the facts. August of Precious Metal is all about
Speaker 1: protecting iras and four o one case. In this crazy economy,
Speaker 1: it's so important that you look at your retirement understand
Speaker 1: where you are because many times there's no time to
Speaker 1: make up losses. So if you have one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars or more, take a look at their free guide
Speaker 1: or sign up for their web conference. I've done it.
Speaker 1: Both are filled with economic insight and gold ira info
Speaker 1: for your peace of mind. That's a pretty big deal.
Speaker 1: Call August of Precious Medals eight seven seven four Gold
Speaker 1: Ira that's eight seven seven four gold Ira or visit
Speaker 1: augusta Precious Medals dot com say I sent you and
Speaker 1: they will even pay your fees up to ten years.
Speaker 1: That's a gust of precious medals eight seven seven four
Speaker 1: the number four gold Ira or August of Precious Medals
Speaker 1: dot com. Let's talk about my Orcus for a second. Senator.
Speaker 1: There were a lot of people that believe that there's
Speaker 1: a good chance that he could be investigated, even impeached,
Speaker 1: because of him knowing what was happening at the border
Speaker 1: the entire time and misleading the country about it, claiming
Speaker 1: that the border is secure when he knew it wasn't secure.
Speaker 1: And that's really just the tip of the iceberg. Is
Speaker 1: there going to be any movement you think early in
Speaker 1: this year on that, at least on the House side.
Speaker 1: I believe the answer is yes. I believe the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives will impeach Alejandro may Orcus. I think they
Speaker 1: will do it this year, likely in the first half
Speaker 1: of the year. I will be shocked if they don't
Speaker 1: go forward it is I think it's extremely likely, and
Speaker 1: I think it is important. We have never had a
Speaker 1: Cabinet secretary so utterly refused to do his job and
Speaker 1: in fact instruct his employees to actively defy federal law.
Speaker 1: To frustrate federal law. Federal immigration law requires that people
Speaker 1: here illegally be removed be deported. Instead, what majorcas has
Speaker 1: done is directed Homeland Security to facilitate an expedite people
Speaker 1: breaking the law that he wants the turnstile to move
Speaker 1: more quickly. His entire objective is to have even more
Speaker 1: people come here illegally. It's not to stop them, it's
Speaker 1: not to deport them, it's not to secure the border.
Speaker 1: He wants to make it even more efficient that when
Speaker 1: you cross illegally, Joe Biden's travel agent will take you
Speaker 1: wherever you want to go and set you up. It is.
Speaker 1: There has never been a cabinet officer devote his entire
Speaker 1: time to number one, abdicating his entire statutory responsibility. But
Speaker 1: number two even worse. If he simply abdicated and didn't
Speaker 1: do his job, that would be terrible. But he's doing
Speaker 1: even worse. He is directing everyone in his control to
Speaker 1: actively facilitate law breaking. And I believe the House will
Speaker 1: impeach him, and then in the Senate, Chuck Schumer will
Speaker 1: do everything he can to sweep it under the rug
Speaker 1: and have nobody pay attention. But we need to focus
Speaker 1: the American people on the tragedy that is unfolding every
Speaker 1: day on the southern border, that the media ignores and
Speaker 1: that the Democrats have caused. Finally, you talked about this
Speaker 1: on the last episode, and it was a pretty funny
Speaker 1: conversation from my perspective, saying you and we showed the
Speaker 1: old tweet you predicted and if you missed this, guys,
Speaker 1: go back and listen to the last episode of Verdict.
Speaker 1: You predicted that there was going to be hell to
Speaker 1: pay for kicking Republicans off committees when Nancy Pelosi allowed
Speaker 1: that to happen, saying, if you're going to do it,
Speaker 1: two Republicans is probably gonna be done right back to you. Now,
Speaker 1: the media is trying to say do everything they can
Speaker 1: to save people and act like there somehow a victim
Speaker 1: of the exact same thing that they were doing to Republicans.
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell and I guess this is like rehab one
Speaker 1: oh one, I'm talking about rehab on TV, trying to
Speaker 1: rehabilitate him as some great congressman. He was on Stay
Speaker 1: the Union. Dana Bash set him up with this question,
Speaker 1: and I just laughed. And I want to get your
Speaker 1: reaction to it. Congressman, you were also removed by Republicans
Speaker 1: from the Intelligence Committee. What the speaker said about you
Speaker 1: is that beginning in twenty twelve, a suspected Chinese spy
Speaker 1: developed ties to you and to your office, even put
Speaker 1: an intern there, raised campaign funds for you. You say
Speaker 1: very clearly you cut off ties with this person back
Speaker 1: in twenty fifteen when you found out you cooperated with
Speaker 1: the FBI. But the bottom line question is this, did
Speaker 1: you put yourself in a vulnerable position in any way
Speaker 1: so that this alleged Chinese spy could have benefited or
Speaker 1: even learn American secrets? Absolutely not, But Dana, don't take
Speaker 1: my word for it, take the FBI's word for it.
