Speaker 1: Senator going to be with you as always in person
Speaker 1: this week. As if you're listening to this, this is
Speaker 1: also a video version as well. You can grab it
Speaker 1: on YouTube and on Facebook as well. Also parts of
Speaker 1: it will be on X So make sure that you
Speaker 1: go and see some of these clips that we're going
Speaker 1: to be having for you if you're listening audio only.
Speaker 1: I want to start with this shocking week coming out
Speaker 1: of Washington, DC. You had the presidents of several of
Speaker 1: these Ivy League schools. They were asked to come and
Speaker 1: testify before Congress about anti Semitism on college campuses. Now,
Speaker 1: you would think they would have been prepped by their staffs,
Speaker 1: by their pr groups at the university to hound to
Speaker 1: not screw this up. If they were prepped, everyone that
Speaker 1: prepped them should be fired because they didn't do anything
Speaker 1: to make Jewish students feel more comfortable or feel safe
Speaker 1: on their college campuses. And it really, I think shocked
Speaker 1: the nation that these universities clearly were refusing to condemn
Speaker 1: anti semitism on their campus.
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly right. This week was very consequential. You know,
Speaker 2: since October seventh, on this podcast, we have covered in
Speaker 2: virtually every episode either what is happening on the ground
Speaker 2: in Israel, what is happening in Gaza, what is happening
Speaker 2: with Hamas, or the corporate media's bias pro Hamas bias
Speaker 2: undermining Israel, or the vicious anti Semitism that we're seeing
Speaker 2: on the left, whether it's the squad in the House
Speaker 2: of Representatives or whether it is on university campuses. I
Speaker 2: will say the testimony of three university presidents that occurred
Speaker 2: last week in the House of Representatives was extremely consequential.
Speaker 2: You had the president of Harvard University, you had the
Speaker 2: president of Penn and you had the president of MIT.
Speaker 2: I cannot think of testimony that has gone worse for
Speaker 2: the witnesses in my time in the Senate. Wow, it
Speaker 2: was a train wreck. It is reminiscent of you have
Speaker 2: to go back more than a decade to when the
Speaker 2: Tobacco CEOs testified before Congress and it was blood, blood
Speaker 2: all over the hearing room. I mean, it went badly.
Speaker 2: These university presidents demonstrated zero understanding of the vicious anti
Speaker 2: Semitism that suffuses their institution, zero understanding, zero empathy, and
Speaker 2: they thoroughly embrace the rot of cultural Marxism.
Speaker 3: And it was.
Speaker 2: And throughout it all their testimony, they were smug, They
Speaker 2: were condescending, that they had a know it all attitude,
Speaker 2: that that almost every question it was how dare you
Speaker 2: ask me this question?
Speaker 3: So let's start with just a little.
Speaker 2: Exchange of of Elise Stefanik, who is who is a
Speaker 2: member of Republican leadership in the House. Elise is a
Speaker 2: Harvard graduate. She and I together led a letter of
Speaker 2: members of Congress who are Harvard graduates denouncing Harvard's treatment
Speaker 2: of Jewish students, denouncing their inability to stand up and
Speaker 2: condemn October seventh, their inability to condemn the homos atrocities,
Speaker 2: and at least did a terrific job. Here She's asking
Speaker 2: what should be a very simple question, how many Jewish
Speaker 2: students are there on campus at Harvard?
Speaker 3: Give a listen, doctor Gay.
Speaker 4: According to the Hillel College Guide, the Crimson Freshman Survey,
Speaker 4: and even Harvard's own Education Next Journal, the population of
Speaker 4: Jewish undergrads at Harvard has plummeted from roughly twenty five
Speaker 4: percent in the nineteen eighties to between five and ten percent.
Speaker 5: Now, why is that that is not data that we
Speaker 5: collect as part of the admissions process, So I can't
Speaker 5: speak to those numbers or to the trajectory.
Speaker 4: So what is the percentage of students who are Jewish
Speaker 4: at Harvard in undergraduate Now, we.
Speaker 5: Do not collect religious affiliation as part of the admissions process.
Speaker 4: Do you not rely on data collected by Harvard Hillel
Speaker 4: what you visited for for the first time after October seventh?
Speaker 4: I'll just be honest with you. When I was a freshman,
Speaker 4: I enjoyed going to Harvard Hillel and had the opportunity
Speaker 4: to celebrate Shabbat dinners with my fellow undergrads. The fact
Speaker 4: that it took you until after October seventh to go
Speaker 4: to Harvard Hillel is unacceptable, you'll back, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, sinner. You listen to that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of data, and universities love sharing data
Speaker 1: about how diverse their student body is. I remember going
Speaker 1: back on trips, as you know, when you're trying to figure
Speaker 1: ou where we're gonna go to college, and they had
Speaker 1: every breakdown of everything. I guarantee you they probably know
Speaker 1: how many transgendered students are on campus.
Speaker 2: Let's cut cut to the chase. She's lying, She's flat
Speaker 2: out lying. I do not believe her. Listen, this is
Speaker 2: the Harvard admissions process. That is the most Bean county
Speaker 2: admission process ever. They've got a quota for one legged
Speaker 2: transgender opera singers. Like it it is, And by the way,
Speaker 2: it is Harvard, at Clauding Gay's direction, that was litigating
Speaker 2: in the Supreme Court to defend their right to discriminate
Speaker 2: based on race. And by the way, she says, we
Speaker 2: don't keep track of religious affiliation. Well, being Jewish as
Speaker 2: two things. It is a religion. Judaism is a religion,
Speaker 2: but it is also an ethnicity. There are people who
Speaker 2: are ethnically Jewish. There are people who are ethnically Jewish
Speaker 2: who can religiously be another faith. They can be Christians.
