Speaker 1: Center. Nice to be back with you in studio today,
Speaker 1: and there is exciting news about a Biden nominee. You
Speaker 1: and I were talking about this behind the scenes, and
Speaker 1: I want to bring people into this part of the discussion.
Speaker 1: There was a guy that was nominated for the FAA
Speaker 1: position to lead it that was just not qualified for
Speaker 1: the position. You actually liked him as an individual, but
Speaker 1: it was the wrong person for this job. Now the
Speaker 1: Biden administrations would draw on him. Talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about the dynamics here, because to be honest, it's the
Speaker 1: second time they've had a nominee that's not made it
Speaker 1: through and without your leadership. I'm going to say this
Speaker 1: because it was obvious this would not have happened if
Speaker 1: you weren't in the position that you're in. And Americans
Speaker 1: should feel safer now because of this. Well, it's a
Speaker 1: big deal. Big news broke this weekend Saturday night, sort
Speaker 1: of quietly late at night, trying to avoid the news,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration announced they were withdrawing Phil Washington, their
Speaker 1: nominee for fa This is now the second major nominee
Speaker 1: the White House is withdrawn. Earlier they withdrew gig Soone,
Speaker 1: who they had nominated the Federal Communications Commission. Both of
Speaker 1: those nominees go through the Commerce Committee, and I am
Speaker 1: as of this year, the new ranking member on the
Speaker 1: Commerce Committee. In other words, I'm the lead Republican on
Speaker 1: the Senate Commerce Committee. It's the Committee on Commerce, Science,
Speaker 1: and Transportation. It's got jurisdiction over about half the US economy,
Speaker 1: including both of these appointees. Both of them. Now we've
Speaker 1: taken him down, and it was not by accident. Look,
Speaker 1: it is a good thing. We talked last week on
Speaker 1: the pod about Phil Washington and why he was not
Speaker 1: qualified to run the FAA, why this is an incredibly
Speaker 1: important safety and security job and he didn't have the
Speaker 1: background in aviation or aviation safety. Gig soone we've talked
Speaker 1: about a lot on the podcast as well. She's a
Speaker 1: left wing radical and activist, someone who hates Fox News,
Speaker 1: who's described Fox News as a threat to democracy, who
Speaker 1: has ad vacated using government power to silence voices she
Speaker 1: doesn't like. She would have been very dangerous as a
Speaker 1: government regulator. I do think that there are valuable lessons
Speaker 1: to be taken in terms of how on the Commerce
Speaker 1: Committee we were able to take these two nominees down
Speaker 1: because there were bad nominees, but if you look at
Speaker 1: most of the bad nominees Biden puts forward, make it through.
Speaker 1: We did a couple of things different that led to
Speaker 1: two big victories in a matter of two months. Number
Speaker 1: one with gigisne, I tried to systematically empower every Republican
Speaker 1: on the committee and in terms of providing them information
Speaker 1: on her record, providing her information on all of the
Speaker 1: different things she had said and done that were extreme,
Speaker 1: and that led to different different members of the committee
Speaker 1: being empowered, being able to run with Okay, what issue
Speaker 1: do you want to take? And so for example, she
Speaker 1: had sent tweets praising people were calling for abolishing the police,
Speaker 1: and so one of the Republican senators went with those
Speaker 1: and pointed out that a number of police groups, the
Speaker 1: sheriff's groups, had a posed her nomination because they didn't
Speaker 1: want someone at the FCC who actively undermines cops. There
Speaker 1: were a whole series of issues, you'll recall. We empowered
Speaker 1: everyone and then at the hearing and we had a
Speaker 1: total of three markups on her. But at the hearing,
Speaker 1: I walked through some of her extreme record and in
Speaker 1: particular that she kept supporting this left wing group that
Speaker 1: attacked incumbent Democrat senators and that put up billboards saying
Speaker 1: that incumbent Democrats senators were corrupt. So she had put
Speaker 1: up a billboard saying or the group rather had put
Speaker 1: up a billboard saying Joe Manchin is corrupt. I asked,
Speaker 1: asked Gigi Son, do you think Joe Manchion's corrupt? She
Speaker 1: said no. The group had put up a billboard saying
Speaker 1: John Tester is corrupt. By the way, John Tester is
Speaker 1: on the Commerce Committee. Not an awkward moment at all
Speaker 1: when you're trying to get someone to vote for you, right,
Speaker 1: So I asked, do you think John Tester's corrupt? She
Speaker 1: says no. They put up a billboard saying Kirsten Cinema's corrupt.
Speaker 1: At this point you knew where it was going. I
Speaker 1: asked her if she thought Kirsten Cinema was corrupt. She
Speaker 1: said no. At this point, Maria Cantwell, who's the chair
Speaker 1: of the committee, says, what are you going to have
Speaker 1: them coming after me next, which, as it so happened,
Speaker 1: I had to laugh and say, well, actually yes. So
Speaker 1: this group sent a letter to Chuck Schumer in December
Speaker 1: twenty two, so just a couple of months ago, demanding
Speaker 1: that Schumer fire Maria Cantwell as the chairman of the
Speaker 1: Commerce Committee because we hadn't yet confirmed gigs own and
Speaker 1: I put put up the press release the story behind me,
Speaker 1: and if you watch the video, Maria Cantwell is like
Speaker 1: cracking up, laughing, and I just said, I said, you know,
Speaker 1: I have to say, in my entire time in the Senate,
Speaker 1: I've never seen a nominee who supports a group. And
Speaker 1: by the way, she'd attacked a bunch of the Republicans too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I was like, who attacks half the senators on
Speaker 1: the committee that's asked to confirm her that this is
Speaker 1: a new one. I also asked her. I said, okay,
Speaker 1: after they sent these put these billboards up, you sent
Speaker 1: fundraising tweets, you raise money for the group. Afterwards, I said,
Speaker 1: did you know about it? Now? Look, any lawyer is
Speaker 1: told never asked the question, you don't know the answer.
Speaker 1: I didn't actually know the answer, but I figured it
Speaker 1: was reasonable to ask. And she said, well, I didn't
Speaker 1: know about the others. But she said I did know
Speaker 1: about their billboards, saying Kirsten Cinema's corrupt. Like, oh, you
Speaker 1: did know about that? She said yes, And I said,
Speaker 1: and you raised money for them after they'd accused Cinema
Speaker 1: being corrupt. Correct, She goes, oh, yes, like quite proudly,
Speaker 1: quite brazenly. That had I think a real effect. It
Speaker 1: had an effect in terms of lots of wobbly votes
Speaker 1: on the committee. It had an effect in terms of
Speaker 1: other Democrats. But we also my team was organizing different
Speaker 1: constituent groups who were reaching out to their senators saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we don't want a left wing partisan who will censor
Speaker 1: us abusing power at the FCC. And what ended up happening.
