Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you, Senator,
Speaker 2: We've got a lot to chat about, including words like
Speaker 2: MAGA and buying a Bible or going shopping at Dick's
Speaker 2: Sporting Goods could actually get you on a watch list
Speaker 2: with financial institutions in the US government.
Speaker 1: We're going to deal with that.
Speaker 2: Also, they're admitting now four years late that the Hunter
Speaker 2: Byden laptop is actually real.
Speaker 1: Yes, the DJ doing that. We're going to deal with that.
Speaker 2: But before we get to that, I want to break
Speaker 2: some news, and that is this, Senator, you decided that
Speaker 2: it was time to lead on an amicus brief on
Speaker 2: behalf of Donald Trump with the case that involves Colorado
Speaker 2: and that Supreme Court removing him from the state's twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four ballot. Not only did you file this amicus brief,
Speaker 2: but you were able to get more than one hundred
Speaker 2: and seventy lawmakers to sign on. This is significant, and
Speaker 2: yet a lot in the media are acting like this
Speaker 2: didn't actually happen. Walk us through how important this amicates
Speaker 2: brief is and exactly the basis legal basis for why
Speaker 2: you decided to do this.
Speaker 3: Well, we've talked at length about the Colorado Supreme Court
Speaker 3: decision throwing Donald Trump off the ballot, and the combination
Speaker 3: of Colorado and the main Secretary of State, I think,
Speaker 3: without hyperbole, is the greatest assault on democracy we've seen
Speaker 3: in our lifetimes. These are partisan, leftist democrats who are
Speaker 3: issuing rulings saying the voters should not be allowed to
Speaker 3: vote for Donald Trump. Mind you, these are democrats who
Speaker 3: posture all day long about how much they believe in democracy,
Speaker 3: how they're defending democracy. And nothing says defending democracy better
Speaker 3: than stopping the voters from voting for your opponent. I mean,
Speaker 3: it is an absolute assault. So yesterday I filed an
Speaker 3: amicus brief on behalf of one hundred and seventy nine
Speaker 3: members of Congress. So I led the brief in the Senate.
Speaker 3: Steve Scalise, the majority leader in the House, let it
Speaker 3: in the House. And our brief is supporting Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: and it's urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision
Speaker 3: of the Colorado Supreme Court. As we've talked about it
Speaker 3: at length, and by the way, if you did not
Speaker 3: listen to our podcast a couple of weeks ago, doing
Speaker 3: a deep dive on the Colorado Supreme Court case. You
Speaker 3: should because it is substantive analysis that you will not
Speaker 3: get on CNN, you will not get an MSNBC, you
Speaker 3: will not get anywhere else. But this brief lays out
Speaker 3: the legal arguments, and we filed it yesterday with forty
Speaker 3: six Senators and a total of one hundred and seventy
Speaker 3: nine members of Congress. And it is the main arguments
Speaker 3: we make. We make number one that under the language
Speaker 3: of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section three, that it does
Speaker 3: not prohibit Donald Trump from being a candidate. And we
Speaker 3: argue that federal legislation is required under the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaker 3: in forced section and that has not been enacted. We
Speaker 3: argue that that removing a candidate from the ballot denies
Speaker 3: Congress the power to remove a Section three disability. So
Speaker 3: under the text of the fourteenth Amendment, it says someone
Speaker 3: who participates in an insurrection engages in an insurrection is
Speaker 3: ineligible from serving an office. But then it says Congress
Speaker 3: may vote to remove that disability. And we pointed out look,
Speaker 3: if the Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot,
Speaker 3: that takes away Congress's ability to vote on the issue.
Speaker 3: And decide it. And we argue beyond that that the
Speaker 3: question of whether Section three applies is what's called a
Speaker 3: political question. A political question is something that the courts
Speaker 3: cannot and will not decide, but that is instead left
Speaker 3: to the elected and political bodies in our country, that
Speaker 3: it's left to Congress. Beyond that, we argue that under
Speaker 3: the text, in terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section three
Speaker 3: does not apply to former President Trump, that it applies
Speaker 3: to other members of the federal government, to lesser officers,
Speaker 3: but not to the president, not to the vice president.
Speaker 3: And finally, and this is a really important argument that
Speaker 3: we make, we argue that the Colorado Supreme Court's decision
Speaker 3: lacks neutral principles, and if it's upheld, it would lead
Speaker 3: to widespread deballoting of political opponents. In other words, if
Speaker 3: the Colorado decision is upheld, you will see Democrats all
Speaker 3: across the country removing Republicans from the ballot. And you
Speaker 3: will see in a tit for tat republicans moving Democrats
Speaker 3: from the vallet. And that is bad for this country.
Speaker 3: It's bad for democracy. It's not the rule of law.
Speaker 3: It is a terrible outcome. And so what one hundred
Speaker 3: and seventy nine of us came together yesterday to say,
Speaker 3: is the Supreme Court should reverse this? And as you
Speaker 3: and I have talked about, I believe it is incredibly important.
