Speaker 1: Welcome. It is vernic was Sentator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you, Senator, we have this show and sometimes we
Speaker 1: have so much to talk about that it's like where
Speaker 1: do we even start? And so tonight this show is
Speaker 1: important because we're going to deal with a very important
Speaker 1: cross examination that you had today with Anthony Blincoln. But
Speaker 1: we're also going to get to some other important news
Speaker 1: as well well.
Speaker 2: This show is ultimately about arrogance and unaccountability of the
Speaker 2: Biden cabinet. We're number one, going to talk about the
Speaker 2: fact that Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, personally approved the
Speaker 2: use of deadly force in the raid of mar A Lago.
Speaker 2: He sent FBI agents in and he told them, if
Speaker 2: you need to unload your magazines, you do it. It
Speaker 2: is astonishing. We're going to talk about that. And secondly,
Speaker 2: we're going to talk about Tony Blink and the Secretary
Speaker 2: of State who testified before the Senate yesterday and he
Speaker 2: continues to admit nothing, To say that by has done
Speaker 2: nothing wrong on foreign policy, to say the mess all
Speaker 2: across the world is not Biden's fault, to say the
Speaker 2: fact that they are backing Hamas and undermining Israel. That's
Speaker 2: all hunky dory. I took the chance to cross examine him,
Speaker 2: and I will say his position I think was utterly indefensible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was incredible. We're going to place some of
Speaker 1: that for you in a moment. With inflation still well
Speaker 1: above the Fed's target rate, you know what's happening with
Speaker 1: your dollar. It's not buying near as much as it
Speaker 1: was before, certainly not as much as it was two
Speaker 1: or three years ago. And that is why we're seeing
Speaker 1: gold yet again this week and another all time high.
Speaker 1: Many around the world are looking to gold and silver
Speaker 1: to protect their hard earned dollars as part of a
Speaker 1: diversified plan to protect your assets. And that is exactly
Speaker 1: why I want you to know about Freedom Gold USA.
Speaker 1: Now here's the number one reason why I tell you
Speaker 1: to call Freedom Gold. Never tell you to put all
Speaker 1: your money in golden silver. There's a lot of companies
Speaker 1: out there that's exactly what they do. That is not
Speaker 1: what they believe in, and that is not what they
Speaker 1: will tay to do. Their goal is to educate all
Speaker 1: of their clients about how to invest in precious metals
Speaker 1: to diversify and protect your hard earned dollars. The second
Speaker 1: reason is this, on average, freedom Goold USA charges twenty
Speaker 1: five to thirty percent less than most major gold and
Speaker 1: silver firms. Simple terms, that means you get twenty five
Speaker 1: to thirty percent more gold or silver in your account
Speaker 1: than you will when you go to other places. So
Speaker 1: if you're ready to look at gold and silver as
Speaker 1: a hedge against inflation, as a diversification for your portfolio,
Speaker 1: call my friends at freedom Goold USA. They're online at
Speaker 1: FREEDOMGOLDUSA dot com, slash verdict. That's Freedomgoldusa dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: Or give them a buzz at one eight hundred six
Speaker 1: y five five eight eight four to three. That's one
Speaker 1: eight hundred six five five eight eight four to three
Speaker 1: or freedom Goold USA dot com slash verdict center. When
Speaker 1: we go back to the Marlago raid, there was outrage
Speaker 1: enough just on that happening. Never in my wildest dreams
Speaker 1: would I have thought that I would have witnessed the
Speaker 1: breaking news that took place that said, not only did
Speaker 1: the Biden administration and the Attorney General Merrit Garland authorize
Speaker 1: this raid, but on top of that, they authorized the
Speaker 1: use of deadly force.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. According to a filing that was unsealed
Speaker 2: this week. Here's what it says. Quote. According to an
Speaker 2: operations order produced in discovery, the FBI believed it's objective
Speaker 2: for the Marlago raid was to seize quote classified information,
Speaker 2: NDI and US government records, as described in the search warrant.
Speaker 2: The order contained a policy statement regarding quote use of
Speaker 2: deadly force, which stated, for example, quote law enforcement officers
Speaker 2: of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary.
Speaker 2: The agents planned to bring quote standard issue weapons AMMO, handcuffs,
Speaker 2: and medium and large sized bolt cutters, but they were
Speaker 2: instructed to wear unmarked polo or collared shirts.
Speaker 1: There's so many questions that I have right now. One
Speaker 1: of them center is the fact that it's like, were
Speaker 1: you setting this up to be a disaster? Because the
Speaker 1: Secret Services job is to protect the President of the
Speaker 1: United States of American former presidents at all costs. So
Speaker 1: if you send in the FBI and you give them this, hey,
Speaker 1: you've got authorized to use deadly force in this raid.
Speaker 1: And the Secret Service there whose job is to use
Speaker 1: deadly forced to protect the former president the United States
Speaker 1: of America, Why would Merrick Garland set up that disastrous
Speaker 1: situation even be a possibility.
Speaker 2: Well, and look, they were anticipating potential conflicts with Secret Service.
