Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is a verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 2: with you. And the big breaking news is obviously about
Speaker 2: the indictment obsession over Hunter Biden. Now, Senator this one
Speaker 2: actually makes me angry. You've talked about this and really
Speaker 2: predicted it on this show long time ago that the
Speaker 2: whole reason why they were doing that plea agreement on
Speaker 2: the gun crime is that insulated the president. And it
Speaker 2: was the perfect crime to charge Hunter Biden with in
Speaker 2: that sweetheart plea deal because it insulated and you couldn't
Speaker 2: connect any dots to the presidency or the Biden crime
Speaker 2: family with all the money going in and out of
Speaker 2: accounts and the suspicious active reports. Sure enough, the same
Speaker 2: guy that gave him the sweetheart deal, who's now the
Speaker 2: special prosecutor who's indicting him, is going after the first thing,
Speaker 2: the gun crime. I mean, you can't write the script
Speaker 2: any more ridiculous than this, and yet here we are
Speaker 2: well badly.
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 3: The Special Council, David Weiss, We've talked about that when
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland appointed him. It was illegal under the DOJ rules,
Speaker 3: a special council has to be outside the DOJ. But
Speaker 3: the reason that I believe that David Weiss was appointed
Speaker 3: Special counsel is because he had already demonstrated he would
Speaker 3: give a sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. He'd already demonstrated
Speaker 3: that he was willing to be complicit in the obstruction
Speaker 3: of justice at DOJ to number one, prevent investigation into
Speaker 3: the more serious crimes from Hunter Biden, and more importantly,
Speaker 3: to block any investigation into the big guy, into Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: and that that is the most important objective in the
Speaker 3: heavily politicized Biden DOJ. Now, on Wednesday, David Weiss, the
Speaker 3: Special Council, filed a pleading in the United States District
Speaker 3: Court for the District of Delaware, stating that he intends
Speaker 3: to indict Hunter Biden. But what he intends to indict
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden out is a gun crime. Now, at this point,
Speaker 3: as we're discussing it, we don't know the details of
Speaker 3: exactly what that indictment will hold. But what we know
Speaker 3: is the gun crime is a crime that is uniquely
Speaker 3: limited to Hunter. There's no connection to Joe. There's no
Speaker 3: connection to Joe's corruption, there's no connection to bribery from Joe,
Speaker 3: there's no correction, connection to Ukrainian oligarchs paying Hunter for
Speaker 3: access to Joe. There's no connection to Ukrainian oligarchs or
Speaker 3: Russian oligarchs or Chinese communist officials paying Hunter for specific
Speaker 3: official favors from Joe Biden. Instead, the gun crime is
Speaker 3: a personal crime, and the talking point of the Democrats,
Speaker 3: the talking point of the media is listen, Hunter Boyd
Speaker 3: Biden is a troubled soul with substance abuse problems and
Speaker 3: and and he's struggling. I got to say, looking at this,
Speaker 3: the gun crime is not the reason the public cares
Speaker 3: about Hunter Biden. The reason this is a matter of
Speaker 3: public concern is the official corruption of the then vice
Speaker 3: president of the United States and today the President of
Speaker 3: the United States and trying to trumpet look how tough
Speaker 3: we are. We're going against Hunter for the gun crime,
Speaker 3: especially given that David Weiss already negotiated the sweetheart deal.
Speaker 3: And by the way, his initial proposal is Hunter Biden
Speaker 3: doesn't plead guilty to anything of significance. His second proposal
Speaker 3: was Hunter Biden pleads guilty to criminal offenses, but serves
Speaker 3: not a day in jail. So this third iteration, I
Speaker 3: don't know maybe it has some mild jail time, but
Speaker 3: it is designed consistent with the pattern to protect Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: and that is the overarching objective, I believe of the
Speaker 3: incredibly politicized Biden DOJ.
Speaker 2: You look at the DOJ and we've also mentioned in
Speaker 2: this before, but I want to take a moment to
Speaker 2: remind people if you're a lawyer, and put your lawyer
Speaker 2: hat on for a second for us and explain this.
Speaker 2: If you're sitting in a room and you see all
Speaker 2: of the all these crimes that they could investigate, and
Speaker 2: you see all the the things that could tie you
Speaker 2: to the White House, could tie you to the Presidency,
Speaker 2: could tie you to two different whistle blowers, the I
Speaker 2: r S, the FBI, everything that's come out, and then
Speaker 2: you said, okay, we got to give them something, so
Speaker 2: you pick. If you're again, I'm saying this from like
Speaker 2: the standpoint of a Hunter Biden lawyer. You know, we
Speaker 2: sit in a room and we picked the charges we
Speaker 2: want against our guy. Would you have picked this charge
Speaker 2: as well? Because it has none of those things that
Speaker 2: you're really worried about in it.
