Speaker 1: Welcome it. His verdict was center Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you, Senator. Nice to chat with you. And we
Speaker 1: have got some new news that man, I guess they
Speaker 1: were hoping. We never found out about it. The best
Speaker 1: part is when CBS News has to use their ridiculous
Speaker 1: breaking news jingle. I hadn't heard this in a long time,
Speaker 1: so this is how they broke the breaking news. Well,
Speaker 1: we have more breaking news now in the Biden documents investigation.
Speaker 1: Sources tell CBS News the FBI search the Penn Biden
Speaker 1: Center offices in mid November. That came after lawyers for
Speaker 1: President Biden found about ten documents more classified on November second.
Speaker 1: Those materials were from mister Biden's time as vice president.
Speaker 1: Sources also say the search was conducted with the cooperation
Speaker 1: of Biden's representatives and the FBI did not seek a
Speaker 1: search warrant. We'll have much more on those developments a
Speaker 1: little later this afternoon. All right, now, the Center. I
Speaker 1: thought this guy said he was going to run the
Speaker 1: most transparent administration in history, and now we're finding out
Speaker 1: that there is a previously I disclosed search at the
Speaker 1: Penn Biden Center in November that no one told anybody about.
Speaker 1: Look at this point, this is a bad nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: sitcom where every day another screw up happens. Every day. Up,
Speaker 1: we got more documents. We got documents in the Penn
Speaker 1: Biden Center, We have documents in the Willington House, we
Speaker 1: have documents in the Robe Beach House, we have documents
Speaker 1: by the corvette, we have documents in the room beside
Speaker 1: the corvette. Then we discover, oh, the FBI is engaged
Speaker 1: in a rate. And now we discover this was not
Speaker 1: the first FBI rate. There was an FBI raid back
Speaker 1: in November that miraculously never got disclosed. And listen, we've
Speaker 1: talked about how the bidendj the FBI has leaked like
Speaker 1: a sieve about Donald Trump. Every bad thing they have
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump immediately gets leaked to the media. When
Speaker 1: the FBI does a search of Biden's office, they don't
Speaker 1: leak it to the media. They don't let anyone know
Speaker 1: because they didn't want to disturb the election. Mind you,
Speaker 1: the first of these documents, if we're to believe the
Speaker 1: timeline that has been given, was discovered a week before
Speaker 1: the election. But they did not want anyone to know,
Speaker 1: so they kept it silent, and it is amazing. Listen,
Speaker 1: just as a crisis management point these guys. Every day
Speaker 1: it gets worse and worse. Center. One of the things
Speaker 1: that they keep saying. And when I say they, I'm
Speaker 1: talking about the White House and the people speaking on
Speaker 1: behalf all the sarrogates for Biden is will hold on
Speaker 1: this search and the other search as plural now by
Speaker 1: the FBI were not raids. They want to make that
Speaker 1: very queer and they say they're all conducted without the
Speaker 1: use of a warrant, like you're supposed to get you
Speaker 1: know good like time served right for good behavior in
Speaker 1: this scenario, like everything's fine because it wasn't like they
Speaker 1: had to come in with a raid. It wasn't like
Speaker 1: they had to do and get a warrant. We're being transparent.
Speaker 1: So even when we do lie to you and tell
Speaker 1: you that nothing else is there, when it clearly is,
Speaker 1: you should still give us good you know, good behavior credit.
Speaker 1: So number one, it's a bizarre semantic game they're playing
Speaker 1: to say it's not a raid. Listen, if the FBI
Speaker 1: shows up at your house or shows up at your
Speaker 1: office to search your house or your office, it's a raid.
Speaker 1: Like their thesis is, well, they didn't repel in off
Speaker 1: of helicopters with machine guns and have to shoot the guards,
Speaker 1: so we ought to get credit for that. Listen, if
Speaker 1: the FBI is searching, you know what they didn't do.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the American people. The FBI is searching
Speaker 1: his office, and they didn't do it because they discovered
Speaker 1: these documents allegedly right before election day and they realized,
Speaker 1: oh wait, this would be really bad for the election,
Speaker 1: so let's lie about it. And you know, I didn't
Speaker 1: tell the American people either, the FBI, you know who
Speaker 1: didn't tell the American people either, the DOJ. Mind you,
Speaker 1: this FBI and DOJ seems to have a direct line
Speaker 1: to the New York Times, a direct line to the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Everything bad for Donald Trump. They leaked like crazy,
Speaker 1: and in fact, we learned during the Trump administration they
Speaker 1: don't just leak actual true facts like the FBI searched
Speaker 1: his home today, that they leak all sorts of false
Speaker 1: things like the entire Russia Gate fraud where what they
Speaker 1: were telling the press was false. This Biden DOJ is
Speaker 1: thoroughly politicized, and the Biden White House, they didn't tell people.
Speaker 1: It is right now February. This happened in November. The
Speaker 1: Biden White House didn't tell the American people in November.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the American people in December. They didn't
Speaker 1: tell the American people in January. The FBI didn't tell
Speaker 1: the American people in November, December, January. The dj didn't
Speaker 1: tell the American people in November, December, January. It wasn't
Speaker 1: until the press broke it the very last day of
Speaker 1: January that they're like, oh, yeah, that happened too. It
Speaker 1: is interesting to see how the media is responding to this,
Speaker 1: and I want to give it a perfect example of this.