Speaker 3: I think it's a very real chance that the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court will reverse this unanimous. I hope and pray that
Speaker 3: they do, because I don't want to see a partisan divide,
Speaker 3: a six to three decision where the press can say, oh,
Speaker 3: all the Republicans voted one way, all the Democrats voted
Speaker 3: the other way. I think a unanimous decision saying the
Speaker 3: voters are going to decide the next president. It's not
Speaker 3: going to be partisan Democrats, it's not going to be judges.
Speaker 3: It's going to be the voters of the people of America.
Speaker 3: I think a unanimous decision saying that would be incredibly
Speaker 3: important for the country, incredibly important for the rule of law,
Speaker 3: and incredibly important for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: I got to go back to a question about this
Speaker 2: amicus brief and just talking about the one hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy plus lawmakers that you're able to sign on to
Speaker 2: that that is not saying you hear very often for anything.
Speaker 2: How willing were others And I'm assuming very willing to
Speaker 2: jump on board so quickly with this amicus brief, and
Speaker 2: how significant will that be for those at the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court who will be reading this.
Speaker 3: Well, look, remember this case was set for very expedited schedule.
Speaker 3: So the argument is February eighth, which is just a
Speaker 3: couple of weeks from now, and we had just about
Speaker 3: a week to draft this brief. And so I directed
Speaker 3: as soon as the Court took the case, I directed
Speaker 3: my team, let's draft a brief. This is the most
Speaker 3: important opportunity to defend democracy we've had in our country,
Speaker 3: and I wanted us to lead. So I got our
Speaker 3: team drafting the brief. We drafted it, We had it
Speaker 3: prepared two days ago, and so two days ago we
Speaker 3: circulated it to other members of Congress. What I did
Speaker 3: yesterday is I went to the Republican Study Committee, which
Speaker 3: is the largest conservative group in the House, and I
Speaker 3: went there and I talked about the amicus brief, and
Speaker 3: Steve Scalise has circulated it. But I talked to about
Speaker 3: one hundred and fifty House members and I said, look,
Speaker 3: this is incredibly important. This is a defensive democracy. We
Speaker 3: all ought to stand together, and that I think helped
Speaker 3: produce a lot of the House members who joined us.
Speaker 3: And then at our Senate lunch. You know we've talked
Speaker 3: about before when the senators in session, all the Senate Republicans,
Speaker 3: we have lunch together every Tuesday, every Wednesday, every Thursday.
Speaker 3: And so I stood up at Wednesday's lunch and I
Speaker 3: told everyone, I said, look, we've circulated this brief. It
Speaker 3: is incredibly important. I'd like for all of us to
Speaker 3: be united. And it's a very quick timeframe. I said, look,
Speaker 3: we circulated on Tuesday. We needed an answer by Wednesday night,
Speaker 3: and so people had to decide very quickly. Usually you
Speaker 3: have more time because the Supreme Court, when its schedules
Speaker 3: an argument, you have much more time. But this is
Speaker 3: an incredibly accelerated appeal. And we ended up getting out
Speaker 3: of forty nine Republicans, we got forty six Republican senators,
Speaker 3: so all but three joined the brief in a day
Speaker 3: and a half, and so I was very glad to
Speaker 3: see a total of one hundred and seventy nine members
Speaker 3: of Congress come together.
Speaker 2: For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
Speaker 2: conservative wireless provider. And when I say only, I mean it.
Speaker 2: They are the only one. Patriot Mobile is a fabulous
Speaker 2: supporter of this show, which is why I'm proud to
Speaker 2: partner with him, and I have been now.
Speaker 1: For almost a decade.
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile offers you, as a conservative, two things that
Speaker 2: are going to be very important. Number one, dependable nationwide coverage,
Speaker 2: giving you the ability to access all of the major
Speaker 2: network towers that you're using right now, which means you
Speaker 2: get the same coverage that you've been accustomed to. But
Speaker 2: the most important thing is without funding the left. Now,
Speaker 2: when I say fund the left, you may say, what
Speaker 2: do you mean. You may not realize just how much
Speaker 2: Big Mobile actually hates you and your family values, your faith,
Speaker 2: and how much they're giving to plan parenthood.
Speaker 1: That's why I switched to Patriot Mobile. And when I
Speaker 1: look down at my phone.
Speaker 2: I see Patriot up in the upper left hand corner,
Speaker 2: and I know that every time that I'm sending a message,
Speaker 2: every time I'm on that phone, I am supporting with
Speaker 2: my dollars an organization that supports free speech, religious freedom,
Speaker 2: the sancty of life, Second Amendment, as well as our
Speaker 2: military veterans and first responder heroes.
Speaker 1: They have a one hundred.
Speaker 2: Percent US based customer service team, which makes switching easy.
Speaker 2: I just had to switch over a phone the other day.
Speaker 2: It was easy. When I say easy, I mean easy.
Speaker 2: You get to keep your same cell phone number you
Speaker 2: have right now. You can keep your same phone you
Speaker 2: have in your hand, or upgrade it to a new one,
Speaker 2: and their team will help you find the best plan
Speaker 2: for your needs. Now, when you pay your bill, that's
Speaker 2: when the real magic happens. They take a percentage of
Speaker 2: that bill at no cost to you, and they give
Speaker 2: it back to the conservative causes that I just mentioned.