Speaker 3: Sure, it is uniquely focused on Hunter personally, there's no
Speaker 3: arguable connection with Joe Biden. It insulates Joe Biden. So,
Speaker 3: for example, there's no indictment. There appears to be no
Speaker 3: even meaningful investigation over Hunter Biden's text message on the
Speaker 3: on the WhatsApp app to a senior Chinese Communist official,
Speaker 3: where he says, quote, I am sitting here with my
Speaker 3: father and we would like to understand why the commitment
Speaker 3: made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I
Speaker 3: would like to resolve this now before it gets out
Speaker 3: of hand, and now means tonight. I will make certain
Speaker 3: that between the man sitting next to me, in other words,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden and every person he knows, and my ability
Speaker 3: to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not
Speaker 3: following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the
Speaker 3: call with my father. Now that is direct evidence of
Speaker 3: Hunter Biden shaking down a Chinese Communist official for millions
Speaker 3: of dollars and threatening retaliation from Joe Biden, then the
Speaker 3: sitting vice president of the United States. If they brought
Speaker 3: an indictment for that, that would be a serious legal, political,
Speaker 3: and even existential peril for Joe Biden. So, of course,
Speaker 3: David Weiss, operating as the political protector in the Biden
Speaker 3: doj is not going to bring that. In stead, he's
Speaker 3: going to bring a gun crime, which is specific to Hunter.
Speaker 3: And remember the question to ask in each of these
Speaker 3: instances is are they focused on Hunter or are they
Speaker 3: willing to address Joe, which is the real matter of
Speaker 3: public concern.
Speaker 2: I want to tell you real quick about our friends
Speaker 2: and in viro Quins, you should choose an air purifier
Speaker 2: like your life depends on it, because it just might.
Speaker 2: More than thirty five thousand wildfires have devastated the US
Speaker 2: this year. The toxins and particles in wildfire smoke can
Speaker 2: penetrate our lungs and threaten our health. And that's why
Speaker 2: in viro Quinn's develop military grade air purification for your home,
Speaker 2: and they just announced their biggest sale of the year.
Speaker 2: You can save a massive thirty percent off during their
Speaker 2: Labor Day sale that's been extended. And Viralquins is specifically
Speaker 2: designed to wipe out airborne chemicals and viruses known to
Speaker 2: cause illness, allergies, and difficulty breathing. Even toxic gases and
Speaker 2: particles found in wildfire smoke are no match for enviro clins.
Speaker 2: That's why the USA be selected in Viroquins to protect
Speaker 2: and purify the air in their facilities, and in Viralquins
Speaker 2: comes with a free professional air quality monitor, so you
Speaker 2: know your family's breathing purified air. So now is the
Speaker 2: time to save thirty percent off your air purification unit.
Speaker 2: I have one in my bedroom and it works. I
Speaker 2: have ASTHMA. I can tell you it's amazing. Get this
Speaker 2: free air quality monitor and fast free shipping. That's a
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifty dollars savings alone. Visit ekpure dot com.
Speaker 2: That's Ekpurer dot org. Use promo code verdict, that's Ekpure
Speaker 2: dot com, Use code verdict, Ekpure dot com centaer. You
Speaker 2: mentioned that weiss filed this paperwork, and that's when everybody,
Speaker 2: of course lost their mind. Oh, finally, Hunter Biden's going
Speaker 2: to get indicted. I rolled my eyes at it. You
Speaker 2: basically did as well. What does this say moving forward?
Speaker 2: And is there any hope that he might actually charge
Speaker 2: Hunter with other crimes or if this is what he's
Speaker 2: leading with, is this kind of probably going to be
Speaker 2: most of what we're going to get out of.
Speaker 1: Him in all likelihood?
Speaker 3: Yes, Look, we've covered it in this podcast. How initially
Speaker 3: David Weiss and the Biden Department of Justice wanted to
Speaker 3: cut a deal with Hunter. Biden where he doesn't plead
Speaker 3: guilty to any serious crimes, where he gets off scot
Speaker 3: free on everything. And when there began to be some
Speaker 3: attention on this, in particular, what happened when the I R.
Speaker 3: S whistleblowers came forward. They realized, oh crap, we can't
Speaker 3: be that transparently political. So they reached agreement number two,
Speaker 3: the sweetheart agreement, where Hunter would plead guilty to a
Speaker 3: couple of misdemeanor charges and the gun charge, which was
Speaker 3: the more serious charge, would be placed in deferred adjudication,
Speaker 3: and he would serve zero jail time, not get a
Speaker 3: felony conviction, and he would have complete exoneration for any
Speaker 3: and all conduct. That includes corruption and bribery concerning Barisma
Speaker 3: and Ukraine, that includes corruption and bribery concerning Russia, that
Speaker 3: includes corruption and bribery concerning Communist China. Those are the
Speaker 3: serious charges, and the Biden Department of Justice entered a
Speaker 3: sweetheart deal where they said, we'll give you a pass
Speaker 3: on everything. Well, what happened is they filed that sweetheart deal.
Speaker 3: They expected it to be Rubbert stamped by the judge.
Speaker 3: But then the irs whistleblowers went and testified before the
Speaker 3: United States Congress, testified before the House. Then one of
Speaker 3: the whistleblowers went on national te levision on CBS, and
Speaker 3: people looked at this and said, Holy crap, this stuff
Speaker 3: is serious. Is this is real corruption, This is corruption
Speaker 3: that implicates the President of the United States. And I
Speaker 3: think what happened is the Biden DOJ realized this slap
Speaker 3: on the wrist, we can't give Hunter a get out
Speaker 3: of jail free pass for any and all criminal conduct
Speaker 3: in exchange for zero criminal time in jail. And they
Speaker 3: still showed up in federal court hoping to push the
Speaker 3: plea agreement through. But when the judge asked them, is
Speaker 3: there a chance you might still indict Hunter for something else?
