Speaker 1: Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz. We can review Ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you. And these are the big stories that
Speaker 1: you might have missed that we talked about this week.
Speaker 1: Number one, the corporate media covering and trying to tell
Speaker 1: you because Michael Cohen lies so much, maybe that means
Speaker 1: he's actually being honest during the Trump trial. So will
Speaker 1: this Jedi mind trick work on the jurors? We're going
Speaker 1: to talk about it. Also, can Democrats actually put politics
Speaker 1: aside for a moment and get on board with protecting
Speaker 1: IVF with a federal bill center Cruz talks about the
Speaker 1: important legislation that he has proposed. And finally Anthony Blincoln
Speaker 1: lying saying we have not withheld arms from Israel. Well,
Speaker 1: guess who says he's lying? The White House saying yes,
Speaker 1: we did pause the shipments. We'll have all of that.
Speaker 1: It's the weekend review and it starts right now.
Speaker 2: The prosecution's argument is Michael Cohen is a liar, but
Speaker 2: he's a thief too. Like that. That's kind of a problem.
Speaker 2: But you know what, the corporate media is so corrupt
Speaker 2: they're trying to defend him. Listen to Lawrence O'Donnell from
Speaker 2: MSNBC trying to explain that the fact that that Cohen
Speaker 2: was stealing from Trump, it's really not a problem.
Speaker 3: It's okay.
Speaker 4: Inside the core room, even there, almost every day you
Speaker 4: have the strength of.
Speaker 5: Beyond mortal men.
Speaker 3: What was worth it to you today? What did you see?
Speaker 4: What did you hear?
Speaker 5: Well, you know, the courtroom is where I began as
Speaker 5: a writer and a reporter a long time ago. So
Speaker 5: this is a homecoming for me in terms of a workplace.
Speaker 5: The shocking thing at the end of that cross examination,
Speaker 5: and I just can't tell you how just how stunning
Speaker 5: it was, because it's the thing that I was waiting for.
Speaker 5: I saw everything, Todd Blanche. I've seen every minute of
Speaker 5: cross examination. I've seen every single question he's asked. And
Speaker 5: he sat down and ended his cross examination without asking
Speaker 5: a single question about the one hundred and thirty thousand
Speaker 5: dollars that appears on the Alan Weiselberg notes about how
Speaker 5: they were structuring the payment to Michael Cohen. He asked
Speaker 5: about the fifty thousand dollars that's irrelevant to the one
Speaker 5: hundred thirty thousand dollars, and that's where he very effectively
Speaker 5: got Michael Cohen to say to agree that, yes, he
Speaker 5: stole thirty thousand dollars. Later, when Cohen was asked about
Speaker 5: that on redirect by the prosecution, it didn't really sound
Speaker 5: like stealing thirty thousand dollars. It sounded a lot like
Speaker 5: Michael Cohen doing the little that he could within that
Speaker 5: calculation to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserves, and
Speaker 5: it still came out as less than the bonus he
Speaker 5: thought he deserved and the bonus you've gotten the year before.
Speaker 1: I mean, I love how he's like justifying the stealing
Speaker 1: because he thought he.
Speaker 2: Was trying to rebalance the bonus. You know, if you
Speaker 2: steal from your employer, you're just trying to rebalance what
Speaker 2: they're paying you because you know you're worth more, so
Speaker 2: steal away. That is MSNBC's defense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's not a big deal to pay people
Speaker 1: in brown paper bags for work, right. That's also very
Speaker 1: normal apparently in the minds of MSNBC as well, So
Speaker 1: we'll completely overlook that as well. Final question on this,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, You're right not going to take the stand
Speaker 1: that I think is obviously a smart decision as you
Speaker 1: described it. I think it was in the last podcast
Speaker 1: the one before that he's not going.
Speaker 2: To which is what we predicted on this podcast before
Speaker 2: that decision was made. I said on this podcast the
Speaker 2: chances that Donald Trump will go on the stand or
Speaker 2: zero point zero zero percent.
Speaker 3: Well that was proven right.
Speaker 2: He's not going on the stand because his lawyers are
Speaker 2: not incompetent in committing malpractice.