Speaker 1: And I will tell you I did a lot of
Speaker 1: personal diplomacy, going to Democrats on the committee, going to
Speaker 1: democrats off the committee, and just walking through some of
Speaker 1: the things she said. By the way, as an aside,
Speaker 1: you may recall and we talked about this once on
Speaker 1: the pod, but it's worth worth revisiting. I did complain
Speaker 1: at the hearing. I said, look, I actually feel a
Speaker 1: little bit offended. You've attacked half the senators on this committee,
Speaker 1: but this group has never attacked me. I mean, what
Speaker 1: do I have and people attack you? So there you go,
Speaker 1: but like, am I'm really feeling like like inadequate. Apparently
Speaker 1: I'm not doing a good enough job of irritating this
Speaker 1: left wing group. And so they saw that, and I
Speaker 1: guess I feel some vindication when I when I complained
Speaker 1: that they hadn't attacked me, they promptly began crowdsourcing for
Speaker 1: a billboard attacking me. So I wasn't left out. I
Speaker 1: felt good. And the billboard had a picture of me
Speaker 1: with the website Ted Cruz hates free speech. And the
Speaker 1: funny thing is these guys are not very good because
Speaker 1: they hadn't secured the website. So I promptly bought it. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I owned the website you've ever seen Ted Cruz hates
Speaker 1: free speech, And so I tweeted out their crowdsourcing. I said,
Speaker 1: please go to the website and it goes to a
Speaker 1: campaign fundraiser for me where you can contribute to my campaign.
Speaker 1: And it just look it was trolling and having fun.
Speaker 1: But that's a good day for trolling when you when
Speaker 1: you search to see it, the website is available and
Speaker 1: it says yes, and immediately you're like, let me buy this.
Speaker 1: As fast as I possibly it was, I got a
Speaker 1: lot of laughter out of it. But look the organized,
Speaker 1: comprehensive effort of bringing together of the material having it
Speaker 1: be substant if none of the attacks on her were personal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I actually like Gis. She's smart, she's a true believer.
Speaker 1: She is a leftist. She is a hardcore leftist. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm a hardcore conservative. I respect people who believe something,
Speaker 1: who don't flinch, and so I understand where she's coming from.
Speaker 1: I just think she is ill suited to be on
Speaker 1: a regulatory agency with massive power over communication and broadcast
Speaker 1: and telecom. That's just dangerous. That wants to take down
Speaker 1: different sectors conservative media. In that job, it's not supposed
Speaker 1: to be a political position. So my point in terms
Speaker 1: of there are lots of Biden nominees that are radical
Speaker 1: and extreme and almost none of them are taken down.
Speaker 1: There is a specific approach to doing it. Some of
Speaker 1: it is doing the homework. And I'll tell you my team.
Speaker 1: The top two staffers on the Commerce Committee. I hired
Speaker 1: both of them. They're incredibly talented. They were both the
Speaker 1: top two staffers and the Senate Banking Committee last Congress.
Speaker 1: So they worked for Pat Toomey, the Republican retired Pat's
Speaker 1: a good friend, and banking took down a couple of
Speaker 1: extreme nominees from Biden in the last two years. So
Speaker 1: I deliberately went out and hired these guys and said, look,
Speaker 1: y'all did a great job last time. You remember what
Speaker 1: was it the Russian woman who was nominated to be
Speaker 1: a banking regulator who had like literally was a Marxist.
Speaker 1: In fact, if you remember, John Kennedy had the great
Speaker 1: questioning where he said, so should I call you comrade?
Speaker 1: But it's the same approach where you do your homework.
Speaker 1: You assemble all the materials, you assemble the substance, you
Speaker 1: marshal it out to key members of the committee. You
Speaker 1: present it in a way that is clear, that is understandable,
Speaker 1: that is and it's substantive. It's not a personal attack.
Speaker 1: It's not going. It is going. Your record is not
Speaker 1: suitable for this job. Now, let's fast forward to Phil Washington,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to ask you about that because the
Speaker 1: FAA nominee here is a position that's obviously supposed to
Speaker 1: be non political. And before we get into that, and
Speaker 1: it's how it's about protecting everybody's family when they're flying
Speaker 1: and everybody that's on an airplane. This is not a
Speaker 1: place that you want someone that doesn't know about this position.
Speaker 1: Before we get to that, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about our friends August of Precious Medals. If you've seen
Speaker 1: what's going on the economy right now, and you are
Speaker 1: either in retirement or close to retirement, you know how
Speaker 1: stressful it can be when you're looking at your retirement
Speaker 1: savings and they're changing a lot. That is where gold
Speaker 1: and Silver can come in to help protect some of
Speaker 1: your hard earned assets. Our friends in August of Precious Metals,
Speaker 1: they will sit down with you and look and see
Speaker 1: if gold and silver is right for you. Most importantly,
Speaker 1: their job is this to protect your hard earned dollars
Speaker 1: because there's no time to make up losses, especially if
Speaker 1: you're in retirement are very close to retirement. We've seen
Speaker 1: what's going on the economy. Check them out. Now there's
Speaker 1: two things and sending the free guy, but you can
Speaker 1: also do their online actual sit down with the company
Speaker 1: and they walk through what may work or what may
Speaker 1: not be right for you. They'll even tell you if
Speaker 1: switching some of your money to golden silver is not
Speaker 1: right for you. Check him out go online to Augusta
Speaker 1: Precious Metals dot com, slash verdict Augusta Precious Medals dot com.
Speaker 1: Use my name Ben. You'll also get your fees way
Speaker 1: for ten years Augusta Precious Metals dot Com or you
Speaker 1: can call them eight seven seven four gold Ira eight
Speaker 1: seven seven four gold Ira Center. You'll look at this
Speaker 1: FAA and Washington right away. It was very clear, and
Speaker 1: you brought this up immediately. We talked about it a
Speaker 1: little BITU on this pod that he was just not
Speaker 1: qualified to lead the FAA. That's what it was about.
Speaker 1: And you liked him as a person. I did you know,
Speaker 1: he's someoneld have spent twenty four years in the military
Speaker 1: as a smart guy, served his nation honorably, senior enlisted
Speaker 1: in the military. But he's someone who was wildly unqualified
Speaker 1: for this position. And you know, I have to admit
Speaker 1: for me with Phil Washington, it was never ideological. I
Speaker 1: was offended that they would nominate someone who couldn't remotely succeed,
Speaker 1: didn't have the background. And so back in January, right
Speaker 1: when I started as the ranking member, I said publicly,
Speaker 1: I said, Gigi Sown and Phil Washington, neither of these
Speaker 1: nominations will be confirmed. I don't know why the White
Speaker 1: House is wasting their time on them. They're going to
Speaker 1: fail on them both. And so I predicted this at
Speaker 1: the outset Phil Washington. We did several things. Number one,
Speaker 1: again it was it was going through and doing the research.