Speaker 3: They were forced to say yes, not in fact, because
Speaker 3: they were investigating Hunter. I don't believe they are investigating Hunter.
Speaker 3: I don't believe they want to know what else Hunter did. Instead,
Speaker 3: I think they said yes because given the hearings and
Speaker 3: the House representatives, given the whistleblowers, they knew that saying no,
Speaker 3: we're not even investigating, we don't even care if the
Speaker 3: President of the United States is shaking down foreign nationals
Speaker 3: for bribes. That was untenable. That was the sweetheart plea
Speaker 3: deal that ultimately got thrown out of court. And now
Speaker 3: I think the Special counsel is going back and trying
Speaker 3: to enter some variant. We'll see the details of it,
Speaker 3: and as I said, it may involve some nominal jail time.
Speaker 3: But this critical question, and we've discussed this for months
Speaker 3: and months and months on this pod. If the prosecution
Speaker 3: involves purely personal conduct by Hunter, if it involves drug possession,
Speaker 3: if it involves the gun crime, if it involves things
Speaker 3: that Hunter did on his own that only implicate a
Speaker 3: poor substance abusing an addicted child of the president, then
Speaker 3: it is a political smokescreen. Because the reason you've got
Speaker 3: the US Department of Justice focused on this is because
Speaker 3: this fact pattern seriously implicates official corruption by the President
Speaker 3: of the United States, and any prosecution, any indictment that
Speaker 3: ignores the evidence of corruption by the President of the
Speaker 3: United States, is I believe designed to protect the President
Speaker 3: of the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, don't be bamboozled over this, And that's the main
Speaker 2: point here. If they're gonna do it this way, do
Speaker 2: not celebrate this. And I promise you that media is
Speaker 2: going to try to hoodwink you on this. They're gonna
Speaker 2: say they're gonna do big breaking news coverage.
Speaker 1: This is shock.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, he's been indicted and they're hoping that
Speaker 2: will suffice and they can say, see you held accountable.
Speaker 1: That's the that's the game.
Speaker 3: Pling And by the way, by the way, remember this
Speaker 3: is also designed for parody. See we indicted to Biden.
Speaker 3: Now we can indict Trump four times and go after
Speaker 3: him and try to ban him from the ballot and
Speaker 3: in the presidential elections because we indicted Hunter for a
Speaker 3: slap on the wrist for a personal crime.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and again, be ready for this because it's going
Speaker 2: to come and it's going to be absurd the way
Speaker 2: they do it, but this is how they're going to
Speaker 2: do it. I want to move to something else. Center
Speaker 2: that we really led the way on this issue getting
Speaker 2: out and then the listeners did an amazing job of sharing.
Speaker 2: It was one of the biggest podcasts I think we've
Speaker 2: ever done together, and it dealt with the issue of
Speaker 2: nine to eleven. You issued a statement afterwards and that
Speaker 2: also went viral, and you have a new statement and
Speaker 2: update I want you to tell you about tonight. This
Speaker 2: goes back to that letter that the DOJ or I
Speaker 2: should say, the d sent out to families victims of
Speaker 2: nine to eleven, and they were letting them know and
Speaker 2: a heads up that we were probably going to do
Speaker 2: a plea deal with Khalid Shaik Muhammad and I think
Speaker 2: it was three or four other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay,
Speaker 2: Khalead shake Mohammad. We went through the history of who
Speaker 2: he is the mastermind of nine to eleven but also
Speaker 2: killed many other people and many other attacks around the world,
Speaker 2: innocent children, women, et cetera. And they were going to
Speaker 2: do a deal to spare him the death penalty so
Speaker 2: we could get him out of GITMO and then close
Speaker 2: down Getmo. That's the ultimate goal for the d D
Speaker 2: and the Biden administration. We now have an update because
Speaker 2: of the outrage of so many listeners of this show
Speaker 2: and others and that story going viral, it looks like
Speaker 2: they're not going to get away with it.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right, and I wouldn't take a minute to
Speaker 3: thank the listeners a verdict because because I actually think
Speaker 3: you guys made a real difference in something that matters
Speaker 3: enormously in this country, which is, as we discussed on
Speaker 3: this podcast, the Biden administration sent out letters to the
Speaker 3: families of the victims who were murdered on September eleventh
Speaker 3: and said, hey, we're contemplating a plea deal where Khlead
Speaker 3: Shiek Muhammad and other conspirators behind the mass murder on
Speaker 3: September eleventh would be spared the death penalty. They'd give
Speaker 3: it life in prison. They would be exempted from capital
Speaker 3: punishment despite the fact that they committed an active war,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that they killed nearly three thousand people,
Speaker 3: We'd spare them. And you know, when they sent this letter,
Speaker 3: it was initially getting almost no press coverage. No one
Speaker 3: was covering it, no one was discussing it. ABC didn't
Speaker 3: discuss it at the six o'clock news, NBC didn't discuss it,
Speaker 3: CBS didn't discuss at CNN didn't discuss at MSNBC didn't
Speaker 3: discuss it. The entire corporate media ignored it. You and
Speaker 3: I were so outraged by it that we sat down
Speaker 3: to do our pod and we actually had three topics.