Speaker 1: CNN called out a White House spokeswoman and this is
Speaker 1: again we're missing an accident. I feel like we need
Speaker 1: a milk carton here asking where the actual White House
Speaker 1: pressing material is because they put betting filled out there
Speaker 1: on CNN, and CNN seems to be irritated that they
Speaker 1: were left in the dark by the White House. But
Speaker 1: first I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile. If
Speaker 1: you've got a cell phone, how would you like to
Speaker 1: know that every time you use that cell phone, you're
Speaker 1: actually standing up for what you believe in. You're actually
Speaker 1: standing up for your First and your Second Amendment rights,
Speaker 1: you're actually standing up for the lives the unborn, and
Speaker 1: you're actually helping when it comes to adoptions. Well, you
Speaker 1: can do all of that whole you're making a phone
Speaker 1: call when you're with Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is the
Speaker 1: only conservative cellone company in the US. You get to
Speaker 1: keep your same cell phone number, and you can many
Speaker 1: times keep your same cell phone or upgrade to a
Speaker 1: new one. If you're a business or a small business,
Speaker 1: family business, you can switch your entire company over. They
Speaker 1: have a business plans for people just like you. And
Speaker 1: when you pay your bill at Patriot Mobile every month,
Speaker 1: you are actually giving back and standing up for the
Speaker 1: causes that you believe in. Check out Patriot Mobile. Go
Speaker 1: to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile
Speaker 1: dot com slash verdict, or you can call them eight
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot use the
Speaker 1: promo verdict for the best deals of the day eight
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot Center. Take a listen again, this is
Speaker 1: CNN actually irritated that the White House for not being transparent.
Speaker 1: And I don't think it's because they care that the
Speaker 1: White House is alying to us. I think they care
Speaker 1: that they were actually lied to by the White House.
Speaker 1: All right, let me ask you about some new reporting here.
Speaker 1: According to a Justice Department official and another source familiar
Speaker 1: with the matter, the FBI search President Biden's former think
Speaker 1: tank office in Washington in November after the discovery just
Speaker 1: before the midterm elections of the documents with the classified markings.
Speaker 1: Where any additional classified documents found as part of that search,
Speaker 1: That's not something I can comment on from here. That's
Speaker 1: something you'll need to ask the Justice Department. What I
Speaker 1: can say is that we have been cooperative and transparent
Speaker 1: from the outset. We put out multiple statements from the
Speaker 1: President's personal attorney describing the process and being clear that
Speaker 1: the President takes this seriously and that he cooperated and
Speaker 1: will continue to cooperate with the Justice Department in full.
Speaker 1: And you know, the other thing I would say while
Speaker 1: we're on this topic is, you know, over the weekend,
Speaker 1: CBS had to pull out that showed that the majority
Speaker 1: of Americans think that President Biden is handling this well.
Speaker 1: And we've also seen that it has an impacted his
Speaker 1: approval ratings because while he absolutely takes this seriously and
Speaker 1: continues to cooperate. He's also continuing to focus on the
Speaker 1: things the matter in people's lives, like visiting the tunnel
Speaker 1: today that is finally getting those infrastructure dollars after so
Speaker 1: many years of not being able to get it done. So, Okay,
Speaker 1: you're claiming transparency, but I'm bringing this to you, you
Speaker 1: aren't bringing it to me. This happened in mid November.
Speaker 1: If you are indeed being transparent, why the continued trickle
Speaker 1: of disclosure around these classified documents? I mean, Sida, let's
Speaker 1: just stop it right there. You just had CNN say,
Speaker 1: so Kate talking to the White House quote, you're claiming transparency,
Speaker 1: but I'm bringing this to you. You aren't bringing it
Speaker 1: to me. And that's where I go back to what
Speaker 1: I was saying earlier. I think this is just personal.
Speaker 1: Now the media is furious that basically they were misled
Speaker 1: by their partners in crime. Right, they're being double crossed
Speaker 1: by this Biden White House. He didn't say the American people.
Speaker 1: He said, I'm bringing this to you, you aren't bringing
Speaker 1: it to me. This happens in mid November. If you
Speaker 1: are indeed being transparent, why continue continue trickle of disclosures
Speaker 1: around these classified documents. That's CNN, that Senate. Look when
Speaker 1: the Democrats have lost CNN, their ship is sinking. That
Speaker 1: is bad CNN. As are as hardcore left wing partisans
Speaker 1: as you can find. And the problem is the White
Speaker 1: House every day sends out flax who say things that
Speaker 1: are false. I mean, listen, I think this podcast may
Speaker 1: have single handedly taken Karine John Pierre off the air.
Speaker 1: Ben I don't know why you're so mean to her,
Speaker 1: just because she lies to the American people every days.
Speaker 1: That seems a really harsh thing to do. But I'm pro,
Speaker 1: and I'm pro employment by the way, I actually feel
Speaker 1: a little bad right well, every single day what they
Speaker 1: stand up and say, you don't have to wait forty
Speaker 1: eight hours twenty four hours later those facts are no
Speaker 1: longer operative. Look at the opening question in that exchange
Speaker 1: from CNN. So when the FBI rated Biden's penn office,
Speaker 1: did they find any additional documents? Now there's an answer
Speaker 1: to that question. The answer is yes or no. It's
Speaker 1: one of the two. Presumably she didn't answer that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she said, oh you got to talk to someone else.
Speaker 1: You know what that means? That means tomorrow or the
Speaker 1: next day or the next day, we're going to find
Speaker 1: out yes they found additional documents, or no they didn't.