Speaker 2: So another one of the documents released says contingencies. Should
Speaker 2: media be President Marlago, all personnel will refer to MMOSC
Speaker 2: and I don't know all these acronyms, and I adhere
Speaker 2: to FBI media policy as briefed. Two. Should f potus
Speaker 2: former President of the United States arrive at mar A Lago,
Speaker 2: FBI MMEM and OSCs will be prepared to engage with
Speaker 2: f POTUS and US Secret Service security teams. So prepared
Speaker 2: to engage. Should US Secret Service provide resistance or interfere
Speaker 2: with FBI time line or accesses, MMEM will engage with
Speaker 2: and it's blocked out. We don't know what it is
Speaker 2: and blocked out blocked out will engage with US Secret
Speaker 2: Services point of contact per existing liaison relationships. Should mar
Speaker 2: A Lago guest reception be unwilling to provide a list
Speaker 2: of occupied guest rooms, FBI search team will knock on
Speaker 2: each guest room door to determine occupation status. FBI will
Speaker 2: request a map, list of rooms and skeleton key slash
Speaker 2: card for all rooms from mar A Lago staff five,
Speaker 2: an FBI MM slash tta with lock picking equipment will
Speaker 2: be on the scene. So they're anticipating Secret Service may
Speaker 2: actively resist the FBI, and they're prepared to engage, and
Speaker 2: they're prepared to engage with an order that explicitly authorizes
Speaker 2: deadly forced like what in the hell.
Speaker 1: Let's remind people of Merrick Garland's own words, he was
Speaker 1: very proud of this raid. In August, yes twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: He went out there, Justice Department, you insignia behind him,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department flag to his left, the American flag
Speaker 1: to his right, and he told the world in a
Speaker 1: live report, everyone carried it this.
Speaker 3: There are, however, certain points I want you to know. First,
Speaker 3: I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant
Speaker 3: in this matter. Second, the Department does not take such
Speaker 3: a decision.
Speaker 1: Lately, clearly not, Senator, because they were planning for the
Speaker 1: use of deadly force to possibly be used.
Speaker 2: So let me give a caveat defending this in a
Speaker 2: tiny respect, and then let me take that caveat away.
Speaker 2: The caveat I would give is is this sort of authorization.
Speaker 2: An authorization of use of deadly force is standard when
Speaker 2: the FBI is exercising a search warrant. Look, if you're
Speaker 2: exercising a search warrant in any context, if you're going
Speaker 2: to a drug dealer's house or something else, there there
Speaker 2: is a risk of armed resistance, and so an authorization
Speaker 2: of of of deadly forces is typical with with a
Speaker 2: search warrant. That's the caveat Now I'm going to take
Speaker 2: back every so little of every word of what I
Speaker 2: just said. Holy crap, this was the President of the
Speaker 2: United States. Are you out of your mind? Like like
Speaker 2: like this is And for Merrick Garland to say I
Speaker 2: personally approved it the absolute hubris of this administration. Listen,
Speaker 2: Merrick Garland is drunk with power. He believes he should
Speaker 2: be on the Supreme Court, and he is engaged in
Speaker 2: a global revenge tour against everyone he thinks who wronged him.
Speaker 2: But is there no judgment on the part of the
Speaker 2: Attorney jen Is there no judgment on the part of
Speaker 2: the Deputy Attorney General. Is there no judgment on the
Speaker 2: part of any advisors anywhere at DJ Is there no
Speaker 2: judgment on the part of the head of the FBI.
Speaker 2: Is there no judgment on the on the part of
Speaker 2: anyone involved in this process to say, you know, this
Speaker 2: guy was the president of the United States Secret Services
Speaker 2: guarding him for a reason. Yeah, maybe we should not
Speaker 2: be authorizing deadly for uced Like can you imagine listen, well,
Speaker 2: can I.
Speaker 1: Teach you this the chain of command? Just for people
Speaker 1: to understand this. Merrick Garland's over the FBI, But also
Speaker 1: isn't he over the Secret Service as well? Is that
Speaker 1: not under his now?
Speaker 2: No, Actually, Secret Service reports US, so they're in different
Speaker 2: different silos.
Speaker 1: So but wouldn't he be talking or realizing that he's
Speaker 1: setting them up for a war?
Speaker 2: You know, I don't know, and and listen, it is
Speaker 2: difficult to imagine. Look, who knows what happens. But the
Speaker 2: idea that okay, if Secret Service resists, you guys go
Speaker 2: like that, there is no sense. And this reminds me
Speaker 2: back at the beginning of Crossfire Hurricane. Crossfire Hurricane, you remember,
Speaker 2: was the DOJ and FBI targeting the Trump campaign back
Speaker 2: when he was a candidate. They went after him, and
Speaker 2: they went in and wire tapped him, and they went
Speaker 2: after Carter Page and they created fraudulent documents that they
Speaker 2: used to get a warrant from the Piza Court. I mean,
Speaker 2: it was a grotesque abuse of power that the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice Inspector General detailed in very painstaking detail.
Speaker 1: And the media gave cover because they said Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was crazy to imply that he was being spied on,
Speaker 1: his campaign was being spied on. They said he was
Speaker 1: a lunatic. In fact, he was right, the entire team.