Speaker 3: This was topic number one. We had two other topics,
Speaker 3: and we ended up deciding you know what. The entire
Speaker 3: podcast is going to focus on this issue on September eleventh,
Speaker 3: on the horrific terrorist attack that came after America, on
Speaker 3: what it meant, and on the outrage listen the Biden
Speaker 3: administration and we talked about in that podcast. And by
Speaker 3: the way, you got to go back and listen to
Speaker 3: that podcast. You can go back and find we did
Speaker 3: a full podcast on this September eleventh effort of the
Speaker 3: Biden administration. To spare the mastermind of September eleventh, but
Speaker 3: I believe this is part and parcel of the Biden
Speaker 3: Administration's effort to essentially abolish the federal death penalty. And
Speaker 3: before Joe Biden leaves the White House, I think he
Speaker 3: is going to pardon or commute the sentences of every
Speaker 3: single federal death penalty prisoner, including the racist lunatic who
Speaker 3: murdered nine African Americans at the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston,
Speaker 3: South Carolina, including multiple vicious terrorist and murderers. But as
Speaker 3: a result of this podcast, we focused the entire thirty
Speaker 3: minutes of the pod on the facts behind it, and
Speaker 3: we asked you, We said, if you're outraged, pick up
Speaker 3: the phone call your house member, call your senator, call
Speaker 3: the White House, and say do not spare this September eleventh, mastermind, Well,
Speaker 3: we were about the only people shining a light on this,
Speaker 3: and it ended up people got worked up, which is good.
Speaker 3: They should have been worked up. We were worked up.
Speaker 3: It was wrong, it was outrageous, it was astonishing what
Speaker 3: they're doing. Well, I got to say. On Wednesday, the
Speaker 3: administration came out and announce that it was not going
Speaker 3: to accept the Plea deal. And and here's what prosecutors
Speaker 3: said in a filing quote. The administration declined to declines
Speaker 3: to accept the terms of the proposed joint policy principles
Speaker 3: offered by the accused of the Military Commission's case, United
Speaker 3: States versus Mohammed at all. And so I think that
Speaker 3: is a real victory verdict listeners ought to feel proud of.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: To be clear, the Biden administration gave themselves some wiggle
Speaker 3: rooms so they may go back and take the deal,
Speaker 3: but they at least filed a court pleading saying they're
Speaker 3: rejecting the deal. That's a major victory. It was only
Speaker 3: the political pressure that came, and that political pressure was
Speaker 3: generated in very significant respect by the listeners of this podcast.
Speaker 3: But my view is the bastards that attacked America, that
Speaker 3: murdered nearly three thousand Americans, they ought to be prosecuted,
Speaker 3: They ought to be sentenced to death, and they ought
Speaker 3: to be executed because I think it's a matter of
Speaker 3: justice that people that committed horrific terrorist attacks on America
Speaker 3: they should face the ultimate punishment. But the only way
Speaker 3: we'll be sure that happens is if the American people
Speaker 3: hold this administration to account and if they're too embarrassed
Speaker 3: and ashamed to let these guys off.
Speaker 2: My next question for you is this, is this just
Speaker 2: a pause and delay strategy, Senator, and do we have
Speaker 2: to keep monitoring them or does this put this to bed,
Speaker 2: especially for the victims and the families that were affected
Speaker 2: by nine to eleven. They got these these you know,
Speaker 2: I would say, horrific letters from the Department of Defense
Speaker 2: and saying that they may spare these guys' lives after
Speaker 2: these men trained and did all that they did to
Speaker 2: kill their family members.
Speaker 3: Well, we don't know entirely. What we know is that
Speaker 3: the prisoners not only wanted to be spared the death penalty,
Speaker 3: but they wanted the Department of Defense to accept a
Speaker 3: guarantee that they would not serve their sentences in solitary
Speaker 3: confinement and that would allow them to eat and pray
Speaker 3: with other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They also wanted a
Speaker 3: civilian run program to treat brain disorders, to treat sleep disorders,
Speaker 3: and to treat gastro intestinal damage that they say the
Speaker 3: CIA caused during investigations. That's the demand the Biden administration
Speaker 3: turned down. There is a tiny bit of wiggle room
Speaker 3: that they could come back and say, Okay, we're not
Speaker 3: going to give you those concessions, but we are going
Speaker 3: to take the death penalty off the table. And one
Speaker 3: of the key reasons I think, I think there are
Speaker 3: two things going on in the Biden administration. One, these
Speaker 3: left wing radicals or ideologically opposed the death penalty. They
Speaker 3: don't want anyone executed. Ever, they want to essentially repeal
Speaker 3: the federal death penalty.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: They don't want to go through the constitutional process of
Speaker 3: supporting legislation and Congress trying to get the votes and
Speaker 3: repealing it as a matter of law. They just want
Speaker 3: to say, we the executive branch are going to refuse
Speaker 3: to enforce the death penalty and in fact, are going
Speaker 3: to commute or pardon anyone convicted of the most egregious
Speaker 3: offenses in the country. I think a second objective, and
Speaker 3: again we talked about this at length on the prior
Speaker 3: pod on this topic, is they want to close Guantanamo
Speaker 3: and listen. When it comes to foreign policy, the Biden
Speaker 3: administration is a press release administration. In other words, they
Speaker 3: don't follow coherent foreign policy objectives. They don't have a
Speaker 3: strategic vision for defending this nation. Instead, they want a
Speaker 3: simple press release that lets them trumpet their moral virtue.