Speaker 1: So they're a whole host of issues. There was one issue,
Speaker 1: which is under the statute creating the FAA and defining
Speaker 1: the administrator, it says that the administrator must be a civilian,
Speaker 1: in other words, cannot be military. And Congress has consistently
Speaker 1: interpreted civilian to mean not active duty military, but also
Speaker 1: not retired military. And so this has happened a number
Speaker 1: of times where you get someone who served twenty plus
Speaker 1: years in the military, they retire, they're receiving a retirement
Speaker 1: every month, and Congress six times has required of FAA
Speaker 1: nominees that either Congress granum a waiver which takes both
Speaker 1: houses of Congress, or and this has happened twice, the
Speaker 1: retired military officer give up his or her retirement, like legally,
Speaker 1: I mean, you're really committed to this new job if
Speaker 1: you do that. So that's been the consistent pattern. One
Speaker 1: of the very first things we did as I went
Speaker 1: and met with. I met with the entire House Committee
Speaker 1: in charge of Transportation. I met with the chairman, Sam Graves,
Speaker 1: is a good friend's House member from Missouri, and we
Speaker 1: together pend a letter together saying, under this statute, it
Speaker 1: requires a waiver where both houses of Congress have to
Speaker 1: pass it, and we said, the House is not going
Speaker 1: to pass this Normally on confirmations, Look, it's the Senate
Speaker 1: that's in the personnel business. Most nominations, the President nominates,
Speaker 1: the Senate confirms. The House doesn't play a role here.
Speaker 1: The House does play a role because you had to
Speaker 1: have a waiver from both houses. So we started with
Speaker 1: that argument, putting it out there, laying out the legal basis.
Speaker 1: Did that take Washington's nomination down? Know, But it was
Speaker 1: an argument that was a real concern, and we had
Speaker 1: history and law and practice on our side. So there
Speaker 1: was a second set of issues, which is that Washington
Speaker 1: has an ongoing public corruption investigation going on for him
Speaker 1: right now. So he was previously the head of La Metro,
Speaker 1: so did trains buses in Los Angeles, and there's an
Speaker 1: investigation concerning a whistleblower that he allegedly retaliated against, and
Speaker 1: a non profit that got what's alleged to be a
Speaker 1: sweetheart deal in order to ingratiate Washington with a really
Speaker 1: powerful Metro board member. Now, this investigation the Democrats didn't
Speaker 1: want to address at all. So here's what my team
Speaker 1: did that was really important. Number One, the La County Sheriff,
Speaker 1: who's a Democrat, had executed a search warrant describing all
Speaker 1: the things that the sheriff was looking for from Phil
Speaker 1: Washington about this public corruption. So in the hearing, I
Speaker 1: walked through the search warrant and quoted it, had it
Speaker 1: blown up behind me, and walked through the terms of
Speaker 1: the search warrant from the La County sheriff. But secondly,
Speaker 1: so the California Attorney General has taken over the public
Speaker 1: corruption investigation. My team did something no one else had done,
Speaker 1: which as they picked up the phone and they called
Speaker 1: the California Attorney General's office and they said, hey, what's
Speaker 1: the status of this investigation? And California Attorney General's Office said, well,
Speaker 1: it's active and ongoing. And they said, well, what's Phil
Speaker 1: Washington's connection And they said, well, Phil Washington is materially
Speaker 1: connected to this investigation. He's right in the middle of
Speaker 1: this investigation. And they said one other thing. They said
Speaker 1: nobody else had called them. So I want you to
Speaker 1: think about this. This is the week before the hearing.
Speaker 1: They said the Biden White House had not called them.
Speaker 1: They said the FBI had not called them. They said
Speaker 1: the Senate Democrats had not called them. So my staff
Speaker 1: were the first people to call the California AG's office
Speaker 1: and say what's the status of the investigation. And they
Speaker 1: told my guys. So all of that I laid out
Speaker 1: at the hearing and I said, look, I can't think
Speaker 1: of another time that I've been in the Senate where
Speaker 1: the president has nominated someone for a position who's right
Speaker 1: in the middle of an active public corruption investigation. And
Speaker 1: to be clear, this is not some partisan witch hunt.
Speaker 1: The La County Sheriff is a Democrat and the California
Speaker 1: Attorney General is a Democrat, hardcore Democrats, hardcore like left
Speaker 1: wing Democrats. They're actively investigating this right now. That argument likewise, look,
Speaker 1: do I think that this that argument defeated Washington. No,
Speaker 1: which is also kind of scary. If yes, it is.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you have an active investigation, you would
Speaker 1: think that the Biden administration would say, hey, we gotta
Speaker 1: table this guy until we figured this out. Maybe for
Speaker 1: another position, but certainly not right now. This is not
Speaker 1: who we're going to go with in the world of sanity.
Speaker 1: It would here. If those were the only two issues.
Speaker 1: My guess is Phil Washington would be confirmed. The Democrats
Speaker 1: would be willing to look the other way, say never
Speaker 1: mind the statute. By the way, with the statute that
Speaker 1: requires a waiver, one of the things that meant is
Speaker 1: if Washington had been confirmed as FAA, every decision he
Speaker 1: made would have had a legal cloud and could have
Speaker 1: been challenged in court by saying, you have any legally
Speaker 1: serving administrator actually hurts the agency. There would have been
Speaker 1: litigation from some plane manufacturer from something you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: anybody that wasn't getting their way could just sue, could
Speaker 1: sue and say the administrator is illegal because the statute
Speaker 1: requires a waiver for someone who's a retired military individual
Speaker 1: individual to serve. The Democrats would have happily ignored that
Speaker 1: and ignored the public corruption. What took Washington down was
Speaker 1: his utter and complete lack of qualifications. And at his hearing,
Speaker 1: and we played this on the podcast, I asked him systematically,
Speaker 1: did he have any aviation experience. I said, have you
Speaker 1: ever flown a plane? No? You ever been a military pilot. No,
Speaker 1: you've ever been a commercial airline pilot. No, you ever
Speaker 1: worked for an airline. No, you ever worked as an
Speaker 1: air traffic controller. No, you ever worked for a company
Speaker 1: that manufactures airplanes. No, ever worked for a company that
Speaker 1: repairs airline airplanes. No. I walk through this nowday his credit.
Speaker 1: He didn't try to fill a buster, He wasn't overly political,
Speaker 1: and you weren't trying to be a jerk. It was
Speaker 1: it was. It was one of the most just shocking
Speaker 1: moments because it's like, I'm ask you every position you
Speaker 1: could have had that would then give you credibility to
Speaker 1: have this position and being in charge the FAA. You
Speaker 1: don't check any of the boxes, sir. It's almost like,
Speaker 1: why are you here? Why would you think this would
Speaker 1: be good for you in that scenario. You know nothing
Speaker 1: about what we need to keep people safe who are
Speaker 1: conservative or liberal, black, white, every religion on planes. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter in that scenario. I just want to be safe.
Speaker 1: So we laid out those facts, and as I said, listen,
Speaker 1: I was offended. This is a technical job. It's like
Speaker 1: if you're nominating someone to be in charge of the
Speaker 1: Nuclear Regulatory Commission and they don't they don't know anything
Speaker 1: about nuclear energy, Like, holy crap, that's a problem. I
Speaker 1: would like someone should know enough not to have nuclear
Speaker 1: meltdowns and have us all grow a third eye. And
Speaker 1: you know, there are safety jobs, and to be clear,
Speaker 1: you and I are unqualified for both of these. You're
Speaker 1: more qualified. You know more about a plane than I do,
Speaker 1: but I wouldn't put you in charge of the father.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that. I'm okay with that. I feel good
Speaker 1: about that, losing that opportunity. But look, these are it's
Speaker 1: not like you want a right winger or left winger
Speaker 1: in these jobs for these kind of safety jobs. You
Speaker 1: just want someone competent up to the task. But laying
Speaker 1: out those facts. So we also did the same thing.
