Speaker 1: Welcome and as verdict with Senator Ted Kruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you as well, and Senator A mountain of evidence
Speaker 1: against the Biden crime family is really starting to mount up.
Speaker 1: But it's actually not pressure on the president or his
Speaker 1: family or Hunter Biden. It's on the Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Speaker 1: He was testifying before Congress on the latest on the
Speaker 1: impeachment inquiry, and your overall reaction I want to get
Speaker 1: because I was shocked, not really by his arrogance as time,
Speaker 1: by his I would say, lack of just candid answers
Speaker 1: to basic questions that were asked of him.
Speaker 2: Were you shocked by his demeanor?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 4: Unfortunately I wasn't. Merrick Garland, from the day he was
Speaker 4: sworn in, has demonstrated a contempt for Congress, a contempt
Speaker 4: for the American people, a smug entitlement that no one
Speaker 4: is allowed to question him, that he doesn't have to
Speaker 4: answer any questions. I have questioned Merrick Garland now many
Speaker 4: times and he will not answer. He will not give
Speaker 4: you a straight answer to anything. And so as the
Speaker 4: evidence keeps mounting, not just of Joe Biden's personal corruption,
Speaker 4: but of Merrick Garland being personally implicated now in multiple felonies,
Speaker 4: he has not wavered at all from his attitude that
Speaker 4: seems to say, how dare you question me? He is,
Speaker 4: He's the legal equivalent of Anthony Fauci. Fauci says, I
Speaker 4: am the science. Merrick Garland's response is essentially, I am
Speaker 4: the law, and they're both wrong.
Speaker 1: I want to play a few quips that really went viral,
Speaker 1: and they went viral because of just the shock of
Speaker 1: the lack of response and, like you said, the arrogance
Speaker 1: of Garland. One of them was just a basic question
Speaker 1: talking about, hey, what did you know and when did
Speaker 1: you kind of know it?
Speaker 2: Take a listen.
Speaker 5: Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI headquarters
Speaker 5: about the hunter by an investigation?
Speaker 2: Really don't.
Speaker 3: I don't recollect the answer to that question. But the
Speaker 3: FBI works for the Justice Department.
Speaker 2: It's I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you don't recollect. You don't
Speaker 2: recollect whether.
Speaker 5: You've talked with anybody at FBI headquarters about an investigation
Speaker 5: of the President's son.
Speaker 6: I don't believe that I did.
Speaker 3: I promised the Senate when I came before it for
Speaker 3: confirmation that I would leave mister Weiss in place, and
Speaker 3: then I would not interfere with his investigation. Okay, did
Speaker 3: you have ever I have kept that promise? All right?
Speaker 2: Do you believe him, Senator, because I don't.
Speaker 4: Well, the I R S whistleblowers both testified to the
Speaker 4: House that that that he lied when when he made
Speaker 4: that promise to the Senate, when he made that promise
Speaker 4: to me. In my questioning, we have now two careers
Speaker 4: or I R S employees who had gone before the
Speaker 4: House and said that he flat out lied, that he
Speaker 4: has directly interfered. And I got to say the question
Speaker 4: here this is very specific. Have you had personal contact
Speaker 4: with anyone at FBI headquarters about the Hunter Biden case?
Speaker 4: And for him to say, well, I don't remember. How
Speaker 4: do you not remember that? This isn't asking generally. Have
Speaker 4: you talked to FBI headquarters? Of course he has, as
Speaker 4: he says, and in his answer, the FBI works for
Speaker 4: the Justice Department. So yes, the Attorney General has talked
Speaker 4: to FBI headquarters. But if he is recusing himself from
Speaker 4: the matter, if he is not interfering, then he would
Speaker 4: know whether or not he had had those conversations. And
Speaker 4: the fact that he doesn't remember with the entirety of
Speaker 4: the evidence is highly dubious.
Speaker 1: There is also another congresswoman who asked a question of Garlands.
Speaker 1: He was testifying by the House Judiciary, said committee hearing,
Speaker 1: and I want you to hear what she had to say.
Speaker 1: It was a lengthy back and forth, but it was
Speaker 1: an important one as well. And I say important because
Speaker 1: it was the accusation that Merrick Garland basically is not
Speaker 1: acting on behalf of the American people, or on behalf
Speaker 1: of the law of the laws of this country, or
Speaker 1: making sure these laws are being followed, but instead he's
Speaker 1: basically working as a defense lawyer for the Biden crime
Speaker 1: family by purposely slow walking the probes into the Clintons.
Speaker 1: And this is something we haven't talked about in a while.
Speaker 1: But also into Hunter Biden, also into Joe Biden, also
Speaker 1: into the FBI's involvement in things like January sixth. It's
Speaker 1: like he's in a personal attorney for anyone of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that does something that's nefarious.
Speaker 7: Second, my town FBI phone numbers all over the district.
Speaker 7: Please call that. People are truly afraid. I just want
Speaker 7: to make sure if you're not aware, is that you are,
Speaker 7: and this is a big problem. People are afraid of
Speaker 7: their own government. And I'll share some other things. We're
Speaker 7: talking about justice system.