Speaker 1: So when you're looking at this now, now, what do
Speaker 1: you think is going to happen? What's your gut?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I remain worried. Listen on the merits. This case is frivolous,
Speaker 2: and I will point out also that the judge one
Speaker 2: of the things he did is he blocked the Trump
Speaker 2: campaign from putting on the witness stand the former chairman
Speaker 2: of the FEC Brat Smith. Bratt Smith is a law professor,
Speaker 2: is one of the most well respected campaign finance experts
Speaker 2: in the country. Campaign finance law is famously complicated, and
Speaker 2: Bratt Smith was prepared to testify that paying hush money
Speaker 2: does not constitute a campaign expense. If that's correct, the
Speaker 2: entire case goes out the window. And it's interesting. So
Speaker 2: after the judge blocked him from testifying, Smith did an
Speaker 2: interview did an interview with the Washington Examiner, where he
Speaker 2: described what he would have testified to and Smith said,
Speaker 2: here's what Smith said. Quote judges instruct the juries on
Speaker 2: the law, and they don't want a battle of competing
Speaker 2: experts saying here's what the law is. They feel it's
Speaker 2: their province to make that determination. The problem, of course,
Speaker 2: is that campaign finance law is extremely complex, and just
Speaker 2: reading the statute to people isn't really going to help
Speaker 2: them very much. The goal of his testimony, Smith said
Speaker 2: was quote to lay out the ways the laws has
Speaker 2: been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious. As
Speaker 2: an example, Smith cited the phrase quote for the purpose
Speaker 2: of influencing an election, which has been heard during much
Speaker 2: analysis of the trial. Quote you read the law and
Speaker 2: it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing
Speaker 2: an election is a contribution or an expenditure, Smith explained.
Speaker 2: But that's not, in fact the entirety of the law.
Speaker 2: There is the obscure and separate from the definitional part
Speaker 2: idea personal use, which is a separate part of the
Speaker 2: law that says you can't divert campaign funds to personally
Speaker 2: unth use. That has a number of specific prohibitions like
Speaker 2: you can't buy a country club membership, you can't normally
Speaker 2: pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can't go
Speaker 2: on vacation, all those kinds of things. And then it
Speaker 2: includes a broader general prohibition that says you can't divert
Speaker 2: campaign funds to any obligation that would exist even if
Speaker 2: you were not running for office. What's the point of
Speaker 2: that quote? We would have liked to flag that exception
Speaker 2: for the jury and to talk a little bit about
Speaker 2: what it means. And also we would have talked about
Speaker 2: quote for the purpose of influence in an election is
Speaker 2: not a subjective test like what was my intention? It's
Speaker 2: an objective test. So hiring campaign staff is for the
Speaker 2: purpose of influencing an election, Renting space for your campaign office,
Speaker 2: buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing up bumper stickers, travel
Speaker 2: to campaign rallies, renting venues for campaign rallies. All those
Speaker 2: things exist only because you're running for office. But under
Speaker 2: the personal use rules, a lot of things candidates do
Speaker 2: running for office are not considered campaign expenditures. Things like
Speaker 2: paying for a weight loss program or a gym membership,
Speaker 2: nicer clothes, teeth whitening, or all that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: It may be true that you do those things in
Speaker 2: part to help get yourself elected, and you might not
Speaker 2: do them otherwise because but they are not obligations that
Speaker 2: exist simply because you're running for office. Lots of people
Speaker 2: do those things. And what he argued is that in
Speaker 2: this instance, I can tell you it is my personal
Speaker 2: belief is that clearly paying hush money or paying for
Speaker 2: a non disclosure agreement does not constitute a campaign expense.
Speaker 2: That's what the former FEC chairman would have testified to quote.
Speaker 2: To use an example I've often used, it's not a
Speaker 2: campaign expense. If a business person is running for office
Speaker 2: and his businesses are getting sued, and he goes to
Speaker 2: his company's lawyers and say, I wish to settle these
Speaker 2: lawsuits against us. We've got some wage employment lawsuits and
Speaker 2: a woman is alleging sexual harassment. We've got thirty six
Speaker 2: thousand employees. But we've got to make these three complaints
Speaker 2: and the press will make a big deal about them.
Speaker 2: So I want you to settle these. And the company
Speaker 2: lawyers say, no, these are great cases, we should win,
Speaker 2: we shouldn't settle them. He says, I don't care. I'm
Speaker 2: running for office. I don't want press stories on it.
Speaker 2: I want them you to settle them quietly. Well, he
Speaker 2: cannot use campaign funds to pay that settlement, even though
Speaker 2: he's clearly doing it for the purpose of influencing his campaign.