Speaker 1: Like this is not, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: terribly complicated that when you have a scandal in Washington,
Speaker 1: get the facts out, get them out fast, Be totally transparent,
Speaker 1: be open kimono. Say here's what happened. The FBI examined it.
Speaker 1: We found this, We found this, like just answer it
Speaker 1: ripped the band aid off. To mix my metaphors, we've
Speaker 1: got an open kimono with a band aid being ripped off,
Speaker 1: and it's Joe Biden. Okay, that's now really frightening. But
Speaker 1: it could be worse. It could be Hunter. Look, never
Speaker 1: mind the imagery. I'm glad this is an audio podcast
Speaker 1: and not a video one because my eyes would be
Speaker 1: burning in ibe Homer Simpson pouring bleach and my eyeballs
Speaker 1: right now. But they're deliberately or either deliberately or incompetently
Speaker 1: setting this up for the drip, drip drip. We can't
Speaker 1: answer that. We won't answer that. And CNN says, look,
Speaker 1: you don't get to say I'm being transparent when you're
Speaker 1: not telling us anything. Like stonewalling is by definition not transparent.
Speaker 1: And CNN's point, you didn't tell us about the FBI.
Speaker 1: We found out about it because you're not being transparent,
Speaker 1: and I will say also so her response, he says, well,
Speaker 1: there was a recent poll that shows Biden's just doing great,
Speaker 1: so never mind any of this. Well, I'll tell you
Speaker 1: there was another poll that was done by you gov
Speaker 1: just recently that concluded, quote, the share of Democrats who
Speaker 1: see Biden as honest and trustworthy has fallen ten points
Speaker 1: from seventy nine percent in December to sixty nine percent
Speaker 1: this week. Among independents, that perception fell seven points from
Speaker 1: thirty percent to twenty three percent, and it even fell
Speaker 1: six points among Republicans from fourteen percent to eight percent.
Speaker 1: So their claim this is not making a difference is
Speaker 1: directly contradicted by the polls. And the reason is they are.
Speaker 1: They're being the opposite of transparent. They are hiding everything,
Speaker 1: They're refusing to answer questions, which means I can promise
Speaker 1: you there will be new news on this next week.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it'll be. Well, you just mentioned transparency,
Speaker 1: and I want to play this because it speaks to
Speaker 1: what you're saying they're not being transparent on any of it.
Speaker 1: They're not telling the truth. Joe Biden came back from
Speaker 1: another weekend vacation and he was asked about this on
Speaker 1: the Law of the White House, and this was a question.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you that the transcript for everybody, because
Speaker 1: then you can follow easier. The reporter says, if the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel who's starting this week asked for your testimony,
Speaker 1: would you give testimony? The reporter says, Joe Biden responds
Speaker 1: by saying, Oh, I don't even know about the Special Counsel.
Speaker 1: Listen carefully, Cecil Council who's starting to your guest for
Speaker 1: your testimony, your testimony. I I don't even know about
Speaker 1: the Special Council. This is why you go back the
Speaker 1: poll that you just mentioned when it says is Biden
Speaker 1: as as honest and trustworthy has fallen ten points from
Speaker 1: seventy nine percent December to sixty nine percent this week.
Speaker 1: Among independence, that perception fell seven points. I mean that
Speaker 1: one was among Democrats, the first one from thirty percent
Speaker 1: to twenty three. He's lost independence at twenty three percent,
Speaker 1: and it's following another six points, as you mentioned among
Speaker 1: Republicans down to eight percent, and he looks at you,
Speaker 1: he goes, oh, I don't even know anything about a
Speaker 1: special counsel. Now, I do believe that a cognitive decline
Speaker 1: is real with this guy, but I don't believe he
Speaker 1: doesn't know that there's a special counsel. So, Ben, let
Speaker 1: me ask a simple question. Is he telling the truth
Speaker 1: or is he lying? You're lying? Both of those outcomes
Speaker 1: are bad. If he's telling the truth, and I actually
Speaker 1: think there's a very real possibility he's telling the truth.
Speaker 1: When he says I don't know about the special counsel,
Speaker 1: the degree to which this man is intellectually compromised is
Speaker 1: not aware. I want you to think, in the history
Speaker 1: of our government, can you imagine Richard Nixon saying, I
Speaker 1: don't know who Archibald Cox is. I don't know anything
Speaker 1: about that. Can you imagine Bill Clinton saying Ken Starr,
Speaker 1: who's he? Never heard of it? Can you imagine Donald
Speaker 1: Trump saying Robert Muller, who's that guy? Never heard of
Speaker 1: the guy? Like, the two options are Biden is telling
Speaker 1: the truth, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: Let's assume he's telling the truth. He's standing up there
Speaker 1: saying I don't know about the special counsel. What kind
Speaker 1: of president doesn't know his own Attorney General and Department
Speaker 1: of Justice has appointed a special counsel to investigate him,
Speaker 1: Joseph Robinette Biden Junior, for potential violations of federal criminal law.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't know, that is one heck of an
Speaker 1: indictment of his ability to do the job as president.