Speaker 2: I don't question you.
Speaker 7: Probably not a bad person. I don't know you, but
Speaker 7: well i'll tell you you're in charge of the department and
Speaker 7: people right now feel you know. I'll look at Durham
Speaker 7: report and I call on the fights of relations of
Speaker 7: querious of millions Americans. Right, it's like KGB. But when
Speaker 7: I read Durham reports, we have this, you have a nice,
Speaker 7: you know, playbook. First, let's have a special council and
Speaker 7: then you don't have to answer any questions here.
Speaker 2: Then let's extend slow.
Speaker 7: Walk investigation on Hillary Clinton, on Hunter ever see a
Speaker 7: slow walk? We were all very quick on Donald Trump,
Speaker 7: but you are very slow walk. Then by the time
Speaker 7: you know that investigation and its statute of limitation expired
Speaker 7: and all of your agents need to be tested from mesia,
Speaker 7: and no one recalls anything. Okay, you probably should have
Speaker 7: as part of your hiring policy, so no one held accountable,
Speaker 7: which was agreed. What happened you know in that report?
Speaker 7: When I read about them, I.
Speaker 2: Can't believe it happened in the United States.
Speaker 6: Of America.
Speaker 2: This is my frustration.
Speaker 6: I'll be honest with you. Then it's very interesting.
Speaker 7: You know, regardless what it is. Even people in Obama
Speaker 7: administration raise concerns, you know, how can president sons be
Speaker 7: serving on you know, corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. Do you understand
Speaker 7: that it actually can undermine the one Ukrainian effort and policy.
Speaker 7: I think those concerns were raised above. Administration didn't do
Speaker 7: anything about it. These people are dying right now, and
Speaker 7: Americans don't trust this president.
Speaker 2: So you I want to ask you.
Speaker 7: One thing, you know, as you you know, I don't
Speaker 7: need answer because I know you're not going to but
Speaker 7: I think you're probably got American and you care. And
Speaker 7: a lot of these people are so afraid they cover
Speaker 7: up this stuff, I think in your department because they're
Speaker 7: embarrassed that what we became as a country to say
Speaker 7: that what our department is justice became that allows Russians
Speaker 7: to do proper and then Chinese it allows them to
Speaker 7: destabilize our country. That is danger to our republic. It
Speaker 7: is significant danger. And I have just one more question
Speaker 7: from you. You know, I mean I agree on corporate
Speaker 7: crimes and vices stuff even with Democrats that we need
Speaker 7: to do a better job. One more questions for you.
Speaker 2: Do you believe that.
Speaker 7: You know you talk about rights to vote, but do
Speaker 7: you believe that only you as citizens should be voting
Speaker 7: in this election and doing anything to make sure that
Speaker 7: only eligible people.
Speaker 6: Vote in elections?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 7: And yes, okay, I would like to see that what
Speaker 7: you do?
Speaker 2: Thank you?
Speaker 1: Nilt I play that because I feel like this is
Speaker 1: the level of frustration and anger that so many Americans
Speaker 1: have that this congresswoman, Missus Sparks displayed there. She's livid
Speaker 1: over the way that this man's doing his job, almost
Speaker 1: the point of like, how the hell can you live
Speaker 1: with yourself? And how are you getting away with this?
Speaker 1: And this is where I think many Americans are at
Speaker 1: this point.
Speaker 4: Well, you're right, that's very powerful. That's Victoria Sparts. She
Speaker 4: is a congresswoman from the state of Indiana. And Victoria
Speaker 4: was born in the Soviet Union, and she grew up
Speaker 4: in the Soviet Union, and so she saw a communist dictatorship.
Speaker 4: She saw when she's referencing the KGB, she's familiar with
Speaker 4: what the KGB would do. And Victoria came to America
Speaker 4: when she was twenty two years old, and so she
Speaker 4: came to America seeking freedom, seeking a better life. And
Speaker 4: the outrage that she's expressing there that how can it
Speaker 4: be that the US Department of Justice is behaving like
Speaker 4: the KGB did? That is from personal experience, from life experience.
Speaker 4: She's seen oppression firsthand. And notice Garland doesn't respond at
Speaker 4: all to any of what she said there. He just
Speaker 4: sits there passively, which frankly is what I guess the
Speaker 4: KGB would do as well. Now I guess they would
Speaker 4: actually arrest her for saying that. So it's still marginally better.
Speaker 4: But at the end of the day, the points she
Speaker 4: made are fundamentally the same. The slow walking. Look, they
Speaker 4: just brought charges against Hunter Biden for buying a gun
Speaker 4: illegally when he was on crack. They've had the evidence
Speaker 4: of that for years. There's been no new evidence on that.
Speaker 4: They could have brought that years ago. What they did, though,
Speaker 4: was slow walk the investigation so that the statute of
Speaker 4: limitations now has expired on the most serious tax offenses.
Speaker 4: They've allowed that statute limitation to expire. The statute of
Speaker 4: limitations has now expired on Joe Biden's corruption with communist China.
