Speaker 1: Welcome it as verdicts with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you, a massive news day with impeachment and Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy announcing that the Republicans in the House are going
Speaker 1: to move forward. We're going to do a very deep
Speaker 1: dive into that explain everything that's happening and what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in the days and weeks and months ahead.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that center, there was also
Speaker 1: some other shocking news, and that is at the House
Speaker 1: was informed. Congress was informed on the anniversary of nine
Speaker 1: to eleven that there was going to be a prisoner
Speaker 1: swap with a RAN and oh, by the way, we're
Speaker 1: going to send them basically allow them to get their
Speaker 1: hands on six billion dollars that they had in assets.
Speaker 1: This is a terrible move in my opinion. I want
Speaker 1: to get your take on this. It's shocking that's happened,
Speaker 1: especially notifying Congress on the anniversary nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: Well, it's outrageous and it's dangerous. On September eleventh, I
Speaker 2: was in New York City. I was at the fire
Speaker 2: station that lost the most post firefighters at Ground zero,
Speaker 2: fifteen firefighters from the station. I was at never returned,
Speaker 2: and I had the opportunity to speak at a memorial
Speaker 2: and to thank the families that were grieving those heroes,
Speaker 2: and I pointed out, you know, the word hero is
Speaker 2: used cheaply a lot of times to refer to athletes,
Speaker 2: to refer to musicians' hero doesn't apply to any of them.
Speaker 2: The men who charged into burning buildings knowing they were
Speaker 2: headed to certain death, they are heroes. And it was
Speaker 2: really an extraordinary honor to give tribute to them and
Speaker 2: to try to try to tell the story for young
Speaker 2: people of what happened on September eleventh. While we're there, remembering,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden couldn't bother to show up. But to add
Speaker 2: insult to injury, Joe Biden announces that he's given six
Speaker 2: billion dollars to the Ayatola, a radical Islamic theocratic who
Speaker 2: regularly chance death to America and death to Israel. The
Speaker 2: six billion dollars is in exchange for five Americans. On
Speaker 2: top of that, there are another five Iranians that are
Speaker 2: being released. At this point, they have not publicly said
Speaker 2: who they are of what they've done. I'm sure it's bad,
Speaker 2: because if it weren't bad, they would, they would have
Speaker 2: told us already. There are lots of reasons why this
Speaker 2: is wrong, one of which is this money, the six
Speaker 2: billion dollars will go directly to fund terrorism.
Speaker 1: This money, Oh no, no, the Biden administration promised us
Speaker 1: their words, this will only go for humanitarian issues. They
Speaker 1: were saying that six billion dollars will never be used
Speaker 1: for anything bad at all. What's even worse than that
Speaker 1: is the lie is the Iranian president came out and
Speaker 1: said that we will spend the money from the prisoner
Speaker 1: swap how we want. In other words, screw you, Biden.
Speaker 1: You're lying to the American people about it, and we'll
Speaker 1: do whatever the hell we want with the money.
Speaker 2: The exact quote from the Iran's president was that the
Speaker 2: funds will be used quote wherever we need it, and
Speaker 2: it is a metaphysical certainty this money will be used
Speaker 2: to fund terrorism. Why because Iran is the leading state
Speaker 2: sponsor of terrorism in the world. That Americans will be murdered,
Speaker 2: is Raelis will be murdered, and it's not just six
Speaker 2: billion dollars, because they're also refusing to enforce sanctions, which
Speaker 2: collectively is tens of billions or even hundreds of billions
Speaker 2: of dollars to fund terrorism. This is part of a
Speaker 2: secret nuclear deal. The Biden administration doesn't want to take
Speaker 2: a nuclear deal to Congress because they know they can't
Speaker 2: get it through Congress, so as they're doing it in secret.
Speaker 2: And on top of that, this creates an incentive for
Speaker 2: every tin pot dictator in the world to seize more Americans.
Speaker 2: They're setting the going rate at one point two billion
Speaker 2: per American hostage. More Americans will be taken hostage because
Speaker 2: of this, and to do it on the anniversary of
Speaker 2: nine to eleven is disgusting and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1: There was something else in here center that really shocked me.
Speaker 1: In all of the most recent prisoner swaps that we've had,
Speaker 1: we knew who we were trading and who they were
Speaker 1: and what they had done, whether it was Britney Grinder
Speaker 1: and Russia. We knew that we were trading the merchant
Speaker 1: of death, whether when it was bo Bergdal, We knew
Speaker 1: the people that we were trading, for example, in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and we knew their resume of terror, what they'd done.
Speaker 1: I can't find anywhere, and I want to know, as
Speaker 1: a member of Congress, have you been briefed on who
Speaker 1: the five Iranians are that they're getting back, and what
Speaker 1: the hell have they done?
Speaker 3: So I have not.
Speaker 2: I assumed that at some point we will be and
Speaker 2: I also assume at some point the names and what
Speaker 2: they did will be made public. I very much hope so.
Speaker 2: But this is profoundly dangerous. When you funnel billions of
Speaker 2: dollars to theocratic, homicidal maniacs, you endanger lives. And it
Speaker 2: is tragically a certainty that Americans will die because of
Speaker 2: this decision from the Biden administration, and to do it
Speaker 2: on the anniversary of nine to eleven shows really a
Speaker 2: complete lack of awareness of the magnitude of the threat.