Speaker 2: So you're making a difference and standing with your values
Speaker 2: instead of giving your money to companies that literally hate
Speaker 2: what you believe in. So make the switch by going
Speaker 2: to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict, or call them nine to seven
Speaker 2: to Patriot that's nine seven to two. Patriot get free
Speaker 2: activation when you use the promo code verdict join me
Speaker 2: make the switch today. Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict that's
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict are nine to seven
Speaker 2: to Patriot Center. Our last question on this brief, explain
Speaker 2: a little bit of what the court is going to
Speaker 2: be looking at with these amicus briefs. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of them that are obviously being written because it's
Speaker 2: such a big issue.
Speaker 1: How do they prioritize them?
Speaker 2: And does if an amicus brief is read by one justice,
Speaker 2: is it read by all of them?
Speaker 1: How does that work?
Speaker 3: So amicus briefs are read by all nine justices, And
Speaker 3: what will happen is all of the briefs in the
Speaker 3: case are sent to all nine justices. They will get
Speaker 3: briefs from the petitioner, who is the person who's appealing.
Speaker 3: They will get a merits brief from the respondent, who
Speaker 3: is the person who prevailed below, and they will get
Speaker 3: a reply brief from the petitioner. And then beyond that,
Speaker 3: you will have amicus briefs supporting one party, supporting the
Speaker 3: other party, and you'll have some amicus briefs supporting neither party.
Speaker 3: And in a case, in a given case, you could
Speaker 3: have a lot of amicus briefs. I've when I was
Speaker 3: clerking at the court, I had where we had as
Speaker 3: many as like fifty sixty seventy amicus briefs, so lots
Speaker 3: of people. Amicus is short for amicus curier, which is
Speaker 3: Latin for friend of the Court, and so an amicus
Speaker 3: brief is a brief that is filed by someone who's
Speaker 3: not a party but that wants to share their views
Speaker 3: and believe they're relevant to the issues before the court.
Speaker 3: I don't know how many amicus briefs were filed before
Speaker 3: the Court in this case, will know shortly from the
Speaker 3: docket sheet. But to get a brief from one hundred
Speaker 3: and seventy nine members of Congress is a big deal.
Speaker 3: That is unusual, that happens very rarely.
Speaker 2: When you say rarely, I'm trying to go back in
Speaker 2: history and remember any time where I've heard something like
Speaker 2: this when it comes to Supreme Court. I can't think
Speaker 2: of one. And I think that's one of the reasons
Speaker 2: why I am so excited that you did this, and
Speaker 2: also excited that many people also understood the urgency of this.
Speaker 2: And as you described it, having a Nino decision is
Speaker 2: good for America.
Speaker 1: It's not a political decision.
Speaker 2: It's good for this country on so many different levels
Speaker 2: that you can't just take political opponents off the ballot.
Speaker 1: And that's clearly your goal here.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. And look, I filed a lot of
Speaker 3: amicus briefs for the Supreme Court in the Senate, particularly
Speaker 3: on religious liberty. And typically when I file an amicus brief,
Speaker 3: I get oh, ten to fifteen senators, and by the
Speaker 3: way those briefs get read, they get considered. We've tried
Speaker 3: to write serious briefs. Actually, I've written several amicus briefs
Speaker 3: along with Mike Johnson, who is now the Speaker of
Speaker 3: the House, but before he was, he was just a
Speaker 3: member of the House who had been a religious liberty
Speaker 3: constitutional lawyer, and so he and I teamed up multiple times.
Speaker 3: Mike Johnson joined this brief, but he and I teamed
Speaker 3: up multiple times. But typically, you know, i'd get like
Speaker 3: I said, ten to fifteen twenty senators on board a brief,
Speaker 3: and that was significant. To get forty six senators, to
Speaker 3: get a total of one hundred and seventy nine members
Speaker 3: of Congress, that is unusual. I've had moments so back
Speaker 3: two decades ago, when I was the Solicitor General of Texas,
Speaker 3: we had a case concerning the Pledge of Allegiance where
Speaker 3: an atheist living out in California, guy named Michael Newdow
Speaker 3: filed a lawsuit arguing that it violated the Constitution for
Speaker 3: the words one Nation under God to be in the
Speaker 3: Pledge of Allegiance. And amazingly enough, this atheist one in
Speaker 3: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit has
Speaker 3: consistently been the most liberal court of appeals in the country.
Speaker 3: And the Ninth Circuit ruled it violated the establishment clause
Speaker 3: of the First Amendment to have the words one Nation
Speaker 3: under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. That went up
Speaker 3: an appeal to the US Supreme Court, and I was
Speaker 3: Solicitor General of Texas at the time. I drafted an
Speaker 3: amicust brief that ended up being joined by all fifty states.