Speaker 2: He was exactly right. But look, when you go back
Speaker 2: to the launch of Crossfire Hurricane part of the problem,
Speaker 2: and this goes to DOJ during Obama when this all
Speaker 2: started an FBI during Obama, there were no adults in
Speaker 2: the room. Listen, there are circumstances you could imagine where
Speaker 2: a criminal investigation, a search, warrant of prosecution has to
Speaker 2: be authorized against a high level government official, but especially
Speaker 2: when that high level official is in the opposing party,
Speaker 2: especially when that high level official is the leading candidate
Speaker 2: for the opposing party and the likely opponent for the
Speaker 2: sitting president. When you're going after your political opposition, the
Speaker 2: threshold for anything should be extraordinarily high. And it wasn't
Speaker 2: at all. Based on some ridiculous, half baked oppo research
Speaker 2: paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign that contained the
Speaker 2: notorious p tape and all that nonsense which has all
Speaker 2: been debunked. We now know was all made up. But look,
Speaker 2: when the Hillary Clinton campaign pays over a million bucks
Speaker 2: to make up oppo research, they come up with some
Speaker 2: creative stuff.
Speaker 1: When you look at this, this is going to be
Speaker 1: and it has to be. I would assume a major
Speaker 1: campaign issue, especially in the presidential campaign. I can't imagine
Speaker 1: this not coming up with the presidential debates. But there
Speaker 1: also seems to be panic right now. In response to this,
Speaker 1: Jim Comey went on MSNBC and said, this, take a listen.
Speaker 4: Are you concerned that it may get a test unlike
Speaker 4: any other if Donald Trump is reelected. I mean, when
Speaker 4: you think about a second Trump administration, what do you
Speaker 4: think the implications would be for the FBI?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 6: Serious, for the Justice Department and the FBI, because Trump
Speaker 6: is coming for those institutions. He knows their power, and
Speaker 6: I think he has regrets that he didn't work hard
Speaker 6: enough to corrupt them last time. So he's coming for them,
Speaker 6: and that's a danger for all Americans. He's going to
Speaker 6: put people in positions in those organsations. He didn't have
Speaker 6: all stars the last time, He'll have the bottom of
Speaker 6: the barrel this time. But people who will want to
Speaker 6: do his will, and that should weary every American. This
Speaker 6: election matters because of a reason like that. People have
Speaker 6: to participate. You cannot sit on the sideline. I don't
Speaker 6: care how you feel about Joe Biden. You must vote
Speaker 6: for him because the consequences on the other side are
Speaker 6: too severe.
Speaker 1: I don't care how you feel about Joe Biden, you
Speaker 1: must vote for him. That's the former FBI director saying
Speaker 1: that Senator.
Speaker 2: Well, and when he talks about corrupting the FBI, I
Speaker 2: will say you listen. I would admit Jim Comey as
Speaker 2: an expert witness at any trial on the planet on
Speaker 2: corrupting the FBI, because he was front and center. He
Speaker 2: did exactly that. He was the point person behind weaponizing
Speaker 2: the FBI. Jim Comey is someone who fancies himself I
Speaker 2: believe to be j Edgar Hoover. He had delusions of power.
Speaker 2: It is one of the gravest mistakes of the first
Speaker 2: term of the Trump presidency that Trump did not fire
Speaker 2: Jim Comey on January twentieth, twenty seventeen, the first day
Speaker 2: in office. He should have said, thank you for your
Speaker 2: service to the nation. Your services are no longer needed.
Speaker 2: Nobody would have blinked. But the White House foolishly thought
Speaker 2: they could get Komy to be part of the administration
Speaker 2: to do his job, to not be a disloyal, power
Speaker 2: hungry snake, and they were wrong. He's continuing to do that.
Speaker 2: And by the way, let's understand there's an enormous amount
Speaker 2: of CYA in Komy and that he's very afraid if
Speaker 2: they have accountability at the FBI that his personal rear
Speaker 2: end is in the sling. And so that's he's like, please, please,
Speaker 2: please make sure you put people in power that cover
Speaker 2: up for me and that continue the corruption of the
Speaker 2: FBI and continue weaponizing get to attack their enemies, because
Speaker 2: that's what I did, and I don't want to be
Speaker 2: held for account That's among the most self interested testimony
Speaker 2: I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: Final question on this now, knowing what we know about
Speaker 1: the raid, is it warranted in justifiable if Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is elected again, for him to go in in thoroughly
Speaker 1: clean house in these institutions.
Speaker 2: Warranted, justifiable, and incredibly necessary. What has happened is we
Speaker 2: have hardcore partisans who have corrupted these institutions from the inside.
Speaker 2: They occupy senior positions in the career bureaucracy. And if
Speaker 2: Trump is reelected, and I hope and pray that he is,
Speaker 2: he needs to appoint serious, strong leaders at DOJ, at
Speaker 2: the FBI, and the rest of the alphabet soup of
Speaker 2: the administration who understand what they're doing, who have the
Speaker 2: seriousness of purpose to go in and clean them out,
Speaker 2: because we need to restore the institution. Listen that there
Speaker 2: are some Republican, some conservatives that say things like abolish
Speaker 2: the FBI. I'm not in that camp. Why Because the
Speaker 2: FBI is enormously important. The FBI does hugely important things
Speaker 2: like fire and catching terrorists and stopping them from killing Americans.