Speaker 2: There are Messianic Jews who are ethnically Jewish, but yet
Speaker 2: their religion is Christianity. There are Jews who are atheists
Speaker 2: who are not do not follow Judaism, but are none
Speaker 2: the less Jews. And by the way, there are people
Speaker 2: who are non Jews who nonetheless convert to the Jewish faith.
Speaker 2: So when she says, well, we don't know how many
Speaker 2: Jews there are, I do not believe her, And in fact,
Speaker 2: I would be willing to wager a large amount of money.
Speaker 2: The statement that we don't collect a data on how
Speaker 2: many Jews there are in the admissions process as a
Speaker 2: flat out lie, because they so, I certainly look to
Speaker 2: race and ethnicity, and being Jewish is an ethnicity, and
Speaker 2: let me put out also a broader irony. Look, Harvard
Speaker 2: has a terrible record when it comes to racial discrimination.
Speaker 2: Harvard is an institution that believes in racial discrimination. In
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties, Harvard had what were called Jewish quotas.
Speaker 2: They capped the number of Jews wow, who were allowed
Speaker 2: into their classes, and they formally capped them because and
Speaker 2: they were starting to move to a more meritocratic admissions process,
Speaker 2: and Jewish students were doing well. They were getting good
Speaker 2: test scores, good grades, so they were getting in on
Speaker 2: merits in a higher percentage. And so Harvard stepped in
Speaker 2: and said, we don't want too many Jews, and so
Speaker 2: they put Jewish quotas in place. So for a Harvard professor,
Speaker 2: the president of Harvard to say, well, we don't know, Look,
Speaker 2: Harvard Hillel is a student organization on campus, I have
Speaker 2: to admit the stats that Elie Stefanic just said.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we actually that was shocking just on its face.
Speaker 2: I mean, I can tell you when I was at
Speaker 2: Harvard for law school, when I was at Princeton for
Speaker 2: undergrad the stats she mentioned when she was there, it
Speaker 2: was about twenty five percent Jewish. That feels about right
Speaker 2: to me of what it was then. I don't know
Speaker 2: the stats from my time there, but it was a
Speaker 2: significant percentage of the class. A lot of my friends
Speaker 2: were Jewish. It it was a large percentage of the class.
Speaker 2: If Harvard is down to five to ten percent, that
Speaker 2: is a stunning drop. And you would think Harvard Hillell
Speaker 2: would keep those records. It says a lot that the
Speaker 2: president of Harvard had never been to Harvard Hillel. So
Speaker 2: apparently when it comes to student groups, that's not one
Speaker 2: she cares about at all. But number two, there is
Speaker 2: a blind spot. University administrators are base in cultural Marxism
Speaker 2: in the views of the radical left.
Speaker 1: For people that listen, they may not know the definition
Speaker 1: of cultural Marxism. We talked about it a lot, especially
Speaker 1: in this context, say can you just give that definition again,
Speaker 1: because I think it's so important to understand it.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: Karl Marx, when he wrote The Communist manifesto. He laid
Speaker 2: out a view of the world, and it was a
Speaker 2: view based on economic determinism, and it was a view
Speaker 2: of inevitable conflict, conflict between oppressors and victims. And for
Speaker 2: Marx he used a socioeconomic lens. So the oppressors were
Speaker 2: the owners of capital and the victims were the proletariat,
Speaker 2: the working men and women. And the solution that he
Speaker 2: advocated was the violent revolution of the proletariat against the oppressors.
Speaker 2: Cultural Marxism uses the mechanisms of culture to frame the
Speaker 2: world through a Marxist lens, but not just socioeconomics. So
Speaker 2: today the cultural Marxists, they look at Israel and they
Speaker 2: have coded. They have defined Jews as oppressors. They look
Speaker 2: at Israel and Gaza, they have coded, they have defined
Speaker 2: Palestinians as victims. Once that is the case, ideologically, the
Speaker 2: cultural Marxists support the violent revolution of the so called
Speaker 2: victims against the so called oppressors. It's why thirty five
Speaker 2: student groups at Harvard cheered on the Hamas atrocities and
Speaker 2: said every murder, every rape, every child that was slaughtered
Speaker 2: is one hundred percent the fault of Israel. Because cultural
Speaker 2: Marxists celebrate when so called victims are murdering so called oppressors.
Speaker 2: It's why black lives matter. The Chicago chapter set out
Speaker 2: a tweet of a paraglider, the same paraglider that Hamas
Speaker 2: terrorists used to murder hundreds of Israelis at the outdoor
Speaker 2: music concert, saying we stand with Palestine. They're celebrating the
Speaker 2: mass murder of civilians. Why because in this their worldview,
Speaker 2: those civilians were the oppressors, and so they root for
Speaker 2: the violence. These administrators, the reason why you're seeing such
Speaker 2: vicious anti Semitism on campus is they have bought into
Speaker 2: the view that Jews are colonial settlers, they are oppressive,
Speaker 2: and so we should all celebrate in their view when
Speaker 2: the oppressors are slaughtered. It is grotesque, and we're going
Speaker 2: to play right now a segment of questioning that that
Speaker 2: is enormously consequestional. I tell you what you're about to watch,
Speaker 2: what you're about to listen to, has already resulted in
Speaker 2: one of these three witnesses being fired. As we stand
Speaker 2: here today, Liz McGill, the president of Penn, lost her
Speaker 2: job because of how she answered this question. By the way,
Speaker 2: the chairman of the board of Trustees of Penn lost
Speaker 2: his job because of how Liz Miguil answered this question.
Speaker 2: So that's one and I think we could eat easily
Speaker 2: see all three of these college presidents lose their jobs
Speaker 2: because of this testimony. So if you're watching on YouTube,
Speaker 2: watch and see their expressions. If you're listening, give a listen.