Speaker 1: We coordinated with all the different members of the committee
Speaker 1: so that they had a ground for questioning. So, for example,
Speaker 1: Ted Budd, new Senator from North Carolina, Ted Budd is
Speaker 1: a pilot. So Ted Budd had a really effective series
Speaker 1: of questions where he asked him different things that any
Speaker 1: pilot should know. He asked them, for example, how close
Speaker 1: can two commercial airplanes come on a runway, and Washington
Speaker 1: is like, I don't know, and like he walked through
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of technical questions that frankly I don't
Speaker 1: know the answer or two like it's why Ted did
Speaker 1: such an effective job with it because he was asking
Speaker 1: the FA. Administra should absolutely know how to answer that question.
Speaker 1: It's like two plus two is four. If you're going
Speaker 1: for a math job, you should always know that answers.
Speaker 1: Like the FA is in charge, among other things, of
Speaker 1: regulating how close the planes can come to each other.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't know how close they can come or
Speaker 1: the reasons why, that's just a huge problem. So we
Speaker 1: had all of the different players on the committee empowered
Speaker 1: with the information that they could raise it, and then
Speaker 1: we had to do several things. Number one, look, there's
Speaker 1: some Republicans on the committee, particularly from rural states, who
Speaker 1: care a lot about the FA, who were a little
Speaker 1: nervous about. Oh, I don't want an administrator who's mad
Speaker 1: at me, who will take it out of my state.
Speaker 1: So explain the politics quickly. That the reason why rural
Speaker 1: states and rule people that represent ruyers, they need their
Speaker 1: smaller airports, they need their regional airports, they need the
Speaker 1: money that comes, because the cash made on the ground
Speaker 1: there will never cover what it costs. Brand airports are
Speaker 1: very expensive to run, but you want to have access
Speaker 1: to your state, You want people to be able to
Speaker 1: fly into your state, and you want to hopefully grow that,
Speaker 1: but you have to have money come in. Otherwise you
Speaker 1: could never open up a lot of these smaller airports.
Speaker 1: And if you have a politically vindictive FAA administrator, you
Speaker 1: punish a small rural state. And so there were some
Speaker 1: Republicans that were concerned that we had to calm their concerns.
Speaker 1: It wasn't personal, it wasn't it was substantive. Look, we
Speaker 1: want someone who keeps people safe and protects us from
Speaker 1: plane crashes where lots of people die. That was a
Speaker 1: piece of it. We had to work on Democrats, So
Speaker 1: I worked on committee Democrats. I'd go and make the
Speaker 1: case to them. Now. One of the pieces that was
Speaker 1: very helpful we had a hearing on the FAA the
Speaker 1: acting administrators a guy named Billy Nolan. I don't know
Speaker 1: Billy Nolan, but he's the person Biden has nominated to
Speaker 1: be acting administrator. He was a commercial airline pilot. He's
Speaker 1: worked in the FA and senior positions. He was he
Speaker 1: has multiple certifications at aviation safety. Like we would ask
Speaker 1: him substance of questions about aviation safety. He knew it
Speaker 1: and he'd give answers. And look, by the way, the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is very Dean County, and you know it.
Speaker 1: Phil Washington happens to be African American. Billy Nolan also
Speaker 1: happens to be African American. So if their view is
Speaker 1: they just wanted to nominate an African American administrator, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: but could you have someone who knows a damn thing
Speaker 1: about airplanes? So we're at the hearing with Billy Nolan.
Speaker 1: I actually turned back to my staff and I said, hey,
Speaker 1: what do you think about Nolan? They're like, he's pretty capable,
Speaker 1: And I said, would it be crazy for me to
Speaker 1: suggest right now that they should withdraw Washington nominate Nolan.
Speaker 1: And my guys are like, no, no, that's fine, and
Speaker 1: so I just it was an audible This was not planned.
Speaker 1: I leaned forward and I said, let me say something
Speaker 1: right now. As I see mister Nolan acting administrator. Nolan
Speaker 1: answering these questions, they're obstintive, they're real. I think if
Speaker 1: the White House Withdrew. Phil Washington nominated mister Nolan. He
Speaker 1: would at all likelihood be approved with a large bipartisan
Speaker 1: majority because he's capable of the job of dealing with
Speaker 1: safety in the FA you know, absent some big smoking
Speaker 1: gun we don't know about, you know, I mean something
Speaker 1: terrible in his background that nobody knows absent, that he
Speaker 1: would be an easy confirmation. And so I suggested at
Speaker 1: the hearing, and you saw a lot of heads turn.
Speaker 1: I actually heard from a former senior official in the
Speaker 1: Biden White House. He said the White House like their
Speaker 1: heads jerked when I said, if you nominate this guy,
Speaker 1: he could get confirmed and confirmed quickly. That was an
Speaker 1: important part to beating Phil Washington because what had enabled
Speaker 1: me to do so. This past week I was on
Speaker 1: the Senate floor. I had an entire pocket full of
Speaker 1: pocket cards. So my team prepares them. They're a note
Speaker 1: card that I carried inside pocket, and I had individual
Speaker 1: senators they were prepared for for each one Democrats that
Speaker 1: I'd go to and I'd pull a senator aside, say
Speaker 1: let me talk to you about Phil Washington, particularly people
Speaker 1: who are not on the committee. So people who were
Speaker 1: saying pilots people who were more moderate. I said, look,
Speaker 1: here's his background. He doesn't know this, he doesn't know that.
Speaker 1: I'd give him the pocket card, and I'd say and
Speaker 1: by the way, the acting administrator Biden put him in place,
Speaker 1: this is not partisan. This is I'd like to have
Speaker 1: someone qualified. One of the things my team did also
Speaker 1: as we worked with stakeholders. So lots of different groups
Speaker 1: came out against Washington and said he's not qualified. Lots
Speaker 1: of pilot groups in individual states. So, for example, the
Speaker 1: Tana Pilots Association said no, said he's manifestly unqualified. Well,
Speaker 1: John Tester is on the Commerce Committee. John Tester's running
Speaker 1: for reelection in twenty twenty four. Do you really want
Speaker 1: to be the Democrat who votes to confirm someone the
Speaker 1: Montana Pilots Association says is unquestionably unqualified. The Arizona Pilots
Speaker 1: Association said the same thing. So we worked. I gave
Speaker 1: a floor speech which actually we paid played in a
Speaker 1: previous podcast about Phil Washington. Here's a piece I didn't
Speaker 1: tell you about. So when I'm giving the floor speech,
Speaker 1: the person presiding, the way it works on the Senate
Speaker 1: presiding anytime she wishes to the vice president can preside.
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, the vice president does not preside only on
Speaker 1: really critical votes where a tie breaking vote is required.