Speaker 2: It does hugely important things like finding kidnappers and child
Speaker 2: predators and going after the mafia and mobsters and going
Speaker 2: after Mexican drug cartales, like all of that is really
Speaker 2: damn important, and I don't want to blow that up.
Speaker 2: What I want to do is restore the integrity of
Speaker 2: the FBI and the DOJ by getting the partisans out
Speaker 2: of office who have corrupted it. As you know, Chris Ray,
Speaker 2: the current director of the FBI, I've known for twenty
Speaker 2: five years. Chris. Interestingly, Chris is not a liberal. He's
Speaker 2: a Republican. He still considers himself a Republican to this day.
Speaker 2: Chris's problem, I believe, is that he is a company man. Now, look,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump put him in that position, he appointed him
Speaker 2: to that position. Chris is a company man, and he is.
Speaker 2: He and I have had screaming arguments on this where
Speaker 2: he believes it is his job as administrator of the FBI,
Speaker 2: director of the FBI to defend the career leaders at
Speaker 2: the fa And I've told him, Chris, you are not
Speaker 2: defending the institution of the FBI if you support people
Speaker 2: who are corrupting it and destroying its integrity. What does
Speaker 2: it tell you that half of America doesn't trust the
Speaker 2: institution anymore because you've been so politicized, and he has
Speaker 2: proven utterly incapable of seeing it and even less capable
Speaker 2: of taking it on and stopping.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you talk about accountability. You also talked with Anthony Lincoln,
Speaker 1: and I want to get into that in just a moment.
Speaker 1: But before I do that, if you've got a cell
Speaker 1: phone and you're with Big Mobile, you may not realize
Speaker 1: you're helping Democrats running for re election right now. You
Speaker 1: may not realize that you're helping Plan Parenthood. You may
Speaker 1: not realize you're giving money to radical extremists, liberal organizations.
Speaker 1: Now you don't know that when you're paying your bill,
Speaker 1: they're taking part of that bill and they're giving major
Speaker 1: donations to the groups and organizations, including Planned Parenthood that
Speaker 1: I just mentioned. And that is why I want you
Speaker 1: to know about Patriot Mobile. For more than a decade,
Speaker 1: Mobile has been America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. But
Speaker 1: there's a lot of reasons why people are like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know if I want to change, I need
Speaker 1: good service. Well guess what, you get the same exact
Speaker 1: service used to right now, because you're going to be
Speaker 1: on the same towers that you're using right now when
Speaker 1: you switch to Patriot Mobile. The number two reason why
Speaker 1: people don't switch, they say, I don't want to go
Speaker 1: to the store and take up an entire day. Well,
Speaker 1: with technology in twenty twenty four, you can switch over
Speaker 1: the phone and it's easy. I did it the other day.
Speaker 1: I had to switch over another line and it took
Speaker 1: no time at all. And you get to keep your
Speaker 1: same cell phone number. You get to keep your same
Speaker 1: phone you have right now in your hand. Or you
Speaker 1: can upgrade to a new phone Patriot Mobile. They offer
Speaker 1: you dependable nationwide coverage. But then here's the best part.
Speaker 1: They take five percent of your bill every month on average,
Speaker 1: and they give it back to organizations that support free speech,
Speaker 1: religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, and
Speaker 1: they support our military veterans, our first responders, and are
Speaker 1: wounded warriors. So when you pay your bill, you're standing
Speaker 1: up for what you believe in. You're gonna have a
Speaker 1: cell phone bill every month, why not give your money
Speaker 1: to a company that supports your values. Nine seven to
Speaker 1: two Patriot is the number to call to switch. It's
Speaker 1: nine seven to two Patriot, nine seven to two Patriot
Speaker 1: or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. You'll get free activation
Speaker 1: when you use the offer code verdict as well. Join
Speaker 1: me and make the switch today Patriotmobile dot com slash
Speaker 1: verdict or nine seven to two Patriot. Senator. There was
Speaker 1: a remarkable moment today, and I'm privileged to get to
Speaker 1: see a lot of what you do in Washington, and
Speaker 1: I get to listen to a lot of it getting
Speaker 1: ready for the show. But this was one of I
Speaker 1: think the highlights, and I mean this sincerely of your career.
Speaker 1: The cross examination that you had today of the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State Anthony Blincoln, and I want to play it
Speaker 1: in its entirety for people what you said, but set
Speaker 1: the stage for us of what he was doing before you, guys,
Speaker 1: and what was happening.
Speaker 2: Well, the Secretary of State came today to testify before
Speaker 2: the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee,
Speaker 2: have been for years, and so as one of the members,
Speaker 2: I took the opportunity to question him. I'll tell you
Speaker 2: most of the questioning was fairly quiet, was fairly tame.
