Speaker 1: Welcome. It is verdict or Senator Ted Cruz ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you. Senator. It was a lot of headlines that
Speaker 1: kind of came out of nowhere from the FBI Director
Speaker 1: Ray and he had a lot to say in the
Speaker 1: sit down interview with Brett bear Over at Fox News.
Speaker 1: And I want to get your reaction first off, to
Speaker 1: the FBI Director's inability to answer a very straightforward question
Speaker 1: about January the sixth and possible FBI informants here is
Speaker 1: what he was asked and his lack of response, well
Speaker 1: confidence in them and the other Twitter question we get
Speaker 1: a lot is did the FBI have undercover agents or
Speaker 1: paid informants or assets among the mob that stormed the
Speaker 1: capital on January sets Well, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Brett,
Speaker 1: I can't really appropriately talk about when, where, and how
Speaker 1: we use confidential informants. Is it classified? Well, we have
Speaker 1: information that is about any number of topics that is
Speaker 1: law enforcement sensitive. But you should not read into my
Speaker 1: inability to answer a question because of my obligations as
Speaker 1: that as a clue or a hint in any way
Speaker 1: about how accurate your reader's tweet this I mean, Senator,
Speaker 1: that's not a very good answer for a lot of Americans,
Speaker 1: that one answers. We are getting a lot of the
Speaker 1: footage it's going to come out of January sixth. Speak
Speaker 1: of the House. Kevin McCarthy's talked about being transparent. He
Speaker 1: believes it was politicized January sixth. Of January sixth committee
Speaker 1: was politicized. Are you satisfied with Director Ray's response? Absolutely? Not.
Speaker 1: That was a ridiculous answer. And listen, there is a
Speaker 1: fundamental problem at the FBI and at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: It's something that we've talked about a lot on this podcast,
Speaker 1: which is that DOJ and the FBI have been profoundly politicized.
Speaker 1: The last book I wrote, Justice Corrupted, How the Left
Speaker 1: is weaponized legal system. And by the way, I would
Speaker 1: encourage folks go buy that book, I detail how first
Speaker 1: Barack Obama and now Joe Biden have turned dj and
Speaker 1: the FBI into partisan tools they used to attack their enemies.
Speaker 1: On January sixth, in particular, there are enormous questions about
Speaker 1: the responsibility, the culpability of the FBI and the DOJ.
Speaker 1: What did they know, what was their involvement? And listen,
Speaker 1: let me say something about Chris Ray. So I've known
Speaker 1: Chris Ray a long long time when I came out
Speaker 1: of law school. I graduated law school in nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: five and the first judge I clerked for was a
Speaker 1: judge named Jay Michael Ludig. He was at the time
Speaker 1: the top conservative federal appellate judge of the country. Judge
Speaker 1: Ludig and I were very, very close. He was like
Speaker 1: a second father to me. Judge Ludig was a very
Speaker 1: young judge. He was forty one years old. He had
Speaker 1: been on the Federal Court of Appeals for five years.
Speaker 1: He was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush at age
Speaker 1: thirty six, so he was the youngest federal appellate judge
Speaker 1: in the country. Judge Ludig had been Antonin Scalia's very
Speaker 1: first law clerk the first year Antonin Scalia was on
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And so Judge Ludig
Speaker 1: was someone who was just He was an incredible judge.
Speaker 1: He taught me. He was really the first person after
Speaker 1: law school to teach me how to be a lawyer.
Speaker 1: So I knew Chris Ray because Chris clerked for Judge Ludig.
Speaker 1: I think it was three years before I did so.
Speaker 1: I was the fifth year Judge Leigue was on the court.
Speaker 1: I believe Chris was the second year Judge Ludig was
Speaker 1: on the court. And I've known Chris a long time.
Speaker 1: Chris is a good guy. He's a very smart lawyer.
Speaker 1: He's a very decent man. He loves America. Chris is
Speaker 1: not a left wing activist. But I will tell you
Speaker 1: I've been incredibly disappointed with the job Chris Ray has
Speaker 1: done as the head of the FBI. And the reason,
Speaker 1: and I've had this conversation with Chris directly more than once.
Speaker 1: The reason is Chris is fundamentally he's a company man.
Speaker 1: He's someone who believes his job is defend the FBI.
Speaker 1: That his responsibility. He's someone who has been at DJ
Speaker 1: a long long time. He was the head of the
Speaker 1: Criminal Division under George Herbert Walker Bush. He was someone
Speaker 1: who was a prosecutor for a long time. And he
Speaker 1: believes his responsibility is whatever the career lawyers the FBI
Speaker 1: has done, he needs to circle the wagons and defend them.
Speaker 1: And I have had energetic, at he even screaming conversations
Speaker 1: with Chris where I've said, listen, you are not helping
Speaker 1: the FBI. When you are defending Democrat partisans who have
Speaker 1: corrupted the FBI, who have turned it into a weapon
Speaker 1: to advance the political interests of partisan democrats, it doesn't
Speaker 1: help the institutions. It weakens the institution. And on this question, listen,
Speaker 1: it is a matter of enormous public import to know
Speaker 1: whether the FBI had informants in the January six riots
Speaker 1: and what role they played, and as a matter of accountability,
Speaker 1: the public interest is massive. Now Chris doesn't want to
Speaker 1: answer that. The FBI doesn't want to answer that because
Speaker 1: the obvious inference from their refusal to answer that is yes,
Speaker 1: they had FBI informants that participated in the And the
Speaker 1: question that arises from that, and this is something I
Speaker 1: talk about at length in the book Justice Corrupted, is
Speaker 1: the extent to which FBI agents or FBI confidential informants
Speaker 1: incited the behavior. So one of the things I talk
Speaker 1: about in the book is the plot in Michigan to
Speaker 1: kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan, Democrat Gretchen Whitwer.