Speaker 4: The text app the text on WhatsApp that Hunter sent
Speaker 4: to the Chinese Communist officials saying, I'm sitting next to
Speaker 4: my father. Well, you know what, Merrick Garland has magically
Speaker 4: let the statute of limitations expire on that, and he
Speaker 4: doesn't defend himself, he doesn't dispute it. His attitude is
Speaker 4: I don't answer to you, I don't answer to anybody.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about our friends at Chalk.
Speaker 1: If you're a guy and you feel like you've lost
Speaker 1: a little bit of your edge, that you've lost your
Speaker 1: strength and your vitality, that now you are seeing weakness
Speaker 1: and complacency sit in. Maybe you want to be active
Speaker 1: and you just don't have that energy. Maybe you want
Speaker 1: to work out and you just don't have that energy. Well,
Speaker 1: you're not alone. Dostostrum levels have dropped off a rock historically,
Speaker 1: especially here in the US, and thankfully the patriots at
Speaker 1: Chalk are helping real American men just like you, maximize
Speaker 1: your masculinity by boosting your testosterum levels up to twenty
Speaker 1: percent over ninety days.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Chalk is manufactured right here in the US of A.
Speaker 1: Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
Speaker 1: changing effects on your energy, your focus, and your mood. Now,
Speaker 1: I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack now for months
Speaker 1: and I can tell you it works. So if you
Speaker 1: are sick and tired of just sitting around and maybe
Speaker 1: feeling weak or lazy or complacent, and you want to
Speaker 1: get that strength and vitality back, go right now to
Speaker 1: chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code Ben.
Speaker 1: You're gonna get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscriptions
Speaker 1: for life. Yeah, thirty five percent off. So go to
Speaker 1: chalk choq dot com booster Tesawstrom levels up to twenty
Speaker 1: percent over ninety days. That's chalkchoq dot com promo code
Speaker 1: Ben for more than thirty percent off right now chalkchoq
Speaker 1: dot com centaer.
Speaker 2: I also want to ask you.
Speaker 1: About the way the media is covering this now, and
Speaker 1: I say the way they're doing it because they're having
Speaker 1: to cover obviously this issue with the President and with Garland,
Speaker 1: but it's like they don't know how to do it.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that was said tonight on CNN,
Speaker 1: I want you to hear this after the testimony from Garland.
Speaker 2: This was actually said on CNN.
Speaker 7: Listen, were you disappointed in the Attorney General's lack of
Speaker 7: answers there?
Speaker 8: I think he's trying to be very cautious not to
Speaker 8: say something that is incorrect. For example, you know, he's
Speaker 8: the head of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General
Speaker 8: he sees, you know, hundreds thousands of people, you know,
Speaker 8: were some of them FBI agents. He doesn't. He made
Speaker 8: it very clear he has had no direction towards the
Speaker 8: Special counsel on the Biden investigations, completely hands off.
Speaker 1: This is Congresswoman Lofgren. She just made that up. That's
Speaker 1: not what Merre Garland said. In response, he said he
Speaker 1: didn't know. He couldn't remember it right, He said, I
Speaker 1: don't think I have. So she's out there and even
Speaker 1: Aaron Burnette, I give her some credit. She's like like,
Speaker 1: come on, like you can't even be happy with his
Speaker 1: answering here, and she immediately goes into spend modes as well.
Speaker 1: I can totally kind of understand why and how. It's like,
Speaker 1: are you kidding me?
Speaker 4: Well? The Democrats have talking points, and every Democrat reads
Speaker 4: from the same talking points, and they're willing to lie.
Speaker 4: We see Kareem John Pierre do that almost on a
Speaker 4: daily basis, just stand up there and brazenly lie. It's
Speaker 4: like when she stood at the White House podium and
Speaker 4: said people aren't just walking across the border. That doesn't happen.
Speaker 4: That was a flat out lie. I guarantee you it
Speaker 4: is happening right now. And by the way, whatever time
Speaker 4: you happen to have downloaded this podcast and played it,
Speaker 4: it's happening right now. Whether you're listening to it early
Speaker 4: in the morning, you're listening to it at lunchtime, you're
Speaker 4: listening to it as you drive home in the evening,
Speaker 4: you're listening to it at two in the morning, it's
Speaker 4: happening right now. Someone's coming across the border when you
Speaker 4: have seven point two million people cross in two and
Speaker 4: a half years. She's lying literally every minute of every day.
Speaker 4: And they do the same thing on Hunter Biden, on
Speaker 4: Joe Biden, on the evidence of corruption. They just stick
Speaker 4: to their talking points and they count on the press
Speaker 4: not to hold them account.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things that were brought up with Garlin,
Speaker 1: and it's outside of just the Biden crime family. One
Speaker 1: of them is a contentious point that I think should
Speaker 1: be an election your issue. I'm talking about the presidential
Speaker 1: election year, and this is the fact that you had
Speaker 1: an FBI that put out that infamous school board memo
Speaker 1: targeting parents and treating them like Al Qaeda, just like
Speaker 1: they are terrorists, like Al Kaita, calling them domestic terrorists.
Speaker 1: And there was a back and forth about this as well.
Speaker 1: I wanted to people to listen to what Kevin Kylie
Speaker 1: had to say in this back and forth.