Speaker 4: At MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate
Speaker 4: MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 7: Or no?
Speaker 8: I've targeted at individuals not making public statements.
Speaker 4: Yes or no. Calling for the genocide of Jews does
Speaker 4: not constitute bullying and harassment.
Speaker 8: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews
Speaker 8: on our campus.
Speaker 4: But you've heard Chance for intifada.
Speaker 8: I've heard Chance, which can be antisemitic depending on the context,
Speaker 8: when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
Speaker 4: So those would not be according to the MIT's code
Speaker 4: of conduct or rules.
Speaker 8: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.
Speaker 4: Ms Miguil at Penn does calling for the genocide of
Speaker 4: Jews violate PENS rules or code of conduct? Yes or no.
Speaker 9: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
Speaker 4: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews.
Speaker 4: Does that constitute bullying harassment?
Speaker 9: If it is directed and severer pervasive, it is harassment.
Speaker 4: So the answer is yes.
Speaker 9: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
Speaker 4: It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today. Calling
Speaker 4: for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context,
Speaker 4: that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest
Speaker 4: question to answer, yes, miss McGill. So is your testimony
Speaker 4: that you will not answer yes?
Speaker 10: If it.
Speaker 9: Is yes, or though if the speech becomes conduct it
Speaker 9: can be harassment.
Speaker 4: Yes, conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech
Speaker 4: is not harassment. This is unacceptable, Miss micuil. I'm going
Speaker 4: to give you one more opportunity for the world to
Speaker 4: see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews
Speaker 4: violate pens code of conduct when it comes to bullying
Speaker 4: and harassment?
Speaker 9: Yes? Or no? It can be harassment.
Speaker 4: The answer is yes. And doctor Gay at Harvard, does
Speaker 4: calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of
Speaker 4: bullying and harassment? Yes?
Speaker 5: Or no? It can be depending on the context.
Speaker 4: What's the context?
Speaker 5: Target it as an individual targeted at an individual it's.
Speaker 4: Targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your
Speaker 4: testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is
Speaker 4: part of anti semitism? I will ask you one more time.
Speaker 4: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate eight Harvard's
Speaker 4: rules of bullying and harassment? Yes?
Speaker 7: Or no?
Speaker 5: Anti Semitic rhetoric?
Speaker 4: And is it anti Semitic rhetoric?
Speaker 5: Anti Semitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct that amounts
Speaker 5: to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we
Speaker 5: do take action.
Speaker 4: So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide
Speaker 4: of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct. Correct.
Speaker 5: Again, it depends on the context.
Speaker 4: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes,
Speaker 4: and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable
Speaker 4: answers across the board.
Speaker 1: It was shocking, and I want to get you to
Speaker 1: break all this down. Before we do that, though, let
Speaker 1: me tell you about our friends over a blackout coffee.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of woke cups of coffee that are
Speaker 1: out there that you can buy. You probably know the
Speaker 1: companies that I'm talking about right now, But how would
Speaker 1: you like to start your day off with a premium
Speaker 1: cup of coffee from a conservative company. It is Blackckout Coffee. Now,
Speaker 1: I start radio every day at seven am. I've got
Speaker 1: to wake up and I want to be awake, not woke.
Speaker 1: And that's why I want you to know about Blackout Coffee.
Speaker 1: Blackout Coffee is one hundred percent committed to conservative values,
Speaker 1: from sourcing the beans to the roasting process, the customer
Speaker 1: support and shipping. They embody true American values and they
Speaker 1: accept no compromise on taste or quality. Now, I like
Speaker 1: a great cup of coffee, and that's what you get
Speaker 1: from Blackout Coffee. And you can try Blackout Coffee right
Speaker 1: now at a huge discount. You can go to Blackoutcoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash verdict. That's blackout Coffee dot com slash vertict,
Speaker 1: use a promo code vertict. You're gonna get twenty percent
Speaker 1: off your first order, so you're gonna say big plus
Speaker 1: if you've got a coffee drinker on your Christmas list,
Speaker 1: check out all of their gift sets at Blackoutcoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict. Twenty percent off those Christmas gifts as well.
Speaker 3: Check them out.
Speaker 1: So if you like great coffee, You're gonna love Blackout Coffee.
Speaker 1: You're gonna love knowing that you're getting an American cup
Speaker 1: of coffee right here in the US. That is a
Speaker 1: company that's family owned and operate as well. Blackoutcoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict, use promo code Verdict for twenty percent
Speaker 1: off center. You look at that testimony. You don't go
Speaker 1: before Congress without getting ready for it. These presidents were
Speaker 1: not caught off guard. Now, they knew that this was
Speaker 1: going to be a rigorous back and forth, and they
Speaker 1: were deliberate in their anti Semitic stands here.
Speaker 3: This was not an accident.
Speaker 2: All three of those presidents side with the protesters ideologically.
Speaker 2: When they see crazed anti Semitic protesters chanting from the
Speaker 2: river to the sea. By the way, from the river
Speaker 2: to the sea means from the Jordan river to the sea,
Speaker 2: it is calling for the annihilation of every Jew in Israel.
Speaker 2: That's what from the river to the sea means. When
Speaker 2: they chant into fada. Intifada was the war that the
Speaker 2: Palestinians that Hamas waged on Israel, murdering Israeli civilians. They
Speaker 2: are calling for death. Every one of those college professors
Speaker 2: they're rooting for the protesters as they walk past them.