Speaker 1: Now that broke shortly before the twenty twenty election, and
Speaker 1: it was the sort of story that was really fabulously
Speaker 1: beneficial for Democrats because Democrats message was those crazy right
Speaker 1: wing Republicans and especially those Trump Republicans, are a bunch
Speaker 1: of violent insurrectionist terrorists. They're terrible and we need to
Speaker 1: stop them and so, and it was a national story.
Speaker 1: I mean, they played it up. I remember it being
Speaker 1: used Democrats all over the country center that were like,
Speaker 1: this is something to seize on to basically attack Donald
Speaker 1: Trump on the national election, but also to say you
Speaker 1: don't want Trump Republicans in the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: on the school board, city council. Yeah, they want to
Speaker 1: they want to murder you, and they want to take
Speaker 1: out our politicians. And look, it was designed also for
Speaker 1: reasonable people that like, you know, reasonable people don't want
Speaker 1: to advocate violent acts of murder and terror. And so
Speaker 1: the media and the Democrats were trying to say, if
Speaker 1: you support Trump and the Republicans, you're in support of
Speaker 1: violent acts of terror and mayhem. And with the Gretchen
Speaker 1: Witwer's story, when it broke, you're like, holy crap, they
Speaker 1: want to kidnap and murder a governor. That really sounds bad. Now.
Speaker 1: When DJ went to trial, what happened is that initially
Speaker 1: when they went to trial, every single one of the
Speaker 1: defendants was their acquitted or had a hung jury. They
Speaker 1: couldn't convict anyone in The principal defense at the trial
Speaker 1: was that the FBI engaged an entrapment, that that it
Speaker 1: essentially the FBI had placed informants among these right wing
Speaker 1: extremist groups. But the argument of defense council was these
Speaker 1: extremist groups were not particularly violent until the FBI informants
Speaker 1: kept saying, Hey, in the great idea to go kidnap
Speaker 1: and murder the governor. And they're like, oh, I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: It is like no, no no, no, this is a good idea.
Speaker 1: This is a good idea. And the law is that
Speaker 1: you can be prosecuted if you plan or commit an
Speaker 1: act of violence. But the government can't entice you into it.
Speaker 1: It can't be their idea. They can't be the cause
Speaker 1: that causes you to go along with the corrupt plan.
Speaker 1: And at the trial in front of the jury's I mean,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department had a massive black eye because the
Speaker 1: defendants prevailed. And by the way, the special Agent in
Speaker 1: charge of the Detroit office of the FBI, who had
Speaker 1: this massive debacle of the prosecutions going south, on him
Speaker 1: because his agents had engaged in misconduct and incitement, got promoted,
Speaker 1: got sent to DC, and got put in charge of
Speaker 1: the January sixth prosecutions. You literally can't make this up.
Speaker 1: They took the guy who had this enormous black eye. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and they said, you're the right guy to engage in
Speaker 1: political prosecutions. And here's what Chris Ray should say and listen.
Speaker 1: I hope, as I said, Chris is a friend. I
Speaker 1: hope Chris is listening to this podcast. I doubt he is,
Speaker 1: but I hope he is. Here's what Chris ought to do.
Speaker 1: Chris ought to say publicly. Ordinarily, the FBI does not
Speaker 1: reveal confidential informants, and there are strong law enforcement reasons
Speaker 1: to do that. When we get some guy who goes
Speaker 1: undercover into a drug cartel, sure you want to keep
Speaker 1: that guy confidentially. You don't want to out them. So
Speaker 1: in the ordinary course of affairs, we protect those sources.
Speaker 1: That being said, the public interest in knowing what happened
Speaker 1: on January sixth, what led to the riots, what led
Speaker 1: to the acts of violence, That public interest is so
Speaker 1: significant that we at the FBI are going to tell
Speaker 1: you how many agents did we have in that riot.
Speaker 1: How many confidential informants did we have in that riot?
Speaker 1: And I were based on the payroll? Yes, and what
Speaker 1: were their roles in inciting the violent conduct? That is
Speaker 1: a matter of enormous public interest, and Chris ray it
Speaker 1: is answered there and consistently he refuses to answer that question.
Speaker 1: And I think he's doing a disservice to the American
Speaker 1: people by protect the bureaucrats at the FBI rather than
Speaker 1: accepting public accountability. Yeah, there's there's a name that's become
Speaker 1: very famous and it is a name from January six,
Speaker 1: ray Epps. And I want to play something that you
Speaker 1: said about ray Epps when you were talking to the FBI,
Speaker 1: because it became senior official at the FBI that I
Speaker 1: was questioning about this. Yeah, and ray Epps is a
Speaker 1: guy in a name that everybody remembers from January six.