Speaker 2: It's kind of similar to what went on here. Smith
Speaker 2: continued quote, So my personal belief is that this clearly
Speaker 2: would not have been a campaign expenditure, never had to
Speaker 2: be reported, and therefore was not misreported. And you know
Speaker 2: what the judge said, The jury can't hear a word
Speaker 2: of that because it demonstrates he didn't say this part,
Speaker 2: but because it demonstrates that the prosecutor's case is utter,
Speaker 2: incomplete garbage.
Speaker 1: Lastly, on this issue center, the war on truth is really,
Speaker 1: I think incredible. You can see it. And you mentioned
Speaker 1: this earlier. In the media's coverage of the Trump case.
Speaker 1: You had MSNBC. You and I were texting back and
Speaker 1: forth on this because it was it was a headline
Speaker 1: that was so laughable, and the headline was how Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen's pass lies make him a more credible witness. And
Speaker 1: they weren't the only ones to try to pull this,
Speaker 1: you know, Jedi mind trick on people. The new York
Speaker 1: Times had a headline it says, when Michael Cohen's lies
Speaker 1: helped the case against Trump, what world are we living
Speaker 1: in where this is what the media comes up with afterwards?
Speaker 2: A spinnet Well, listen number one, The media unfortunately regularly lies.
Speaker 2: They engage in lies. They view their role as propagandas
Speaker 2: it's not. They're not interested in the truth. They're not
Speaker 2: interested in reporting both sides. They're not interested in facts.
Speaker 2: They frame their mission as saving democracy, which means pushing
Speaker 2: this country to the left. This is concerns Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: It means doing everything you can to destroy Trump and
Speaker 2: make sure, no matter what, that he's not re elected
Speaker 2: president of the United States. The spins are rather pitiful,
Speaker 2: the idea that, well, you know what, Cohen lies so
Speaker 2: much that he's really a believable witness, Like that's just weird.
Speaker 2: And I got to say, the media's lies about Cohen's
Speaker 2: lies making him more credible are so absurd. It just
Speaker 2: shows they're really bad liars.
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. I'm
Speaker 1: thankful that you're doing this. I'm thankful that you're teaming up.
Speaker 1: I hope that Democrats will say this is a non
Speaker 1: political issue and we should push for this because everybody
Speaker 1: needs to be able to have this and that right
Speaker 1: and be protected. Have you heard from Democrats? Are they
Speaker 1: going to get on board? Because this doesn't seem political
Speaker 1: to me. I know so many people that have voted
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden have done IBF of course, voted for
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. It's not political.
Speaker 3: It's onting to have a family.
Speaker 2: So we filed the legislation today. Today, Katie Britta and
Speaker 2: I have an op ed in the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 2: So you should go and read the op ed we
Speaker 2: wrote in the Wall Street Journal. It's in today's journal today.
Speaker 2: I'm in New York on Monday, I'm going to be
Speaker 2: in New York City with Katie. We're gonna do a
Speaker 2: number of media interviews starting early in the morning talking
Speaker 2: about this legislation. I think it is really important legislation.
Speaker 2: This should be legislation that passes the Senate one hundred
Speaker 2: and nothing. Every Senator agrees with the substate policy. Katie
Speaker 2: and I are going to try to pass it, and
Speaker 2: we're going to go to the Senate floor and seek
Speaker 2: to pass it. And what I do not know is
Speaker 2: if the Democrats will block it. And if they block it,
Speaker 2: it would be, even for today's Democrat party, an incredibly
Speaker 2: cynical move, because what it would be is the Democrats saying,
Speaker 2: you know what, we want to have the issue. We
Speaker 2: want to accuse Republicans of trying to ban IVF, and
Speaker 2: so we're going to prevent you from protecting.
Speaker 1: IVF so we can say you want to ban it, so.
Speaker 2: Then we can falsely claim you want to ban it.
Speaker 2: That would be the only conceivable reason the Democrats could
Speaker 2: object is if they do not want to protect IVF. Now,
Speaker 2: the Democrats have their own bill that they claim is
Speaker 2: about IVF, but it actually is an abortion bill focused
Speaker 2: on their broader abortion agenda, and they know that this
Speaker 2: is a very narrow bill that puts in clear, ironclad
Speaker 2: protections for IVF. As I said, every Senator, Republican and
Speaker 2: Democrat agrees with that policy. So the only question is
Speaker 2: will the Democrats play politics so much that they will
Speaker 2: oppose a policy that they agree with because they don't
Speaker 2: want to give up on the issue.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I hope not but we'll see, we'll see what the
Speaker 2: Democrat reaction to it is.