Speaker 1: To be clear, and I think this goes back to
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. Iran killed more or help kill more
Speaker 1: and dismember more Americans with roadside bombs and giving safe
Speaker 1: haymn to terras after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan than
Speaker 1: any other country in the Middle.
Speaker 3: East by far, not even close, and.
Speaker 1: We just gave them money that they can do, in
Speaker 1: their words, whatever they.
Speaker 3: Want to do with it, six billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Is there any way that Congress can stop this or
Speaker 1: is this a straight up executive decision and that's it.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm going to fight for Congress to stop it.
Speaker 2: But let's be clear, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will
Speaker 2: stand with Biden and stand with Iran against America and
Speaker 2: against our Israeli allies.
Speaker 1: We're going to keep trying to get answers to these questions, obviously,
Speaker 1: and we'll keep you updated on. I do want to
Speaker 1: deal with, obviously, the massive story of the day that
Speaker 1: is taking the headlines, and that's exactly when we wanted
Speaker 1: to make sure you knew what was going on with
Speaker 1: the RAN, and that is with impeachment. We are moving
Speaker 1: forward with impeachment. The House side, Ken McCarthy has come
Speaker 1: out announcing that this podcast started with the first impeachment.
Speaker 1: Did you ever imagine Center that we would be sitting
Speaker 1: here on this podcast now looking like we're going into
Speaker 1: a third impeachment when you started this show originally.
Speaker 2: It really is hard to believe. It's not impeachment number one,
Speaker 2: it's not impeachment number two. It's impeachment number three of
Speaker 2: the president, mind you, not not even impeachment of Aljidro
Speaker 2: majorcas non impeachment of Merrick Garland. It is the House
Speaker 2: has formally opened its impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, and
Speaker 2: what I want to do in this podcast is really
Speaker 2: do a deep dive into what that means and where
Speaker 2: things stand, because it's a big deal. This announcement is
Speaker 2: a big, big deal. It is consequential, and it's important
Speaker 2: listeners to verdict. You know already the details of what's happening,
Speaker 2: but it's worth breaking down the arguments so that you
Speaker 2: understand it because I guarantee you tomorrow at work, tomorrow
Speaker 2: at school, people are going to be asking about it.
Speaker 2: Family members are going to be asking about it, and
Speaker 2: you're going to want to know.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: One of the best ways to assess just the magnitude
Speaker 2: the mountain of evidence that has come out and listen,
Speaker 2: I've been calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries
Speaker 2: for months.
Speaker 3: I think the.
Speaker 2: Evidence long ago cleared that threshold. But they've finally done it.
Speaker 2: It's worth reviewing the bidding. In terms of Joe Biden's explanations,
Speaker 2: Explanation number one that he made on the campaign trail
Speaker 2: repeatedly that he made his president repeatedly is he said
Speaker 2: he had never discussed, not even once discussed with unter
Speaker 2: Biden's overseas business dealings. That was explanation number one. There
Speaker 2: was a minor problem. It was a flat out, bald
Speaker 2: face lie, and it was demonstrably disproven, including by Devin
Speaker 2: Archer saying some twenty times Joe would call in to
Speaker 2: talk to Hunter's overseas business partners. So then explanation number
Speaker 2: two was Joe Biden was not in business with his
Speaker 2: son Hunter in his corrupt overseas deals. Now that's very
Speaker 2: different from I never discussed it, but they realized they
Speaker 2: couldn't defend that, so it wasn't in business. So they've
Speaker 2: run away from not in business anymore. That's no longer
Speaker 2: defensible because it's clear the entire business was selling favors
Speaker 2: from Daddy. So talking point number three, which you're seeing
Speaker 2: multiple Democrats use word for word you're seeing the media
Speaker 2: use word for word, is there is no direct evidence
Speaker 2: of Joe Biden's involvement of Joe Biden's corruption. Now at
Speaker 2: the outset, that throws Hunter overboard. I think the Democrats
Speaker 2: have realized, all right, Hunter as crooked as the day
Speaker 2: as long, we can't defend this guy, so Hunter to
Speaker 2: heck with him. But there's no direct evidence of Joe.
Speaker 2: I want to break that down because that is false
Speaker 2: and it's a lie, and it's every bit as false
Speaker 2: as Biden never discussed it or wasn't in business with it.
Speaker 2: But let's take the no direct evidence and explain why
Speaker 2: it's wrong. Let me start by explaining what direct evidence is.
Speaker 2: So that's the kind of lawyer word that you see
Speaker 2: people use that.
Speaker 1: If you're not a lawyer, you're like, well, what does
Speaker 1: that even mean?
Speaker 3: Right, So, in a court.
Speaker 2: Of law, there are two types of evidence that are
Speaker 2: typically relied on to prove a factual matter. Number one
Speaker 2: is direct evidence. Number two is circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence
Speaker 2: is evidence that goes directly to a factual matter in dispute.
Speaker 2: Circumstantial evidence is based on the circumstances you can draw
Speaker 2: inference that leads to the factual matter in dispute.