Speaker 1: And before I play that, I want to tell everybody
Speaker 1: about our friends over at Chalk. If you're a guy
Speaker 1: and you're ready to fight back and you're not ready
Speaker 1: to lose the war in a masculinity, then you need
Speaker 1: to check out Chalk. Chalk is a way to help
Speaker 1: real American men maximize their masculinity by boosting testosterone levels
Speaker 1: up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now. I've been
Speaker 1: taking Chalk's mail Vitality Stack, and I can tell you
Speaker 1: it works. You can maximize your masculinity today at chalkhoq
Speaker 1: dot com. That's chalk hq dot com. Use the promo
Speaker 1: code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chuck subscription
Speaker 1: for life choq dot com Code Ben fight back. Don't
Speaker 1: lose your masculinity and take Chalk check out the Vitality
Speaker 1: Stack today thirty five percent off promo code Ben. I
Speaker 1: want to play center for everybody listening. And this was
Speaker 1: you questioning as you mentioned a moment ago a top
Speaker 1: person at the FBI about Ray Epps and really about
Speaker 1: his disappearance from the public after he was so public
Speaker 1: on January the sixth. Take a listen, Miss Saburn, who
Speaker 1: is Ray Epps. I'm aware of the individual Sir, I
Speaker 1: don't have the specific background to him. Well, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are understandable about mister about
Speaker 1: mister ramps. On the night of January fifth, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: Epps wandered around the crowd that had gathered, and there's
Speaker 1: video out there of him channing tomorrow, we need to
Speaker 1: get into the capital, into the capital. This was strange behavior,
Speaker 1: so strange that the crowd began chanting fed fed, Fed, Fed,
Speaker 1: Fed fed. Miss Sandburn. Was Ray Apps a fed Sir?
Speaker 1: I cannot answer that question. The next day, the next day,
Speaker 1: on January six mister F's is seen whispering to a person,
Speaker 1: and five seconds later, five seconds after he's whispering to
Speaker 1: a person, that same person begins to forcibly tear down
Speaker 1: the barricades. Did mister Epps urge them to tear down
Speaker 1: the barricades, sir? Similar to the other answers, I cannot
Speaker 1: answer that. Shortly thereafter, the FBI put out a public
Speaker 1: post listing seeking information on individuals connected with violent crimes
Speaker 1: on January sixth. Among those individuals in the bottom there
Speaker 1: is mister Epps. The FBI publicly asked for information identifying
Speaker 1: offering cash rewards, leading information leading for information leading to
Speaker 1: the arrest. This was posted, and then sometime later, magically,
Speaker 1: mister Epps disappeared from the public posting. According to public records,
Speaker 1: mister Epps has not been charged with anything. No one's
Speaker 1: explained why a person videoed urging people to go to
Speaker 1: the Capitol. A person whose conduct was so suspect the
Speaker 1: crowd believed he was a FED would magically disappear from
Speaker 1: the list of people the FBI was looking at. Miss Sandburn.
Speaker 1: A lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government
Speaker 1: deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on January sixth. My
Speaker 1: question to you, and this is not an ordinary law
Speaker 1: enforcement question, this is a question of a public accountability.
Speaker 1: Did federal agents are those in service a federal agent
Speaker 1: actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on January sixth? Not
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, sir, I mean sent This seems to
Speaker 1: be the new playbook of anybody in government that doesn't
Speaker 1: want to answer question. They just say it's cloudsified or
Speaker 1: it's an ongoing invastigation. This is exactly what Ray just
Speaker 1: did in a simple question was asked about informants on
Speaker 1: January the sixth. So Chris Ray and the FBI should
Speaker 1: answer these questions. We need to have accountability, we need
Speaker 1: to know Listen with Ray Epps. I don't know the man,
Speaker 1: I never met him, I don't know his background, but
Speaker 1: I will say you watch that video as I have,
Speaker 1: as many people have of him. Urging the crowd on
Speaker 1: January fifth, let's go into the Capitol and the crowd
Speaker 1: turns on him. They begin chanting fed, fed fed. That's weird, Ben,
Speaker 1: I've never seen anything like that when the crowd is like,
Speaker 1: wait a second, why is this guy trying to urge
Speaker 1: us to commit a criminal act? Maybe he's a private
Speaker 1: individual with no connection to the FBI. If that's the case,
Speaker 1: it raises the question, why wasn't he charged. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have video of him urging people to enter the capitol.