Speaker 3: It's the only one I know of that every single
Speaker 3: state joined. And we defended the Pledge of Allegiance. And
Speaker 3: I'll tell you at the very end, when we had
Speaker 3: about forty eight, I got on the phone with the
Speaker 3: sgs and in the states that were holdouts, and they
Speaker 3: were kind of arguing back and forth, and I said, look,
Speaker 3: you know, if your attorney general wants to be the
Speaker 3: only attorney general in the country that doesn't support the
Speaker 3: Pledge of Allegiance, all right, I mean that's I commend
Speaker 3: you for your courage. I'm not sure it's wisdom, but
Speaker 3: it is certainly brave. And so you know, stand up
Speaker 3: and tell your voters to go jump in a lake.
Speaker 3: That that's really bold. And the last couple said, you
Speaker 3: know what, we'll join this brief too, and so we
Speaker 3: had fifty there. Anytime you get this many on board,
Speaker 3: it takes personal advocacy, and I don't think it would
Speaker 3: have happened in this brief had I not gone to
Speaker 3: the House and made the case directly to House members,
Speaker 3: and had I not stood up at the Senate lunch
Speaker 3: and made the case directly to my Senate colleagues.
Speaker 2: I want to move Senator also to this other really
Speaker 2: shocking story, and it just shows you how bad our
Speaker 2: government has become. And I'm talking about the deep state
Speaker 2: here with the FEDS targeting conservatives with alarming new surveillance.
Speaker 2: The FEDS asked banking institutions to search private transactions without
Speaker 2: any type of warrants for terms like maga trump or
Speaker 2: other words that dealt with things that were biblical purchases.
Speaker 1: That can include a Bible.
Speaker 2: Also, keywords that they said that they suggested that banks
Speaker 2: look for in transactions would be things like sporting goods stores,
Speaker 2: like Dick Sporting Goods, Kabella's Bass pro Shop in More.
Speaker 2: This is such an abuse of power and a weaponization
Speaker 2: of the federal government on the American people. When I
Speaker 2: hear this, I want to know, how is this not
Speaker 2: breaking the law to be able to do this without
Speaker 2: there being any probable cause or warns where they can
Speaker 2: just go to my bank and say, hey, if any
Speaker 2: of these things are there, we want to know about it.
Speaker 3: Look, this is an enormous abuse of power. It is
Speaker 3: an enormous violation of the privacy of Americans. This happened
Speaker 3: the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan released the documents that
Speaker 3: they got from the Treasury Department. And this all happened
Speaker 3: after January sixth, twenty twenty one. So after January sixth,
Speaker 3: you had Joe Biden in power, and these zealots said,
Speaker 3: we are going to target our political enemies. We have
Speaker 3: the entire federal government as a weapon. We are going
Speaker 3: to go after them. And this was driven by the
Speaker 3: Treasury Department's Office of Stakeholder Integration and Engagement in the
Speaker 3: Strategic Operations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. And it's
Speaker 3: called Finnsen is the acronym, and it distributed materials to
Speaker 3: financial institutions that outlined quote typologies of quote various persons
Speaker 3: of interest. Now, those typologies included anyone using the term Trump,
Speaker 3: anyone using the term maga. And they said, these are
Speaker 3: people more likely to be quote loan actor, homegrown, violent extremists.
Speaker 3: And according to the Judiciary Committee's analysis, Finnsen wanted this
Speaker 3: is a quote Finnsend wanted financial institutions of extremism indicators
Speaker 3: that include transportation charges such as bus tickets, rental cars,
Speaker 3: plane tickets for travel areas with noparent purpose, or the
Speaker 3: purchase of books, including religious texts, and subscriptions to other
Speaker 3: media containing extremist views. Now what kind of religious books. Well,
Speaker 3: among them was the Bible. If you went and bought
Speaker 3: the Bible, the Biden Treasury Department was reporting that, Okay,
Speaker 3: we think you're in danger of being a terrorist because
Speaker 3: you purchased the Bible. So if if you had any
Speaker 3: financial transaction that included the word Trump or maga, they
Speaker 3: thought you were in danger of being a terrorist. If
Speaker 3: you bought the Bible, you were in danger of being
Speaker 3: the terrorist. And they also instructed financial institution to query
Speaker 3: for transactions using certain codes like small arms and that
Speaker 3: that is an MCC code of three four eight four.
Speaker 3: Or Sporting and Recreational goods in supply that's an MCC
Speaker 3: code of five zero nine to one and the keywords
Speaker 3: and this is what Treasury specified. Cabella's, Dick Sportings Goods,
Speaker 3: and Bass Pro Shop. And I'll point out Dick Sporting
Speaker 3: good in the middle of all the Democrat efforts to
Speaker 3: engage in gun control came out rather loudly against the
Speaker 3: second amendments. So as for me, I don't go to
Speaker 3: Dick's Sporting's Goods, but bess Pro Shops and Cabela's are
Speaker 3: both fantastic institutions, and if you shop there, the Biden
Speaker 3: administration wanted to know because if you go to bess
Speaker 3: Pro Shops, they think you're a likely terrorists. It's outrageous.