Speaker 3: All right, what does that mean?
Speaker 2: Let me give an ext If you go to bed
Speaker 2: tonight and you look out the window and the street
Speaker 2: is dry and clean, and you wake up in the
Speaker 2: morning and you look out the window and the street
Speaker 2: is covered in snow, that is circumstantial evidence that it
Speaker 2: snowed last night. It's pretty damn good circumstantial evidence. Yeah,
Speaker 2: there's snow, but you were drawing the inference from seeing
Speaker 2: the snow on the ground that it snowed last night. Now,
Speaker 2: if you bring in a witness who stayed up all night,
Speaker 2: who said, ben, I saw it snow last night, that
Speaker 2: would be direct evidence. The most common type of direct
Speaker 2: evidence is eyewitness testimony saying I saw this happen. Now,
Speaker 2: one of the lies right at the heart of the
Speaker 2: no direct evidence is so what, it's not true. But
Speaker 2: before I get to not true, so what? People are
Speaker 2: literally convicted of crimes every day based on circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 2: They are sentenced to jail every day based on circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 2: So the modifier direct is how they're getting around the
Speaker 2: mountain of evidence we've got. But I want to tell
Speaker 2: you how the statement there is no direct evidence is
Speaker 2: a lie. And anytime a Democrat says, at any time
Speaker 2: the media says that, you know they're lying.
Speaker 1: But first let me tell you about our friends over
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's
Speaker 1: only Christian conservative wireless provider. And when I say only
Speaker 1: trust me, they're the only one. The team at Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile does amazing work every time you pay your bill
Speaker 1: and you get amazing nationwide coverage. Patriot Mobile offers dependable
Speaker 1: nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three
Speaker 1: major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've
Speaker 1: been accustomed to without funding the Left. Did you know
Speaker 1: the Big Mobile actually gives massive donations the Planned Parenthood.
Speaker 1: Well that's why you should switch to Patriot Mobile, because
Speaker 1: not only are you sending a message that you support
Speaker 1: free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: and our military veterans and first responder heroes, but when
Speaker 1: you pay that bill, a portion of your bill goes
Speaker 1: to support those causes. They also have a one hundred
Speaker 1: percent US based customer service team making switching easy. So
Speaker 1: keep your same cell phone number that you have now,
Speaker 1: keep your same phone or upgrade to a new one,
Speaker 1: and their team will help you find the best plan
Speaker 1: for you and your needs. Go to Patriot Mobile dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict
Speaker 1: or eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot
Speaker 1: get free activation when you use a promo code. Verdict
Speaker 1: that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or eight seven
Speaker 1: eight Patriot.
Speaker 2: So, as I mentioned, there at least two significant pieces
Speaker 2: of direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement and corruption. Piece
Speaker 2: number one, the heart of the allegations, again Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: is bribery that he solicited and received bribes from foreign oligarchs.
Speaker 2: You'll recall, and we've talked about this before on verdict
Speaker 2: that the essence of bribery is quid pro quo Latin
Speaker 2: for this, for that, and for bribery, you need to
Speaker 2: show the official action that was taken.
Speaker 3: That's the quote, the.
Speaker 2: Money or thing of value that was given, that's the quid,
Speaker 2: and that the two were connected, that's the pro Well.
Speaker 2: One of those elements, the official action, is conclusively proven
Speaker 2: by Joe Biden in his on camera admission to the
Speaker 2: Council of Foreign Relations, where he described how he flew
Speaker 2: to Ukraine, he held a billion dollars of federal tax,
Speaker 2: federal loan guarantees hostage and demanded that the Ukrainian government
Speaker 2: fire Victor Schoken, who was the prosecutor who was prosecuting
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian oligarch and Joe Biden. As we all know,
Speaker 2: as we played on this show many times, says son
Speaker 2: of a bitch. They fired it, and.
Speaker 1: He was critic by the way because he was like
Speaker 1: he was so prideful, and it was the arrogance of
Speaker 1: that moment. It was like, couldn't help himself. It was like,
Speaker 1: this is how powerful I was. I could go over
Speaker 1: to Ukraine and tell them who to fire and I
Speaker 1: could own them while it was happening. And if you
Speaker 1: watch that video, when I see it, it actually makes
Speaker 1: me angry because it was a glimpse into the abuse
Speaker 1: of power that Joe Biden was willing to wield around
Speaker 1: the world on a litany probably of issues. And now
Speaker 1: we know why he was doing it. It was for
Speaker 1: the money and for the Biden crime family.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. But of the elements of bribery, Joe
Speaker 2: Biden's confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed
Speaker 2: one of the critical elements of bribery. Now we don't
Speaker 2: yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime,
Speaker 2: but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical,
Speaker 2: critical aspects of the crime, which is the quote that
Speaker 2: Joe Biden has admitted, and that is unequivocally direct evidence,
Speaker 2: and it's pretty damn compelling direct evidence. There's a second
Speaker 2: very clear instance of direct evidence, and that is Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden's what's app message to the Chinese Communist official, and
Speaker 2: I want to read it to you again, Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: texted quote. I am sitting here with my father and
Speaker 2: we would like to understand why the commitment made has
Speaker 2: not been fulfilled. Tell the director I would like to
Speaker 2: resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and
Speaker 2: now means tonight and z if I get a call
Speaker 2: or a text from anyone involved in this other than you,
Speaker 2: Zang or the chairman, I will make certain that between
Speaker 2: the man sitting next to me and every person he knows,
Speaker 2: and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you
Speaker 2: will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here
Speaker 2: waiting for the call with.