Speaker 1: So the way it normally works as a senator from
Speaker 1: the majority party presides, and it's usually the more junior senator,
Speaker 1: so it's on seniority. The more senior ones are kind
Speaker 1: of out of that responsibility. So when we had a
Speaker 1: Republican majority, I liked presiding. You'd preside every week, typically
Speaker 1: an hour each week, and it was interesting. You'd sit there,
Speaker 1: you could do some work, you'd listen to speeches. But
Speaker 1: it's the more junior members of the majority party that
Speaker 1: are presiding. Well, when I gave my speech on Phil Washington,
Speaker 1: it happened so happened that Peter Well was presiding. So
Speaker 1: Peter is one of the newest senators. He's a Democrat
Speaker 1: from Vermont, was just elected replaced Pat Lahey was in
Speaker 1: the House for a long time, but is new to
Speaker 1: the Senate. And I like Peter. I'm just getting to
Speaker 1: know him. He's on Commerce with me and he's on
Speaker 1: Judiciary with me, so I'm on two committees with him.
Speaker 1: But it's interesting Peter's listening to me give the speech
Speaker 1: and I'm walking through Washington's record, I'm walking through the substance,
Speaker 1: I'm walking through the corruption case. I'm walking and you
Speaker 1: can tell he's paying attention to you because there's not
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the Senate chambers. Virtually nobody.
Speaker 1: I watched you when we were in DC recently. There's
Speaker 1: virtually no one in there. There's the pages sitting on
Speaker 1: the left and the right side on the little steps.
Speaker 1: There might be another member that walks in getting ready
Speaker 1: for their next speech, and there's, like you said, it's
Speaker 1: almost like you have an audience of one in that moment.
Speaker 1: And I will say, by the way, different presiding officers
Speaker 1: do it differently, So there are a number of people.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren when she presides, she won't look at you.
Speaker 1: She's just reading a paper and just ignores you the
Speaker 1: whole time, which I never liked. Yeah, when I presided,
Speaker 1: I tried to look at every senator to listen to
Speaker 1: their speech, even if there's some left winger and I
Speaker 1: didn't like what they were saying. I tried to give
Speaker 1: them the courtesy of the Senate listening to them and
Speaker 1: hearing them out. Yeah, So Peter number one, he looked
Speaker 1: at me and was engaging but was interesting. He's nodding
Speaker 1: quite a bit, and at the end of the speech
Speaker 1: he literally gives me a thumbs up. Wow, now this
Speaker 1: is on c Span. Don't you wish we had more
Speaker 1: of this? By the way in the Senate? I mean,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be better for the country if you could
Speaker 1: have moments? More moments like that? And so I went
Speaker 1: up up to the dais and I stood there with
Speaker 1: Peter for like ten minutes, just talking to him and saying, look,
Speaker 1: these concerns are real. Yeah, and he had not heard
Speaker 1: a lot of them. He's on the committee, but he
Speaker 1: wasn't there for all the discussion and so listening to
Speaker 1: them all together, and I was saying, so here's what
Speaker 1: I arged several Democrats and I said, look, Peter is
Speaker 1: a new senator. It's hard for him to come out
Speaker 1: against a Biden nominee. And I said, I'm not asking
Speaker 1: you to do that publicly, but what I would say is,
Speaker 1: if you've got a concern, quietly pick up the phone,
Speaker 1: call the White House or call Maria Kent Well the chair,
Speaker 1: and say, look, I've got a concern. If you force
Speaker 1: a vote, I'll be in now. And I pointed out
Speaker 1: to him, I said, listen, during the Trump administration, I
Speaker 1: did this multiple times. Now, I didn't do so publicly. Sure,
Speaker 1: I didn't throw a fit publicly, but there were several
Speaker 1: nominees you said this ain't gonna fly with me that
Speaker 1: I picked up the phone and said, you don't have
Speaker 1: my vote. This nominee is a problem. And every single
Speaker 1: time I did it, they pulled the nominee. Now, you
Speaker 1: don't you don't. You know, you don't piss on them
Speaker 1: publicly unnecessarily, but there is a responsibility as a senator,
Speaker 1: even for your own party. And the case I made.
Speaker 1: Apparently the Biden White House was freaked out because I'm
Speaker 1: having this conversation with Peter on c SPAN. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was not hidden because it just happened. The camera was, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can, you can watch, and so they're all the
Speaker 1: White House was was nervous as all get out. But
Speaker 1: I had this conversation with multiple Democrat senators where I said, look,
Speaker 1: if God forbid, there's another plane crash, and at some
Speaker 1: point there's going to be a plane crash. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's an inherently dangerous activity. We know, we hope that
Speaker 1: there's never another plane crash. But we also know with reality,
Speaker 1: something will go wrong, pilot error, there will be a
Speaker 1: mechanical breakdown, something will happen, if God forbid, there's another
Speaker 1: plane crash in the next two years. Do you really
Speaker 1: want to be the senator who was the deciding vote
Speaker 1: in confirming the head of the FAA, who's manifestly unqualified
Speaker 1: and didn't know how to prevent it? Like that? Frankly,
Speaker 1: And I said this to several Senators. I said, let's
Speaker 1: be honest, this is the kind of issue senators lose
Speaker 1: elections on. Yeah, Like, it's not hard. This is an
Speaker 1: easy want to get right, and if you get it wrong,
Speaker 1: it could go really bad. It could You could literally
Speaker 1: be looking at hundreds of dead bodies, women, children, dead
Speaker 1: because you put someone in a position they weren't qualified
Speaker 1: for and they screwed up solely based on politics. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and it was. It was a And I had several
Speaker 1: Democrats say, why are they nominating this guy? I said, look, Frankly,
Speaker 1: I don't know. At that point, You're like, I'm not
Speaker 1: on your team, Like, I have no idea why they
Speaker 1: would do this. Well, but but what I said, look,
Speaker 1: I don't know but but I assume it's a political
Speaker 1: favor either for California Democrats or for Colorado Democrats, because
Speaker 1: he had worked in both California and Colorado, and I
Speaker 1: assume he was east tight with the Democrats there. But
Speaker 1: this was cronyism, and there are jobs in government you
Speaker 1: can put someone for cronyism that they're just a buddy
Speaker 1: of yours. And so you get this job. You wanted
Speaker 1: to make him ambassador to some small country. Knock yourself out. Fine,
Speaker 1: by me, He'll be fine. I pointed out. Look, he
Speaker 1: had quite a bit of experience with trains and buses.
Speaker 1: He was originally considered for the Amtrak Board of Directors.
Speaker 1: I said, you know what, that would have been a
Speaker 1: perfectly reasonable position. Number one, you're part of a board.
Speaker 1: But he has train experience, so that you know, as
Speaker 1: the old phrase goes, that's good enough for government work.
Speaker 1: But the FAA is something different. Yeah, So I would say, listen,
Speaker 1: I'm really proud. I want to commend my team because
Speaker 1: the guys on my team worked their tails off. But
Speaker 1: did it right? Did it based on substance? Did it
Speaker 1: based on real legitimate concerns? And we presented with Phil Washington.
Speaker 1: We presented an alternative, and I'll draw a distinction. Look
Speaker 1: the SCC. If I were a left wing Democrat, I'd
Speaker 1: actually be pissed at the Biden White House because through
Speaker 1: they're trying to ram Gigi sewn through and this thing's
Speaker 1: been pending for over a year. They had three markups.
Speaker 1: It was clear she was never going to go anywhere.
Speaker 1: They kept a vacancy on the FCCCC has two Republicans,
Speaker 1: two Democrats. They haven't had a Democrat majority on the FCC,
Speaker 1: and with a Democrat majority they would ram through some
Speaker 1: terrible policies, but they overreach. They went for someone who
Speaker 1: was so far left that they couldn't hold their own party.