Speaker 2: They view the protesters as the good guys, and they
Speaker 2: view their Jewish students as the bad guys. That's why
Speaker 2: this question was so difficult for them. Look it also,
Speaker 2: it's worth noting when it comes to genocide, this is
Speaker 2: not an abstract question concerning the Jewish people. The Jewish
Speaker 2: people were the subject of the most horrific genocide in
Speaker 2: the history of humanity. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis murdered
Speaker 2: over six million Jews, systematically murdered them in concentration camps.
Speaker 2: Anti Semitism is an evil that has been on the
Speaker 2: face of this planet for millennia. It is a union
Speaker 2: Ni evil. It is a persistent evil, and we are
Speaker 2: seeing it and you know, at least stefanic. At the end,
Speaker 2: she pointed out that that you're dehumanizing the Jewish students.
Speaker 2: Notice Clauding Gay, the president of Harvard. She said, well,
Speaker 2: it depends if it's particularized. What part of we should
Speaker 2: kill all the Jews is not particularized. If you're a
Speaker 2: Jewish student and someone is screaming at you kill all
Speaker 2: the Jews, that's pretty damn particularized. If someone goes to
Speaker 2: you and screams kill everyone named Ben, you'd feel pretty
Speaker 2: particularized by that. Yeah, and this is not speech. This
Speaker 2: is not arguing about we should have a one state
Speaker 2: or two state solution in the Middle East. This is
Speaker 2: not a public policy debate about.
Speaker 3: It's not a great baby. It's genocide.
Speaker 2: It is, and it's harassment and threats. Look, the first
Speaker 2: of those witnesses, Sally Cornluth, who's the president of MIT.
Speaker 2: MIT has allowed Jewish students to be kept out of class,
Speaker 2: so their ideology is directly interfering with carrying out their
Speaker 2: pedagogical mission, the mission of a university to educate their students.
Speaker 2: Jewish students have repeatedly reported being afraid to go to
Speaker 2: class because they're being threatened with violence, and the MIT
Speaker 2: president won't do a damn thing about it. She won't
Speaker 2: protect her Jewish students each one of those individuals. Look,
Speaker 2: Liz McGill, I actually know so. Liz clerked with me.
Speaker 2: Really so the year I clerked on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: I clerked for Chief Justice Renquist. She clerked for Ruth
Speaker 2: Bader Ginsburg, so I knew her then. She's a lawyer.
Speaker 2: Very smart. You know, she was always kind of lefty.
Speaker 2: She was fairly benign. She was nice enough among the clerks.
Speaker 2: There were clerks that were really very partisan and very lefty.
Speaker 2: Liz McGill never seemed excessively so, but she was happily
Speaker 2: in the left life left of the clerks. She's a
Speaker 2: law professor. She was the dean at Stanford, she was
Speaker 2: the provost at Virginia. Now she's the president of Penn.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you why she was fired. She was fired
Speaker 2: because a number of donors stood up and said, we're
Speaker 2: cutting off the cash.
Speaker 3: One of them was threatening one hundred million.
Speaker 2: Dollars multiple donors. I sat down with Mark Rowan, who's
Speaker 2: the chair of the of the board of trustees of Wharton,
Speaker 2: which is one of the schools, the business school at Penn.
Speaker 2: He was calling for her to be fired. He was
Speaker 2: helping lead the fight. We've seen multiple people. We've seen
Speaker 2: Ronald Louder threatened to cut off the money he provides
Speaker 2: to Pen. We saw the Huntsman family that had been
Speaker 2: big donors threatened to cut off the money to Pen.
Speaker 2: That's one of the very few ways to get a
Speaker 2: woke university's attention is go after the money and listen,
Speaker 2: I think there's a very good chance that the presidents
Speaker 2: of Harvard and MIT could be fired as well. But
Speaker 2: I'll tell you both those institutions are hoping this just blows.
Speaker 1: They're defending them in essence by not firing them right
Speaker 1: away after they witnessed this testimony.
Speaker 2: This testimony was a train wreck. And look, it's worth
Speaker 2: noting also none of the three expressed one iota of empathy.
Speaker 2: None of them expressed what a Jewish student would feel
Speaker 2: walking down the sidewalk and having protesters not engaging in
Speaker 2: speech but threatening and harassing. Look, I am a free
Speaker 2: speech absolutist, but free speech does not protect the right
Speaker 2: to make threats or harassment, threats of violence. Why is
Speaker 2: it that the MIT students couldn't go to class because
Speaker 2: they were afraid of being injured physically harmed. Why is
Speaker 2: it we talked about this on an earlier verdict that
Speaker 2: the USC professor, an economics professor, what happens to be Jewish?
Speaker 2: Why did USC ban the Jewish professor from stepping foot
Speaker 2: on campus because anti Semitic protesters threatened him with violence
Speaker 2: and the administrators at USC side with the protesters and
Speaker 2: not their own professor. Yeah, none of the three of
Speaker 2: them have the tiniest bit of empathy. Look, we've seen
Speaker 2: footage of students at Harvard, Jewish students at Harvard being harassed.
Speaker 2: There's a difference between engaging in free speech and engaging
Speaker 2: in active harassment. And by the way, all three of
Speaker 2: them hate free speech, every one of them. If you
Speaker 2: miss gender someone game on. If you see Leah Thomas
Speaker 2: who's built like Michael Phelps and is anatomically a dude,
Speaker 2: and if you make that point that is in their view,
Speaker 2: that's clearly harassment. It's clearly over the line.
Speaker 3: Now that's when you can get kicked out of school.
Speaker 2: But if you call for the genocide of the entire
Speaker 2: Jewish people, that, as they say, depends on the context.
Speaker 1: Two things I want to ask you quickly on this.
Speaker 1: Number one, even the president that was fired still got
Speaker 1: to keep tenured job as a professor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at the university. So there's your golden parishes. She's
Speaker 2: in the law school, she gets paid. She never a
Speaker 2: lead professor.