Speaker 1: If he does know, then option number two, which ironically
Speaker 1: is the less damning option, is he's just blithely lying
Speaker 1: to the press that he knows about it. He's like, Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, because I don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 1: That's the best option. The irony is that he's a
Speaker 1: deliberate and blatant liar. Is the less damaging option then
Speaker 1: that he is so oblivious he is not aware that
Speaker 1: his own Justice Department has had to appoint a special
Speaker 1: counsel to investigate multiple flagrant, apparent violations of federal criminal
Speaker 1: law by him. Yeah, and that brings us, honestly to
Speaker 1: this next story. You talked about this on the last podcast,
Speaker 1: and for people listening if you'd missed this episode, there
Speaker 1: was a lot of bad weather. I know, a lot
Speaker 1: of people may not have been driving over the last
Speaker 1: couple of days with a snow and ice storm that's
Speaker 1: hitting the country. But this is an episode you need
Speaker 1: to go back to and listen to. We were talking
Speaker 1: about this, this incredible email that Hunter Biden sent to
Speaker 1: one Devin Archer, one of his business associates, trying to
Speaker 1: get this job in Ukraine on Barisma a week before
Speaker 1: his dad goes over there and two weeks before he
Speaker 1: gets his eighty thousand plus dollars a month job with
Speaker 1: Barisma sitting on the board and this email. Many people
Speaker 1: you taught you said this, you believe this email clearly
Speaker 1: came from a document that was more than likely a
Speaker 1: classified document that the Vice president at the time, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: would have had his hands on. And we go into
Speaker 1: great detail about that email. So go back and listen
Speaker 1: to that our last podcast. But there's new documents center
Speaker 1: that have come out. Hunter Biden apparently pitched himself as
Speaker 1: an expert in Russian oligarch who was targeted by the FBI.
Speaker 1: Now Miranda Divine, who she wrote a book. I'd tell
Speaker 1: people rarely to go buy books, but if you haven't
Speaker 1: read Laptop from Hell, you should she's the one that
Speaker 1: came out with us, saying. Hunter Biden boasted he could
Speaker 1: provide intelligence on the shady Russian oligarch whose Greenwich Villa
Speaker 1: townhouse was rated by the FBI on Tuesday. The present
Speaker 1: son said he could provide Alcoa, a giant US aluminum firm,
Speaker 1: with knowledge about the elite quote unquote networks connected to
Speaker 1: this olagark and a proposal from his company, Rosemont Seneca.
Speaker 1: These emails again telling this story on Hunter Biden's laptop
Speaker 1: and federal agents what we're being told carried out law
Speaker 1: enforcement activity on Tuesday at the Gray Street townhouse and
Speaker 1: a Washington mansion tied to these Russian oligarchs, a close
Speaker 1: ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and this is who
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was trying to do business with. Well, that's
Speaker 1: exactly right. Before I address that, though, I do have
Speaker 1: to say two things. Number One, Ben, you just said
Speaker 1: you rarely rarely urge people to buy books. Yours was
Speaker 1: the last one before this, So there you go. I've
Speaker 1: got a book, Justice Corrupted, how the Left has weaponized
Speaker 1: the legal system. I got to say, why do you
Speaker 1: hurt me? Yeah? Why are you urging people? Not to
Speaker 1: buy my damn books. They how to go to Amazon.
Speaker 1: Right now, you can pause the podcast. I want you
Speaker 1: to listen to the rest of the podcast, but you
Speaker 1: can pause the podcast, you can flip over to Amazon
Speaker 1: and with one click you can do the have it
Speaker 1: delivered tomorrow. I love it. In fact, you could combo
Speaker 1: these two books together. Valid point. All right, So, and
Speaker 1: I will say secondly, you said in our last podcast,
Speaker 1: which was on Monday, and it was we got went
Speaker 1: into great detail about a very detailed email that Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden sent that had twenty two points about Ukraine and
Speaker 1: geopolitical analysis, that was very scholarly, very areadite. And you
Speaker 1: said that that I said that this was this was
Speaker 1: very likely from classified documents. I want, I want to
Speaker 1: be clear. I didn't say that. What I said was
Speaker 1: this email is very unlike the other emails Hunter Biden sent,
Speaker 1: and it reads as if it came from a federal
Speaker 1: government briefing. Binger, that's a better way of putting it.
Speaker 1: I think it is quite likely that the substance of
Speaker 1: the email came from a briefing that Joe Biden received
Speaker 1: as vice president. It was a week before his trip
Speaker 1: to Ukraine and It reads like a US government prepared briefing.
Speaker 1: What I don't know is whether that briefing was classified
Speaker 1: or not. It may have been, and often those briefings
Speaker 1: are classified, but I don't know one way or the other.
Speaker 1: And what I've said is the Special Counsel needs to investigate.
Speaker 1: It needs to look at the briefings that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: as Vice president received at that time. Those are in
Speaker 1: the archives, they have them, and it needs to examine
Speaker 1: did Hunter Biden's email cut and paste and copy from
Speaker 1: that briefing. Now, if it was not a classified briefing,
Speaker 1: that's the Biden family exploiting daddy's connections, and that's that's
Speaker 1: kind of sleazy, but it's not necessarily illegal. If it
Speaker 1: is a classified document, and presumably Hunter did not have
Speaker 1: security clearance, then it is illegal, likely on both Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's part and Joe Biden's part, and so on the
Speaker 1: face of it, it screams out that this came from
Speaker 1: a far more detailed government briefing than Hunter had the expertise. Now,
Speaker 1: there's another email that Hunter Biden sent, and he sent
Speaker 1: this email to Alcoa, the big aluminum company, to quote
Speaker 1: provide alca A statistical analysis of political and corporate risks
Speaker 1: elite networks associated with Oleg Deripaska, Russian CEO of Basic
Speaker 1: Elements Company and United Company RUSSAU and in on June
Speaker 1: third of twenty eleven, Hunter wrote quote, please see the
Speaker 1: attached proposal per our last conversation, we try to provide
Speaker 1: a little better sense of the product by attaching some
Speaker 1: of the raw data that is produced through the elite
Speaker 1: mapping procedure. And the proposal includes quote a list of
Speaker 1: elites of similar rank in Russia, maps of the oligarchs
Speaker 1: networks based on frequency of interactions with selected and countries.