Speaker 1: My father not to shake down.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: That is direct evidence. That is a written text sent
Speaker 2: by Hunter Biden. That is direct evidence that he and
Speaker 2: his father are shaking down a Chinese Communist official. It's
Speaker 2: not circumstantial, it is direct evidence. Now it is possible
Speaker 2: that direct evidence is false, just as if if Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden came into court and testified my father and I
Speaker 2: shook down a Chinese Communist official, he could be lying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he could, yeah, but I doubt it.
Speaker 2: You can teach his credibility. You could say he's lying,
Speaker 2: but it is direct evidence. Direct evidence doesn't necessarily mean
Speaker 2: that it is true. Sometimes direct evidence is false. But
Speaker 2: that's not only direct evidence. It's pretty damn compelling direct evidence.
Speaker 2: So I promise you in the next week you will
Speaker 2: see multiple Democrats and multiple yabbering puppets in the corporate
Speaker 2: media say there's no direct evidence. You know, there's no
Speaker 2: direct evidence. The AP will say the allegations of corruption
Speaker 2: against Joe Biden, of which there is no direct evidence,
Speaker 2: and they'll state it as a fact, and it is
Speaker 2: a lie. Every time they say it. They're lying. Because
Speaker 2: those two are serious pieces of direct evidence.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about not only that, but let's
Speaker 1: connect this to suspicious activity reports. Is this the type
Speaker 1: of stuff that will come out in impeachment when they
Speaker 1: go through it as saying, Hey, we can connect the
Speaker 1: quid pro quote, we can connect these these audio recordings,
Speaker 1: We can connect the present's words to these financial bank
Speaker 1: records and all of the bank records that James comert
Speaker 1: on this show. If you missed a podcast we did
Speaker 1: with them, go back and listen to it, Jim Jordan,
Speaker 1: the same thing. They have so much evidence with the
Speaker 1: specious activity reports and the cash going to the Biden crime
Speaker 1: family members, right, we know direct payments, we're going to
Speaker 1: multiple Biden family members. Is that where this could be
Speaker 1: so damning to this president, could put his presidency at risk?
Speaker 3: Absolutely? Yes.
Speaker 2: And let me underscore if you didn't listen to our
Speaker 2: two part series with James Comer, you ought to go
Speaker 2: back and listen to it because we walk through at length.
Speaker 2: Now everything you just listed is circumstantial evidence. And I
Speaker 2: want to take a minute because there's a ton of
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence and all of the smarmy people on TV
Speaker 2: who are saying no direct evidence, they're pretending like direct
Speaker 2: evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists. So, Ben,
Speaker 2: if there's a dead body and with multiple gunshot wounds, and.
Speaker 1: I love how I'm always the bad guy in these scenarios.
Speaker 1: If you notice this, like everybody, I'm always the bad
Speaker 1: guy here, I'm ready for it.
Speaker 2: Keep going next to the dead body. It appears that
Speaker 2: the dead with his bloody finger scrawled in the ground.
Speaker 3: Ferguson did it? Did it?
Speaker 1: Ferguson did it?
Speaker 2: Now that's not actually direct evidence. And let's say furthermore
Speaker 2: that you're found at home covered in the man's blood,
Speaker 2: with gunpowder covering your body and the murder weapon.
Speaker 3: At your feet.
Speaker 2: Okay, none of that is direct evidence either. And you
Speaker 2: know what, You're going.
Speaker 3: Away for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2: I don't need any more evidence that evidence bye bye, yeah.
Speaker 2: I Circumstantial evidence convicts people every single day. So what
Speaker 2: is the circumstantial evidence. Look with James Comber, he walked
Speaker 2: through the suspicious activity reports over and over and over again.
Speaker 2: The massive number of suspicious activity reports, the more than
Speaker 2: twenty shell companies. That is circumstantial evidence. As we talked
Speaker 2: through with James Comber, you don't create shell companies unless
Speaker 2: it is to hide the source of cash. That is
Speaker 2: serious circumstance. The allegations in the FD ten twenty three
Speaker 2: from a confidential human source that the FBI had previously
Speaker 2: found reliable who says that the Ukrainian oligarch told him
Speaker 2: that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden demanded five million each
Speaker 2: in order for Joe to get the prosecutor fired. Now
Speaker 2: that's not direct evidence because the confidential human source doesn't
Speaker 2: know it directly. He's repeating what he says that that
Speaker 2: that the oligarch said, so that that is hearsay, but
Speaker 2: it is circumstantial evidence and is significant the twenty plus
Speaker 2: million dollars that the House of Representatives has already documented
Speaker 2: that flowed into the Biden family to people, by the way,
Speaker 2: who by all appearances, have no connection to foreign countries.