Speaker 3: Yeah, autumn I mean that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you got demoted, but you still kept your basic
Speaker 1: job at your tenure job in the law school, in doctrinting, kids,
Speaker 1: which brings me to my question too. When you were
Speaker 1: growing up, and it was the same way for me,
Speaker 1: you wanted to go to the best school you could
Speaker 1: get into, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, you know, Wharton. I had
Speaker 1: friends that went there, for example, that was the Holy Grail.
Speaker 1: I look at this now and I would say to
Speaker 1: any parent out there, just because your kid can get
Speaker 1: in now, doesn't necessarily mean you want your kid to
Speaker 1: go there, in my opinion, because the way that they're
Speaker 1: indoctrinating and not protecting people, for example, that are Jewish,
Speaker 1: do you want to give them your money? And is
Speaker 1: it time as a country that we step back and go, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's look at where you know you're what they're teaching
Speaker 1: your kid now, not the history of these universities because
Speaker 1: they're not the same that they were from ten to fifteen,
Speaker 1: twenty thirty years ago.
Speaker 2: So let me say this is not theoretical or hypothetical.
Speaker 2: Since October seventh, I've had a lot of conversations with
Speaker 2: friends of mine or a Jewish. I've probably had between
Speaker 2: fifty and one hundred conversations with friends of mine or
Speaker 2: a Jewish. It's interesting. I've asked many most of them,
Speaker 2: I've asked, Hey, did you have family or friends that
Speaker 2: were in Israel that were impacted on October seventh. I
Speaker 2: got to say, it's been stunning to me. It's been
Speaker 2: about half the people I've asked who are friends of mine,
Speaker 2: answered yes that they personally were affected, that they personally
Speaker 2: had a nephew, had a niece, had their son's best friend,
Speaker 2: had a roommate that either in some instances, they had
Speaker 2: friends or family who were killed or were kidnapped on
Speaker 2: October seventh, or in more instances, they have friends or
Speaker 2: family who'd been called up at the IDF and who
Speaker 2: were fighting.
Speaker 3: Hamas right now.
Speaker 2: In those conversations, I've also had conversations with multiple friends
Speaker 2: of mine who were about our age, and they have
Speaker 2: college age kids, and they have kids that are at
Speaker 2: these universities, and I've heard, i would say north of
Speaker 2: a dozen of my friends have directly related to me
Speaker 2: that their kids feel unsafe in college right now. Wow,
Speaker 2: And it's close to one hundred percent of the friends
Speaker 2: of mine who have Jewish children that are in college
Speaker 2: right now, pretty much all of them are saying their
Speaker 2: kids are reporting they don't feel safe, they don't feel protected.
Speaker 2: They're afraid to go out.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 2: One friend of mine was discussing how his daughter and
Speaker 2: another group of Jewish students, they were studying abroad in Spain,
Speaker 2: and they decided when they were they were traveling around
Speaker 2: in Spain, and they decided, when we book the train tickets,
Speaker 2: when we book the hotel tickets, we'll have the friend
Speaker 2: of ours who has the least Jewish sounding name, We'll
Speaker 2: book it under that name, because they're afraid of violence. Unbelievable,
Speaker 2: simply because of being identified as being Jewish. This is real,
Speaker 2: it is pervasive, and these universities are teaching this, they're
Speaker 2: indoctrinating this, they're allowing this hate to fester, and it's grotesque.
Speaker 1: For more than ten years, Patriot Mobil has been America's
Speaker 1: only Christian conservative wireless provider. They stand behind their values
Speaker 1: and they stand behind exceptional service. They're an example of
Speaker 1: putting the cause ahead of profit and that is why
Speaker 1: I am proud to partner with him. Starting today, Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile is extending their Black Friday deal with the Every
Speaker 1: Friday Matters deal, and you can get a free smartphone
Speaker 1: when you switch today. Patriot Mobile offers dependable nationwide coverage
Speaker 1: giving you access to all three major networks, which means
Speaker 1: you get the same coverage you've been accustomed to without
Speaker 1: funding the radical left. Now, when you switch to Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: you're supporting free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life,
Speaker 1: are veterans, and first responders, and more than just that.
Speaker 1: They are actually a one hundred percent US based company
Speaker 1: with customer service teams that make switching easy, so you
Speaker 1: can keep your same number you have right now, you
Speaker 1: can keep your existing phone, or for a limited time,
Speaker 1: get a free smartphone from Patriot Mobile. Go to Patriot
Speaker 1: Mobile dot com slash ferguson or call them nine to
Speaker 1: seven to two Patriot use the promo code Friday seven
Speaker 1: to six.
Speaker 3: That's Friday seven to six.
Speaker 1: Again, get a free smartphone with promo code Friday seven
Speaker 1: to six. That's the limited time offer. Join me make
Speaker 1: the switch today at Patriot Mobile dot com slash ferguson
Speaker 1: has Patriot Mobile dot com slash ferguson or nine to
Speaker 1: seven to two Patriot Senator. I want to move on
Speaker 1: to another issue this week that was kind of shocking.
Speaker 1: Your colleague, Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee has asked for
Speaker 1: a basic request, and that is subpeed of the Epstein
Speaker 1: flight logs. They exist, we should know who is on
Speaker 1: those planes. And Dick Durbin kind of wanted to have
Speaker 1: it both ways, claiming, Hey, I didn't really know about this,
Speaker 1: so therefore I don't have to do it, but I'm
Speaker 1: willing to talk about it. But this should be a
Speaker 1: simple like yes or no question for him. Do you
Speaker 1: want Epstein's call, you know, flight logs to be out there, yes.
Speaker 1: Do we want to know who's on those planes?