Speaker 1: And Hunter watered to charge Outcoa fees of twenty five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars for phase one of the project and fifty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars for refined analysis, and Alcoa came back
Speaker 1: on June eighth with an email and said, I don't
Speaker 1: believe the data analysis is worth the full fifty five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. I think the most valuable piece for us
Speaker 1: would be the list of the Russian elites connected with
Speaker 1: the oligarch der Pasca that would not be otherwise on
Speaker 1: Government Affairs team's radar, including various Russian committee, committee heads,
Speaker 1: union leaders or ministers, and the person from Alcoa also
Speaker 1: noted Hunter's political pedigree. And here's what it says, quote
Speaker 1: Rosemont Seneca. His company has co chairman Hunter Biden, son
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden, and Christopher Hines, stepson of Senator John Kerry.
Speaker 1: So they're being very open. Hey, these are the kids
Speaker 1: of politicians with classified information, and we're going to pay
Speaker 1: for it. Now. Once again, there's nothing in Hunter Biden's background.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in his educational training, There's nothing in his
Speaker 1: study that suggests that he has any particular expertise on
Speaker 1: the networks of elites in Russia connected to Russian oligarchs.
Speaker 1: Now he wants to charge fifty five thousand dollars for
Speaker 1: his analysis. Hey, you want to know what's going on
Speaker 1: with the Russian oligarchs, I'm your guy. That Once again,
Speaker 1: like the Ukraine email, it is a level of sophistication
Speaker 1: that it asks any person with a reasonable degree of skepticism.
Speaker 1: How did Hunter Biden find this out? Where did he
Speaker 1: get it? Did he you know, does he often pile
Speaker 1: around with Russian oligarchs? How does he know who are
Speaker 1: the oligarchs friends and peers and contemporaries and what's going
Speaker 1: on other than the only source I'm aware of for
Speaker 1: him to get this information is the briefing apparatus that
Speaker 1: surrounded his father, the Vice President of the United States.
Speaker 1: I don't know that those briefs who were provided a Hunter.
Speaker 1: I just don't know of any other source from which
Speaker 1: he could have acquired this information. And mind you, the
Speaker 1: White House isn't providing any. Hunter Biden isn't suggesting any.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden isn't suggesting any. No Democrats are suggesting any.
Speaker 1: So the obvious inferences this came from Daddy. And again,
Speaker 1: if it's just Daddy saying, all right, here all my
Speaker 1: briefings from my staff go make money and sell it
Speaker 1: on the private sector for fifty five grand a pop.
Speaker 1: That's pretty sleazy. But it may not be directly illegal,
Speaker 1: but it should be looked at. But if the briefings
Speaker 1: are classified briefings, if they are the sa I A
Speaker 1: saying here are the oligarchs in Russia, here are the
Speaker 1: relationships between them, and suddenly Hunter is getting access to it,
Speaker 1: then you're facing serious criminal liability. And so we now
Speaker 1: have two emails that strongly raise the inference that Hunter
Speaker 1: had access to his father's files. We know that Dad
Speaker 1: was leaving classified documents just about everywhere, sitting who puts
Speaker 1: classified documents in the garage next to their classic corvette
Speaker 1: which Hunter Biden was living in. Joe Biden's house was
Speaker 1: driving the corvette like it's remarkable. But the Special Counsel,
Speaker 1: if he's going to do his job we talked about
Speaker 1: on the last podcast, the tell if DJ's trying to
Speaker 1: protect the political prospects of the White House, they will
Speaker 1: do everything they can not to investigate the connections between
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. If they're actually following the
Speaker 1: facts and the evidence, the entire focus should be on
Speaker 1: the connections between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, because that's
Speaker 1: what implicates corruption from then the Vice president of the
Speaker 1: United States and today the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: I want to get people an update on another very
Speaker 1: important story that's really gone viral, and it dealt with
Speaker 1: Biden's judicial nominee who didn't know what Article two of
Speaker 1: the Constitution is and now Democrats have actually been forced
Speaker 1: to defend this nominee. I'm going to play that audio
Speaker 1: that originally kind of exploded for people, but before we
Speaker 1: do that. I want to tell you about our friends
Speaker 1: at a Gust of Precious Metals. Have you saved a
Speaker 1: long time for retirement, Well, you need to understand that
Speaker 1: you can protect your money with a gold ira. I'm
Speaker 1: excited to tell you about a company that I trust
Speaker 1: and I use. It's a Gust of Precious Metals. They're
Speaker 1: different because they even tell you if a gold ira
Speaker 1: isn't your answer, there's no pressure, there's just facts. A
Speaker 1: Gust of Precious Metals is all about protecting iras and
Speaker 1: four o one ks in this crazy economy, and it's
Speaker 1: so important, especially if you're close to retirement because there's
Speaker 1: no time to make up losses. So if you've saved
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars or more, take a look at
Speaker 1: their free guide and you can sign up for their
Speaker 1: web conference. Now I've done both of these things, and
Speaker 1: the web conference was the most important. You can take
Speaker 1: a look at all of their insights and how a
Speaker 1: gold ira can work for you. Give you peace of mind,
Speaker 1: and that's a pretty big deal. Call August of Precious
Speaker 1: Metals eight seven seven four gold Ira. That's eight seven
Speaker 1: seven four gold ira, or visit augusta Precious metals dot
Speaker 1: com say I sent you and they'll pay your fees
Speaker 1: for up to ten years. That's a gust of precious
Speaker 1: metals eight seven seven four gold Ira or augusta precious
Speaker 1: metals with an ask dot com Senator for people that
Speaker 1: miss this. A Biden judicial nominee was asked a basic
Speaker 1: question about the Constitution. I'm going to play that for
Speaker 1: people just so they if you miss as it's amazing.