Speaker 1: They've charged lots of people to enter the capitol. But
Speaker 1: if he was on the payroll of the FBI, then
Speaker 1: you had the federal government. You had law enforcement encouraging
Speaker 1: criminal and violent acts. That's a very different scenario. And
Speaker 1: to date, the FBI refuses to answer how many FBI
Speaker 1: agents were there on January sixth, one ten, one hundred
Speaker 1: a thousand. I have no idea. And by the way,
Speaker 1: a lot of people figure, Okay, you're a senator, you're
Speaker 1: on the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee has oversight authority
Speaker 1: of the FBI. You know this. They briefed you on it. Nope,
Speaker 1: they haven't told us a damn thing. What I know
Speaker 1: is what Chris Ray has said in public because when
Speaker 1: he testifies, and by the way, today Merrick Garland, the
Speaker 1: Attorney General, is testifying in front of us. He's going
Speaker 1: to Stonewall. Because Merrick Garland has been the most political
Speaker 1: attorney general we've ever had. And Chris Ray, it's not
Speaker 1: that he's a partisan leftist, it's that he believes his
Speaker 1: job is defend the senior bureaucrats of the FBI. And
Speaker 1: I got to tell you one of the amazing things
Speaker 1: that's happened over the last couple of years. I regularly
Speaker 1: get FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors who come to me,
Speaker 1: who contact my office and they say, we love the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice, we love the FBI, we believe in
Speaker 1: the law enforcement mission, and we are incredibly unhappy at
Speaker 1: the politicization of our senior leadership. It is I revere
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and the FBI. They're incredibly so
Speaker 1: I will tell you on the right, there are a
Speaker 1: bunch of people who say let's abolish the FBI. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a good idea. The FBI does
Speaker 1: a lot of really important things. They fight child kidnappers,
Speaker 1: they fight drug dealers, they fight human traffickers, that they
Speaker 1: fight mobsters. I am very grateful for the law enforcement
Speaker 1: mission of the FBI. What I think we need to
Speaker 1: do is clean house at the FBI and get rid
Speaker 1: of the hardcore partisan Democrats who burrowed into the senior
Speaker 1: positions at the FBI and who've corrupted the FBI. And
Speaker 1: my biggest concern with Chris Ray is he's unwilling to
Speaker 1: do that. He's unwilling to take that on and and
Speaker 1: and it is he ought to engage in radical transparency.
Speaker 1: And I'll point to two examples. Chris Ray out to follow.
Speaker 1: Number one, Elon Muskwini Twitter, where he publicly made he
Speaker 1: exposed the internal emails of the corruption at Twitter that
Speaker 1: broke the big tech oligopoly on political discussion. Secondly, in
Speaker 1: second you look at the job John Radcliffe did at
Speaker 1: the DNI as the Director of National Intelligence. So John
Speaker 1: Radcliffe was appointed by Donald Trump. It was just a
Speaker 1: temporary interim appointment. I think he was there like six weeks.
Speaker 1: It wasn't very long. But John is a text and
Speaker 1: he's a friend. Did an incredible job because he opened
Speaker 1: up and made public many of the abuses of the
Speaker 1: DNI and the intelligence community how they'd been politicized, and
Speaker 1: in six weeks he made a massive impact. My advice
Speaker 1: to Chris Ray follow the example of Elon Musk and
Speaker 1: followed the example of John Radcliffe. Prioritize the long term
Speaker 1: integrity of the FBI over your short term personal loyalty
Speaker 1: to the hardcore Democrat partisans and the senior rear positions
Speaker 1: to the FBI. If you want to save the institution,
Speaker 1: act boldly to save and strengthen and preserve the FBI.
Speaker 1: You know, intentioning that you mentioned that because one of
Speaker 1: the questions that Ray was asked by Brett Bear was
Speaker 1: about social media companies censoring things when it came to
Speaker 1: the FBI having basically conversations them, conversations with them on
Speaker 1: the regular, sometimes daily in the run up to the election.
Speaker 1: I want to play that for you next. But before
Speaker 1: we get to that, I want to tell you about
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. A lot of you have been switching to
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile, the only Christian conservative cell phone company in
Speaker 1: the US, and you're switching because you're tired of giving
Speaker 1: money to companies that don't stand with your values. That
Speaker 1: is where Patriot Mobile comes in. They are the only
Speaker 1: Christian conservative cell phone coming to the US, and you
Speaker 1: get the same exact coverage that you have right now.
Speaker 1: You don't have to worry about switching coverage and losing anything.
Speaker 1: At Patriot Mobile. They use the same G four and
Speaker 1: G five networks that you're on right now. Now, there
Speaker 1: is one difference. When you pay your bill, you're actually
Speaker 1: supporting conservative causes and organizations that you help support. That
Speaker 1: we're talking about organizations in sam for your First and
Speaker 1: your Second Amendment rights, the rights of unborn children, and
Speaker 1: even helping with adoptions. If you are ready to stand
Speaker 1: up for what you believe in with the dollars you
Speaker 1: spend every month, switch your cell phone to Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: and make a difference with every phone call eight seven
Speaker 1: eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot. Use the promo
Speaker 1: code Verdict. You'll get the best deals of the year.
Speaker 1: You can also go online to Patriot Mobile dot com
Speaker 1: slash verdict that's Patriotmobile dot com slash Verdict center. I
Speaker 1: want to play this for everybody, and this is Chris
Speaker 1: Ray being asked about the social media companies and how
Speaker 1: much pressure where they putting on these social media companies
Speaker 1: that silence and sens their stories listened to this. Let's
Speaker 1: start with the laptop. The FBI has had access to
Speaker 1: this laptop for more than three years. Why is this
Speaker 1: investigation on the Hunter Biden laptop taking so long? Well,
Speaker 1: the investigation is being led, as you may know, by
Speaker 1: a US attorney appointed in the last administration out of Delaware,
Speaker 1: and the FBI is actively supporting and working with that
Speaker 1: US attorney on that investigation. But the whistleblowers are telling
Speaker 1: these lawmakers that there was an internal effort to shut
Speaker 1: down the investigation from the beginning. Have you found that.