Speaker 2: It's also, I think shocking how easily people were giving
Speaker 2: up this information. Why is it that we now find
Speaker 2: out that so many businesses are willing to just say
Speaker 2: here's everything when they're asked, not say hey, we'd get
Speaker 2: a warrant for this or show me some actual paperwork.
Speaker 2: It seems that almost all of these companies are complicit
Speaker 2: saying we're more than happy to help you invade on
Speaker 2: the privacy of our customers. From a standpoint you just
Speaker 2: mentioned of Dick's Sporting Goods. When I look at companies
Speaker 2: that do this, I say, I'm never wanting to go
Speaker 2: there again, certainly not with a credit card.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 3: So it's not clear that the retailers we're engaged in
Speaker 3: this process. So it's not clear that Cabela's, are Dick
Speaker 3: Sporting good or Beast Pro shops were participating. This was
Speaker 3: directed at banks, and listen, banks. Banks are massively regulated
Speaker 3: by the federal government. They are dealing literally every day
Speaker 3: with their federal regulators. The federal government has enormous power
Speaker 3: over banks, and so I understand from a bank's perspective,
Speaker 3: Treasury is leaning on them and saying we want this information.
Speaker 3: The federal government has the ability to shut down a bank,
Speaker 3: to destroy a bank's business if they disagree with you.
Speaker 3: And so it is an area where for big state
Speaker 3: leftists that want to know everything about your personal life.
Speaker 3: Banks are a real vulnerability because every one of us,
Speaker 3: if you're dealing with modern life, if you're depositing a
Speaker 3: paycheck in your bank account, if you're paying your bills
Speaker 3: with a bank account, if you have a credit card,
Speaker 3: your financial records detail what you're spending money on. And
Speaker 3: by the way, the left, just like communist China, wants
Speaker 3: to know every single thing you spend money on. You know,
Speaker 3: one of the very first versions of the build Back
Speaker 3: Broke bill, they called it build back Better, but I
Speaker 3: think build Back Broke defined it more accurately. One of
Speaker 3: the earliest versions required banks to report to the federal government.
Speaker 3: So if you're making a car payment, if you're making
Speaker 3: a rent payment, you know, we're not quite there, but
Speaker 3: we're not far away from. If you're filling up your
Speaker 3: tank with gas, you had to report to the federal government.
Speaker 3: And for leftist Elizabeth Warren and President she and China
Speaker 3: both want to know every single thing you spend a
Speaker 3: penny on. And this is an example of the Treasury Department.
Speaker 3: Janet Yellen, you know George Orwell's nineteen eighty four talked
Speaker 3: about big brother. Janet Yellen is perfectly happy to be
Speaker 3: big sister and try to gather as much information about
Speaker 3: your personal financial transactions as humanly possible.
Speaker 2: What will the outcome be of this, I guess you
Speaker 2: could say new investigation and is there any way to
Speaker 2: stop this from happening in the future, or as long
Speaker 2: as the Biden administration's in power, can they continue to
Speaker 2: get away with this abuse of power?
Speaker 3: Well, look, we can have congressional oversight, and we will
Speaker 3: and the House will engage in it because the House
Speaker 3: has a majority, and so they can hold hearings. In
Speaker 3: the Senate, no Democrat cares. So in the Senate, we
Speaker 3: will not have a single hearing on this. Why because
Speaker 3: the consequence of having a majority in the Senate is
Speaker 3: whoever has the majority has the committee chairman. So I
Speaker 3: am the ranking member on the Senate Commerce Committee. That
Speaker 3: means I'm the senior Republican on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
Speaker 3: and Transportation. That's a committee that has jurisdiction over forty
Speaker 3: percent of the US economy. It's an enormously consequential committee.
Speaker 3: As the ranking member, I have the ability to fight
Speaker 3: hard for jobs and economic growth in the state of Texas,
Speaker 3: and I do that across the country and I do
Speaker 3: that every day. But what I don't have the ability
Speaker 3: to do is I can't convene a hearing. Only the
Speaker 3: chairman can convene a hearing. So in the Senate. There
Speaker 3: is literally not a single Democrat that gives a dam
Speaker 3: that the Biden administration is violating your privacy by engaging
Speaker 3: in the searches because they all of them, they hate
Speaker 3: Donald Trump so much that they've been radicalized, and they
Speaker 3: believe it's perfectly justifiable to weaponize the federal government. So
Speaker 3: you ask, what can Congress do. Look, if we had
Speaker 3: control of both bodies, we could pass legislation to stop this.
Speaker 3: Under a Chuck Schumer Democrat Senate. They're not going to
Speaker 3: pass legislation to stop it. No Democrat will support it.
Speaker 3: So that means we can do oversight. I can write letters,
Speaker 3: I can give speeches, I can shine a light on it.
Speaker 3: I can do this podcast. But I can't convene a
Speaker 3: hearing of the Judiciary Committee because Dick Durbin, the chairman,
Speaker 3: won't do it. I can't pass legislation because no Democrat
Speaker 3: will support. And so at this point, elections have consequences,
Speaker 3: and as long as we're in the minority, what I'm
Speaker 3: limited to be able to do on something like this
Speaker 3: an abuse of power of the Biden administration is shine
Speaker 3: a light and do everything I can to encourage the
Speaker 3: American people to be outraged at this and hold their
Speaker 3: elected officials accountable for violating their privacy.