Speaker 9: Are you aware that directory a couple months ago and
Speaker 9: sworn testimony implicated you in a sweeping abuse of power.
Speaker 3: I doubt he would characterize whatever whatever he said in
Speaker 3: that way.
Speaker 9: Well, he testified about the school board memo that you
Speaker 9: issued on October fourth of twenty twenty one, in which
Speaker 9: you mobilized federal law enforcement powers against American parents. Now,
Speaker 9: of course you didn't put it quite like that. Instead,
Speaker 9: you found a pretext, which is stated right here in
Speaker 9: the first line of the memo. In recent months, there
Speaker 9: has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats
Speaker 9: of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.
Speaker 9: What was your basis for making that claim?
Speaker 3: I will say, again, as I've testified numerous times, in
Speaker 3: response to exactly the same question that I saw numerous
Speaker 3: reports in the press of violence and threats.
Speaker 9: You saw reports in the press, and so you decided
Speaker 9: to instigate a nationwide law enforcement initiative.
Speaker 3: If I may be permitted to answer the question, please,
Speaker 3: numerous reports in the media of violence and threats of
Speaker 3: violence against school personnel of all kinds.
Speaker 1: By the way, can we just stop there at that
Speaker 1: lie centator, there were not wide ranging mass reports of
Speaker 1: violence against school board members. That is a lie from
Speaker 1: the Attorney jo on the Unit States America, Merrick Garland,
Speaker 1: that was not happening in this country when they decided
Speaker 1: to go after parents and declare that they're domestic terrorists.
Speaker 1: Can we all agree that that's a lie.
Speaker 4: Well, not only is it a lie, it's a lie
Speaker 4: that he's been caught on before, because when I cross
Speaker 4: examined him in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on
Speaker 4: exactly this topic, and I pulled up the memo that
Speaker 4: he wrote that there were twenty different instances that were
Speaker 4: cited in the letter from the National Association of School Boards.
Speaker 4: That was the entire predicate for his memo. That's what
Speaker 4: he based it on, is the memo that he'd gotten
Speaker 4: and they cited twenty different instances, and I asked him,
Speaker 4: I said, of the twenty, how many were violent? He said,
Speaker 4: I don't know. I said, did you examine any of them?
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 4: Did you look into whether they were violent or not?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: One of them was Scott Smith, the father in Loudon
Speaker 4: County whose daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy dressed
Speaker 4: as a girl in a skirt in the girl's bathroom.
Speaker 4: And Scott Smith was wrongfully arrested by the school board
Speaker 4: because when the school board covered it up, they went
Speaker 4: after the parent instead of defending and protecting the child.
Speaker 4: And by the way, they transferred that sexual predator to
Speaker 4: another high school where he sexually assaulted another little girl.
Speaker 4: He's now a convicted sex offender because he kept on
Speaker 4: doing it. And Garland's answer to me, he admitted he
Speaker 4: had no idea which ones were violent, which ones were not.
Speaker 4: He didn't examine it, He did no due diligence whatsoever.
Speaker 4: He simply said, I want to go after the parents.
Speaker 4: And so what he just repeated to the house is
Speaker 4: repeating the same lies. He has no idea what violence
Speaker 4: occurred or not. That was just a pretext to go
Speaker 4: after parents because he didn't like them expressing their First
Speaker 4: Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: And then listen, he gets even more irritated that he's
Speaker 1: having to answer this question.
Speaker 6: Did you consult with the FBI director?
Speaker 3: We received a letter from the National Association of school
Speaker 3: Boards reporting.
Speaker 9: Yes, that letter contained anecdotes, it didn't contain data of
Speaker 9: an increase. Did you, yes or no, consult with the
Speaker 9: FBI director before issuing the memo?
Speaker 3: I don't believe I spoke with the FBI director.
Speaker 6: No. Why not? Why wouldn't you consult with the FBI.
Speaker 3: Director Because the purpose of the memo, as is very
Speaker 3: clear from the memo, is to ask the FBI to
Speaker 3: assess the situation, to hold meetings, and to determine whether.
Speaker 6: It's attorney general.
Speaker 9: You started with a conclusion that there was an increase
Speaker 9: in threats. Now, if you had bothered to consult with
Speaker 9: the FBI director, here's what he would have said. This
Speaker 9: is from his swoln testimony that he was not aware
Speaker 9: of any such evidence. So my question to you, sir,
Speaker 9: sitting here today, is can you substantiate your claim that
Speaker 9: there was an increase? Of course, there will always be
Speaker 9: criminal sporadic criminal activity in all quarters of society. But
Speaker 9: your claim was there was an increase. Can you substantiate
Speaker 9: that sitting here today, I.
Speaker 3: Can substantiate that by the reports in the press of
Speaker 3: violence and threats of violence, and by the letter sent
Speaker 3: by representatives of that's a no.
Speaker 9: You're giving us anecdotes. I'm asking you if you had data.
Speaker 9: You also said in your memo that you were committed
Speaker 9: to using the department's authority and resources to discourage these threats,
Speaker 9: identify them, when did they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.
Speaker 6: Were there any such prosecutions?