Speaker 1: I have not found anything like that. All right, So
Speaker 1: let's talk about the FBI and what you told Big
Speaker 1: Tech or some agents did about the authenticity and providence
Speaker 1: of Hunter Biden's laptop. What about that? From an FBI perspective,
Speaker 1: the FBI does not It is not in the business
Speaker 1: of functioning as the truth police understood. We don't tell
Speaker 1: social media companies to censor anything. Well, or the Twitter
Speaker 1: fun I suggest something different. I mean, there's an FBI
Speaker 1: request numerous times, Taiebee puts it out FBI San Francisco
Speaker 1: request to ban certain accounts. Twitter personnel in this case
Speaker 1: went on to look for reasons to suspend all four
Speaker 1: accounts that the FBI wanted to ban or suspend. Is
Speaker 1: it appropriate to flag social media accounts on Twitter or
Speaker 1: elsewhere due to politics or government policies when it comes
Speaker 1: to COVID? Is it appropriate to anyway? You're saying it
Speaker 1: doesn't happen, but there's evidence that it had. We don't
Speaker 1: tell social media companies to ban accounts, but you suggest
Speaker 1: what we do is tell social media companies about information
Speaker 1: that we have about foreign disinformation campaigns by foreign actors,
Speaker 1: by foreign intelligence services, and those companies don't make decisions
Speaker 1: about what, if anything, they want to do about it.
Speaker 1: I mean, center, you hear what he's saying here, and
Speaker 1: he saying we don't tell social media company to censor anything. That,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, in my opinion, is a complete lie. The emails,
Speaker 1: the Twitter files show the complete op is that coming
Speaker 1: from the FBI. Look, you're exactly right, Ben. The Twitter
Speaker 1: files demonstrate that the FBI was repeatedly asking social media
Speaker 1: companies to censor stories they didn't like, And the most
Speaker 1: striking example is the Hunter Biden laptop. The Hunter and
Speaker 1: Biden laptop. The story broke when the New York Post
Speaker 1: wrote about it in October of twenty twenty, right before
Speaker 1: the presidential election, and it was a story that was
Speaker 1: incredibly damaging to Joe Biden because it suggested corruption at
Speaker 1: the very highest level. And the FBI asked big tech,
Speaker 1: please censor this story. The FBI suggested a big tech
Speaker 1: it was Russian disinformation. Now we know that. Now know
Speaker 1: that was garbage. That was a lie. It was not
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation. It was in fact true. The laptop is true.
Speaker 1: It's been confirmed. It was Hunter Biden's laptop. By the way,
Speaker 1: it's not me confirming it. Hunter Biden's lawyers in filings
Speaker 1: have said it was our laptop, and we're really unhappy
Speaker 1: that you took our client's laptop and made it public,
Speaker 1: like they have implicitly admitted. They tried to back that
Speaker 1: away when they realized, oh crap, we shouldn't have made
Speaker 1: that admission. But it was true and incredibly relevant to
Speaker 1: the election. The FBI said please block it, and social
Speaker 1: media saluted said not only jump, but sir, how high?
Speaker 1: And again Chris Ray, he thinks he's defending the FBI.
Speaker 1: He's trying to say, Okay, my job is to defend
Speaker 1: my guys. Baloney. Your job is not to do that.
Speaker 1: The degree to which big Tech got in bed with
Speaker 1: the FBI and actively censored the American people and had
Speaker 1: an effect of essentially rigging the election, it had an
Speaker 1: enormous consequence on the twenty twenty election that this story
Speaker 1: was suppressed, and the FBI is directly responsible in it.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why Chris Ray doesn't feel any responsibility
Speaker 1: for that. I just think he's his entire focus is
Speaker 1: my job is protect my guys. Even if my guys
Speaker 1: are crapping all over the FBI and destroying its integrity,
Speaker 1: I got to defend the people that are hurting the FBI.
Speaker 1: I think that's a basic and profound misconception of the
Speaker 1: responsibility of the head of the FBI. And you would think,
Speaker 1: as a law enforcement guy, right, we're it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be not political but right and wrong. If you saw
Speaker 1: members of your organization writing these emails that are clearly
Speaker 1: politically biased, that would just piss you off, for lack
Speaker 1: of a better way of saying it, and you would
Speaker 1: want at least make sure that doesn't happen anymore. And
Speaker 1: again he's saying, no, no no, no, we don't do this,
Speaker 1: Yes you do. It'sdn't writing oh, look and privately express
Speaker 1: his concerns with these issues. He's very good at saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I want to stay out of politics, blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. By the way, I actually believe him.
Speaker 1: I think he would like the FBI to focus on
Speaker 1: law enforcement. I just think he doesn't have the willingness
Speaker 1: to take on the extremely partisan leftists, many of whom
Speaker 1: are now in the senior career leadership of the FBI,
Speaker 1: and he views it as I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: want to speculate, but he's unwilling to take them on.
Speaker 1: Maybe he thinks he can't survive that. Maybe he thinks
Speaker 1: it somehow damages the FBI. I don't want to impute
Speaker 1: motives to him, but the fact is he's unwilling to
Speaker 1: call him out. He ought he ought to hold accountable
Speaker 1: every person at the FBI that urged social media to
Speaker 1: censor the media and censor people for expressing their political views.
Speaker 1: He ought to make public. Here's every person the FBI
Speaker 1: had at January sixth, Every informant we had at January sixth.
Speaker 1: This is not a run of the mill mafia case.