Speaker 2: People were not that exercised. It had been a pretty
Speaker 2: quiet hearing. Other than you had multiple Prohamas anti Israel
Speaker 2: protesters there. I think there were at least four who
Speaker 2: were arrested. One protester took a swing and a Capitol
Speaker 2: police officer. She was arrested. I had several anti Israel
Speaker 2: pro Hamas protesters chase me down the hall screaming at me.
Speaker 2: So there was the fireworks was coming from the radical
Speaker 2: left that was there. But Blincoln's testimony had been fairly
Speaker 2: quiet and sleepy. And I will say when it came
Speaker 2: my turn to question, I think it's fair to say
Speaker 2: it was no longer quiet and.
Speaker 1: Take a listen. It's truly an incredible cross here it is.
Speaker 2: Thank you, miss Chairman. I'm center, Miss Secretary. You have
Speaker 2: presided over the worst foreign policy disaster of modern times.
Speaker 2: When Joe Biden became president, he inherited peace and prosperity
Speaker 2: in the world. We now have two simultaneous wars waging,
Speaker 2: the worst war in Europe since World War II and
Speaker 2: the worst war in the Middle East in fifty years.
Speaker 2: Both I believe were caused by this administration's consistent weakness,
Speaker 2: and indeed your foreign policy is precisely backwards from what
Speaker 2: a rational American foreign policy should be. To our friends
Speaker 2: and allies, this administration is consistently undermined, weakened, and attacked them.
Speaker 2: And to our enemies, this administration has shown constant appeasement
Speaker 2: and indeed has flowed billions of dollars to the enemies
Speaker 2: of America who want to kill us. Senator Barasso asked
Speaker 2: you about Ibram Raci. Your State Department put out a
Speaker 2: statement sending condolences for his death. The Secretary, is the
Speaker 2: world better today now that Racy is dead?
Speaker 5: Given the horrible ACKs that he engaged in both as
Speaker 5: a judge and as president, to the extent he can
Speaker 5: no longer gage in them. Yes, the Iranian people are
Speaker 5: probably better off.
Speaker 2: You didn't say that in your statement, did you.
Speaker 5: I believe that we did, and certainly are spoke.
Speaker 2: Today. The United Nations is flying their flag at half
Speaker 2: staff to mourn the death. Would you agree that it
Speaker 2: is utterly disgraceful for the United Nations to be mourning
Speaker 2: the deaths of the butcher of Tehran.
Speaker 5: We're certainly not mourning his death, as I said, Do.
Speaker 2: You agree it's disgraceful for the UN to be I'll.
Speaker 5: Look at what they've done. We certainly would not do that.
Speaker 2: What they've done has phone the flag at half staff?
Speaker 2: Is that disgraceful?
Speaker 5: We wouldn't do that, and we would certainly find that.
Speaker 2: And I would note that's the absence of American leadership.
Speaker 2: All right, let's shift. The Washington Post on May eleventh
Speaker 2: wrote an article I'm going to read the opening paragraph.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration, working urgently to stave off of full
Speaker 2: scale Israeli invasion of Rafa, is offering Israel valuable assistance
Speaker 2: in an effort to persuade it to hold back, including
Speaker 2: sensitive intelligence, to help the Israeli military pinpoints the location
Speaker 2: of Hamas leaders and find the group's hidden tunnels. According
Speaker 2: to four people familiar with the US offers, is that
Speaker 2: paragraph accurate?
Speaker 5: Exactly the opposite. First of all, no one has done
Speaker 5: more to defend Israel than Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Is that paragraph?
Speaker 5: Well, let me finish if I many, please, He was
Speaker 5: there right after.
Speaker 2: I'm not interested in campaign speech, I've limited time. Is
Speaker 2: the paragraph in the Washington Post accurate as.
Speaker 5: You read it? No, to the contrary, We're providing everything
Speaker 5: we possibly can to is real to help them find.
Speaker 2: So the four sources that brief the Post and by
Speaker 2: the way, brief multiple other media outlets, they were lying.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so, all right, so that does the administration. Did
Speaker 2: the administration offer to provide the locations of senior Hamas
Speaker 2: leaders to Israel if they didn't invade Raffah?
Speaker 5: That's again, totally totally misleading and wrong. Here's what we said,
Speaker 5: and here's what and here's what we're doing. We've said
Speaker 5: that there is a better way to deal with the challenge.
Speaker 2: That I'm not interested in the speech offer the location
Speaker 2: of senior Hamas officials if they didn't invade Rafa. That's
Speaker 2: a yes or no.
Speaker 5: If we know if we had the locations, of course
Speaker 5: we provide them irrespective.
Speaker 2: So this statement you're saying, the post got it totally wrong.
Speaker 2: It is utterly false, and anyone who said to the
Speaker 2: contrary was lying and perjuring themselves if they were.
Speaker 5: That statement is incorrect. We have done, will continue to
Speaker 5: do everything we can to if we can do it,
Speaker 5: develop the information and share the information I wish we
Speaker 5: had it.
Speaker 2: Does the Administration have intelligence on the locations of Hamas
Speaker 2: officials that you have not shared with Israel?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: Does the administration have the locations of Hamas terror tunnels
Speaker 2: that you have not shared with Israel?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: Okay, So then your your position is that this story
Speaker 2: is an utter and complete.