Speaker 3: So in Afghanistan, you know, you ask yourself, why was
Speaker 3: the surrender to the Taliban, the withdrawal from Afghanistan so
Speaker 3: utterly incompetent, such a disaster. A big part of the
Speaker 3: reason is the Biden White House viewed it as, Hey,
Speaker 3: we want to be out of there by September eleventh,
Speaker 3: because then we can show how virtuous we are that
Speaker 3: we withdrew from the war by September eleventh. The problem
Speaker 3: is when the military said, okay, if we leave that early,
Speaker 3: we need sufficient troops to maintain Bogram Air Force Base
Speaker 3: and also maintain Kabbal Airport, and the Biden White House
Speaker 3: said nope, nope, we don't care pull them out abandoned
Speaker 3: Bogram Air Force Base. We don't need a secure airfield.
Speaker 3: We haven't evacuated anyone. We haven't evacuated Americans, we haven't
Speaker 3: evacuated the Afghans who assisted us. But we have a
Speaker 3: press release to issue, So ignore the national security imperatives.
Speaker 3: Let's issue our press release. I think in the case
Speaker 3: of GITMO, their objective is the same. They want to
Speaker 3: press release saying we are closing Gittmo. In order to
Speaker 3: do that, they've got to remove the most dangerous terrorists
Speaker 3: from GITTMO. In order to do that, they have to
Speaker 3: send them to prisons in the continental United States. And
Speaker 3: in order to do that, they either have to get
Speaker 3: a conviction or get a plea deal. And so I
Speaker 3: think part of the reason they want the plea deal
Speaker 3: is to shut Gitmo because they get a good press
Speaker 3: release from it. But I think the listeners of verdicts
Speaker 3: and millions of Americans stood up and said no and hell.
Speaker 2: No, yeah, it's especially this close to nine to eleven,
Speaker 2: it's so vitally important that we have this victory, and
Speaker 2: especially for those family members that are victims. All over
Speaker 2: again when they got this letter, and like you said,
Speaker 2: thank you to all you that listened for picking up
Speaker 2: that phone and standing up and saying no and calling
Speaker 2: you elected official, because without you, I don't think this
Speaker 2: would have happened. Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2: For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
Speaker 2: conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 1: That's a decade now.
Speaker 2: You may not have heard of them because they were
Speaker 2: a smaller company that have grown over the last decade.
Speaker 2: And now it's time for you to make the switch
Speaker 2: if you've never done it before. Why Because Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: gets rid of the woke agenda by the big Tech
Speaker 2: has Big Mobile has, and they offer you dependable nationwide coverage.
Speaker 2: They give you the ability to access all three major networks,
Speaker 2: which means you get the same coverage that you've been
Speaker 2: accustomed to without funding the left's agenda. Did you know
Speaker 2: the Big Mobile actually supports planned parenthood and it has
Speaker 2: been for decades. Well, if you don't want your money
Speaker 2: going there, then switch to Patriot Mobile. And when you do,
Speaker 2: you're not just sitting a message that you support free speech,
Speaker 2: religious freedom, the sancty of life, the Second Amendment, and
Speaker 2: our military, our veterans and first responders. But your money
Speaker 2: that you pay is actually going to help those causes. Yes,
Speaker 2: every time you pay your bill at next charged to you,
Speaker 2: you're helping those causes. They have one hundred percent US
Speaker 2: based customer service team that makes switching easy. You can
Speaker 2: keep your same cell phone number you have right now,
Speaker 2: keep your phone that you have right now, and you
Speaker 2: can upgrade your phone if you want to. When you
Speaker 2: make the switch, call Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriot.
Speaker 2: That's eight seven eight Patriot. Use the promo code of
Speaker 2: Verdict to get free activation. When you use that promo
Speaker 2: code Verdict eight seven eight Patriot or patriotmobile dot.
Speaker 1: Com slash Verdict.
Speaker 2: Senator, I also want to ask you about another issue,
Speaker 2: and that deals with the issue of climate. Climate change
Speaker 2: has become obviously an election year issue, at least for
Speaker 2: the Democrats. You can see it over the last couple
Speaker 2: of weeks. They're kind of testing things, they're really pushing
Speaker 2: things here. But now we're finding out how academia deceives
Speaker 2: people about climate change. And this is something that I
Speaker 2: think is not just disingenuous, but it's really disgusting. They
Speaker 2: put out a new report that has actually come out
Speaker 2: and they say that there's there's a new prediction that
Speaker 2: one bill billion deaths will happen from climate change this century,
Speaker 2: so you better get on board. Researchers from Canada Australia
Speaker 2: have published this new study predicting one billion deaths from
Speaker 2: climate change over the next hundred years, citing a scientific
Speaker 2: quote consensus.