Speaker 1: This is an issue of enormous national important the American
Speaker 1: people need to know. I think he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: do that because the FBI would be embarrassed by those facts,
Speaker 1: and so he believes he can just stonewall and tell
Speaker 1: Congress go jump in a lake. We're not going to
Speaker 1: tell you, and the American people don't deserve to know.
Speaker 1: And I think he's wrong in that. There's something else
Speaker 1: that came up, and I was truly shocked by the
Speaker 1: FBI director's response, and it was a question about the
Speaker 1: drug cartels. There was some shocking for some Americans to see.
Speaker 1: I unfortunately was not shocked by some of the testimony
Speaker 1: today by the victims when it comes to fetno and Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Talking about how it's destroyed their family. There's
Speaker 1: a couple of them that have gone on viral, including
Speaker 1: one mother who lost not one but two sons to fetnel.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the reasons why I think
Speaker 1: it was very clear that there was a direct question
Speaker 1: asked to Ray from Brett Bear about this war, and
Speaker 1: it is a war. It's a war with FETNOL, it's
Speaker 1: a war with the cartels, and he asked him is
Speaker 1: it time to designate the drug cartels as terrorist organizations,
Speaker 1: and we couldn't get a straight answer from the FBI
Speaker 1: director on that. Listen, it's on immigration. Do you believe
Speaker 1: the cartels should be designated as terrorist organizations? Well, I
Speaker 1: do believe that the cartels represent a significant threat, and
Speaker 1: we have hundreds the FBI has hundreds of investigations that
Speaker 1: go into cartel leadership, and I'm interested in all appropriate
Speaker 1: legal tools that will help us go after them. We
Speaker 1: are going after them. Obviously, we're not responsible for the
Speaker 1: physical secure already at the border, but we recognize that
Speaker 1: the threats emanating from the border are serious. Center. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna cut them off there because why can't he just
Speaker 1: answer that simple question with a yes, Because unfortunately the
Speaker 1: leadership of the FBI is too concerned with politics. The
Speaker 1: answer shouldn't be yes, it should be hell yes. Look,
Speaker 1: we on a recent podcast, we walk through my cross
Speaker 1: examination of the head of the DA where I talked
Speaker 1: about the incredible harm that Mexican drug cartels carry out,
Speaker 1: where I've talked about the over one hundred thousand people
Speaker 1: that last year died of drug overdoses in the United States.
Speaker 1: The vast majority from Chinese fentanyl flooding over the southern border.
Speaker 1: Now the head of the FBI, I've sat down and
Speaker 1: talked with her. I think she's actually kind of pretty
Speaker 1: similar to Chris Ray. She's a law enforcement person. She
Speaker 1: wants to prosecute the bad guys. Her answers were very political,
Speaker 1: and because she's not, I think a terribly political person,
Speaker 1: she was bad at it. She was repeating the Democrat
Speaker 1: talking points from this administration. So their talking point is
Speaker 1: the drugs that are flooding into this country are coming
Speaker 1: over the legal ports of entry and not over our
Speaker 1: unsecured southern border. We don't have an unsecured southern border,
Speaker 1: they claim, despite the fact that five and a half
Speaker 1: million people have crossed illegally under Joe Biden, the worst
Speaker 1: illegal immigration in the history of our nation. That's the
Speaker 1: incredible record of the Biden administration. She was trying to
Speaker 1: repeat the talking points of no, no, no no, no. People
Speaker 1: don't cross illegally under over the southern border. If they do,
Speaker 1: they certainly don't carry drugs. The facts into the country
Speaker 1: I asked her a very simple question, is the fact
Speaker 1: that these drug cartels have made tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars because of our open southern border. Is the fact
Speaker 1: that the single best thing that ever happened to the
Speaker 1: Mexican drug cartels with Joe Biden becoming president because they
Speaker 1: made massive amounts of money. Is it a good thing
Speaker 1: that these vicious criminal drug cartels have made tens of
Speaker 1: billions of dollars? Now look for any cop and for
Speaker 1: any honest law enforcements, for anyone running the DA, the
Speaker 1: answer ought to be hell yes, Like, just like Chris Ray,
Speaker 1: should we designate the Mexican drug cartels as terrorists? Hell? Yes,
Speaker 1: they are engaged in murder and torture and horrific acts
Speaker 1: of violence. They are terrorist organizations. But much like the
Speaker 1: head of the DA that we played that cross examination,
Speaker 1: I think last week, he doesn't want to say that
Speaker 1: because heat gets that the political taskmasters in the White
Speaker 1: House don't like that answer, so he just dodges, and
Speaker 1: I just wish that. And by the way, eventually the
Speaker 1: head of the DA, after I asked her I think
Speaker 1: four times, finally and reluctantly said yeah, it's a terrible thing.
Speaker 1: Like vicious drug cartels, they make roughly half their money
Speaker 1: from drug trafficking, roughly half their money from human trafficking.
Speaker 1: It is a terrible thing that Joe Biden has given
Speaker 1: tens of billions of dollars no hitting. Why didn't you
Speaker 1: say that the first four times you asked I asked
Speaker 1: you because she was trying to follow the partisan talking points.