Speaker 2: And clearly it should become an election year issue, especially
Speaker 2: for conservatives this time around, because I think this is
Speaker 2: the type of issue that will really connect with conservative
Speaker 2: voters who say enough is enough and stop treating us
Speaker 2: like we are terrorists just because we are conservatives. I
Speaker 2: go back and remind people what they did to parents.
Speaker 2: It should up been school board meetings putting out those
Speaker 2: FBI memos, treating them like their domestic terrorists. This is
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party and their doj and what they will
Speaker 2: do to conservatives. It's twenty twenty four and a lot
Speaker 2: of us are trying to get our finances in order.
Speaker 2: There are some great news for homeowners. Interest rates have
Speaker 2: dropped and are now in the fives, a lot lower
Speaker 2: than they were last year. So if you've been buried
Speaker 2: in high interest credit card debt, now's the time to
Speaker 2: break free. American Financing can help you access to cash
Speaker 2: in your home to pay off your high interest debt.
Speaker 2: Last year, their salary based mortgage consultants help customers save
Speaker 2: an average of eight hundred and fifty four dollars a month.
Speaker 2: That's like giving yourself a ten thousand dollars raise. What
Speaker 2: a way to start the new year. And if you
Speaker 2: start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments.
Speaker 2: Call American Financing Today eight at eight six seven five
Speaker 2: forty ninety that's eight and eight six seven five forty
Speaker 2: ninety or Americanfinancing dot net MLS eighteen twenty three thirty
Speaker 2: four MLS Consumer Access dot org APR for the rates
Speaker 2: and the five start at six point four zero six
Speaker 2: percent for well qualified borrowers. Call eight and eight six
Speaker 2: seven five forty eight ninety for details about credit costs
Speaker 2: and terms.
Speaker 1: Center.
Speaker 2: Lastly, I want to move to another story that has broken.
Speaker 2: It's one that is captain obvious. Yeah, we already knew this,
Speaker 2: and yet somehow we've finally gotten the admission of something
Speaker 2: we all knew from the very beginning. Biden's Department of
Speaker 2: Justice is admitting now that Hunter Biden's laptop is in
Speaker 2: fact real. Four years after Biden's Laptop from Hell was
Speaker 2: falsely labeled misinformation, the DOJ is admitting it's real.
Speaker 1: We also knew at the time. They knew it was real,
Speaker 1: and the FBI knew it was real.
Speaker 2: And we also now know that those fifty plus leaders
Speaker 2: in the intelligence community, they knew that it was real
Speaker 2: when they lied to the American people to influence the
Speaker 2: election in the last presidential cycle.
Speaker 1: Your reaction to this.
Speaker 3: Look, this is a stunning admission. It means Joe Biden
Speaker 3: lied to the American people. Hunter Biden lied to the
Speaker 3: American people. Just about every single elected Democrat in America
Speaker 3: lied to the American people. Just about every single corporate
Speaker 3: media outlet that repeated the Democrat talking points lied to
Speaker 3: the American people. I want to read you what the
Speaker 3: Biden Department of Justice just filed the federal court. This
Speaker 3: is from a brief and the heading is, while investigating
Speaker 3: the defendant for tax violations, investigators obtained evidence showing his
Speaker 3: prior gun purchase was illegal because he was addicted to
Speaker 3: controlled substances. And here's the paragraph. In August twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: IRS and FBI investigators obtained a search warrant for tax
Speaker 3: violation for defendant's Apple iCloud account. In response to that warrant,
Speaker 3: in September of twenty nineteen, Apple produced backups of data
Speaker 3: from various of the defendant's electronic devices that he had
Speaker 3: backed up to his iCloud account. Investigators also later came
Speaker 3: into possession of the defendant's Apple MacBook Pro, which he
Speaker 3: had left at a computer store. A search warrant was
Speaker 3: also obtained for his laptop, and the results of the
Speaker 3: search were largely duplicative of information investigators had already obtained
Speaker 3: for Apple. That means the Biden Department of Justice is
Speaker 3: admitting the Hunter laptop is real. It was his laptop,
Speaker 3: he left it the repair station. The information on it
Speaker 3: is accurate. They knew it was accurate. They knew it
Speaker 3: was accurate in twenty nineteen. They knew it was accurate
Speaker 3: because they had the information from Hunter Biden's Apple iCloud
Speaker 3: account and it was the same thing. So they knew
Speaker 3: it was real. And yet they did not make that public.
Speaker 3: And Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and just about every
Speaker 3: elected Democrat lied to the American people and said this
Speaker 3: is not real, This is not his laptop, this is
Speaker 3: Russian misinformation, this is planted by Vladimir Putin, and the media,
Speaker 3: the corporate media was utterly complicit. They repeated it over
Speaker 3: and over and over again. And by the way, to
Speaker 3: the best of my knowledge, so we now have the
Speaker 3: Biden DOJ saying every word they said was a lie.