Speaker 1: The author's analyze.
Speaker 2: They say, one hundred and eighty studies on climate change
Speaker 2: immortality covering on a one thousand ton rules. So this
Speaker 2: is a new theory which means for every thousand tons
Speaker 2: of fossil fuels burn, a person dies. Now this article
Speaker 2: is published and it contends that a future person, a
Speaker 2: future person is killed every time humanity burns to a
Speaker 2: thousand tons of fossil carbon. They say, based on that
Speaker 2: calculation that burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will
Speaker 2: cause two degrees celsius of global warming are ag W,
Speaker 2: which in turn they say will cause roughly a billion
Speaker 2: future premature death spread over a period of very roughly
Speaker 2: one cent I wish they use this type of logic
Speaker 2: when they were talking about unborn children that are killed,
Speaker 2: but of course they'll never do that. But this might
Speaker 2: be the most ridiculous, fear mongering article, and they say
Speaker 2: it's a scientific consensus.
Speaker 3: Now, well, look, there is an enormous problem with the
Speaker 3: politicization of science, and particularly what it concerns climate change,
Speaker 3: the dishonesty of science. I'm going to make a radical
Speaker 3: claim right now. I predict with absolute certainty that seven
Speaker 3: billion people alive today will die in the next hundred
Speaker 3: years of climate change. Now, mind you, there are a
Speaker 3: little over seven billion people alive today, and it is
Speaker 3: a virtual certainty that all of us will die in
Speaker 3: the next one hundred years. And whether there was climate
Speaker 3: change or not, that assertion is unquestionably true.
Speaker 1: It just is.
Speaker 3: Utterly disingenuous to claim it's climate change that will cause it.
Speaker 3: Let me focus on There was an article that came
Speaker 3: out on September fifth from guy named Patrick Brown. Now
Speaker 3: Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and he is
Speaker 3: the co director of the Climate and Energy Team at
Speaker 3: the Breakthrough Institute, and he wrote an article in the
Speaker 3: Free Press that I think is really consequential. I want
Speaker 3: to just read from you the beginning of the article. Quote,
Speaker 3: if you've been reading any news about wildfires this summer
Speaker 3: from Canada to Europe to Maui, you will surely get
Speaker 3: the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.
Speaker 3: Here's the AP quote, climate change keeps making wild fires
Speaker 3: and smoke worse. Scientists call it the new abnormal. From
Speaker 3: PBS News Hour quote Wildfires driven by climate change are
Speaker 3: on the rise. Spain must do more to prepare, experts say,
Speaker 3: And from the New York Times, how climate changed turn
Speaker 3: lush Hawaii into a tinderbox? And from Bloomberg quote, Maui
Speaker 3: fires show climate change's ugly reach. Now here's doctor Brown
Speaker 3: continuing from this quote. I am a climate scientist, and
Speaker 3: while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over
Speaker 3: many parts of the world, it isn't close to the
Speaker 3: only factor that deserves our sole focus.
Speaker 1: So why does the.
Speaker 3: Press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause?
Speaker 3: Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an
Speaker 3: academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world's
Speaker 3: most prestigious journals. It fits a simple storyline that rewards
Speaker 3: the person telling it. The paper I just published, climate
Speaker 3: Warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California, focuses
Speaker 3: exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior.
Speaker 3: I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other
Speaker 3: than climate change in my research because it would dilute
Speaker 3: the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival
Speaker 3: Science want to tell. This matters because it is critically
Speaker 3: important for scientists to be published in high profile journals.
Speaker 3: In many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success
Speaker 3: in academia, and the editors of these journals have made
Speaker 3: it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what
Speaker 3: they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain
Speaker 3: pre approved narratives, even when those narratives come at the
Speaker 3: expense of broader knowledge for society. To put it bluntly,
Speaker 3: climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of
Speaker 3: the world and more about serving as a cast kind
Speaker 3: of Cassandra urgently warning the public about the dangers of
Speaker 3: climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts
Speaker 3: a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public,
Speaker 3: and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Speaker 3: This is a stunning indictment of the machinery and apparatus
Speaker 3: around quote unquote science today. The journals publish quote unquote
Speaker 3: research that echoes the pre approved political orthodoxy they want published,
Speaker 3: and if you don't echo that, they don't publish you.
Speaker 3: And it is one of the many really corrupt aspects
Speaker 3: of how science and climate change reporting and academic work
Speaker 3: is really doing a disservice to the American people.
Speaker 2: When you look at not only the fact that this
Speaker 2: is how you get the money. And I do think
Speaker 2: it's an issue of follow the money as you just
Speaker 2: describe it. Certainly it's an indoctrination on college campuses and
Speaker 2: among researchers, and the cash flow is if you believe
Speaker 2: in this, we will fund you. But when you make
Speaker 2: these atletis claims and then you treat them as fact,
Speaker 2: there's nothing you can do to debate this with them.