Speaker 1: Is this one of those moments where vertical listeners, people
Speaker 1: that share this show on social media should definitely reach
Speaker 1: out to their centers and say, hey, this is a nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: non political issue, we're asking to support it, and call
Speaker 1: with that spirit in mind of their senator, no matter
Speaker 1: where they live.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yes, Look, this is something IVF has support. Nearly
Speaker 2: ninety percent of American support IVF. IVF is profoundly profamily.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 2: It is a miracle. Look for most of human history,
Speaker 2: if parents are not able to conceive that they're just
Speaker 2: left childless and in sorrow, and it is through the
Speaker 2: miracles of science that that parents who struggle with infertility
Speaker 2: are able to be moms and dads and raise raise
Speaker 2: babies and children. That that is a wonderful, beautiful thing.
Speaker 2: And I hope we see some bipartisan unity the next
Speaker 2: week or two.
Speaker 3: We'll find out, Senator.
Speaker 1: I hope you have great success on this built We're
Speaker 1: going to keep everybody updated on it as it moves forward. Finally,
Speaker 1: I do have to call out the media. This week
Speaker 1: was one heck of a week in New York City.
Speaker 1: Where you're headed. And it made me laugh because the
Speaker 1: media now seems to be hedging their bets that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump may win in a New York court because of
Speaker 1: the disaster that's been this trial with brag at the
Speaker 1: end and with Cohen, to the point where even CNN
Speaker 1: said this, take a look.
Speaker 4: If I'm enjuring. I've been warned that Michael Cohen lies.
Speaker 4: The prosecutors have said this, They've set it up. I'm
Speaker 4: prepared for that. I'm prepared for He's lied in the
Speaker 4: past repeatedly. I don't know if a jury is prepared
Speaker 4: for he lied to this jury two days ago, but
Speaker 4: now he's really telling the truth.
Speaker 6: If you have a cooperating witness that can't tell the truth,
Speaker 6: that a plea elocution, that means that that witness is
Speaker 6: basically worseless.
Speaker 4: He test right, He lied to the judge in this
Speaker 4: priority case.
Speaker 6: And then Todd blanches cross examination. So basically, whenever you
Speaker 6: get into a problem, it's always blamed somebody else. Blame
Speaker 6: President Trump, blame the judge. How many places do you
Speaker 6: have to go where this guy has lied many times
Speaker 6: under oath and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not
Speaker 6: his fault. And that's pretty powerful evidence to a jury
Speaker 6: to say you shouldn't believe anything this guy says it.
Speaker 6: And if you have to rely on his testimony in
Speaker 6: any fashion whatsoever in order to convict Donald Trump, i e.
Speaker 6: In order to fix Donald Trump's intent, you have a
Speaker 6: reasonable dobt. You can't have anything else but a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Seven people are on that panel. Seven And this is
Speaker 1: how they've been covering the Trump trial the entire time.
Speaker 1: It's the center of the world for Democrats. They wanted
Speaker 1: to be guilty. They've gone all in with their most
Speaker 1: brilliant minds, and now at the very end they're like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's probably not gonna happen because this guy's a liar
Speaker 1: and the whole case is a joke.
Speaker 2: Look, they are obsessed with the Trump trial. CNN covers
Speaker 2: it from from dawn to dust, constantly, breathlessly. They get
Speaker 2: so excited when Stormy Daniels is on the stand and
Speaker 2: talking about sex with the president. Oh that makes their
Speaker 2: cold little hearts go pitter patents at CNN. But it
Speaker 2: says something when even CNNA is like, Wow, this case
Speaker 2: is weak and it only takes one They are getting
Speaker 2: very very nervous, and here play the second clip.
Speaker 7: Anderson, let me ask you, if I could put you
Speaker 7: in the jury box, having just witnessed that piece of
Speaker 7: cross examination, do you have doubts that that conversation happened
Speaker 7: the way Michael Cohen testified on his direct examination that.