Speaker 1: I think that's sadly what Chris Ray is doing there too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I no doubt about it. I want to ask you
Speaker 1: lastly about one of the thing that Chris Ray said
Speaker 1: in that debt with Wuhan. The FBI is one of
Speaker 1: two parts of the government now, the Department of Energy
Speaker 1: and the FBI are saying they believe the most likely
Speaker 1: cause of COVID nineteen is actually that it came from
Speaker 1: the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That came from a lab,
Speaker 1: that didn't come from animals, didn't come from a wet mark,
Speaker 1: didn't come from all of those other lies. And I
Speaker 1: want to play for you his response on Wuhan. But
Speaker 1: before we get to that, let me tell you about
Speaker 1: August of precious metals. If you've been saving for a
Speaker 1: long time for retirement, then you probably know more than
Speaker 1: others that right now it's a really important time for
Speaker 1: you to be able to protect your assets and that
Speaker 1: is where august of Precious Metals comes in. They can
Speaker 1: help you protect your assets with a gold ira or
Speaker 1: a four one K and they're different why because they'll
Speaker 1: also tell you if a gold ira isn't your answer,
Speaker 1: they give you the facts. A lot of it depends
Speaker 1: on how you've saved, for how long you've saved, and
Speaker 1: when you're retiring or if already retired. August of Precious
Speaker 1: Metals is all about protecting your money in this crazy economy,
Speaker 1: and it's really important the closer you get to retirement
Speaker 1: because you have no time to make up losses. So
Speaker 1: if you've saved a hundred thousand dollars or more, take
Speaker 1: a look and get their free guide. Now, more importantly
Speaker 1: than that, sign up for free for their web conference.
Speaker 1: I have done this and I did it before I
Speaker 1: invested my money which I want to protect and I
Speaker 1: use gold and silver for a portion of that. Call
Speaker 1: them and sign up for the web conference eight seven
Speaker 1: seven four gold Ira. That's eight seven seven four gold Ira,
Speaker 1: or visit Augusta Precious Metals dot com say I sent
Speaker 1: you and they'll pay your fees for up to ten years.
Speaker 1: That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com, Agusta Precious Metals dot com. Senator. Lastly,
Speaker 1: I want to get your reaction to the FBI director.
Speaker 1: He was asked about the lab leek question. It was
Speaker 1: pretty simple what he had to say in response here.
Speaker 1: It is the FBI has for quite some time now
Speaker 1: assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely
Speaker 1: a potential lab incident in Wuhan. Let me step back
Speaker 1: for a second. You know, the FBI has folks, agents, professionals, analysts, virologists, microbiologists, etc.
Speaker 1: Who focused specifically on the dangers of biological threats. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was probably the most candid answer he had during
Speaker 1: the entire interview, and he actually says, Look, for a
Speaker 1: long time, we've considered the lab to be the most
Speaker 1: accurate quote theory here. Yeah, listen, this is the only
Speaker 1: answer in the interview that we've discussed tonight that I like.
Speaker 1: In respect, the FBI under Joe Biden concluded that the
Speaker 1: most likely explanation for COVID nineteen was that it escaped
Speaker 1: from a Chinese government lab. They concluded that with what
Speaker 1: they call moderate confidence, and so in the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: when you have a conclusion and intelligence. You have sometimes
Speaker 1: conclusions with low confidence, sometimes with moderate confidence, sometimes with
Speaker 1: high confidence. The FBI concluded it with moderate conferences. This
Speaker 1: weekend we had the bombshell report that the Biden Department
Speaker 1: of Energy came to the same conclusion. They concluded that
Speaker 1: the most likely source for COVID nineteen was a Chinese
Speaker 1: government lab. Now, they were less certain about it than
Speaker 1: the FBI. They said they concluded that with quote low confidence,
Speaker 1: but they still thought their assessment, their best judgment was
Speaker 1: that was the most likely source. Now, as regular listeners
Speaker 1: of this podcast, now we have been laying out the
Speaker 1: facts on the origins of COVID nineteen four three years.
Speaker 1: Go back and listen. I actually tweeted today, go listen
Speaker 1: to the podcast that we put out in March of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Look, the pandemic broke on the national scene
Speaker 1: in January and February of twenty twenty, so this was early.
Speaker 1: This was right when the pandemic was starting, and we
Speaker 1: put out a podcast in March of twenty twenty. We
Speaker 1: put out a second podcast in April of twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: so right at the outset where we walked through the
Speaker 1: evidence that this virus originated at a Chinese government lab. Now,
Speaker 1: at the time, the Democrat talking points and the corporate
Speaker 1: media talking points and the Chinese Communist Party talking points
Speaker 1: were all the same, which is that it is a
Speaker 1: crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory to say that it
Speaker 1: came from a Chinese government lab. We walked through on
Speaker 1: this podcast. And by the way, Anthony Faucian writing was
Speaker 1: asking Mark Zuckerberg, at the head of Facebook, please suppress
Speaker 1: anyone making the arguments that this came from a Chinese
Speaker 1: government lab. I gotta tell you, Ben, I remain amazed
Speaker 1: how the Verdict podcast did not get censored at the time,
Speaker 1: because we were one of the very few places on
Speaker 1: planet Earth that you could hear those facts. For whatever reason,
Speaker 1: they didn't take us on and censor us. And three
Speaker 1: years ago we laid out the facts. Let me point
Speaker 1: to three data points that are really compelling. Number One,
Speaker 1: the wu On Institute for Virology. The Wohan Institute for
Speaker 1: Virology is a Chinese government lab and it studies viruses.