Speaker 3: Yes? Do we want to know who's involved in this
Speaker 3: human and sex trafficking? Yes?
Speaker 1: So why is he defending it? And you may have
Speaker 1: been as shocked as I was. This doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: a smart political move yet. Maybe there's so many Democrats
Speaker 1: that he's trying to protect. Here are big donors. I
Speaker 1: don't understand it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, look Durbin is doing everything he can to
Speaker 2: cover this up, to hide the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs.
Speaker 2: H Take take a look right here. This is a
Speaker 2: Fox News reporter questioning Dick Derbin as he walks to
Speaker 2: a judiciary committee. Hearing give a listen, I.
Speaker 6: Don't know anything about his flight locks.
Speaker 10: Why won't you subpoena them? Why don't you want to
Speaker 10: know the issue?
Speaker 11: I know who epscene was, but I certainly don't know
Speaker 11: anything about the issue.
Speaker 10: Well, he was charged with sex trafficking, so why don't
Speaker 10: you want to know who was utilizing his private plane?
Speaker 6: Never been raised by anyone.
Speaker 10: Well, Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena them, and there
Speaker 10: hasn't been a vote in your commission.
Speaker 6: But a word to me, not a word?
Speaker 10: But aren't you curious, like what high profile or powerful
Speaker 10: people might be closeted predators and pedophiles? Doesn't that concern you?
Speaker 10: So why won't you subpoena them? If you can?
Speaker 6: It's the first time anyone has raised it. Thank you Fox.
Speaker 10: So do you are you curious about it?
Speaker 6: Will you do it?
Speaker 10: All?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 2: So Durban is lying, just like when Claudie and Gay
Speaker 2: said her doesn't know how many Jewish students we have? Belooney,
Speaker 2: yes they do. Durban is flat outlined. Let me give
Speaker 2: you some backstory. This fight occurred in the context and
Speaker 2: we talked about this in a podcast about a week ago,
Speaker 2: where the Democrats subpoenaed Harlan Crowe and Leonard Leo. Harlan Crowe,
Speaker 2: very successful real estate developer based here in Texas and Dallas.
Speaker 2: Leonard Leo has been very active with the Federalist Society
Speaker 2: for a long time, very active in helping with judicial selection,
Speaker 2: in fighting for constitutionalist judges. The Democrats hate them, and
Speaker 2: the subpoenas going after Harlan Crowe and going after Leonard
Speaker 2: Leo are part of their ongoing effort to harass the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, to delegitimize the Supreme Court, and in particular
Speaker 2: to target Clarence Thomas. They despise Clarence Thomas. So in
Speaker 2: response to that, a number of Republicans had different amendments
Speaker 2: that we were pushing. But if they were going to
Speaker 2: force a vote on the subpoenas, we were going to
Speaker 2: force a vote on our amendments. So when we went
Speaker 2: into it, I had an amendment that would subpoena the
Speaker 2: GPS data for Hunter Biden's cell phone and Joe Biden's
Speaker 2: cell phone at the exact moment that Hunter Biden sent
Speaker 2: the WhatsApp text to the Chinese communists saying I'm sitting
Speaker 2: here next to my father. Because we know from the
Speaker 2: irs whistleblowers that when the investigators wanted to find out
Speaker 2: was he in fact sitting next to Joe Biden when
Speaker 2: he was extorting the Chinese communists. The Biden DOJ blocked
Speaker 2: that and said, Nope, you can't find that out. So
Speaker 2: that's what I wanted to tee up. I think that
Speaker 2: was important. I think we should have voted for it.
Speaker 2: I'm going to continue to look for an avenue to
Speaker 2: vote for it. Marsha Blackburn came up with, I think
Speaker 2: it even better idea of a subpoena to vote on,
Speaker 2: and her idea was that we should subpoena the Epstein
Speaker 2: estate for the flight logs to his plane and in
Speaker 2: particular the Lalita expressed the the private jet that flew
Speaker 2: down to Jeffrey Epstein's island with lots and lots of politicians,
Speaker 2: allegedly mostly Democrats. We don't know, we don't know who
Speaker 2: was on it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, show it if there's a Republican find like, find
Speaker 3: out who they are.
Speaker 2: Now we do know that Epstein was an original friend
Speaker 2: of Bill, that he was very close with Bill Clinton.
Speaker 2: He was so close with Bill Clinton. Do you know
Speaker 2: what Jeffrey Epstein had hanging on the wall? And maybe
Speaker 2: one of the creepiest weirdest things ever. Yeah, go go
Speaker 2: ahead and tell everybody, because since it's truly shocking, a
Speaker 2: painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress Monica red
Speaker 2: high heeled pumps, like, it's just weird. Yeah, that's what
Speaker 2: Epstein had hanging on his wall in his New York house.
Speaker 2: So Marsha Blackburn introduced an amendment to subpoena the flight logs.