Speaker 2: When you look at what they said here, they said
Speaker 2: this is a scientific consensus, and the authors say they
Speaker 2: analyze one hundred and eighty studies, all of them, I'm
Speaker 2: sure were studies that were funded by radical lefties and
Speaker 2: global warming activists, right, those that raise money, etc. But
Speaker 2: when they come out and say that, you know, we're
Speaker 2: going to lose a billion people, you make it sound
Speaker 2: that bad. Is there any way to overcome that with
Speaker 2: anything else? But this propaganda, and I think that's why
Speaker 2: they make these atlantis claims.
Speaker 3: Well, it's why we need people, people in colleges and
Speaker 3: universities and think tanks, in the academic world and in
Speaker 3: the scientific world, to reject politicized science. Let me read
Speaker 3: a little more from doctor Brown. Doctor Brown says quote.
Speaker 3: So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with
Speaker 3: seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate
Speaker 3: change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake that influence
Speaker 3: is very real. But there are also other factors that
Speaker 3: can be just as or more important, such as poor
Speaker 3: forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires,
Speaker 3: either accidentally or purposely. A startling fact, over eighty percent
Speaker 3: of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. I
Speaker 3: want to repeat that sentence because the corporate media will
Speaker 3: never say it. A startling fact. Over eighty percent of
Speaker 3: wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. Now here's
Speaker 3: what doctor Brown continues to say. In my paper. We
Speaker 3: didn't bother to study the influence of these other obviously
Speaker 3: relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make
Speaker 3: for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did, But
Speaker 3: I also knew that it would detract from the clean
Speaker 3: narratives centered on the negative impact of climate change, and
Speaker 3: thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster
Speaker 3: with Natures editors and reviewers. This type of framing with
Speaker 3: the influence of climate change unrealistically considered n isolation is
Speaker 3: the norm for high profile research papers. For example, in
Speaker 3: another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two
Speaker 3: largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to
Speaker 3: extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never
Speaker 3: mentioned that climate change is not the dominant driver for
Speaker 3: either one of these impacts. Heat related deaths have been
Speaker 3: declining and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite
Speaker 3: climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world
Speaker 3: has succeeded in some areas despite climate change, which the
Speaker 3: thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions. This
Speaker 3: is a narrative of so called scientific inquiry scientific journals
Speaker 3: academic journals that have abandoned the mission of science. Science
Speaker 3: is about examining evidence following the scientific method, beginning with
Speaker 3: the hypothesis, looking to evidence to disprove that hypothesis, and
Speaker 3: determining what's happening today. An enormous amount of science is
Speaker 3: simply politics covered in scientific garb, and in no places
Speaker 3: that more profound than in the world of climate change,
Speaker 3: where there are billions of dollars connected to so called
Speaker 3: scientists telling the preferred political narrative. Facts be damned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is no longer about facts, certainly in academya
Speaker 2: where it's supposed to be about that. Now it's about
Speaker 2: propaganda and indoctrinating people to this while they all find
Speaker 2: their private jets to climate change events, which I still
Speaker 2: laugh at the hypocrisy of that.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about Chalk real quick.
Speaker 2: If you're a guy and you feel like you're losing
Speaker 2: your edge, you feel like you've just got fatigue that
Speaker 2: is set in. You want to be more active, but
Speaker 2: weakness and complacency win.
Speaker 1: You're not alone.
Speaker 2: There is a massive amount of men right now dealing
Speaker 2: with low testos from levels. In fact, they're off a
Speaker 2: cliff historically to an all time low. Thankfully, the patriots
Speaker 2: at Chalk are here to help real American men take
Speaker 2: back their right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boos
Speaker 2: using testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days now.
Speaker 2: I've been taking the mal Vitality Stack now for months.
Speaker 1: It works.
Speaker 2: And if you want to boost your testostrom levels up
Speaker 2: to twenty percent over ninety days and get back your
Speaker 2: strength and vitality, you need to go to Chalk choq
Speaker 2: dot com manufactured right here in the US of eight.
Speaker 2: Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
Speaker 2: changing effects on your energy, focus, your mood. So stop
Speaker 2: sitting on the couch, stop waiting to do active things
Speaker 2: in your life. Go to chalk choq dot com and
Speaker 2: use the promo code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five
Speaker 2: percent off any Chalk subscription for life. That's Chalk choq
Speaker 2: dot com. Use promo code Been for thirty five percent
Speaker 2: off Senator. Lastly, while we were doing the show, there's
Speaker 2: some new audio that's come out and I want you
Speaker 2: to get your reaction to it. Bill Maher went on
Speaker 2: MSNBC and he said this, calling out the media are
Speaker 2: refusing to cover the Hunter Biden Joe Biden Biden crime
Speaker 2: family scandal.
Speaker 1: It's shocking to even have a working democracy.
Speaker 4: But it's so funny. I mean, after I was on
Speaker 4: Joe Rogan the other day. And yes, I don't understand
Speaker 4: how they can equate this equivalency between Trump and Biden.
Speaker 4: And in a lot of cases, I guess Joe's now
Speaker 4: for Trump, you know pretty much out there saying it.