Speaker 1: It's just like, hey, I need your bank count and
Speaker 1: here's some.
Speaker 3: Money, and it's it's it's it.
Speaker 1: Must be nice. That's gotta be a fun day. Like
Speaker 1: we haven't talked about that enough. Center the fact that
Speaker 1: you could just have the last name Biden and you
Speaker 1: and randomly you get like a text from Hunter right
Speaker 1: or from Joe's like handy Jaman account if I'm going
Speaker 1: to send you over one hundred thousand bucks, Like that's
Speaker 1: gotta be kind of cool if you're in that situation
Speaker 1: where it's just like, hey, I'm a Biden. Now every
Speaker 1: once in a while, this money just randomly shows up
Speaker 1: in my bank account with a random LLC. Because that's
Speaker 1: what they've been doing for years, if not decades.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, although it may not be all that cool
Speaker 2: because remember Hunter Biden in a twenty nineteen text to
Speaker 2: his daughter complains about how his father, Joe Biden, made
Speaker 2: him give him quote half.
Speaker 1: His salary, yeah, half everything.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Loo, Look this is that that likewise, all of
Speaker 4: this piles to a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
Speaker 4: and that mountain of evidence is serious.
Speaker 2: But there's something else, which is the cover up. So
Speaker 2: let's go back to this hypothetical of the guy you
Speaker 2: whacked and I don't know why you killed him, you eat.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure it was I'm sure it was God.
Speaker 1: But we should at the end of the year just
Speaker 1: come up with all the possible crimes and as examples
Speaker 1: that I have committed in my and the last year
Speaker 1: on verdict and just turn it into a best steff,
Speaker 1: keep going.
Speaker 2: So if you're caught on film driving out on.
Speaker 4: A bridge now and flinging the gun.
Speaker 2: Over the bridge, over the bridge into the water, now, look,
Speaker 2: that doesn't prove if the gun has never recovered that
Speaker 2: it's the murder weapon.
Speaker 3: But if it's the night of the murder, yeah.
Speaker 2: And you're doing it really urgently, it's pretty strong circumstantial
Speaker 2: evidence that you are hiding evidence that that that demonstrates
Speaker 2: your guilt, and in fact, you will see in a
Speaker 2: court of law. If a defendant destroys evidence h a
Speaker 2: court can instruct the jury to draw a negative inference
Speaker 2: that that evidence would would have demonstrated would.
Speaker 3: Have been bad for them.
Speaker 2: In this instance, we know that Joe Biden had multiple
Speaker 2: burner phones. We know that he had multiple fake emails,
Speaker 2: up to five thy four hundred of them in the
Speaker 2: National Archives. We know that he emailed Hunter Biden. We
Speaker 2: know that he emailed Hunter Biden about Ukraine. And we
Speaker 2: know also that two senior IRS career employees have come
Speaker 2: forward as whistleblowers and have said the Biden administration engage
Speaker 2: number one in line to Congress under oath of felony
Speaker 2: YEP and number two in multiple instances of obstruction of justice.
Speaker 2: And in particular it's worth focusing on what was the
Speaker 2: obstruction of justice. Let's go back to the WhatsApp, to
Speaker 2: the message that Hunter said. The IRS whistleblowers said they
Speaker 2: wanted to examine GPS data to determine well, when Hunter
Speaker 2: sent that text, was Daddy sitting next to him? There's
Speaker 2: an answer, it's either yes or no. If it's yes,
Speaker 2: that is not direct evidence that Hunter was telling the truth,
Speaker 2: but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence, and according to the
Speaker 2: IRS whistleblowers, the Biden DOJ said no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: you cannot examine the GPS locations. They likewise said no,
Speaker 2: you cannot ask anything about Joe. The fact that the
Speaker 2: Biden Department of Justice is willing to commit felonies allegedly,
Speaker 2: according to the whistleblowers, yeah, in order to prevent investigation
Speaker 2: into Joe's involvement is powerful evidence of Joe's.
Speaker 3: Significant involvement.
Speaker 2: Because just like throwing the gun off the bridge, you
Speaker 2: don't do it if you didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1: All right, let me ask you this question about this
Speaker 1: impeachment compared to the Trump impeachment, the first impeachment, and
Speaker 1: if you were the lawyer for Trump, then it was
Speaker 1: more about defending yourself. A friend of mine, Jay Seque,
Speaker 1: as you know, helped with that first impeachment, defended the president.
Speaker 1: It was more about a vigorous defense of the absurdity
Speaker 1: of what they were charging Donald Trump with. This is
Speaker 1: obviously completely different than that. This is a one point
Speaker 1: eighty from that. We knew that Russian collusion was crap.
Speaker 1: They knew it was crap, they knew how to defend it.
Speaker 1: And they defended him. I think pretty well this impeachment,
Speaker 1: if you were defending Joe Biden from a legal standpoint,
Speaker 1: what are your biggest concerns if you're having to meet
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden, and what are your biggest concerns for
Speaker 1: his presidency if you're meeting with Joe Biden from a
Speaker 1: legal standpoint that could come out in this impeachment that
Speaker 1: maybe has never been you know, has come out either
Speaker 1: a before you haven't had to at least answer questions for.