Speaker 5: Lies as you as you've read it to me, Senator,
Speaker 5: it's not, it's.
Speaker 2: Not and we're not interested in playing word games. I've
Speaker 2: asked you very directly that you're saying there's not a
Speaker 2: single Hamas leader that you know about that you that
Speaker 2: you or the Administration is offered will tell you where
Speaker 2: they are if you don't engage invade direct What have
Speaker 2: you offered them not to invade Rafa.
Speaker 5: We've offered them nothing, nothing, not to invade Draffa except
Speaker 5: a plan to deal more effectively with Rafa.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you under oath as you've offered them nothing
Speaker 2: not to invade Raffa. I find that very hard to believe,
Speaker 2: but I just want to understand what your testimony is.
Speaker 5: Might I'll be very clear, we have We have told them,
Speaker 5: We've been engaged in a long conversation with them about
Speaker 5: the most effective way to deal with the problem we
Speaker 5: agree must be dealt with there.
Speaker 2: And it's quite aware you disagree with their plan to
Speaker 2: kill the Hamas terrorists, because you and the President have
Speaker 2: vocally said it out. To be clear, your State Department
Speaker 2: on the morning of October seventh sends out a tweet
Speaker 2: telling Israel not to engage in military retaliation. I called
Speaker 2: you out at three in the morning, and you deleted
Speaker 2: that tweet. The next day, you personally, at October eighth,
Speaker 2: sent a tweet saying you'd spoken with a Turkish foreign
Speaker 2: minister and Israel should not retaliate. From the very beginning,
Speaker 2: the Biden administration is consistently at every stage told Israel.
Speaker 2: By the way, when I called your tweet out, you
Speaker 2: deleted it again. At every stage, you have been telling Israel,
Speaker 2: do not kill the terrorists. And that has been from
Speaker 2: day one.
Speaker 5: Senator. I was in Israel five days after October seventh.
Speaker 5: I've been there seven times since. No one, starting with
Speaker 5: President Biden, has done more to make sure they have
Speaker 5: what they need to defend themselves from Hamas, to deal
Speaker 5: with the threat that it was.
Speaker 2: With all due respect that romochris, that that is ludacris.
Speaker 2: Why have you cut off weapons to Israel?
Speaker 5: That we have not cut off weapons vision In fact, we,
Speaker 5: as you know well, starting many years ago, President Biden
Speaker 5: was at the heart of the MoU that led to
Speaker 5: Israel having a ten year guarantee supply of assistance, which.
Speaker 2: When you became secretarious and you became Secretary of State,
Speaker 2: how much oil was a rand selling a day.
Speaker 5: I'll have to come back to you on any numbers
Speaker 5: I don't have.
Speaker 2: You don't know. It doesn't surprise me. You don't know.
Speaker 2: It was about three hundred thousand. How much oil is
Speaker 2: a rand selling.
Speaker 5: Today we've applied sanctions against more. How much oil is
Speaker 5: Rans are engaged in petrochemicals?
Speaker 2: How much you can tell me. I'm sure you don't filibuster.
Speaker 5: I'm not philibuster.
Speaker 2: How much oil are they selling today? Do you tell me?
Speaker 5: You tell me?
Speaker 2: Apparently you don't know, so you don't know how much
Speaker 2: they were selling. It was three hundred thousand. Today they're
Speaker 2: selling about two million barrels a day. Let me ask you.
Speaker 5: And given the sanctions, given the export controls, given the
Speaker 5: other controls we put on the cost of doing that,
Speaker 5: the evasion that they have to engage in which we're trying.
Speaker 2: To get, they've made about eighty billion dollars. Let me
Speaker 2: ask you on the question. Run out of times, so
Speaker 2: I'm not interested in speeches. Let me ask you this.
Speaker 2: How many ghost fleet ships did Iran have in November
Speaker 2: twenty twenty.
Speaker 5: We have sanctioned more than two hundred.
Speaker 2: Question, I'm not how many do they have?
Speaker 5: The total number? I can't tell you what it had
Speaker 5: in twenty twenty one. I'll come back to you with that,
Speaker 5: but we.
Speaker 2: Had the number was about seventy. How many did they
Speaker 2: have today?
Speaker 5: We blocked about fifty of them.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's see how effective you are. How many do
Speaker 2: they have today?
Speaker 5: As I said, we blocked about fifty.
Speaker 2: How many do they have today? You tell me, I'm
Speaker 2: sure they have about over four hundreds. Look, this administration
Speaker 2: desperately wants a new Iran deal. You have been showering
Speaker 2: cash on Iran from day one, and understand, the six
Speaker 2: billion dollars you were asked about is the tip of
Speaker 2: the iceberg. By refusing to enforce oil sanctions, we have
Speaker 2: seen Iran's oil sales go from three hundred thousand barrels
Speaker 2: a day when you got into office to over two
Speaker 2: million barrels a day today. That's eighty billion dollars. Ninety
Speaker 2: percent of amasa's funding comes from Iran. In a very
Speaker 2: real sense, this administration, you and President Biden funded the
Speaker 2: October seventh attacks by flowing one hundred billion dollars to
Speaker 2: a homicidal, genocidal regime that funded those attacks.