Speaker 1: They never talk about ongoing investigations. And former chairman Chef
Speaker 1: knows this as a member of the Gang of Eight.
Speaker 1: Three different times they came out and said two things.
Speaker 1: All I did was help them, and also I was
Speaker 1: never under any suspicion of wrongcoming. So I gotta say, Ben,
Speaker 1: I can't even keep a straight face, center like, It's
Speaker 1: just like I watched this and I was like, you've
Speaker 1: got to be kidding me. They're all sitting there like
Speaker 1: this is a serious like bye, all right. So you
Speaker 1: and I both know Dana bash Well. You worked for
Speaker 1: years at CNN. You've been in the belly of the beast.
Speaker 1: I have done many an interview with Dan. I actually
Speaker 1: like her personally. She's she's less of a whack job
Speaker 1: lefty than many of the people at CNN. That being said,
Speaker 1: that question is one of the funniest things I've ever
Speaker 1: heard in my life. I actually wrote down a couple
Speaker 1: of the phrases she used. They threw you off the
Speaker 1: Intel Committee because they alleged you quote developed ties to
Speaker 1: an alleged Chinese spy. And then she goes on to say,
Speaker 1: but then you cut off ties to the alleged Chinese spy.
Speaker 1: And then she said, did you put yourself in a
Speaker 1: vulnerable position? Now, all of those are really side splitting
Speaker 1: euphemisms for you were sleeping with a Chinese spy, you
Speaker 1: weren't developing ties. She's not asking if he was into
Speaker 1: S and M and if he tied her up or not.
Speaker 1: But the phrase she doesn't want to say, were you
Speaker 1: having a sexual affair with a Chinese spy while she
Speaker 1: was working for the Communist government of China. Instead, CNN
Speaker 1: is suddenly very sensitive. No, there is no sex on CNN.
Speaker 1: It's just developed ties. It's just cut off ties. Did
Speaker 1: you put yourself in a vulnerable position? Yeah, you know what,
Speaker 1: going to bed with a Chinese spy is not developing ties.
Speaker 1: And by the way, that Chinese spy in addition to
Speaker 1: having sex with Eric Swalwell, and I will say, boy,
Speaker 1: talk about a Chinese spy willing to do anything for
Speaker 1: the Communist government. I mean that is a commitment. Yeah. Look,
Speaker 1: thank fag. I may not like who she works for,
Speaker 1: but but I do have to commend her that that
Speaker 1: that that she's willing to take a bullet. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: that's tenure on a whole new level when she got home.
Speaker 1: But but did you ever know CNN to be so
Speaker 1: fragile and sensitive to to know never spin for the politician?
Speaker 1: Can you imagine, all right, just just just engage in
Speaker 1: a thought experiment. Imagine if everything were the same, but
Speaker 1: instead of Eric Swallwell, it was Donald Trump. Remember the
Speaker 1: whole stormy Daniel states CNN twenty four to seven. And
Speaker 1: then they even said the lawyer that they yeah, you
Speaker 1: should be president. They said that on TV he was
Speaker 1: a serious contender for the White House because of quote,
Speaker 1: his presence on cable news. He was on the view,
Speaker 1: he was on every channel talking about Stormy Daniels, a
Speaker 1: porn star, Donald Trump and all of that. They ran
Speaker 1: at wall to wall prime time. But now they're going
Speaker 1: to be pc about how they talk about an actual
Speaker 1: Chinese spy actually sleeping I mean literally sleeping with the enemy.
Speaker 1: This is the definition of sleeping with the enemy. Can
Speaker 1: you imagine CNN interviewing Donald Trump about Stormy Daniels and
Speaker 1: just saying, well, the allegation is you developed ties with
Speaker 1: an alleged movie actress. I mean, that's the equivalent of this,
Speaker 1: and then you cut off ties. I don't remember their
Speaker 1: squeamish yes, nish, And it's very simple CNN views its
Speaker 1: job in that interview is we are the public relations
Speaker 1: firm for the Democrats. And so, as you mentioned, it
Speaker 1: was a rehabilitation tour. But it is so screamingly funny
Speaker 1: because they're bad at it. They're not subtle, they're naked,
Speaker 1: and you know they might as well just where I
Speaker 1: think CNN should issue blue t shirts to all of
Speaker 1: their reporters that just have DNC and a picture of
Speaker 1: a giant donkey on it, because like Nascart, you're sponsored
Speaker 1: by exactly. Yeah, it would actually be brilliant. I love it, Sentator.
Speaker 1: Always a pleasure. Don't forget if you're listening to this podcast,
Speaker 1: we do two others during the week as well. We
Speaker 1: published Monday, Wednesday Friday hit that subscribe or auto download button.
Speaker 1: Make sure you tell your family and friends about this
Speaker 1: podcast as we literally break news here as we talked
Speaker 1: about at the beginning of the show that is making
Speaker 1: major headaches for this White House. And please run us
Speaker 1: a five stor review as well so that more people
Speaker 1: will find this podcast. The Senator and I will see
Speaker 1: you back here on Wednesday.