Speaker 2: Your biggest concern is all the evidence against you, uh,
Speaker 2: the direct evidence, the evidence that you basically admitted to
Speaker 2: one of the elements of bribery, the evidence the text
Speaker 2: message that your son has been caught shaking down Chinese
Speaker 2: communists for millions of dollars and explicitly threatening that you're
Speaker 2: the one who would engage in retaliation. That has tied
Speaker 2: you into it. That direct evidence is certainly troubling, but
Speaker 2: all the circumstantial evidence which would trouble you as well.
Speaker 2: And look, here's what the Biden White House is going
Speaker 2: to do. They're going to count on the corporate media
Speaker 2: to ignore that. They're going to count on the corporate
Speaker 2: media to echo their talking points.
Speaker 1: And not cover it like they did the Trump impeachment.
Speaker 2: It's to completely ignore it and refuse to address the facts.
Speaker 2: And every day you will see a night and day difference,
Speaker 2: not just between the Joe Biden impeachment and the Trump impeachments,
Speaker 2: but between the Joe Biden impeachment and the ridiculous Trump indictments.
Speaker 2: There is a world of difference. And we've discussed at
Speaker 2: great length on this podcast the Trump indictments, which are
Speaker 2: political and partisan. In this instance, the evidence of actual
Speaker 2: bribery by the President of the United States is serious
Speaker 2: and severe, and there's not a single Democrat who is
Speaker 2: willing to address the merits. They're counting on the press
Speaker 2: just to take their blanket dismissals.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
Speaker 1: If you're a guy and you feel like you are
Speaker 1: losing your edge, maybe fatigue is sitting in and you're
Speaker 1: just sick and tired of feeling tired, and you want
Speaker 1: to get back to that strength of vitality used to have, well,
Speaker 1: then you need to check out chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 1: Now the problem is men says stostorm levels are off
Speaker 1: a cliff. Historically, now at all time low. Thankfully, the
Speaker 1: patriots at Chalk are here to help real men just
Speaker 1: like you take back and proudly maximize your masculinity by
Speaker 1: boosting testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days.
Speaker 1: If you're sick and tired of feeling weak and complacent,
Speaker 1: you're tired of sitting on the couch and feeling like
Speaker 1: you're just not who you are, you need to check
Speaker 1: out Chalks voq dot com. Now check out the Male
Speaker 1: Vitality Stack. It will help you boost your disastrom levels
Speaker 1: up to twenty percent over ninety days. It's manufactured right
Speaker 1: here in the USFA. I've been taking it for months.
Speaker 1: Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
Speaker 1: changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So
Speaker 1: get off the couch and get back to feeling like
Speaker 1: you used to. Go to chalkchoq dot com. Use the
Speaker 1: promo code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk
Speaker 1: subscription for Life Choq dot com Use promo code Ben
Speaker 1: for thirty five percent off. Sinta, I want to ask
Speaker 1: you also in impeachment real quick about witnesses. Are there
Speaker 1: people that can now be called that may have to
Speaker 1: answer for their involvement, whether it's those the DOJ, whether
Speaker 1: it's Hunter Biden, whether it's other Biden family members. Walk
Speaker 1: us through how impeachment works when it comes to witnesses.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: Merrick Garland is expected to testify before the House Judiciary
Speaker 2: Committee in the coming days, and he will certainly face
Speaker 2: significant questions about the allegations that he personally lied under
Speaker 2: oath and committed a felony. Now, I assume he'll dodge
Speaker 2: all of them and defiantly and arrogantly refuse to engage
Speaker 2: in the substance. I also assume he will get questions
Speaker 2: about the allegations of obstruction of justice, and I expect
Speaker 2: Merrick Garland to not be remotely forthcoming. I think at
Speaker 2: some point you will see David Weiss called before Congress
Speaker 2: to testify. David Weiss has been directly implicated in the
Speaker 2: obstruction of justice, which is I believe why Merrick Garland
Speaker 2: named him the quote special counsel. Because Garland and the
Speaker 2: Biden DOJ knew they could count on Weiss to protect
Speaker 2: the big guy, and that's their most important objective. We've
Speaker 2: talked about how Schwerin, who was the kind of money
Speaker 2: guy and fixer for Biden is a very likely witness
Speaker 2: and could be a very damning witness, and I would
Speaker 2: anticipate seeing him come. And then we may well assume
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden, if he's called to testify, will stonewall at
Speaker 2: this point the legal.
Speaker 1: What does that look like when you say stonewall? Is
Speaker 1: it a tactic or are you saying he just won't
Speaker 1: answer questions?
Speaker 3: My assumption is will plead the fifth.
Speaker 1: Okay, So he just come in say I plead the
Speaker 1: fifth and that's the end of it.