Speaker 5: That statement is profoundly wrong. Why I'm not even going
Speaker 5: to humerate. I think it's a disgraceful state. Why we
Speaker 5: have gone at Iran repeatedly with more than six hundred
Speaker 5: sanctions applied against different things.
Speaker 2: Then why are they selling two million barrels a day
Speaker 2: as compared to three hundred thousand.
Speaker 5: They are working hard to do what they can to
Speaker 5: get around the sanctions.
Speaker 2: So just the prior administration was was the fossils you
Speaker 2: didn't have, they were more effective to do, or maybe
Speaker 2: they just weren't desk gone on how to deal with a.
Speaker 5: Red And we continue every single day to go at them.
Speaker 2: You are using to address the facts.
Speaker 5: I'm not.
Speaker 2: Then why are they selling two million barrels a day?
Speaker 5: Because they're determined to try to do that. We're determined
Speaker 5: to cut them on.
Speaker 2: They weren't determined when Trump was president.
Speaker 5: They were determined, and of course, unfortunately we also had
Speaker 5: their nuclear program in a box, no facile material being produced.
Speaker 2: Hey, you're not answering the question, you're filibustering and other topics.
Speaker 5: You got the last word. You get the last word, Billy.
Speaker 2: You funded our enemies and you undermine our friends, and
Speaker 2: the world is much much more dangerous as a result,
Speaker 2: and Americans that are greater jeopardy because of it.
Speaker 5: In fact, we brought more countries together that we have stronger,
Speaker 5: stronger partnerships, the stronger engagement from countries around the world
Speaker 5: to deal with a very dangerous world than we had.
Speaker 5: We were alone. We aren't anymore, and America is leading
Speaker 5: those efforts. Remember the Abraham Accords I do.
Speaker 1: Let me just I love Center the way that you
Speaker 1: did that because it was needed. And it's not just
Speaker 1: me that's saying this. Mark Dubowitsu is a guy who
Speaker 1: is actually sanctioned by Iran in Russia, the CEO of FDD.
Speaker 1: He said, in my twenty years in Washington, I've never
Speaker 1: seen a more withering and effective cross examination by a
Speaker 1: senator of an administration official than this one. He's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And it's sad that Anthony Bligan 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 haven't withheld any weapons. Well, the
Speaker 1: White House says he's a liar. Here's Jean Pierre on
Speaker 1: the fifteenth, and we have.
Speaker 7: Said that it is one pause, one pause on these bombs,
Speaker 7: one package, one shipment, and that is obviously connected to
Speaker 7: RAFA and the potential of what could happen in Rauffa,
Speaker 7: 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 2: Well, listen, Blinking is spinning like crazy. And understand when
Speaker 2: Joe Biden went on TV and threatened to cut off
Speaker 2: the weapons. That surprised the administration. They didn't know that
Speaker 2: he was going to freelance like that, and so they're
Speaker 2: trying to do clean up on that. But they're still
Speaker 2: holding the damn weapons. They're not sending them, so they're
Speaker 2: trying to spend that they're center now we sent other
Speaker 2: weapons that it's just the current shipment that we're threatening.
Speaker 2: I got to say, so, look, the first part of
Speaker 2: that cross examination, when I was focused on on the
Speaker 2: Washington Post story, and you and I covered this in
Speaker 2: a pod I don't know about a week or two ago.
Speaker 2: The most damning conclusion of that story that they were
Speaker 2: offering intelligence and where senior Hamas officials were and where
Speaker 2: AMAS territunnels were in exchange for not going into Rafa
Speaker 2: is the necessary implication that they had that information, they
Speaker 2: knew where the senior Hamas leaders were, and they were
Speaker 2: not telling Israel. Now, I will say Blincoln gave a
Speaker 2: categorical denial, and maybe maybe he's right. I do not know.
Speaker 2: I know that that story appeared in multiple media outlets simultaneously,
Speaker 2: so someone was deliberately and directly putting it forward. And
Speaker 2: if Blncoln was lying. Then he perjured himself because he
Speaker 2: was under oath and he was unequivocal in what he said.
Speaker 2: He said they didn't offer Israel anything not to enter Rafa. Now,
Speaker 2: I think the chances that Blincoln is is is is
Speaker 2: not telling the truth there are very very high. But
Speaker 2: you know, these issues have a way of over time,
Speaker 2: the truth 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 important so you understand. There
Speaker 1: sometimes are leaks that come out that is like one
Speaker 1: person that's genuinely leaking something. Then there's other strategic leaks
Speaker 1: that 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 an administration's decision to send
Speaker 1: people out to give a heads up on something and
Speaker 1: to get it in the newspaper. To get it in print,
Speaker 1: 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
Speaker 2: Post voted the Post, but I think it was Reuter's.
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 Blincoln'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
Speaker 2: selling or I don't know how much were are they selling?
Speaker 2: I don't know how much are they now? I don't
Speaker 2: know how many ships in the ghost fleece before. I
Speaker 2: don't know how many ships are there now. I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's because they don't give a damn. They don't care.