Speaker 4: I think it's absolutely absolutely, I think it's devastating. I
Speaker 4: mean for Michael Cones's credibility on this, I mean, in
Speaker 4: this one particular topic, whether it's you know, he just didn't,
Speaker 4: I mean, it's it's hard to I don't know. Yes,
Speaker 4: I think if I was a juror in this case
Speaker 4: watching that, I would think this guy's making this up
Speaker 4: as he's going along, right, or he's making this particular
Speaker 4: story up. You know, Todd Blas is pointing out you
Speaker 4: were testifying just on Tuesday in this court, you know,
Speaker 4: and all morning along he's been pointing out, you know,
Speaker 4: inconsistencies in Michael Cones's testimony, or at least questionable aspects
Speaker 4: of Michael Cones's testimony, but nothing that you would necessarily
Speaker 4: as a juror think, Okay, that's clearly a lie. Maybe
Speaker 4: that's just a miss he was misunderstanding, or you know,
Speaker 4: he was dragging or whatever this one. Todd Blam's clearly
Speaker 4: saved this to write before the lunch break.
Speaker 3: I'm assuming because it was.
Speaker 4: Just so well crafted and just point by point walking
Speaker 4: through this story which at first seemed you know, why
Speaker 4: why this seems like a ridiculous story. It's some'm fourteen
Speaker 4: year old at sending him, you know, nasty text messages
Speaker 4: and he's going to call it Keith Schiller about it.
Speaker 4: And then you realize you look at the he showed
Speaker 4: the phone logs that the prosecutor had shown, and it's
Speaker 4: the phone call that that that that that Michael Cohen
Speaker 4: had previously talked about. I think it is severely damaging
Speaker 4: to Michael Cone's testimony.
Speaker 1: I mean, this has got to be like their worst
Speaker 1: day ever at CNN went to watch this and they're
Speaker 1: saying there, going, look, Mike Cohen's a liar.
Speaker 3: The whole case is a shame. Look.
Speaker 2: I'm actually wondering if CNN, like like if the hosts
Speaker 2: had become day drinkers now, like like if they're they're
Speaker 2: slamming back to Kila shops, the sadness that they're saying
Speaker 2: it now.
Speaker 3: Listen to be clear, Trump could still be convicted.
Speaker 2: Sure, this is a wildly left wing prosecutor, this is
Speaker 2: a wildly left wing judge, and this is a jury
Speaker 2: drawn from a New York jury pool, so presumably it
Speaker 2: is an overwhelmingly democrat jury. I don't believe any conviction
Speaker 2: if there is one, will stand up on appeal. But look,
Speaker 2: given how bad things went, we could see an acquittal.
Speaker 1: Last question on this, will Trump be on the stand
Speaker 1: before the end of this trial?
Speaker 3: Absolutely not? Zero points zero zero, zero percent chance.
Speaker 4: Why?
Speaker 2: Number one, the criminal defendant has no burden a proof.
Speaker 2: It is the prosecution that has the burden of proof.
Speaker 2: The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Speaker 2: the defendant committed the crime. Number two, Any defendant has
Speaker 2: a Fifth Amendment right protected in the Constitution not to
Speaker 2: testify at his own trial, and most defendants choose not to.
Speaker 2: But number three, for any lawyer to put Donald J.
Speaker 2: Trump on the stand under oath and to open a
Speaker 2: up to cross examination, and by the way, cross examination
Speaker 2: about damn near anything, particularly with a left wing judge
Speaker 2: who's a partisan, who is not going to corral in
Speaker 2: the cross examination, you are inviting disaster. To be clear,
Speaker 2: there is no chance Donald Trump would be put on
Speaker 2: the stand, it would be lunacy to do so. I
Speaker 2: don't know if the Trump team will have other witnesses
Speaker 2: they put on or not. They might, they might not,
Speaker 2: but it is an absolute certainty Trump will not be
Speaker 2: one of them. And hopefully this circus will be over soon.
Speaker 3: As before.
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
Speaker 1: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
Speaker 1: three of the week you may have missed. He's absolutely right,
Speaker 1: and it's sad that Anthony Blagan can sit there and
Speaker 1: straight up lie. And one of the lies that he told,
Speaker 1: and I want to get your reaction to it, is
Speaker 1: he said that we we haven't withheld any weapons. Well,
Speaker 1: the White House says he's a liar. Here's Jean Pierre
Speaker 1: on the fifteenth.
Speaker 8: And we have said that it is one pause, one
Speaker 8: pause on these bombs, one package, one shipment, and that
Speaker 8: is obviously connected to RAFA and the potential of what
Speaker 8: could happen in Rauffa, and we've been very clear about that.
Speaker 1: So who's lying? Senator the White House or blinking or
Speaker 1: is the White House calling Blinking out for his lie?