Speaker 3: I'm not aware of a single corporate media outlet that
Speaker 3: has apologized that has retracted what they've said. The New
Speaker 3: York Times, to the best of my knowledge, has not,
Speaker 3: The Washington Post has not, ABCNBCCBS is not, MSNBC has not,
Speaker 3: CNN has not. They are perfectly happy to have lied
Speaker 3: to the American people. And by the way, lied to
Speaker 3: the American people in October of twenty twenty, right before
Speaker 3: the presidential election. They all lied to the American people.
Speaker 3: And now the Biden DOJ has admitted it was a lie,
Speaker 3: and DOJ knew it was a lie then, and they
Speaker 3: were perfectly happy with that lie being told to the
Speaker 3: American people.
Speaker 1: We play the liar in chief.
Speaker 2: This is the then candidate Joe Biden at a president
Speaker 2: to debate, standing next to Donald Trump, and I'll start
Speaker 2: with this guy, and then you can hear him throughout
Speaker 2: that entire campaign cycle.
Speaker 4: Fifty former national intelligence folks who said that what this
Speaker 4: he's accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have
Speaker 4: said that this has all the four five former heads
Speaker 4: of the CIA, both parties say what he's saying is
Speaker 4: a bunch of garbage. This is classic Trump. We have
Speaker 4: four days left and all of a sudden, there's a laptop.
Speaker 4: There's overwhelming evidence that from the intelligence community that the
Speaker 4: Russians are engaged, that the story from the fall of
Speaker 4: Altri Sunbunder said yes, yes, yes, I know you'd ask it.
Speaker 5: I have no response to another.
Speaker 4: It's the lastest effort in this desperate campaign to smear
Speaker 4: me and my family. The vast majority of the intelligence
Speaker 4: people will have come out and said, there's no basis at.
Speaker 2: All, no basis at all. Turns out he was lying
Speaker 2: the entire time. By the way, he knew it was
Speaker 2: the laptop of his son. He knew it wasn't Russian disinformation,
Speaker 2: and hundred did too, and the DOJ knew it as well,
Speaker 2: and the FBI knew as well. At this point, center,
Speaker 2: how do you trust anything coming out of this FBI
Speaker 2: and this DOJ.
Speaker 1: If this is what they're doing in the process, you can't.
Speaker 3: They've demonstrated that they're willing to be partisans, They're willing
Speaker 3: to lie to the American people, and they don't feel
Speaker 3: they have any obligation to the truth. I mean, this
Speaker 3: does enormous damage to the Department of Justice, the FBI,
Speaker 3: because they knew as a fact that what Biden was saying,
Speaker 3: that what was being said public was a total lie.
Speaker 3: And by the way, the fifty quote intelligence professional professionals.
Speaker 3: You know who organized that group?
Speaker 1: Who was that?
Speaker 3: Tony Blincoln and Secretary Tilly.
Speaker 2: Wickins job was then he was working for the Biden campaign.
Speaker 3: He was working for the Biden campaign, and he got rewarded.
Speaker 3: I get to say, as a president about the biggest
Speaker 3: plum you have to offer is Secretary of State is
Speaker 3: the most prestigious cabinet position. And for the job of
Speaker 3: organizing all these intelligence officials to lie, every one of
Speaker 3: these fifty. By the way, a reporter, if there's any
Speaker 3: honest reporter in America, they ought to ask every one of
Speaker 3: these fifty you lied to the American people weeks before
Speaker 3: a presidential election. Are you embarrassed or do you apologize
Speaker 3: to the American people? What did you do wrong to
Speaker 3: cause you to lie to the American people? Did you
Speaker 3: abuse their trust? Are you and shamed of your role? Now?
Speaker 3: I don't think there'll be a single reporter that asked
Speaker 3: them that, because the corporate media participated the lies as well.
Speaker 3: They're not embarrassed, they're not ashamed, and they're certainly not
Speaker 3: going to ask the liars who participated in What is
Speaker 3: you want to talk about election interference? This is blatant
Speaker 3: election interference.
Speaker 2: Not only that, but it brings up a new lie.
Speaker 2: It's one that represented James Comer was talking about on Hannity.
Speaker 2: He had this to say about the new life from
Speaker 2: Joe Biden and the Biden crime family, about.
Speaker 1: The art that his son was selling. Take a listen.
Speaker 6: Let me ask you about the other two issues the
Speaker 6: stories that John Solomon was reporting on. One is the
Speaker 6: art dealer and the testimony that was given. Were we
Speaker 6: not told that they had an ethics agreement that Hunter
Speaker 6: would not know the people that purchased his art. Now
Speaker 6: we know that Joe Biden, the big guy himself, was
Speaker 6: speaking to the art dealer directly. That was testimony apparently
Speaker 6: that you received. And what do you have to say
Speaker 6: about the cocaine that the FBI knew about in twenty
Speaker 6: eighteen as it relates to his gun holster. We have
Speaker 6: only about a minute left.