Speaker 1: This is Senator Kennedy asking very basic questions here. It
Speaker 1: is Judge, I'm a far end. Tell me what Article
Speaker 1: five of the Constitution does. Article five is not coming
Speaker 1: to mind at the moment. Okay, how about Article two?
Speaker 1: Neither is Article two? Okay? Do you know what purposivism is?
Speaker 1: In my twelve years as an assistant Attorney General, in
Speaker 1: my nine years serving as a judge, I was not
Speaker 1: faced with that precise question. We are the highest trial
Speaker 1: court in Washington States, so I'm frequently faced with issues
Speaker 1: that I'm not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law,
Speaker 1: our research, and apply the law to the fact I'm
Speaker 1: presented to me, or you're going to be faced with
Speaker 1: it is a if you're confirmed, I can assure you that.
Speaker 1: I mean, Senator, it's still shocking when you hear it.
Speaker 1: But we talked about this on this show, and this
Speaker 1: has really exploded to the point now where Democrats are
Speaker 1: having to come in and defend this and try to
Speaker 1: normalize this. Dick Durbin, one of your colleagues, is one
Speaker 1: of the people trying to save this. Give people kind
Speaker 1: of an update of what's happening in DC. Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, let me explain what the questions are that
Speaker 1: John Kennedy asked. So. Article five of the Constitution is
Speaker 1: the article of the Constitution that provides how amendments are
Speaker 1: made to the Constitution, and it is the process. It
Speaker 1: is how we got the Bill of Rights. It is
Speaker 1: how we've got every amendment to the Constitution is through
Speaker 1: Article five. Article two of the Constitution is even more fundamental.
Speaker 1: So the first three articles of the Constitution. Article one
Speaker 1: creates the legislature, invests all legislative power in the Congress,
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives, in the Senate. Article two, which
Speaker 1: is what Kennedy asked about, creates the President of the
Speaker 1: United States and the entire executive branch. It is the
Speaker 1: executive It is an incredibly important article of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Article three is what creates the judiciary. So this woman
Speaker 1: has been nominated to be what's called an Article three judge,
Speaker 1: which means she's nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate,
Speaker 1: and then enjoys life tenure she's a federal judge. For
Speaker 1: a first year law student to not know what Article
Speaker 1: two of the Constitution is, you would flunk constitutional law.
Speaker 1: Like this may be something that an ordinary layperson might
Speaker 1: not know, but not even any lawyer, any law student,
Speaker 1: to not know Article two is stunning. For somebody that
Speaker 1: wants to be a federal judge, wants to be an
Speaker 1: Article three federal judge, to have no idea what an
Speaker 1: Article three federal judge is is remarkable. And so Dicturban,
Speaker 1: the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And mind you, the
Speaker 1: Democrats have confirmed every single one hundred of the judges
Speaker 1: nominated by Joe Biden. The Democrats are confirmed. Not a
Speaker 1: single Democrats senator has voted against a single Joe Biden nominee.
Speaker 1: And he has nominated the most radical, the most extreme,
Speaker 1: and in many cases, the most un qualified judicial nominees
Speaker 1: I've ever seen. So Durban said this week that he's
Speaker 1: confident that Charnel, Bagel, ken Grin, which is the woman
Speaker 1: who didn't know the answers to that will be confirmed.
Speaker 1: And here's the quote from Durban. The honest answer is
Speaker 1: there aren't many members of the Judiciary Committee who can
Speaker 1: answer all those questions. Well, let me say if Dick
Speaker 1: Durban's defense is, you know, we got Democrat members of
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee who have no friggant idea what Article
Speaker 1: too is. Let me tell you right now, ben people
Speaker 1: need to get the hell off the Judiciary Committee. Like
Speaker 1: if you don't know what Article two of the Constitution is,
Speaker 1: this is not complicated. John Kennedy was not asking some
Speaker 1: obscure gotcha question. There are unfair questions you can ask,
Speaker 1: you know. You see it in presidential elections where you
Speaker 1: get someone that says, you know, who's the foreign Minister
Speaker 1: of Azerbaijan, and you know the Canada will be like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, and they're like, ah, you're a moron.
Speaker 1: These were not obscure gotcha questions. You know. This is
Speaker 1: like somebody who is interviewing to be a sports broadcaster
Speaker 1: for the NFL and they say, okay, how many points
Speaker 1: do you get for kicking a field goal? And the
Speaker 1: person says, I have not reviewed field goals recently. Like
Speaker 1: it is that level of like, if you don't know
Speaker 1: what Article two of the Constitution is, you shouldn't be
Speaker 1: a judge. And by the way, Dick Durban, if your
Speaker 1: defense is, well, gosh, the Democrats we put on this committee,
Speaker 1: we're as ignorant as these nominees. That ain't a very
Speaker 1: good defense. It doesn't. It's not a very good defense.