Speaker 1: When he 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. He should know more than you should
Speaker 1: know on this. Am 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. It is stunning. And so because
Speaker 2: they desperately want to deal with Iran, he doesn't care
Speaker 2: how much oiled it. By the way, this is the
Speaker 2: same administration that's doing everything they can to cut off
Speaker 2: oil and gas production and sales in the United States.
Speaker 2: This is the same Joe Biden that halted new permits
Speaker 2: to export LNG. So if it's American selling oil and guests,
Speaker 2: they know who's doing it, they want to stop it.
Speaker 2: But if it's a homicidal religious theocrat who hates Israel,
Speaker 2: who hates America, who chants death to America, death to Israel,
Speaker 2: he can sell as much oil as he wants. What
Speaker 2: you know, what's one hundred billion dollars to a psychopath
Speaker 2: who wants to murder us?
Speaker 1: All yeah, great point. I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: real quick about how I start my morning, and that
Speaker 1: is with a premium cup of coffee for my friends
Speaker 1: at Blackout Coffee. And if you've not tried Blackout coffee,
Speaker 1: you got to do it. And I'm going to save
Speaker 1: you twenty percent right now. Now, let me explain to
Speaker 1: you why I love Blackout Coffee. It's not just an
Speaker 1: average cup of coffee. It is a premium cup of coffee,
Speaker 1: and it is different, it tastes different, and there are
Speaker 1: a lot of woke coffee comings out there. When I
Speaker 1: said that, you probably thought of two or three different
Speaker 1: brands instantly that are liberal, woke coffee companies. That's the
Speaker 1: other reason why I want you to try Blackout Coffee
Speaker 1: because they are one hundred percent committed as a company
Speaker 1: to conservative values, from sourcing of the beans to the
Speaker 1: roasting process, customer support and shipping. They embody true American
Speaker 1: values and they accept no compromise on taste or premium quality.
Speaker 1: Now I get up every morning and go on the
Speaker 1: radio at seven am. I've got to be awake, I've
Speaker 1: got to be alert. I want to do a great show,
Speaker 1: and part of my routine is a great cup of coffee.
Speaker 1: I get it every day from Blackout Coffee. But look,
Speaker 1: try it and I'm going to save you money. Go
Speaker 1: to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash vertict and use the coupon code vertict for twenty
Speaker 1: percent off your first order, and you'll try it and
Speaker 1: you'll understand why I use it and have it every
Speaker 1: single day. Blackout Coffee dot com slash verdict. Be Awake,
Speaker 1: not woke, that's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict promo Code
Speaker 1: Verdict for twenty percent off your first order. Senator. One
Speaker 1: other question I do want to ask you about, and
Speaker 1: that involves some of Anthony Blincoln, but just a broader shock.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration issued condolences to Iran. You were just
Speaker 1: talking about the Iranian order oil and the Biden State
Speaker 1: Department sent official condolences for the Iranian president who is
Speaker 1: known as the butcher of Tehran. And yet the US
Speaker 1: is offering official condolences, and they say this is standard
Speaker 1: protocol since when.
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. We don't mourn the loss of mass murderers. Understand,
Speaker 2: Rayisi was a mass murder by the way he murdered
Speaker 2: children in his own country. He was he was in
Speaker 2: charge of making the morals police in Iran even stricter.
Speaker 2: You know the groups that we see online, things like
Speaker 2: Queers for Palestine. Race is the guy in charge of
Speaker 2: murdering homosexuals. He's the one that takes you to the
Speaker 2: top of a tall building or actually his goons are
Speaker 2: to be fair, it's it's probably not him personally, but
Speaker 2: his goons take you to the top of a tall
Speaker 2: building and throw you off. He's the one that that
Speaker 2: that that that that if a you know, woman removes
Speaker 2: her her head covering, and and and that that that
Speaker 2: is in charge of administering the beatings and whipping and
Speaker 2: capital punishment. He is a monster. By the way, he
Speaker 2: is also directly responsible for the murders of hundreds of
Speaker 2: US servicemen and women. He is directly responsible for October seventh,
Speaker 2: for the murder of twelve hundred Israelis. He is directly
Speaker 2: responsible for leading this viciously anti Semitic, hateful regime. The
Speaker 2: worl 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 Qaeda?
Speaker 2: And notice Blincoln didn't condemn what the ued did? I mean,
Speaker 2: I gave him the opportunity. It'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: Great point, by the way, for everyone listening, we are
Speaker 1: going to be covering the Trump trial later this week.
Speaker 1: I can promise you that. So if you're looking for that,
Speaker 1: it's coming, and don't forget. We do the show Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday. Make sure that you hit that subscribe
Speaker 1: auto download button. And if there's breaking news in between
Speaker 1: there seems to be a lot of breaking news lately,
Speaker 1: make sure you grab my podcast. I'll keep you up
Speaker 1: to date on those in between days. I do a
Speaker 1: show every morning Ben Ferguson podcast. You can grab it
Speaker 1: as well and listen on those in between days and
Speaker 1: the Centaer and I will see you back here in
Speaker 1: just a couple of days.