Speaker 2: I assume that's the case, given the multiple felonies and
Speaker 2: the fact that he even Dad's White House seems to
Speaker 2: be running away from him. I would be shocked if
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden said anything else other than on the advice
Speaker 2: of counsel, I plead the fifth. I will say one
Speaker 2: other thing, which is this Biden impeachment is demonstrating the
Speaker 2: utter and complete hypocrisy of congressional Democrats. Let me read
Speaker 2: what Chuck Schumer said this week, right after the House
Speaker 2: announced it's impeachment. Schumer said, quote, I think the impeachment
Speaker 2: inquiry is absurd. The American people want us to do
Speaker 2: something that will make their lives better not go off
Speaker 2: on these chases witch hunts. So Schumer is literally using
Speaker 2: Trump's language about witch hunts and just repeating word for
Speaker 2: word what the defense was. Now, look, I think the
Speaker 2: Biden impeachments of Trump were witch hunts. Ironically, this is not.
Speaker 2: This is serious evidence that Congress would be derelict if
Speaker 2: it didn't investigate. Here, by the way, is a quote
Speaker 2: from from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: This is what banana dictatorships do is arrest political opponents
Speaker 2: without any evidence. Now that's screamingly funny. Yeah, given that
Speaker 2: the Democrats have arrested their political opponent like a banana republic.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But part of the reasons Democrats can be such total
Speaker 2: hypocrites is they know the corporate media will never call
Speaker 2: them out on it. That the corporate media will nod
Speaker 2: say yes, yes, but at a republic terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible,
Speaker 2: no direct evidence, no direct evidence. And if you take
Speaker 2: nothing else from this podcast today, remember every time they
Speaker 2: say the words no direct evidence, they're.
Speaker 1: Lying one other thing about this. And this is where
Speaker 1: people say, Okay, we have this thing, it happens. Let's
Speaker 1: say it is a big deal. Let's say there are
Speaker 1: some some some you know minds that the Democrats step on,
Speaker 1: the White House steps on, we still don't have the
Speaker 1: votes and the Senate to do anything about it. Right,
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna That's what people that are cynical
Speaker 1: and frustrated are gonna say about this. So how should
Speaker 1: we be looking at this impeachment?
Speaker 3: Is this?
Speaker 1: Should? Should?
Speaker 3: Should?
Speaker 1: Should? People that are listening to look at it from
Speaker 1: a standpoint of, Hey, we're getting the truth out there
Speaker 1: in a very big way about Joe Biden before he's
Speaker 1: running for reelection and that can be extremely powerful and
Speaker 1: and in other words, judgment day may be election day.
Speaker 1: Or should we look at it and be frustrated and
Speaker 1: cynical because like, well, even if we nail this thing
Speaker 1: in the House, it ain't going to pass the Senate.
Speaker 1: So he's not going to be impeached and lose his
Speaker 1: job over this? What mindset? What hatch to listeners put on?
Speaker 2: So a little bit of both, listen, The cynicism is
Speaker 2: not misplaced. Senate Democrats and House Democrats do not care
Speaker 2: what evidence there is of Joe Biden being corruptive, is
Speaker 2: soliciting and receiving bribes from falling foreign oligarchs. They don't care.
Speaker 2: Partisan politics trumps everything. To use my hypothetical, if the
Speaker 2: dead guy had scrawled in blood Ferguson did it.
Speaker 3: With Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Joe Biden walked out covered in his blood,
Speaker 2: Democrats would be like nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: Remind people what the makeup of the Senate right now.
Speaker 2: Makeup of the Senate is fifty one Democrats, forty nine
Speaker 2: republic All.
Speaker 1: Right, we've heard about some of you maybe becoming independent.
Speaker 1: We've heard, you know, wishy washy things about Joe Manchin
Speaker 1: for example. Is there any scenario where the evidence could
Speaker 1: be so damning on the House side that you could
Speaker 1: you could flip two different people's people in the Senate?
Speaker 2: It wouldn't matter if you flip two, because you need
Speaker 2: two thirds, you need sixty seven.
Speaker 3: There you go, and right now we have zero.
Speaker 2: Right now we have zero Democrats who, to the best
Speaker 2: of my knowledge, I'm not aware of a single Democrat
Speaker 2: who's even asked a skeptical question, who has even said, well,
Speaker 2: you know, if Biden did, in fact solicit and receive
Speaker 2: bribes from foreign nationals, that would be a problem. No,
Speaker 2: Democrat has even said that. And you contrast this to
Speaker 2: Richard Nixon. Listen, the reason Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace
Speaker 2: is Republicans turned on him. They turned on him when
Speaker 2: the evidence got over. And I don't believe Democrats would ever, ever,
Speaker 2: ever turn on Biden because partisanship matters more than anything.
Speaker 2: But be that as it may, that does not mean
Speaker 2: that impeachment is a waste of time, because it is
Speaker 2: the only way to put these facts before the American people.
Speaker 2: In a sane and normal world, the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: would investigate and prosecute him. We'd get a special counsel
Speaker 2: who was independent, who was consistent with the DOJ rules,
Speaker 2: was not an employee of DJ, and actually would investigate
Speaker 2: in conveni grand jury and potentially prosecute these crimes. The
Speaker 2: Biden DOJ won't do that because it's the most partisan
Speaker 2: and political DJ we've ever seen. But putting these facts
Speaker 2: before the American people is valuable, nonetheless. But to be clear,
Speaker 2: a critical part of that is what we're doing right
Speaker 2: now on Verdict, which which is the million people who
Speaker 2: listen to Verdict. All of y'all now have the information
Speaker 2: when you go and you're talking to your brother in law,
Speaker 2: you're talking to your coworker, you're talking to your classmate,
Speaker 2: and they say, well, you know there's no direct evidence
Speaker 2: because that's the talking point they've heard. You now know
Speaker 2: how to refute that, and that is powerful. That has
Speaker 2: a multiplier effect, and it's how I believe, ultimately you
Speaker 2: force accountability.