Speaker 1: And yet that's all they're left with. I mean, when
Speaker 1: you have to defend the indefensible, and that's what this
Speaker 1: basically is, I guess you just say, Okay, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: look like an idiot two and take one for the
Speaker 1: team to try to salvage this. I mean, do you
Speaker 1: think there's any chance they don't confirm her, because, like
Speaker 1: you said, they have confirmed every single judge it's come
Speaker 1: before them from the Democratic side, from Biden. Look, I
Speaker 1: think they believe the press will not hold them accountable
Speaker 1: and so they can just party line vote. Everyone. This
Speaker 1: is an embarrassing judicial nomination. And you know, I'm reminded
Speaker 1: of a similar example in the Trump administration. So in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, the first year of the Trump presidency, Trump
Speaker 1: nominated a fellow named Matthew Peterson to be a federal judge.
Speaker 1: He was a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, and
Speaker 1: he went before the Judiciary Commis and once again, John Kennedy,
Speaker 1: my friend, senator from Louisiana, asked him some fairly basic
Speaker 1: legal questions, and he did spectacularly poorly. In fact, take
Speaker 1: a listen to John Kennedy's questioning of Matthew Peterson, a
Speaker 1: Trump judicial nominee, in twenty seventeen. Um, have you ever
Speaker 1: tried a jury trial? I have? Not civil? No criminal,
Speaker 1: no bench, no stay at our federal court? I have not.
Speaker 1: Have you ever taken a deposition? I was involved in
Speaker 1: taking depositions when I was associate at Wiley Ryan when
Speaker 1: I first came out of law school. Um, but that
Speaker 1: that was. Have you ever how many? How many depositions?
Speaker 1: I would um, I'd be struggling too to remember. Less
Speaker 1: than ten, yes, less than five, probably somewhere. Have you
Speaker 1: ever tried taken a deposition by yourself? I believe no? Okay,
Speaker 1: have you ever argued emotion in state court? I have not.
Speaker 1: Have you ever argued emotion in federal court? No? When's
Speaker 1: the last time you read the Federal Rules of civil procedure.
Speaker 1: The Federal Rules of Civil procedure I have in my
Speaker 1: current position, I obviously don't need to stay as you know,
Speaker 1: UH invested in those on a day to day basis,
Speaker 1: but I do try to keep up to speed. We
Speaker 1: do have at the at the Federal Election Commission roughly
Speaker 1: seventy attorneys who work under our guidance, including a large
Speaker 1: litigation division, and as a commissioner, we oversee that litigation.
Speaker 1: We advise them on over all legal serrategy, provide recommendations
Speaker 1: and addits to briefs and so forth, and meet with
Speaker 1: them about how we're going to handle it. If I
Speaker 1: got to ask you, I'm sorry to interruption, but we're
Speaker 1: only given five minutes for five of you. So when's
Speaker 1: the last time you read the Federal Rules of evidence?
Speaker 1: The Federal Rules of Evidence all the way through, would
Speaker 1: um well comprehensively would have been in law school, obviously
Speaker 1: I have been involved in when I was an associate.
Speaker 1: UM that was something that we had to stay closely
Speaker 1: abreast of. And um there have been some issues dealing
Speaker 1: with evidentiary issues that will cause me to UM examine
Speaker 1: those periodically in in our oversight role oft the litigation
Speaker 1: division at the Federal Election Commission. Okay, Um, well, as
Speaker 1: a child judge, you're obviously going to have witnesses. And
Speaker 1: you tell me what the dobear standard is, Senator Kennedy,
Speaker 1: I don't have that readily at my disposal, but I
Speaker 1: would be happy to take a closer look at that.
Speaker 1: That That is not something that I've had to contender. Um,
Speaker 1: do you know what emotion in lemony is? Uh? Yes,
Speaker 1: I haven't. Um, I'm again, my background is not in litigation,
Speaker 1: as as when I was replying to Chairman Grassley, UM,
Speaker 1: I haven't had to Umm again, do a deep dive.
Speaker 1: And and I understand and I appreciate this, this line
Speaker 1: of question, and I understand the challenge that would be
Speaker 1: ahead of me if I were fortunate enough to become
Speaker 1: a district court judge. I understand that, Um, that the
Speaker 1: path that many successful district court judges have taken has
Speaker 1: been a different one than I have taken. So that
Speaker 1: was a Trump judicial nominee the first year of Trump's presidency. Now,
Speaker 1: some of the questions that John Kennedy asked are particular
Speaker 1: to trying cases, something like the Dobet standard. If you're
Speaker 1: not a trial lawyer, you probably don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: It's from a Supreme Court case, and it lays out
Speaker 1: the standard to assess a witnesses, expert testimony, and scientific testimony,
Speaker 1: whether it's valid, whether it's admissible. Likewise, emotion limiting. If
Speaker 1: you're not a trial lawyer, you wouldn't necessarily know that
Speaker 1: emotion limity is emotion that is made to the judge
Speaker 1: outside the presidence of the jury and to request that
Speaker 1: testimony be excluded from consideration by the jury. Now, if
Speaker 1: you're being nominated to be ambassador to Peru, you don't
Speaker 1: need to know the Dobet standard. You don't need to
Speaker 1: know emotional limity because that's not your job. You do
Speaker 1: need to know something about Peru, presumably, But if you're
Speaker 1: being nominated to be a federal district judge, where you're
Speaker 1: going to wear a black robe and sit on the
Speaker 1: bench and preside over trials, where lawyers are going to
Speaker 1: make motions and lemon ay, and it'd be really good
Speaker 1: if you said, I'm sorry, counsel, what is that? This
Speaker 1: was when this questioning happened, I got to admit for
Speaker 1: the rest of us. It was a little bit like
Speaker 1: watching a train wreck where you just stopped. I mean,
Speaker 1: you felt horrified. And listen, this fellow, Matthew Peterson, as
Speaker 1: far as I know, is a very nice guy. I
Speaker 1: don't know him. He's you know, he was a Republican,
Speaker 1: presumably a conservative. He was on the Federal Election Commission,
Speaker 1: but he was not qualified to be a federal district judge.