Speaker 3: The emphasis should be there on when appropriate, and there
Speaker 3: were no such prosecutions, and that's good news, not badness.
Speaker 9: There were no prosecutions, and in fact Director Ray said
Speaker 9: there were no arrests, there were no charges, So you
Speaker 9: have no data to show us that there was any
Speaker 9: You didn't even bother to consult with the FBI director,
Speaker 9: and then there were no resulting prosecutions, even though you
Speaker 9: said that they were coming. So I have to ask
Speaker 9: you now in retrospect, was there a compelling law enforcement
Speaker 9: justification for the memo.
Speaker 3: I think you're mischaracterizing the memo. The question the purpose
Speaker 3: of the memo.
Speaker 2: By the way, how's he mischaracterizing the memo Senator.
Speaker 4: Like he's describing it perfectly accurately.
Speaker 2: It's accurate.
Speaker 1: And I go back to how the hell does this
Speaker 1: guy keep his job if he can come to before Congress,
Speaker 1: whether it's on the House side of the sit side,
Speaker 1: and just lie and make stuff up and then can't
Speaker 1: answer a basic question is is there ever a day
Speaker 1: where this Attorney General is going to be held accountable
Speaker 1: for sitting there in this arrogant way, just straight applying
Speaker 1: to people, even when the facts are in front of his.
Speaker 4: Face, held accountable. He's doing exactly what Joe Biden and
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris want him to do. He is covering up
Speaker 4: for Joe Biden, He's covering up for Democrats. He's weaponizing
Speaker 4: the Department of Justice as he's weaponizing the FBI. That
Speaker 4: there are several things that he said there so he
Speaker 4: says no one's been prosecuted. What he didn't acknowledge is
Speaker 4: the FBI has gone and interviewed multiple parents who exercised
Speaker 4: their First Amendment rights, and they've been willing to be
Speaker 4: used essentially to try to intimidate parents. I got to say,
Speaker 4: if you're a mom or dad, and you go to
Speaker 4: a school board and suddenly the g men are knocking
Speaker 4: on your door because you expressed your First Amendment rights.
Speaker 4: That is abuse of power. That is a chilling of
Speaker 4: First Amendment rights. I hate to break it to Merrick Garland,
Speaker 4: but moms and dads are not domestic terrorists. And by
Speaker 4: the way he relies on well, I trusted the representatives
Speaker 4: of the school boards, National Association of school Boards. You
Speaker 4: know what Merrick Garland doesn't say. National Association of school
Speaker 4: Boards apologized for sending the letters, said it was a
Speaker 4: mistake and said what they said was wrong. Now he
Speaker 4: doesn't mention that. But Merrick Garland has left this memo
Speaker 4: in place that direction go target parents. It is operative. Today.
Speaker 4: I forced a vote on the Senate floor to overturn
Speaker 4: that direction, to say that the Senate does not want
Speaker 4: parents treated as domestic terrorists. Every single Senate Democrat voted no.
Speaker 4: Merrick Garland is doing precisely what the Democrats want. There
Speaker 4: is a reason that my latest book, Justice Corrupted, How
Speaker 4: the Left has weaponized the legal system, opens with what
Speaker 4: happened in Louden County and Merrick Garland's memo to the
Speaker 4: FBI directing them to go after parents, because it is
Speaker 4: a brazen example of using law enforcement as a tool
Speaker 4: to go after it, go after your political enemies, and
Speaker 4: it's a willingness to disregard the rule of law and
Speaker 4: simply to exercise power.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: For ten years now, Patriot Mobile has been America's only
Speaker 1: Christian conservative wireless provider. And when I say only trust me,
Speaker 1: they're the only one. The team over there have been
Speaker 1: amazing supporters of conservatives, conservative causes, and the right to life.
Speaker 1: They support our veterans and our first responders. And that's
Speaker 1: part of the reason why I want you to put
Speaker 1: your money where your values are. Patriot Mobile is a
Speaker 1: way that you can change a bill and the bill
Speaker 1: you pay every month for your cell phone to a
Speaker 1: company that's aligned with your values and supports what you
Speaker 1: believe in. They offer you nationwide coverage, giving the ability
Speaker 1: to access all three major networks, which means you get
Speaker 1: the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the
Speaker 1: woke left agenda. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're
Speaker 1: sending a clear message that you support free speech, religious freedom,
Speaker 1: the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment as well as
Speaker 1: our military, our veterans, and our first responders are heroes.
Speaker 1: This is why I want you to switch. They also
Speaker 1: make switching easy. They're one hundred percent US based customer
Speaker 1: service team. Make sure that you can do it quickly.
Speaker 1: You get to keep your same cell phone number if
Speaker 1: you want to keep your same phone, or upgrade to
Speaker 1: a new one, and their team will help you find
Speaker 1: the best plan to save you money. All you got
Speaker 1: to do is go to Patriotmobile dot com, slash verdict
Speaker 1: that's Patriot Mobile dot com, slash a verdict, or call
Speaker 1: them eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot.
Speaker 1: Get free activation when you use a promo code Verdict.