Speaker 1: That's why it's called an institute for virology. It studies
Speaker 1: not just viruses, but it focuses in particular on coronaviruses.
Speaker 1: The particular type of virus that COVID nineteen is. It
Speaker 1: doesn't just study coronaviruses. It studies coronaviruses from bats. And
Speaker 1: by the way, the best scientific evidence we have is
Speaker 1: that COVID nineteen came from a coronavirus carried by bats. Now,
Speaker 1: the bats that carry the coronavirus don't occur naturally around Wuhan.
Speaker 1: How far away are they? The closest bats are about
Speaker 1: nine hundred miles away in caves, a long long way
Speaker 1: away from Wuhan. Where is the Wuhan Institute for Virology.
Speaker 1: It is a few hundred yards away where the wet
Speaker 1: market where the first major outbreak of the COVID pandemic occurred.
Speaker 1: You can literally drive a golf ball from the Wuhan
Speaker 1: Institute for Virology to the Wuhan wet market where the
Speaker 1: pandemic occurred. I want you to think, at just as
Speaker 1: a statistical matter, what are the odds that a pandemic
Speaker 1: in a coronavirus carried by bats would occur at a
Speaker 1: wet market a few hundred yards away from a government
Speaker 1: lab studying coronavirus is carried by bats. They are the
Speaker 1: odds are incredibly low that that is a coincidence. That's
Speaker 1: fact number one. Fact number two, we now know that
Speaker 1: not one, not two, but three different employees of the
Speaker 1: Wuhan Institute for Virology in November of twenty nineteen, so
Speaker 1: a couple of months before the pandemic erupted on the
Speaker 1: worldwide scene November of twenty nineteen, they checked themselves into
Speaker 1: hospitals for serious health conditions. That suggests. It doesn't prove,
Speaker 1: but it is a powerful suggestion that those may have
Speaker 1: been among the first public outbreaks of COVID nineteen. Fact
Speaker 1: number three, what did the Chinese Communist government do after
Speaker 1: the pandemic erupted. Well, we know that months before the
Speaker 1: pandemic they had begun buying and hoarding ppe protected personal equipment,
Speaker 1: things like masks and gloves. They had done it in
Speaker 1: advance of the pandemic. That suggests for knowledge. We also
Speaker 1: know that they directed the Wuhan Institute for Virology to
Speaker 1: destroy the samples of the coronaviruses they were studying. That
Speaker 1: suggests guilt, as we talked about in a previous podcast,
Speaker 1: in a court of law, in a civil case or
Speaker 1: criminal case, if an individual destroys evidence, a judge can
Speaker 1: instruct the jury. You may draw a negative inference from
Speaker 1: the destruction of evidence. You may conclude that the destruction
Speaker 1: of evidence demonstrates a guilty mind, demonstrates that the evidence
Speaker 1: would incriminate whoever destroyed the evidence. In this case, it
Speaker 1: was a Chinese common discovernment and the obvious inference is
Speaker 1: that COVID nineteen was a virus they were studying at
Speaker 1: the Wohanna Institute for Virology and it escaped and caused
Speaker 1: this pandemic. I also think, I think, I actually think
Speaker 1: the evidence is overwhelming of that. And by the way,
Speaker 1: the evidence was overwhelming three years ago. What the hell
Speaker 1: took Biden Department of Energy three years to get there.
Speaker 1: I'm glad they got there, and I'm glad the FBI
Speaker 1: got there, But why did it take so long? This
Speaker 1: podcast we figured it out three damn years ago, in
Speaker 1: March of twenty twenty. Go listen to that podcast. We
Speaker 1: laid out the evidence then, and by the way, I
Speaker 1: gotta say, it's one of the reasons why listen. I
Speaker 1: would encourage folks who listen to this podcast, and we
Speaker 1: have an amazing community of Verdict listeners, share it with
Speaker 1: your friends because you learn things here on this podcast
Speaker 1: that you will not learn watching TV news. You will
Speaker 1: not learn reading the newspapers, you will not learn listening
Speaker 1: to the radio. This podcast is designed to tell you
Speaker 1: what's happening before its news. And I gotta say the FBI,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that Chris Ray is willing to say that.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, the corporate media and big tech,
Speaker 1: and Chris Ray is protecting and apolologizing for big tech.
Speaker 1: Big tech and the corporate media did everything they could
Speaker 1: to stigmatize, to silence, to suppress anyone laying out the
Speaker 1: evidence that this came from a Chinese government lab, no
Speaker 1: doubt about it. It It was a very interesting interview and
Speaker 1: even more fun to hear your response the FBI director
Speaker 1: Ray here. And it's the goal of this podcast, like
Speaker 1: you said, to give you what's happening even before it happens.
Speaker 1: Wuhan's a great example that we will see you guys
Speaker 1: with a special Verdict taping We're gonna be doing live
Speaker 1: from the stage at Seapack in just a couple of days,
Speaker 1: so make sure you listen to that show as well.
Speaker 1: Don't forget share this podcast of your family and friends.
Speaker 1: Write us a five star review. It helped us reach
Speaker 1: more people that don't know about this show, so please
Speaker 1: do that. It helped us tremendously on the charts, and
Speaker 1: we will see you back here in a couple of days,
Speaker 1: Live from the stage of Seapack