Speaker 2: I thought her idea was fantastic, so I co sponsored
Speaker 2: her her amendment. So it was a Blackburn Cruise amendment
Speaker 2: to subpoena the flight logs. Now, the first time we
Speaker 2: were going to vote on the subpoenas on Harlan Crow
Speaker 2: and Leonardale, we didn't vote on them. And I can
Speaker 2: tell you, like all the Republicans, we were all ready
Speaker 2: for combat. Let's go battle the Democrats. This is a
Speaker 2: partisan witch hunt. And what happened. So back behind the diis,
Speaker 2: there's a conference room where the Judiciary Committee meets. You
Speaker 2: have the diis there and behind it there's a conference
Speaker 2: room and you can go and have meetings there. I
Speaker 2: can tell you Dick Durbin was sitting in that conference
Speaker 2: room with John Ossoff, the freshman Democrat senator from Georgia
Speaker 2: who serves on Judiciary, and Durbin and Osoff were having
Speaker 2: a heated, heated conversation. I don't know for sure what
Speaker 2: they were discussing. I didn't overhear their conversation, but it
Speaker 2: was energetic, and it delayed and delayed and delayed, and
Speaker 2: then it Durbin ended up decided not to vote on
Speaker 2: the subpoenas. And I'll tell you all the Republican senators
Speaker 2: we were like, what's going on? Yeah, and a number
Speaker 2: of us thought it was a number of Republican senators
Speaker 2: suggested the problem was Ossoff told Durbin he was not
Speaker 2: willing to vote on the Epstein subpoena. Now, I don't
Speaker 2: know if that's because he didn't want it voted on
Speaker 2: or he didn't want to vote. No, I don't know why,
Speaker 2: and I don't know if it's true. I mean, we
Speaker 2: were Durbin never explained any of it to us. He
Speaker 2: just canceled it.
Speaker 3: Fast forward then.
Speaker 2: To when they did vote vote out the subpoenas. The
Speaker 2: way he did so, he allowed no amendments. He just
Speaker 2: rammed it through and blocked all amendments. And so the
Speaker 2: logical inference is the only way Durbin could get his
Speaker 2: votes for the Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo subpoenas is
Speaker 2: to stop a vote on the Jeffrey Epstein subpoena and somebody,
Speaker 2: and I think the most likely candidate is John Ossoff
Speaker 2: really really really doesn't want to vote on that. I
Speaker 2: think that's all the more reason to vote on it.
Speaker 2: And by the way, if ASO is listening to this
Speaker 2: and he says, hey, that's not true, I'm happy.
Speaker 3: To vote on it. Great, let's vote on it.
Speaker 2: Let's vote on it. There's an easy way to resolve it.
Speaker 2: But it's interesting. So Fox News asked Durbin that question
Speaker 2: in the hallway. You saw at the end He's like,
Speaker 2: thanks Fox, Yeah, this like nastiness. Well, what happened next
Speaker 2: was interesting. So Durbin went into the hearing room and
Speaker 2: he tried to try to rehabilitate himself.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I cover your ass politics.
Speaker 2: So watch what he said as soon as he came
Speaker 2: into the hearing room.
Speaker 11: Senator Blackburn, before you leave, I want to make a
Speaker 11: point for the record, since I understand you made some
Speaker 11: statements about the Jeffrey Epstein flight logs. There's a Fox
Speaker 11: reporter in the hallway who asked me about this, and
Speaker 11: I said I had not spoken to you one time
Speaker 11: about this issue. I think you'll back me up on that.
Speaker 11: I'm not mistaken. I didn't know that this was even
Speaker 11: a subject of your amendments, which, if you recall, you
Speaker 11: were the first on the list until the two hour
Speaker 11: rules invoked. I don't know anything about this request on
Speaker 11: your part. I'll be happy to discuss it with you,
Speaker 11: but I haven't done any discussion with you to this point.
Speaker 7: Mister Chairman, I know, and I think you're fully aware
Speaker 7: that I had two amendments, one dealing with Epstein and
Speaker 7: so to me or I brought it up previously.
Speaker 11: I have to confess I didn't know that you'd offer
Speaker 11: that amendment. Happy to discuss it with you, but I
Speaker 11: want to point on the record, you and I have
Speaker 11: never personally discussed this, have we.
Speaker 7: We talked briefly on the floor as to what.
Speaker 6: The subject matter your amendment was. You said you wanted
Speaker 6: offer committee.
Speaker 7: I brought up the subject matter of my amendments, not.
Speaker 2: My presence, do you believe in Well, the nice thing is,
Speaker 2: as they say, we can roll the tape. What he said,
Speaker 2: there is a flat out lie. It is objective false,
Speaker 2: and we're going to show that to you, and in
Speaker 2: just a moment, it is unequivocally false. It is possible,
Speaker 2: giving him enormous benefit of the doubt he forgot. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it is possible. It was not a knowing lie, but
Speaker 2: it is unequivocally one, one hundred percent demonstrably false that
Speaker 2: the words he said are wrong. And I'll show you why.
Speaker 2: We're going to right now play the tape of that
Speaker 2: first hearing. Now, I was there, Marsha Blackburn was there,
Speaker 2: and Dick Durbin was there, and you're gonna hear Marcia
Speaker 2: bring up her amendment about Jeffrey Epstein. He just said,
Speaker 2: you've never mentioned Jeffrey Epstein in my presence. I was
Speaker 2: not physically present where you're going to see Dick Durbin
Speaker 2: recognize her and then cut her off while she's bringing
Speaker 2: up Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3: Roll the tape.
Speaker 7: I seek recognition. Since we're in the business of issuing subpoenas,
Speaker 7: now here are a few more that filed a subpoena
Speaker 7: to Jeffrey Epstein's estate to provide the flight logs for
Speaker 7: his private plane.
Speaker 11: Thanks, Senator. When I recognize you. I didn't know what
Speaker 11: subject you wish to speak to. As I announced at
Speaker 11: the beginning, the first thing will consider the two judicial nominations.
Speaker 11: Then we will move to the subpoena.
Speaker 1: So she's speaking. He's in the middle of the room.
Speaker 1: He's right there in the middle. It's direct eye contact.
Speaker 1: He's looking directly at her. He's at the hearing room.
Speaker 1: He's in the center center. I'm in between Durbin and
Speaker 1: Marsha Blackburn. We're all sitting there. She flat out says,
Speaker 1: I want a subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight records.