Speaker 3: Well, listen, Blinking is spinning like crazy.
Speaker 2: And understand when Joe Biden went on TV and threatened
Speaker 2: to cut off the weapons, that surprised the administration. They
Speaker 2: didn't know that he was going to freelance like that.
Speaker 2: And so they're trying to do clean up on that.
Speaker 2: But they're still holding the damn weapons. They're not sending them,
Speaker 2: so they're trying to spend that they're sending. Now, we
Speaker 2: sent other weapons that it's just the current shipment that
Speaker 2: we're threatening.
Speaker 3: I got to say, so, look, the first part of
Speaker 3: that cross.
Speaker 2: Examination, when I was focused on on the Washington Post story,
Speaker 2: and you and I covered this in a pod I
Speaker 2: don't know about a week or two ago. The most
Speaker 2: damning conclusion of that story that they were offering intelligence
Speaker 2: and where senior Hamas officials were and where AMAS territunnels
Speaker 2: were in exchange for not going into Rafa is the
Speaker 2: necessary implication that they had that information, they knew where
Speaker 2: the senior Hamas leaders were, and they were not telling Israel. Now,
Speaker 2: I will say Blincoln gave a categorical denial, and maybe
Speaker 2: maybe he's right, I do not know. I know that
Speaker 2: that story appeared in multiple media outlets simultaneously, so someone
Speaker 2: was deliberately and directly putting it forward. And if Blncoln
Speaker 2: was lying, then he perjured himself because he was under
Speaker 2: oath and he was unequivocal in what he said. He
Speaker 2: said they didn't offer Israel anything not to enter Rafa. Now,
Speaker 2: I think the chances that Blincoln is is is not
Speaker 2: telling the truth there are very very high. But you know,
Speaker 2: these issues have a way of over time, the truth
Speaker 2: comes out and tender.
Speaker 1: Look, there's the people that don't understand how leaks work
Speaker 1: in Washington. I think it's so you understand, there's sometimes
Speaker 1: are leaks that come out that is like one person
Speaker 1: that's genuinely leaking something. Then there's other strategic leaks that
Speaker 1: are done on purpose where you can't use their names.
Speaker 1: And look, I've been a part of that where they're like, hey,
Speaker 1: well you go to this reporter and this, and then
Speaker 1: three other people go to other reporters and then they say, hey,
Speaker 1: we want to get this message out there for in
Speaker 1: a few days from now. We want to let them
Speaker 1: know this is coming down the pipeline. When you have
Speaker 1: four people, it's organized. It's it's an administration's decision to
Speaker 1: send people out to give a heads up on something
Speaker 1: and to get it in the newspaper, to get it
Speaker 1: in print, which is exactly what you were quoting.
Speaker 2: No, that's exactly right. Anytime you have four people that
Speaker 2: are going to multiple outlets. It wasn't just the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: I quoted the Post, but but I think it was Reuters.
Speaker 2: It was several places. There's a decision, and someone has
Speaker 2: made a decision, we want to drive this story. And
Speaker 2: when four people are going, you're sending okay, you you, you,
Speaker 2: and you you guys go talk and push that story.
Speaker 2: So somebody pushed that story, and those four people who
Speaker 2: pushed it. By the way, the reporters know who those
Speaker 2: four people are, and they now know that one or
Speaker 2: the other is directly lying. Either the four people who
Speaker 2: talked to them were lying to them, or Tony Blincoln
Speaker 2: just committed perjury. One of the other has to be
Speaker 2: the case, so that in time there may be real
Speaker 2: consequences to Blinken's testimony on that. The rest of it, though, listen,
Speaker 2: I gotta say, when we got into for example, the
Speaker 2: Iranian oil. I found it stunning that the Secretary of
Speaker 2: State didn't know, didn't care how much oil are they selling?
Speaker 2: Or I don't know how much were they selling. I
Speaker 2: don't know how much are they now.
Speaker 3: I don't know how.
Speaker 2: Many ships were in the ghost fleece before. I don't
Speaker 2: know how many ships are there now.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's because they don't give a damn. They don't care.
Speaker 1: When you looked at you and he goes you tell me,
Speaker 1: I'm like, you're the secretary of State. You're the one
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be up on all of this information
Speaker 1: on the sanctions.
Speaker 3: Should know more than you should know on this. Am
Speaker 3: I right?