Speaker 1: Here's what happened after that, questioning the Republicans on the
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee to a person said this is a problem,
Speaker 1: and the Trump white House withdrew the domination. They said, Okay,
Speaker 1: we can't do this. We can't and and look, sometimes
Speaker 1: a white House screws up. They put someone, they put
Speaker 1: the wrong person forward, it doesn't go well, and they say, okay, rewind.
Speaker 1: And by the way, there were several nominees that were
Speaker 1: put forward by the Trump white House that the Senate.
Speaker 1: The Republicans in the Senate raised issues with and said, hey,
Speaker 1: this person's not the right choice. We're Republicans, we generally
Speaker 1: support what you're doing, but we're going to impose some
Speaker 1: standards of quality, and in this case, you've got to
Speaker 1: be qualified to do the job. What is amazing is
Speaker 1: Dick Durban and the Democrats are digging in and saying
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. If our judicial nominees have no idea
Speaker 1: what's in the United States Constitution, if they don't know
Speaker 1: what Article too is, doesn't matter. We're Democrats, Damn the torpedoes.
Speaker 1: We don't care about the substance. We're going to stick
Speaker 1: to it. And you know what, we know not a
Speaker 1: single reporter back home is going to ask us, wait,
Speaker 1: why did you vote to confirm someone that knows nothing
Speaker 1: about the United States Constitution to be a federal judge.
Speaker 1: Isn't that an important step? I don't understand why there's
Speaker 1: not a Democrat willing to call the Biden White House
Speaker 1: and say, hey, kind of screwed up on this one.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's find someone else.
Speaker 1: We can find a left wing radical, we got lots
Speaker 1: of those, but let's find a left wing radical that
Speaker 1: actually knows what Article two of the Constitution is. To date,
Speaker 1: not a single Democrat's been willing to do that. It's incredible,
Speaker 1: and I think that just tells you how partisan that
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is. When they just say we want something,
Speaker 1: there's no logic there's no reason behind it. And this.
Speaker 1: But it's not that it's not just partisan. It's also
Speaker 1: that they believe they will have no scrutiny. It is
Speaker 1: because the corporate media is corrupt that they can do
Speaker 1: this and know when they get home they will get
Speaker 1: lovey dovey questions like Joe Biden gets of you know,
Speaker 1: what's your favorite flavor of ice cream, rather than actually,
Speaker 1: you know, I'd be embarrassed. I'm you know, I'd be
Speaker 1: embarrassed to vote to confirm a judge like this. The
Speaker 1: Democrats don't feel any embarrassment because the press will bury
Speaker 1: it and ignore it. Yeah, and this is what the
Speaker 1: problem is. I think with so many Americans, they just
Speaker 1: get so frustrated, flabbergasted by the fact that this is
Speaker 1: how business can be done. Certainly on the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: at least there's putting some pressure at least Durbans now
Speaker 1: at least having to come out and try to save this.
Speaker 1: And as you said, you believe they'll probably get you know, confirmed,
Speaker 1: because this is the Democratic Party in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: All right, But by the way, Ben, so this podcast
Speaker 1: comes out Wednesday morning, Thursday morning, we're scheduled to have
Speaker 1: a markup in Judiciary. I'll tell you what I intend
Speaker 1: to do. Thursday morning, We're gonna have a markup. Now
Speaker 1: I'm intrigued. I am going to quote Dick Durban who says,
Speaker 1: many of the members of this committee cannot answer these questions.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to look at my Democrat colleagues and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say, let me ask you, are there any
Speaker 1: members of this committee who don't know what Article two
Speaker 1: of the Constitution is? Because if there are, you need
Speaker 1: to pull the hell off this committee and get in
Speaker 1: another committee. Like that is an honishing statement for the
Speaker 1: chairman to make. Oh, our members have no frigging idea
Speaker 1: what's in the constitution, and that's our defense. I don't
Speaker 1: know how they'll respond, and I actually am quite confident
Speaker 1: that zero Democrats on the committee listen to this podcast,
Speaker 1: so I know it's coming. I'm previewing what I'm going
Speaker 1: to do tomorrow, and I have an absolute certitude they
Speaker 1: will have no idea, and I promise everybody we will
Speaker 1: give you an update and we will count. That is
Speaker 1: the easy part. Centator always pleasure, don't forget. We do
Speaker 1: this podcast three days a week. Monday, we was ay Friday,
Speaker 1: hit that subscribe or auto download button. Make sure you
Speaker 1: write us a five star review as well, so we
Speaker 1: can reach more people and we will see you guys
Speaker 1: back here on Friday morning.