Speaker 2: And he's and he hears it. He recognizes her. Then
Speaker 2: he interrupts and says, no, no, I want to do some
Speaker 2: other stuff first. This is easy to resolve. We should
Speaker 2: subpoena Epstein's flight records. If there are politicians, Democrat or Republican,
Speaker 2: or anybody else who was on that plane, who was
Speaker 2: going to that island, who was molesting and sexually assaulting children,
Speaker 2: we should know who they are. We shouldn't have Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein's client list. And the fact that the Democrats are
Speaker 2: apparently in a full on panic. I don't know if
Speaker 2: Durbin knows somebody on that list, or multiple people, or
Speaker 2: I don't know if they're just afraid. I don't know
Speaker 2: what their fear is, but they're plainly terrified of voting
Speaker 2: on it. And if I'm wrong, Durbin can solve it
Speaker 2: very easily by bringing it up for a vote and
Speaker 2: issuing the subpoena. And to be clear, when we subpoena
Speaker 2: those flight logs, we should make them public. I will
Speaker 2: tell you this, one of my favorite moments in all
Speaker 2: of Senate Judiciary was when John Kennedy leaned forward at
Speaker 2: a hearing and he said, Christmas tree ornaments and Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 2: two things you know, didn't hang themselves.
Speaker 3: And this is why he is a legend of the Senate.
Speaker 2: I almost laughed at a lung and I'm sitting there
Speaker 2: John sits a couple of seats to my right. I
Speaker 2: almost fell over. I was like, I cannot believe he
Speaker 2: just said that in a live and open hearing of
Speaker 2: Senate Judiciary. He did, but it seems to me, I
Speaker 2: don't know if Jeffrey Epstein had a visit for Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton late at night. I don't know what happened, but
Speaker 2: it seems to me Dick Durbin really really really doesn't
Speaker 2: want you to know what happened.
Speaker 1: You can protect your retirement in this crazy economy with
Speaker 1: a gold ira.
Speaker 3: Now the question is who do you call?
Speaker 1: Well, let me tell you why I trust against the
Speaker 1: precious metals and why I actually use them, because they
Speaker 1: give you knowledge and information before you do anything. You've
Speaker 1: seen what's been going on in the economy. You've seen
Speaker 1: what's happened with inflation, interest rates, and our nation's debt.
Speaker 1: Having part of my investment portfolio and physical gold gives
Speaker 1: me piece of Now. I love Augusta Precious Metals because
Speaker 1: they will sit down with you for free and answer
Speaker 1: all of your questions in a one on one web conference.
Speaker 1: They also can send you the free Investor's Guide on
Speaker 1: Gold so you can actually read it beforehand and then
Speaker 1: have all your questions that you want to ask. There
Speaker 1: are a ton of companies out there that sell gold,
Speaker 1: There's no doubt about it. You want to find a
Speaker 1: company that answers your questions and explains to you if
Speaker 1: a gold ira or a four oh one k is
Speaker 1: right for you. They'll even tell you if it's not
Speaker 1: right for you, So call them right now. Eight seven
Speaker 1: seven the number four gold IR. That's eight seven seven
Speaker 1: the number four gold IRA. You can also go online
Speaker 1: to a gust of Precious Metals dot com, get the
Speaker 1: Free Investor's guy on gold and then set up that
Speaker 1: web conference so you can ask every question you have
Speaker 1: about gold and an IRA or a four oh one
Speaker 1: K as part of a diversified portfolio Precious Metals dot
Speaker 1: Com send her last question for you, bonus question. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna throw this one at you because I just got
Speaker 1: to know what you think. In theory this week, there's
Speaker 1: a guy by the name of Hunter Biden that's supposed
Speaker 1: to show up to testify, uh be subpoena. He's been subpoena.
Speaker 1: He's supposed to be behind closed doors. He's supposed to
Speaker 1: show up and answer questions. It's something that Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: kids had to do for hours on end. They didn't
Speaker 1: make him excuse for not showing up. Will he or
Speaker 1: will he not show up? This week?
Speaker 2: In your in your opinion, Look, there are a lot
Speaker 2: of times where I have strong, strong senses of probabilities.
Speaker 2: I have to say I really don't know. I put
Speaker 2: it at about fifty to fifty. Wouldn't surprise me at
Speaker 2: all if he did show up, but it would not
Speaker 2: surprise me if he didn't. If he doesn't show up,
Speaker 2: the House will hold him in contempt. But if the
Speaker 2: House holds him in contempt the Biden Justice Department, he's
Speaker 2: not going to prosecute the contempt finding. And so, just
Speaker 2: like Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, if
Speaker 2: the households Hunter Biden in contempt and then Biden DOJ
Speaker 2: refuses to do anything about it, Hunter gets off scott free.
Speaker 2: So actually, as I'm talking about it, I'm talking myself into.
Speaker 3: You're coming to my side on this. No way shows up.
Speaker 2: I'm talking myself into sixty forty he doesn't show.
Speaker 3: Up, all right, I say one hundred percent doesn't show up.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: We're gonna cover it this week. That I can promise you.
Speaker 1: So don't forget. It's gonna be a very big week
Speaker 1: with the Hunter Byte Investigation. Do not miss a single episode.
Speaker 1: Hit that follow, subscribe or auto download button wherever you
Speaker 1: get this podcast. Apple has changed their algorithms. We've heard
Speaker 1: from a lot of you. You got to go back
Speaker 1: in there, make sure you hit that follow button. If
Speaker 1: you don't auto download, so many episodes actually shut it off.
Speaker 1: It's very weird how their new algorithm works, so make
Speaker 1: sure you do that. Plus, we have a we can
Speaker 1: recap every Saturday, so if you miss some episodes during
Speaker 1: the week, we grab a few different things from later
Speaker 1: in those episodes and put them in our best of
Speaker 1: on Saturdays, and The Senner and I will see you
Speaker 1: back here on Wednesday morning.