Speaker 1: Check them out. Make the switch, and every time you
Speaker 1: pay that bill, you're making a difference. And every time
Speaker 1: you use that cell phone, you know you're standing up
Speaker 1: for the values that you believe in. There was also
Speaker 1: another issue center that came up that I also thought
Speaker 1: was very interesting with Garland, and that was a simple question,
Speaker 1: are you looking in to who leaked the Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: probe info to the Washington Post? Right, They've slow played
Speaker 1: everything else. They protect the president all costs and his
Speaker 1: non answer was to me one of the most disgusting
Speaker 1: moments of the day.
Speaker 10: Mister Garland, have have you or are you investing who
Speaker 10: leaked the information that appeared in the Washington Post on
Speaker 10: October sixth, twenty twenty two about this investigation about the
Speaker 10: hunter By and investigation.
Speaker 3: You're saying there was an October twenty twenty two.
Speaker 10: October sixth, twenty twenty two, Washington Post writes a story
Speaker 10: about the hunter By an investigation. I'm just I wonder
Speaker 10: if you investigated who leaked that information to the Washington Post.
Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 10: Has it been referred to the Inspector General?
Speaker 6: Do you know that?
Speaker 3: I don't want my answer to suggest that there is
Speaker 3: or isn't such an investigation.
Speaker 6: I know that the.
Speaker 3: That the Inspector General sent a letter to Congress explaining
Speaker 3: that there was that he had an ongoing assessment with
Speaker 3: respect to the whistleblower's charges. I don't know if that's
Speaker 3: what you're referring to.
Speaker 2: I mean, really, you don't know.
Speaker 1: You don't know if you're investigating in a leak that
Speaker 1: came from your department.
Speaker 2: Do you believe him on that?
Speaker 4: No, of course not now, look, he's a little bit
Speaker 4: covering his own rear end because he's saying I think
Speaker 4: he doesn't care. So do I believe that he doesn't know?
Speaker 4: I guess in some sense. But there's a reason the
Speaker 4: answer is no, there is no investigation. And the reason
Speaker 4: the answer is no is because this Department of Justice
Speaker 4: from the beginning has used leaks aggressively. They leak information
Speaker 4: that is damaging to Donald Trump, they leak information that
Speaker 4: is damaging to Republicans, and they cover it up. Remember
Speaker 4: when they discovered classified documents the first time in one
Speaker 4: of Joe Biden's homes. They discovered it before the twenty
Speaker 4: twenty two election, and yet miraculously, the Apartment of Justice
Speaker 4: was sealed tight as a drum. Nothing was leaked until
Speaker 4: after election day. When they want to they can keep secrets,
Speaker 4: but when it hurts their political opponents, they have the
Speaker 4: press on speed dial. And so I believe the answer
Speaker 4: is no, there is no investigation because the political superiors
Speaker 4: were very happy with the leak, and they may have
Speaker 4: been the ones who leaked it in the first place.
Speaker 4: But his answer is a classic lawyer's dodge of well,
Speaker 4: you know, I don't know if someone's investigating something, but
Speaker 4: from his perspective, there ain't nothing to investigate.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about ray Epps for a second and remind
Speaker 1: people of ray Epps. You and I have talked about
Speaker 1: this on the show before. It's something that came up
Speaker 1: obviously with director, with the director, the FBI director, also
Speaker 1: with the Attorney General Merrit Garland. But ray Epps out
Speaker 1: of nowhere. Many people believe he was undercover.
Speaker 2: FED.
Speaker 1: There were people even chanting at January sixth, fed fed fed.
Speaker 1: He was the guy telling people were going to storm
Speaker 1: the place the night before, caught on tape. He's a
Speaker 1: guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a
Speaker 1: guy that was encouraging people to break into the capitol
Speaker 1: on January sixth, had not been charged with anything. Now
Speaker 1: fast forward multiple years later, and we find out this
Speaker 1: last week that yes, Ray Apps has now officially been
Speaker 1: charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to
Speaker 1: prison that we're in and around January the sixth, rounding
Speaker 1: up people all over the country. Even just days ago
Speaker 1: we saw another person rounded up. We put some you know,
Speaker 1: some different people in jail for decades now, for January
Speaker 1: the sixth. But Ray Apps, who clearly was a ringleader
Speaker 1: at least on the day before January sixth and January sixth,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor, and we still
Speaker 1: can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want
Speaker 1: you to hear Representative Thomas Massey and his back and
Speaker 1: forth and then your reaction.
Speaker 5: You're signing the constitution. I'm going to sign it. It's
Speaker 5: our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now. In that video,
Speaker 5: that was your answer to a question to me two
Speaker 5: years ago when I said, how many agents are assets
Speaker 5: of the government were present on January fifth and January
Speaker 5: sixth and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol,
Speaker 5: and how many went into the capitol?
Speaker 6: Can you answer that now?
Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 5: Oh last time. You don't know how many there were
Speaker 5: or there were none.
Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
Speaker 3: If there were any, I don't know how many. You've
Speaker 3: know whether there are any.
Speaker 5: I think you may have just perjured yourself that you
Speaker 5: don't know that there were any. You want to say
Speaker 5: that again, that you don't know that there were any.