Speaker 5: This is another major law that Joe Bidens told the
Speaker 5: American people. The White House said they had an agreement
Speaker 5: in place to provide maximum ethics. We really thought they
Speaker 5: probably had something in place. It probably wasn't worth the
Speaker 5: paper that it was written on. But we were shocked
Speaker 5: to learn from George Burgess in the transcribed interview that
Speaker 5: he's never even heard from anyone from the White House.
Speaker 5: He didn't know anything about an ethics agreement. He had
Speaker 5: never even seen in the news where there was an
Speaker 5: ethics agreement. So, you know, again, another live of Joe Biden,
Speaker 5: another Live of the White House. Nothing is panting out
Speaker 5: that Joe Biden said with respect to his family shady
Speaker 5: business teams. We're going to bring Hunter Biden in. We're
Speaker 5: going to get answers from from all of these people.
Speaker 1: They're going to get answers from all these people.
Speaker 2: These are just some of the questions they're going to
Speaker 2: get to ask in theory if he shows up Hunter Biden,
Speaker 2: And I gotta imagine that if you're you know, any
Speaker 2: one of these Republican congressmen are women that may get
Speaker 2: to ask him questions, or James Comer, Jim Jordan, you've
Speaker 2: got to be chomping at the bit to get answers.
Speaker 3: Well, I got to say, we're really in an unusual
Speaker 3: moment of time. Listen, politicians are not known for tremendous honesty.
Speaker 3: To put it mildly, but as a general matter, presidents
Speaker 3: of the United States do not routinely lie to the
Speaker 3: American people. And I'm not suggesting that's because all of
Speaker 3: our presidents have been paragons of integrity. I think there
Speaker 3: have been presidents that would certainly have been willing to lie.
Speaker 3: But the reason presidents typically don't commit direct lies to
Speaker 3: the American people is they get caught. And when they
Speaker 3: get caught, it undermines their credibility and it hurts you.
Speaker 3: And most politicians, even if they're venal and self serving,
Speaker 3: they don't want to get caught to lie because it
Speaker 3: hurts their credibility. The Biden presidency has been unique in
Speaker 3: the history of our country, with the willingness of Joe
Speaker 3: Biden and every person who works for him to lie
Speaker 3: on a daily basis, over and over and over again
Speaker 3: and not spin. Look, everyone spins. I don't fault a
Speaker 3: White House Democrat or Republican for spinning, for trying to
Speaker 3: put a good twist on the facts. Straight out lies
Speaker 3: things that are demonstrably absolutely false. What you just played
Speaker 3: Joe Biden saying this laptop is Russian disinformation. He knew
Speaker 3: it was his son's laptop. His son knew it was
Speaker 3: his son's laptop. It was his son's laptop. It was
Speaker 3: a flat out lie. There's not that that's not a
Speaker 3: matter of perspective. That's just blatantly false. Why is it
Speaker 3: that Joe Biden, unique among presidents, lies on seemingly a
Speaker 3: daily basis to the American people? And the reason is
Speaker 3: because the American corporate media is broken. You want to
Speaker 3: know who's responsible for Biden's lying. Jake Tapper, and you
Speaker 3: and I have talked about in my last book that
Speaker 3: just came out a couple of months ago, Unwoke, How
Speaker 3: to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America. I have an entire
Speaker 3: chapter I talk about the leftist takeover in major institutions.
Speaker 3: I have an entire chapter on journalism, and I talk
Speaker 3: about how Jake Tapper used to be a journalist. He
Speaker 3: used to care about truth, and then Trump broke Kim
Speaker 3: and he is now a propaganda see is a shell
Speaker 3: of his former self. You know, Jake Tapper, you work
Speaker 3: for years for CNN. Jake Tapper knows that Biden is
Speaker 3: lying on a daily basis. And you know what Jake
Speaker 3: Tapper doesn't do, he doesn't call about. And the fact
Speaker 3: that Jake Tapper behaves like a cheerleader and pretorian guard
Speaker 3: for the White House, like a propagandist for the White House,
Speaker 3: like Pravda for the White House, it makes the White
Speaker 3: House more and more likely to lie because they know
Speaker 3: they will not get caught anywhere other than Fox News
Speaker 3: and right wing media and they don't care what they say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no doubt about it. It's going to be very
Speaker 1: interesting to see.
Speaker 2: Also, how much of an election your issue this is
Speaker 2: and achilles heel for the president specifically because they're now admitting, yeah,
Speaker 2: they lied about all of it. And if that's what
Speaker 2: you're admitting, how is that going to change things moving forward?
Speaker 2: We're going to keep you updated on that. Don't forget
Speaker 2: we do this show Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. Make sure
Speaker 2: you hit that like subscribe and or auto download button,
Speaker 2: especially if you are on Apple, make sure that you
Speaker 2: hit that like button there. Also, please share this podcast
Speaker 2: on social media wherever you are on social media. And lastly,
Speaker 2: don't forget that you can listen to my show The
Speaker 2: Ben Ferguson podcasts on those in between days. I will
Speaker 2: keep you up to date on the latest breaking news
Speaker 2: on those in between days, and we'll see you back
Speaker 2: here for the week in review on Saturday as well.