Speaker 2: If he cared? He does not care. The overwhelming foreign
Speaker 2: policy objective of Joe Biden and this entire administration, and
Speaker 2: sadly most of the Democrats in Congress is continuing to
Speaker 2: appease Iran an inter renew Iran nuclear deal, even while
Speaker 2: Iran is trying to murder Mike Pompeo. The former US
Speaker 2: Secretary of State, Raisi, who Blincoln just put out a statement,
Speaker 2: you know, commemorating and commiserating his death. Rayisi was trying
Speaker 2: to murder Blincoln's predecessor and like was trying to murder
Speaker 2: him two days ago.
Speaker 3: It is stunning.
Speaker 2: And so because they desperately want to deal with Iran,
Speaker 2: he doesn't care how much oiled it. By the way,
Speaker 2: this is the same administration that's doing everything they can
Speaker 2: to cut off oil and gas production and sales in
Speaker 2: the United States. This is the same Joe Biden that
Speaker 2: halted new permits to export LNG. So if it's a
Speaker 2: ma can selling oil and guests, they know who's doing it,
Speaker 2: they want to stop it. But if it's a homicidal
Speaker 2: religious theocrat who hates Israel, who hates America, who chants
Speaker 2: death to America, death to Israel, he can sell as
Speaker 2: much oil as he wants. What you know, what's one
Speaker 2: hundred billion dollars to a psychopath who wants to murder
Speaker 2: us all.
Speaker 1: Senator, one other question I do want to ask you about,
Speaker 1: and that involves some of Anthony Blincoln, but just a
Speaker 1: broader shock. The Biden administration issued condolences to Iran. You
Speaker 1: were just talking about the Iranian order oil and the
Speaker 1: Biden State Department sent official condolences for the Iranian president,
Speaker 1: who is known as the butcher of Tehran. And yet
Speaker 1: the US is offering official condolences and they say this
Speaker 1: is standard protocol since win.
Speaker 2: Well, look, as I asked on Twitter, only slightly tongue
Speaker 2: in cheek, I said, you know, you should have seen
Speaker 2: the condolence letter the State Department put out when Adolf
Speaker 2: Hitler died. But like, we don't mourn the loss of
Speaker 2: mass murderers. Understand, Rayisi was a mass murder by the
Speaker 2: way he murdered children in his own country. He was
Speaker 2: he was in charge of making the morals police in
Speaker 2: Iran even stricter. You know the groups that we see online,
Speaker 2: things like Queers for Palestine. Race is the guy in
Speaker 2: charge of murdering homosexuals. He's the one that takes you
Speaker 2: to the top of a tall building, or actually his
Speaker 2: goons are to be fair, it's it's probably not him personally,
Speaker 2: but his goons take you to the top of a
Speaker 2: tall building and throw you off. He's the one that
Speaker 2: that that that that that if a you know, woman
Speaker 2: removes her her head covering, and and and that that
Speaker 2: that is in charge of administering the beatings and whipping
Speaker 2: and capital punishment.
Speaker 3: He is a monster, by the way.
Speaker 2: He is also directly responsible for the murders of hundreds
Speaker 2: of US servicemen and women. He is directly respectible for
Speaker 2: October seventh, for the murder of twelve hundred Israelis. He
Speaker 2: is directly responsible for leading this viciously anti Semitic, hateful regime.
Speaker 2: The world should celebrate that Rayisi is dead, but this
Speaker 2: administration is not celebrating. And to be clear, the United
Speaker 2: Nations flew their flags at half staff. That's what you
Speaker 2: do when you commemorate the loss of a world leader.
Speaker 2: That's what you do when you commemorate the loss of
Speaker 2: someone who is to be revered, who is to be admired.
Speaker 2: And in this United Nations they are such vicious anti Semites.
Speaker 2: Rayisi fits the bill.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I wonder if these guys were in
Speaker 1: charge when we killed Asam Bin Lauden, would they have
Speaker 1: then sent condolences to al Qaida?
Speaker 2: And notice Blincoln didn't condemn what the ued did? I mean,
Speaker 2: I gave him the opportunity. He's like, well, well, I
Speaker 2: need to know the context? What context? Flag poll halfway up? Okay,
Speaker 2: you got all the context? Good or bad? You agree?
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Look,
Speaker 2: I mean that's he doesn't want to condemn it. Why
Speaker 2: because he agrees with it.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Sentner,
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
Speaker 1: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: podcasts and we will see you back here on Monday morning.