Speaker 1: Want to tell you about our friends of the Gust
Speaker 1: of Precious Metals. You've been seeing what's going on in
Speaker 1: the economy. You've seen some of these bank failures. You've
Speaker 1: seen interest rates, for example, on loans hit a twenty
Speaker 1: one year high for home loans right now, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people are wanting to protect their wealth, especially
Speaker 1: if you're in retirement or close to retirement. Well, let
Speaker 1: me tell you about Augusta Precious Medals. They do things
Speaker 1: differently when it comes to your IRA or your four
Speaker 1: oh one K and using a portion of it in
Speaker 1: gold to make sure that you are protecting your hard
Speaker 1: earned dollars. Now, when you call Augusta Precious Metals, they
Speaker 1: actually do more than just send you an investor's god
Speaker 1: on gold that gives you background and understanding historical context
Speaker 1: to what gold has done over periods of time. They
Speaker 1: actually do a one on one web conference with each
Speaker 1: and every one of you to make sure that you
Speaker 1: understand how it could affect your retirement and how it
Speaker 1: can help you preserve your wealth. Check out Augusta Precious Medals,
Speaker 1: go online to Augusta Precious Metals dot com. You can
Speaker 1: also call them and find out and get the investors
Speaker 1: got on Gold. Now you'll get to do the web
Speaker 1: conference that doesn't cost you a dime. It's free to
Speaker 1: see if Gold can help you with your retirement planning.
Speaker 1: Eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA. That's eight
Speaker 1: seven seven, the number four Gold IRA or online Augusta
Speaker 1: Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com.
Speaker 1: Last question on this and that is the politics of
Speaker 1: overplaying your hand. I said on my podcast today, I
Speaker 1: always worry because you've noticed this in the polls. Biden
Speaker 1: poll numbers right now are not good, and the media
Speaker 1: seems to be telling more the truth about how bad
Speaker 1: the poll numbers are. And the majority of Americans now
Speaker 1: say they do believe that Joe Biden was corrupt in
Speaker 1: some manner with his son in the business dealings. That's
Speaker 1: that's that's significant. CNN even came out PBS on Sunday.
Speaker 1: They even had one of their commentators and said, I
Speaker 1: underestimated Joe Biden's involvement with Hunter Biden and the Biden
Speaker 1: family businesses. Is there a concern that if the Republicans
Speaker 1: play this too strong and don't take their time toly
Speaker 1: at the evidence, this could backfire in the same way.
Speaker 1: And again I'm asking from a political standpoint that every
Speaker 1: time the Democrats indict Donald Trump, what happens, Republicans stand
Speaker 1: behind Donald Trump even more, they say, send him money,
Speaker 1: they support him, His poll numbers go up. Is there
Speaker 1: a concern that if Republicans don't nail this the right way,
Speaker 1: that this actually galvanizes people that maybe are wherehy washy
Speaker 1: on Biden and then it actually helps him stand up
Speaker 1: better than he is right now, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look that that is conceivable. And there's no doubt that
Speaker 2: the multiple indictments against Trump have added a lot of points,
Speaker 2: at least ten points to his numbers in the primary
Speaker 2: because Republicans have understandably gotten pissed off that it's obviously
Speaker 2: a political persecution. So that counsels that the Republicans, the
Speaker 2: Republicans in the House need to proceed carefully. They need
Speaker 2: to be facts based, they need to be evidence based.
Speaker 2: They need to not have it appear political. Now in
Speaker 2: today's world, there will be people who naturally assume it's political.
Speaker 2: But but that that that is certainly a vulnerability to
Speaker 2: be aware of. Another vulnerability is at some point the
Speaker 2: Democrats and or the media might decide that Joe Biden
Speaker 2: is two wounded and jettison him and try to parachute
Speaker 2: someone else in I think that remains a very real risk.
Speaker 2: We're going to talk about that a lot more on
Speaker 2: the podcast, but not on this one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was an interesting article this week that mentioned
Speaker 1: five other names that came out all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: off Joe Biden, don't run. Who's is gonna be? This
Speaker 1: is how this podcast started. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: full circle, but now it's times three. Senator. We're going
Speaker 1: to keep you updated on this. I can promise you
Speaker 1: don't forget to hit that follow or subscribe or auto
Speaker 1: download button, depending on which platform you're listening right now
Speaker 1: and the days in between, make sure you listen to
Speaker 1: my podcast, The Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I'll keep you updated
Speaker 1: on the breaking news. On in between days, and also
Speaker 1: our Saturday Potter Weekend review of things you may have
Speaker 1: missed later in each podcast. We put that together for Saturdays,
Speaker 1: so it makes you start checking that podcast out as well.
Speaker 1: And we'll see you back here in a couple of days, yes,