Speaker 1: They couldn't hold the Democrats. If I were a partisan Democrat,
Speaker 1: I'd be irritated at the Biden White House. Why didn't
Speaker 1: you just find an ordinary left winger and gets have
Speaker 1: done for two years? And so from my perspective, I
Speaker 1: actually had mixed sentiments when they withdrew gd soone, I
Speaker 1: don't know that I would have minded them continue this
Speaker 1: fight for another year and then fail in a year,
Speaker 1: because it stops them from a bad three commissioner majority
Speaker 1: on the FCC doing real harm to jobs in America
Speaker 1: at a free speech in America, to communication in America,
Speaker 1: the FA, I feel very different. We haven't had a
Speaker 1: Senate confirmed administrat at the FA for a year now.
Speaker 1: That's bad, and I've hold Look, I told Maria Cantwell,
Speaker 1: get the White House to nominate someone like Billy Nolan,
Speaker 1: will confirm him quickly, because I want someone in that
Speaker 1: job tomorrow. Yeah. Like, I don't like the delay there
Speaker 1: because tomorrow morning, when I go get on an airplane
Speaker 1: and fly to Washington, I'd really like an FAA administrator
Speaker 1: know something about not having that plane crash. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: it does vary job by job, but I do think
Speaker 1: there is also hopefully it was worthwhile for listeners of
Speaker 1: the pod to kind of go behind the scenes, no
Speaker 1: doubt on the mechanics of building support. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'll say one other thing, which is with the FAA,
Speaker 1: the Biden Department of Transportation was leaning on everyone. They
Speaker 1: were leaning on airlines, they were leaning on unions, they
Speaker 1: were pounding the hell out of them support Phil Washington,
Speaker 1: and they were exerting political pressure. We mostly kept people
Speaker 1: on the sidelines. There were a few like Frontier Airlines
Speaker 1: came out in support of Phil Washington, which frankly pissed
Speaker 1: me off. And so last week we had a hearing
Speaker 1: on bad customer service on airlines. Frontier Airlines is routinely
Speaker 1: ranked very last. So I invited Frontier Airlines to come testify.
Speaker 1: All right, you're gonna give lousy service and be enlisted
Speaker 1: to be political henchmen for the Biden White House in
Speaker 1: confirming a manifestly unqualified FAA administrator. Why don't you come
Speaker 1: on end? They refused to come. So Frontier was a
Speaker 1: bad actor in this, although I'm sure the political pressure
Speaker 1: put on them was a lot. Yeah, But I will
Speaker 1: say on our end, we did a pretty good job
Speaker 1: with almost everyone of keeping them on the sidelines. And
Speaker 1: my team was on the phone to all of them
Speaker 1: and they're like, these guys are beating the heck out
Speaker 1: of us. So we said, fine, he's not going to
Speaker 1: be confirmed. Just we're not saying come out against him.
Speaker 1: We're asking other people to do that. Sure, but look,
Speaker 1: if you're a big regulated entity, it's frankly dangerous to
Speaker 1: come out against someone who may be your regulator. Like
Speaker 1: that's yeah, that's that's a big gamble. That's asking too much,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't asking too much to say, just sit
Speaker 1: this one out and let the Senate work its will.
Speaker 1: And it's a remarkable story. It's a remarkable story of
Speaker 1: how we got to where we are now. And I
Speaker 1: also think it's got to make the White House realize
Speaker 1: they actually have to bring better candidates before your committee
Speaker 1: because they're going to have a rough two years if
Speaker 1: they don't, well, We're going to make sure people know
Speaker 1: what their record is. And if their record is reasonable
Speaker 1: and they're qualified and they're not extreme partisan nominees, they're
Speaker 1: likely to get confirmed. But but if their record, if
Speaker 1: they're unqualified, and they are extreme partisan nominees, they're gonna
Speaker 1: face a much rockier time center. I want to move
Speaker 1: to something else that was big this week, and it
Speaker 1: dealt with Russia and China having meetings. The President's hanging
Speaker 1: out in the Oval office with his wife and a
Speaker 1: TV group of stars at the same time and totally
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to be looking at what's going on with
Speaker 1: international security issues with China and Russia meeting kind of
Speaker 1: a big deal, Ted Lasso. Apparently it was much bigger
Speaker 1: than that. Before we get to that, I want to
Speaker 1: remind you about our good friends at Chalk. If you're
Speaker 1: a guy and you're dealing with that, you're getting older fatigue,
Speaker 1: you're not feeling like you have that edge anymore. Checkout
Speaker 1: Chalk choq dot com and with Chalk they help you
Speaker 1: fight back. Now you can up your test house from levels,
Speaker 1: but up to twenty percent over ninety days. Naturally, all
Speaker 1: you gotta do is going on to chalkcoq dot com.
Speaker 1: I'm taking the Male Vitality Stack. It can help you
Speaker 1: maximize your masculine by boosting your TESSAs from levels. Like
Speaker 1: I said, twenty percent over ninety days. Go online Choq
Speaker 1: dot Comhoq dot com use the promo code Ben. You'll
Speaker 1: get thirty five percent off any Chock subscriptions and you
Speaker 1: can cancel anytimehoq dot com use the code Ben Center.
Speaker 1: There was a shocking moment and it was just like,
Speaker 1: is this real life? The cast of Ted Lasso. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you've ever seen a show a great show,
Speaker 1: love it, watch it on airplanes all the time. That
Speaker 1: the victory dance in the locker room is still awesome,
Speaker 1: still amazing. They're asked to come to the White House
Speaker 1: in the exact same day that Vladimir Putin and the
Speaker 1: leader of China are meeting. Now they're not meeting in China,
Speaker 1: which I also think you could read a lot into
Speaker 1: they're in Russia meeting and their meeting, and there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of conversations about weaponry coming from China and
Speaker 1: technology to killing us some people in Ukraine. Russia desperately
Speaker 1: needs at China also desperately needs energy. This is a
Speaker 1: perfect alliance. And the White House thinks, and I'm just
Speaker 1: talking about from an optics standpoint, why the hell would
Speaker 1: you not cancel or delay that that meeting? Now. The
Speaker 1: President also mocked a lot of the reporting. I want
Speaker 1: to play this video, basically saying, you guys have all
Speaker 1: been saying that they're gonna give weaponry to Russia. It
Speaker 1: hadn't happened yet, and then he goes, I mean, it
Speaker 1: may happen. But it was also one of those moments
Speaker 1: like what are you doing. Take a look, look, look,
Speaker 1: I don't take China lately, I don't take Russia lately,
Speaker 1: but I think we vastly exaggerate. I would here I've
Speaker 1: been hearing now for the past three months, how about
Speaker 1: China is going to provide significant weapons to Russia, and
Speaker 1: they're gonna. I've been talking about that. They haven't yet,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean they won't. But they haven't yet, doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they won't. They haven't yet. Senator, this is This is
Speaker 1: embarrassing and the scary price. Our adversaries, Russian, China are
Speaker 1: watching this. They are and listen. The Biden foreign policy
Speaker 1: has been a disaster from day one. You know, Gates,
Speaker 1: the former Defense Secretary, famously said Joe Biden's been wrong
Speaker 1: in every foreign policy issue the last forty years. That
Speaker 1: just is Biden. And he's talking about going back to
Speaker 1: a Senate time. He has been wrong, and he has
Speaker 1: a long record, consistent when he was a center, being
Speaker 1: wrong over and over and over again. The Biden to
Speaker 1: White House. What they have done systematically, They've alienated our
Speaker 1: friends and allies. They've driven our friends and allies away,
Speaker 1: and they've shown weakness and appeasement to our enemies. All
Speaker 1: of our enemies are stronger than they were two and
Speaker 1: a half years ago. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba,
Speaker 1: all of them. If you're an enemy of America, they
Speaker 1: bend over backwards to you. They wave sanctions on you.