Speaker 4: Do I love everything about Biden? No, But you know,
Speaker 4: I just don't understand how they can look at what
Speaker 4: Trump did. Now. Does the Hunter Biden scandal stink? It
Speaker 4: really does stinks to the high heavens. I mean, that's
Speaker 4: real corruption there that a lot of the left wing
Speaker 4: media will not cover. But it's nothing like what Trump did.
Speaker 4: There's just no equivalency to be you can say what
Speaker 4: about for anything? But like I said to him, you
Speaker 4: just can't tell unlike things apart if you see that
Speaker 4: the same way. But you know, they also shouldn't cover
Speaker 4: up what by I mean, if if John Junior sure
Speaker 4: had done the things that Hunter Biden did.
Speaker 1: It would be every day. Yeah, I hear you on that.
Speaker 1: I got one that.
Speaker 4: Cocaine in the White House. Who couldn't be who does
Speaker 4: cocaine around? And we can't figure it out?
Speaker 1: I mean, you hear that. And yeah, he said some
Speaker 1: things about Trump.
Speaker 2: But this is Bill Maher calling out MSNBC on MSNBC saying,
Speaker 2: you guys won't cover this, and you would be covering
Speaker 2: every day if it was anything with the Trump team,
Speaker 2: and basically, you guys are full of it and wisses.
Speaker 1: Look.
Speaker 3: I don't personally know Bill Maher. I've never met him,
Speaker 3: and he's someone who is a doctrinaire liberal. He is
Speaker 3: a man of the left, but he represents in many
Speaker 3: ways just how radical the Democrat Party has been. Because,
Speaker 3: to Bill Maher's credit, he's remained a consistent doctorate air liberal.
Speaker 3: So he actually believes in principles like free speech, he
Speaker 3: believes in principles like religious liberty. He's willing to speak
Speaker 3: out against the asinine radicalization of the Democrat Party. So
Speaker 3: he's spoken out against the extreme transgender ideology. He's pointed
Speaker 3: out that that that's saying that suddenly massive percentages of
Speaker 3: our children are transgender and should be sterilized and and
Speaker 3: and and have medical operations to to try to change
Speaker 3: their physical appearance of sexuality. That that is an extreme
Speaker 3: and dramatic shift in our society. And what he's saying here, listen,
Speaker 3: you and I disagree with his assessment of the relative
Speaker 3: mayor of Trump's conduct versus Biden's conduct. But I'm going
Speaker 3: to give him credit for acknowledging Biden's conduct because MSNBC
Speaker 3: doesn't do that. That's the outlet he was on. CNN
Speaker 3: doesn't do that, ABC doesn't do that, NBC doesn't do that,
Speaker 3: CBS barely does that. It does that a little bit.
Speaker 3: And you know, I will credit him for saying, listen
Speaker 3: the evidence. Now, if you're a regular Verdict listener, you
Speaker 3: know the evidence. You know the evidence that Joe Biden
Speaker 3: personally solicited and received millions of dollars of bribes from
Speaker 3: foign oligarchs and enemies of America. That is a big
Speaker 3: damn deal. But the fact that Bill Maher I have
Speaker 3: multiple times retweeted, pushed out Bill Maher's monologues and excerpts
Speaker 3: on his show. At some point, I'll go on a show,
Speaker 3: I haven't. We actually invited Bill to be on this podcast,
Speaker 3: and he was willing to do it, and we just
Speaker 3: couldn't make the scheduling work. So I hope at some
Speaker 3: point we have Bill Maher as a guest on this pod,
Speaker 3: and we've talked about I'm willing to go on a show,
Speaker 3: and we haven't been able to make that scheduling work either,
Speaker 3: But I hope at some point I'd like to have
Speaker 3: a conversation with him. I've never spoken to the man,
Speaker 3: but I respect that as an old school liberal, he's
Speaker 3: actually holding the line of an old school liberal and
Speaker 3: looking around at the Democrat Party going, you people are crazy,
Speaker 3: and looking around at the media going when you don't
Speaker 3: cover serious evidence of corruption by the President of the
Speaker 3: United States, that undermines the integrity of what you claim
Speaker 3: to be, which is journalism. And that's it's yet an
Speaker 3: under other indication of just how radicalized the Democrats have become.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was a nice break there, certainly from the
Speaker 2: reality of what you see every day on MSNBC. And
Speaker 2: the shock on the face of the of the MSNBC
Speaker 2: host when he was saying this was maybe the best
Speaker 2: part of all because it was like, I cannot believe
Speaker 2: he's saying this. I cannot believe he's saying this. I
Speaker 2: absolutely loved it for that reason. If nothing else, don't
Speaker 2: forget me do this show three days a week. Make
Speaker 2: sure if you're listening on Apple you hit that subscribe
Speaker 2: button right now or auto download button if you're living
Speaker 2: somewhere else, or or listening somewhere else or the follow button,
Speaker 2: and I do a podcast in the in between days,
Speaker 2: so if you want to listen to something else, download
Speaker 2: the Ben Ferguson podcasts as well, and I'll see you
Speaker 2: there on the days when you're not listening to Verdict,
Speaker 2: and we'll see you back here in a couple of
Speaker 2: days