Speaker 3: No personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I
Speaker 3: said the last time.
Speaker 5: You've had two years to find out and the day,
Speaker 5: by the way, that was in reference to Rey EPs,
Speaker 5: and yesterday you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence
Speaker 5: on a misdemeanor.
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, you're sending Grandma's to prison.
Speaker 5: You're putting people away for twenty years for merely filming.
Speaker 2: Some people weren't even there yet. You got the guy
Speaker 2: on video, he's saying, go into the capitol.
Speaker 5: He's directing people to the capitol before the speech ends.
Speaker 2: He's at the site of the first breach.
Speaker 5: You've got all the goods on in ten videos, and
Speaker 5: it's an indictment for a misdemeanor. The American public isn't
Speaker 5: buying it.
Speaker 2: Yield to bounce of my time to Chairman Jordans.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I answer the question.
Speaker 6: I'm gonna ask you one now. We'll let the jump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, go ahead. But in discovery, in the cases we're
Speaker 3: filed with respect to January sixth, the Just Department prosecutors
Speaker 3: provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking.
Speaker 3: With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that
Speaker 3: he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
Speaker 3: Mister Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding I
Speaker 3: believe going on today on that subject.
Speaker 6: The charge is a joke, I yielded, Chairman.
Speaker 1: I love the end there, the charge of the joke.
Speaker 1: I yielded the Chairman. He's right about that, based on
Speaker 1: everything we know about Ray Epp. So who is the guy?
Speaker 4: Well, look, it's a very good question. And you see
Speaker 4: the Attorney General once again dodging. And you know, one
Speaker 4: of the most telling moments of that exchange is when
Speaker 4: is when the when Merrick Garland says, well, I don't
Speaker 4: even know if there were any FBI agents there, and
Speaker 4: and and I think, uh, I think the point was
Speaker 4: made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was
Speaker 4: almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look, an earlier Verdict we did,
Speaker 4: actually before you and I teamed up, back when it
Speaker 4: was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire episode
Speaker 4: of Verdict that was entitled who is Ray Epps? And
Speaker 4: and you ought to go on YouTube and and it
Speaker 4: was it was episode one oh four of Verdict, Who
Speaker 4: is Ray Epps? And it followed questioning that I had
Speaker 4: done in the Judiciary Committee of senior officials at the
Speaker 4: Department of Justice and the FBI, where I asked them
Speaker 4: who Rey Epps was and and if if he had been,
Speaker 4: if he if he was an employee of the FBI,
Speaker 4: if he was a confidential informant. They refused to answer,
Speaker 4: the stonewalled. I asked the question, did you have agents there?
Speaker 4: They refused to answer, or they stonewalled. I asked whether
Speaker 4: federal agents incited violence? They refused to answer the stonewalled
Speaker 4: And so this has been a pattern for a long time.
Speaker 4: And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance that he has
Speaker 4: no idea what the Department of Justice's involvement was in
Speaker 4: incite violence or criminality. On January sixth, I can tell
Speaker 4: you this is also in the wake of the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice losing the case they brought against the individuals
Speaker 4: that were charged with a plot to kidnap and murder
Speaker 4: the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the basis of their
Speaker 4: losing was that the FBI had engaged in entrapment, that
Speaker 4: they had incited the criminality.
Speaker 1: And so can you explain a little bit more what
Speaker 1: that means inciting criminality?
Speaker 2: So people understand.
Speaker 4: It, well, law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime.
Speaker 4: In other words, if if the police send an undercover
Speaker 4: agent to you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a
Speaker 4: car parked on the street. It's got the keys in it,
Speaker 4: why don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you
Speaker 4: can do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there,
Speaker 4: turn the keys and take it. If they do that,
Speaker 4: that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones, they're
Speaker 4: the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality. And you
Speaker 4: might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were
Speaker 4: not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you
Speaker 4: to do it. And so it's a defense that a
Speaker 4: criminal defendant can give is Look, this was the government's idea.
Speaker 4: They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis the
Speaker 4: central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover
Speaker 4: informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested
Speaker 4: the plot, they're the ones who drove it forward. And
Speaker 4: these guys were acquitted, the charges were thrown out. And
Speaker 4: the fact that the Biden ds is caught with absolute
Speaker 4: misconduct it is really stunning and of course, the corporate
Speaker 4: the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's exactly
Speaker 4: relevant to the question that was just raised about January sixth,
Speaker 4: which is, to what degree did the criminal conduct that occurred,
Speaker 4: did the violence that occur on that day, to what
Speaker 4: degree did law enforcement agents incite it or prompted? And
Speaker 4: the reason there's so much focus on rey Epps is
Speaker 4: he was caught on tape repeatedly saying, let's go into
Speaker 4: the capitol, not just up to the capital, into the capitol.