Speaker 1: By the way, what does Biden do consistently Russia? He
Speaker 1: wave sanctions on Nordstream two, gives billions of dollars to Putin,
Speaker 1: causes the war in Ukraine Venezuela. He's declining to enforce sanctions.
Speaker 1: So now Maduro is stronger and making more money because
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is there Iran. He's refusing to enforce sanctions
Speaker 1: against Iran. The Ayatola is selling a million barrels a
Speaker 1: day of oil because Joe Biden's weakness. And what does
Speaker 1: he say right there? He's like, oh, they're not so bad.
Speaker 1: Remember this is the same Joe Biden who a few
Speaker 1: years back said, come on man, Yeah, China's not our enemy.
Speaker 1: There are friends, come on man. So he had respect
Speaker 1: for China. It's competing with China. This is someone our
Speaker 1: enemies don't respect. They're not afraid of. Why did Putin
Speaker 1: invade Ukraine? Number one because Biden let him complete Nordstream two?
Speaker 1: But number two because Biden's so weak that they're not
Speaker 1: concerned about him. Why is Taiwan in existential danger right
Speaker 1: now from China? Because she doesn't respect Biden. And when
Speaker 1: he says, look play the beginning of that clip again. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but play just the beginning of the clip where he
Speaker 1: says they're exaggerated, because I want you to listen to it. Look. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't take China lately, I don't take Russia lately.
Speaker 1: But I think we vastly exaggerate. Okay, stop right there.
Speaker 1: I think we vastly exaggerate. Now, if we had a
Speaker 1: functioning press corps, there would be follow ups to that.
Speaker 1: Mister President, you said, quote we vastly exaggerate when it
Speaker 1: comes to China. You said, quote we vastly exaggerate when
Speaker 1: it comes to Russia. Mister President, is an exaggeration to
Speaker 1: say that China maintains concentration camps with over one million
Speaker 1: weekers in it today, Miss President. Is an exaggeration to
Speaker 1: say that China uses murder as an official government policy.
Speaker 1: Mister President, is an exaggeration to say China uses torture
Speaker 1: as an official government policy. Miss President, is an exaggeration
Speaker 1: to say China has come in and crushed democracy in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong. Mister President, is an exaggeration to say that
Speaker 1: China is responsible for the release of the COVID virus,
Speaker 1: that the virus was likely developed in a Chinese government lab,
Speaker 1: that the virus may well have been manufactured by Chinese
Speaker 1: scientist in that government lab to make it more trans
Speaker 1: admissible and more lethal, And that the Chinese government actively
Speaker 1: and aggressively covered up the leak of from the lab
Speaker 1: and allowed COVID to become a national pandemic. Mister President,
Speaker 1: is an exaggeration to say that the Chinese Communist government
Speaker 1: engages an espionage, steals our national security secrets, steals our
Speaker 1: commercial secrets, steals intellectual property, mister President, is an exaggeration
Speaker 1: to say the Chinese Communist government takes our weaponry, is
Speaker 1: assembling a military design to defeat us. That's what a
Speaker 1: functioning press corps would say. Now, I have no idea
Speaker 1: how Biden answers to that. He just, oh, it's all
Speaker 1: exaggerated weakness. That kind of weakness means our enemies are
Speaker 1: laughing at us. But you know what's even worse, not
Speaker 1: just our enemies, our friends are laughing at us. Here
Speaker 1: play this next clip. So today I applaud China for
Speaker 1: stepping up, assuming I applaud Canada, you can tell what
Speaker 1: I'm thinking. So that's addressing the Canadian Parliament. Yeah, and listen. Fine,
Speaker 1: So he had a slip of the tongue. Everyone does that.
Speaker 1: Biden does it a lot. But I just want to
Speaker 1: point out that's the entire Parliament of Canada laughing at
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. Now, Canadians are many things,
Speaker 1: but fundamentally they're polite. They are very polite. Just how
Speaker 1: bad you have to screw up to have a room
Speaker 1: full of Canadians laughing laugh at you. And he's saying,
Speaker 1: you can tell when I'm thinking, which is what they're laughing.
Speaker 1: As the cognitive part it is. I wish the verbal
Speaker 1: slip was not actually indicative of what this White House
Speaker 1: is doing. Unfortunately it is. Yeah, it is. There was
Speaker 1: another big oops this week that dealt with John Kerry,
Speaker 1: John Kerry Acts having to answer some questions and this
Speaker 1: was a moment for Carry that I'm sure he was
Speaker 1: hoping didn't happen. He usually gets a free pass of
Speaker 1: the press. I want to play that for you. Before
Speaker 1: I do that, I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: the only conservative cell phone company in the US. I
Speaker 1: love hearing from many of you that have switched to
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile because what I said is true. You get
Speaker 1: the same coverage that you're used to right now, you
Speaker 1: have to keep your same cell phone number. The difference
Speaker 1: is you're actually giving your money to a conservative Christian
Speaker 1: company that supports your values and reinvest They take a
Speaker 1: portion of every bill when you pay your bill, and
Speaker 1: they give it back to conservative causes and organizations. We're
Speaker 1: talking about standing up for unborn children. We're talking about
Speaker 1: helping with adoptions. We're talking about sending up for your
Speaker 1: First and your Second Amendment rights. So have your money
Speaker 1: go to companies that are aligned with your values. Check
Speaker 1: out Patriot Mobile. You actually may save money over what
Speaker 1: you're paying right now while making a difference. Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: dot com, slash verdict. Use promo code Verdict you'll get
Speaker 1: the best deals of the day, or you can actually
Speaker 1: call them eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot.
Speaker 1: Use a promo code verdict or online at patriotmo dot com,
Speaker 1: slash verdict center. This last video, it just makes me laugh.
Speaker 1: John Kerry gets to walk around do a bunch of
Speaker 1: easy interviews. He's been doing it for years when he
Speaker 1: makes of these new positions in the government that he has.