Speaker 4: And there's one point where his behavior was so odd
Speaker 4: that the entire crowd begins chanting fed, fed, Fed, fed,
Speaker 4: and And so that's why I asked a senior leader
Speaker 4: at the FBI if ray Epps was a FED, and
Speaker 4: she refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is
Speaker 4: pleading complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on
Speaker 4: January six except for the fact that he has told
Speaker 4: Congress repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals
Speaker 4: involved with January six than any other matter in DJ's history,
Speaker 4: which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's
Speaker 4: yet another example of how the Biden doj is about
Speaker 4: politics all of the time, and if you can target
Speaker 4: your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.
Speaker 1: You should choose an air purifier like your life depends
Speaker 1: on it. And I can tell you as someone that
Speaker 1: has asthma, making sure that I have clean air in
Speaker 1: my home is really important. This year alone, there are
Speaker 1: more than thirty five thousand wildfires that have devastated the
Speaker 1: US and the toxins and the particles in wildfire smoke
Speaker 1: can penetrate your lungs and it can threaten your health.
Speaker 1: We've also had a lot of ozone warnings and bad
Speaker 1: air quality warnings on top of that. And that's why
Speaker 1: in viro Quinn's develop military grade air purification specifically for
Speaker 1: your home or your office. They just announced their biggest
Speaker 1: sale of the year. You can save a massive thirty
Speaker 1: percent off and viro Clins is specifically designed to wipe
Speaker 1: out airborne chemicals and viruses known to cause illness, allergies,
Speaker 1: and difficulty breathing. Even toxic gases and particles found in
Speaker 1: wildfire smoke are no match for in viro clins. That's
Speaker 1: why the US Navy selected in viro Clints to protect
Speaker 1: and purify the air in their facilities and in viro
Speaker 1: Clints comes with a free professional air quality monitor, so
Speaker 1: you know your family's breathing purified air. I have one
Speaker 1: in my house. I have one in my bedroom and
Speaker 1: it works. Now's the time for you to save thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your air purification unit. You get the free
Speaker 1: air quality monitor and fast free shipping. That's a two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty dollars savings right there. Loan, what's the
Speaker 1: website ek pure dot com and use the promo code
Speaker 1: verdict that's ek pure e k p u r E
Speaker 1: dot com. Ekpure dot com promo code verdict and get
Speaker 1: the air quality that everyone deserves ekpure dot com center. Finally,
Speaker 1: there was one part that I really thought wrapped up
Speaker 1: just how bad uh this back and forth was this
Speaker 1: testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight when Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland has asked a pretty simple question, and that's, Hey,
Speaker 1: why do you act like you're the president's lawyer.
Speaker 2: That's not your job.
Speaker 3: Our job is not to do what is politically convenient.
Speaker 3: Our job is not to take orders from the President,
Speaker 3: from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what
Speaker 3: to criminally investigate. As the President himself has said, and
Speaker 3: I reaffirmed today, I am not the president's lawyer. I
Speaker 3: will add I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department
Speaker 3: works for the American people. Our job is to follow
Speaker 3: the facts and the law, and that is what we do.
Speaker 1: I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar
Speaker 1: at this point. I don't think he can be trusted.
Speaker 1: And I think he's weaponized a DOJ and turn it
Speaker 1: into a weapon of the President of the United States
Speaker 1: of America. No matter what he says with his rhetoric
Speaker 1: there in those prescripted clear talking points, they knew this
Speaker 1: was a problem for them, and so that's why they
Speaker 1: had him say it this way.
Speaker 4: Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John
Speaker 4: Mitchell was Richard Nixon's attorney general. He was indicted, he
Speaker 4: was prosecuted, He served twenty two months in jail for
Speaker 4: his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen
Speaker 4: as Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland look in The New York
Speaker 4: Times reported that Joe Biden quote told confidence that he
Speaker 4: wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to stop acting like a
Speaker 4: ponderous judge and to take decisive action. Joe Biden knew
Speaker 4: exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland. He was
Speaker 4: getting someone willing to use the weaponry of the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously willing to
Speaker 4: do whatever is necessary to protect the President, to protect
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden, to protect Democrats. And I will underscore again,
Speaker 4: We've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the IRS who've
Speaker 4: come forward, two different whistleblowers to say what Merrick Garland
Speaker 4: just said there is flat out false because the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice has consystematically obstructed justice, obstructed the investigation into
Speaker 4: Hunter Biden, and especially into Joe Biden. And so he
Speaker 4: can say over and over again, I'm not the president's lawyer,
Speaker 4: and yet he behaves exactly like he's the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1: Should this be an election year issue, just the way
Speaker 1: that the DOJ has been weaponizing, specifically, should Republicans be
Speaker 1: targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting.
Speaker 4: The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of
Speaker 4: the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think
Speaker 4: is a major election issue, and it is a major
Speaker 4: reason to throw these clowns out because it has done
Speaker 4: more to undermine the rule of law than anything that
Speaker 4: we have seen in decades.
Speaker 1: If ever, don't forget that you can download Verdict three
Speaker 1: days a week Monday, Wednesday, Friday's plus our weekend review
Speaker 1: on Saturdays. Hit that subscribe auto download button or the
Speaker 1: follow button depending on where you're listing plus and those
Speaker 1: in between days. I'll keep you up to date on
Speaker 1: my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts on the latest breaking news,
Speaker 1: and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.