Speaker 1: But he had a reporter that I actually wanted to
Speaker 1: ask him something legitimate. Take a look. Private aviation is
Speaker 1: an example of something where people are starting to pay
Speaker 1: more attention. And but when you know people who go
Speaker 1: to Davos to talk about climate change fly private, it
Speaker 1: seems like they don't want to make They actually I've
Speaker 1: talked to them about it. They offset, they offsets, they offset,
Speaker 1: and they are working harder than most people I know
Speaker 1: to be able to try to affect this transition. Right,
Speaker 1: So you can beat your wife as long as you
Speaker 1: give money to a battered women shelter and it offsets
Speaker 1: the crime. Look, I gotta say, John Kerry embodies the rich,
Speaker 1: out of touch contempt that today's left has for working
Speaker 1: men and women. He has claimed, well, yes this, yes,
Speaker 1: all my gazillion are friends fly private everywhere, but they
Speaker 1: have offsets. Look at it's like in the dark Ages
Speaker 1: where you could buy indulgences from the Catholic Church that
Speaker 1: that like you know, it's just like well they write
Speaker 1: a check. So if John Kerry believes what he's saying,
Speaker 1: it means when John Kerry puts his privileged dairrier on
Speaker 1: a private jet, he is destroying planet Earth and simply
Speaker 1: buying an indulgence of well, well, I sent a check
Speaker 1: to somebody else, so so it fixes it. It fixes it,
Speaker 1: And and his comment, these gazillionaires are doing more than
Speaker 1: most people I know. And I've talked to them, I've
Speaker 1: I've talked. I've said, really, you need to know, like
Speaker 1: like it's such dripping content. And by the way, most
Speaker 1: people he means, like the dirty masses you you truck
Speaker 1: drivers and taxicab drivers just just fly private. Why would
Speaker 1: you possibly be with like I will say, you know
Speaker 1: I At one point, John Kerry has defended his own
Speaker 1: private jet flying by saying, really, for people in positions
Speaker 1: like me, it's it's the only reasonable way to travel. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you shouldn't expect me to sit on a commercial
Speaker 1: airliner ever, because of the stature that I've gotten doing
Speaker 1: in this world. And I was on a I think
Speaker 1: on Fox News doing an interview and I compared him
Speaker 1: to Thirsted Howel, and I went back to my Senate
Speaker 1: office and someone in my office us put it out
Speaker 1: that he didn't know who Thurston Howell was, and I asked, now,
Speaker 1: let's look, you know, Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill is a
Speaker 1: young person's game, and most of the people there are
Speaker 1: twenty something or maybe thirty something. So I, you know,
Speaker 1: grabbed about twenty of my staffers and I said, all right,
Speaker 1: do any of y'all know who Thurston Howell is? No one,
Speaker 1: not a single person knew. By the way, since many
Speaker 1: of our podcast listeners are are young, Thurston Howell was
Speaker 1: the millionaire on Gilligan's Island. He was the rich, out
Speaker 1: of touch millionaire. For the record, I didn't know who
Speaker 1: that was either, So that means yeah, I just wanted
Speaker 1: to feel young today. Thank you, Thank you for giving
Speaker 1: me that gift. All right, I twenty somethings in thirty somethings,
Speaker 1: but Skippy, you didn't. You didn't know ninety nine luff balloons,
Speaker 1: and you don't know Gilligan's Island. I know Gilligan's Island,
Speaker 1: apparently not, but I don't know the old persons. Okay,
Speaker 1: it was Thurston Howell, the third. So here's an amazing story.
Speaker 1: Though this happens in my my with my staff, I
Speaker 1: go to the Senate Republican lunch. Now, we have lunch
Speaker 1: together every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and for some reason
Speaker 1: I was thinking about it. I decided to tell my
Speaker 1: colleagues that story, which which got a good laugh because
Speaker 1: my colleagues the median age is one hundred and forty two,
Speaker 1: so they all know who Thurston Howell is. And then
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney says, you know, I actually discovered the same
Speaker 1: thing when I was running for president, and I found
Speaker 1: if you want to use an analogy, a much better
Speaker 1: one to use is mister Burns. That that that young
Speaker 1: people get, mister Burns, And I'm like, oh, dear God,
Speaker 1: I'm being I'm getting advice on how to be like
Speaker 1: in touch and a man of the people from MIT.
Speaker 1: But it's actually it's actually good advice, mister Burns. You know,
Speaker 1: Miss burnsess so excellent. Yes, so, but let me tell
Speaker 1: you something amazing about John So since he began serving
Speaker 1: in the Biden administration, let me tell you something about
Speaker 1: his personal emissions, and I mean his plane. In twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, he took forty eight trips, lasting more than
Speaker 1: sixty hours in total. It's a lot of time in
Speaker 1: private planes. He has a big private plane. His plane
Speaker 1: emitted an estimated seven hundred and fifteen thousand, eight hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty six pounds of carbon or three hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty five metric tons. This is John Kerry single handedly
Speaker 1: since he first took his position in the Biden administration. Now,
Speaker 1: I was trying to think of, how do you characterize
Speaker 1: what is three hundred and twenty five tons to put
Speaker 1: it in kind of relative comparison, And so I did
Speaker 1: a little bit of searching online. Actually, right before we
Speaker 1: did the podcast, I wouldn't let you start because I
Speaker 1: was on my phone googling. Here's what I found. The
Speaker 1: country of Greenland emits in a given year one thousand,
Speaker 1: five hundred and thirty tons of carbon. In other words,
Speaker 1: John Carry, individually, one person emits roughly a fifth twenty
Speaker 1: percent of what the entire nation of Greenland emits. In Greenland,
Speaker 1: by the way, is a little over eight hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty six thousand square miles. Greenland has over fifty six
Speaker 1: thousand people who live in Greenland. So one guy, John
Speaker 1: Carry and is entourage that care for his gray poopon
Speaker 1: and that polished the tassels on his loafers. He emits
Speaker 1: one fifth of what fifty six thousand people in the
Speaker 1: entire nation of Greenland emits. And he has kind of
Speaker 1: a big deal center. You should know that he's kind
Speaker 1: of a big deal. He deserves that private jet. And
Speaker 1: you know what he's willing to tell you. You need
Speaker 1: to give up your automobile. Yeah, you need to give
Speaker 1: up your gas stove. You need to give up your lawnmower,
Speaker 1: you need to give up your washing machine, you need
Speaker 1: to give up your dishwasher, because after that's his offset.
Speaker 1: I guess right, that's exactly right. If he gets if
Speaker 1: he takes away your cars and the cars of the
Speaker 1: other fifty six thousand people in Greenland, it will make
Speaker 1: up for his private jet, and he's saving the world.
Speaker 1: The absolute hypocrisy the left, it is difficult to find
Speaker 1: it better personified than his comment. The gazillionaires and Davos
Speaker 1: do more, much more than you little people. Great googling,
Speaker 1: by the way, right before the show, that was worth it.
Speaker 1: Now that's it for this episode of Verdict. Don't forget
Speaker 1: to subscribe. Hit that auto download button. Please write a
Speaker 1: five star review. It helps us reach more people. We
Speaker 1: do this show three days a week. If you're seeing
Speaker 1: the video version of this, you're missing out on the
Speaker 1: other two. So hit subscribe auto download. You can tell
Speaker 1: Siri Alexa play Verdict with Ted Cruz will play automatically
Speaker 1: also subscribe to YouTube. Don't don't right, that's just s
Speaker 1: YouTube subscribers. We want you to subscribe to YouTube and
Speaker 1: to the audio podcast. Get them both. Get them both,
Speaker 1: and we'll see you back here in a couple of
Speaker 1: days