Speaker 1: Senner going to be back with you in studio.
Speaker 2: It's been a while, it's been crazy, certainly politically, and
Speaker 2: I want to talk about this piece of paper that
Speaker 2: everyone's talking about. Christopher Ray, the FBI director, has been
Speaker 2: hell bent on not giving a document that it reportedly
Speaker 2: ties Joe Biden to some sort of bribery scheme to Congress.
Speaker 2: This is shocking on its face, but now we're being
Speaker 2: told that on Monday, he's going to bring this document
Speaker 2: to Congress.
Speaker 1: Finally, what do we know about it outside of that?
Speaker 3: Well, the facts are simple. Which is an informant let
Speaker 3: the FBI know that he or she had evidence that
Speaker 3: Joe Biden was involved in a bribery scheme, and it
Speaker 3: was a bribery scheme of five million dollars from a
Speaker 3: foreign country. We don't know what country. We're told it's
Speaker 3: not China, so it's some country not China, when Joe
Speaker 3: Biden was vice president. Allegedly it was a five million
Speaker 3: dollar bribery scheme in exchange for changes in US policy.
Speaker 3: We don't know what kind of changes in US policy.
Speaker 3: We also know that this informant called the FBI gave information.
Speaker 3: This was an informant the FBI had used before in
Speaker 3: multiple cases. They'd relied on this informant on matters that
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with Joe Biden. So this is
Speaker 3: someone presumably the FBI had reason to trust, reason to
Speaker 3: give weight to what they had to say. And so
Speaker 3: the FBI recorded the results of that phone call on
Speaker 3: a document called an FD ten twenty three. That is
Speaker 3: a document that the FBI uses when you have an
Speaker 3: informant reporting information, they write down the contents of the call. Now,
Speaker 3: what we don't know is what happened next. What we
Speaker 3: also don't know is what did the call say what exactly?
Speaker 3: We have details that have basically been leaked out, but
Speaker 3: we don't know the specifics. And so the House of
Speaker 3: Representatives said, quite reasonably, we want to see the damn
Speaker 3: piece of paper. We want to see the document. We
Speaker 3: want to see what this informant told you about. Was
Speaker 3: Joe Biden corrupt and on the take from a foreign nation?
Speaker 3: Obviously the next step is going to be we want
Speaker 3: to know what you did about it. Did you go
Speaker 3: interview the guy, did you go investigate with their documentary evidence?
Speaker 3: What did you do next? Or did you just bury it?
Speaker 3: Did you just slow walk it? We have a different
Speaker 3: whistleblower in the IRS who says the Abiden administration is
Speaker 3: slow walking the investigations into Hunter Biden, deliberately putting roadblocks
Speaker 3: in the way, deliberately avoiding investigating it. We know that
Speaker 3: the FBI did that with Hunter Biden's laptop, that they
Speaker 3: had the laptop and they sat on it and did
Speaker 3: nothing because presumably they wanted to protect Joe Biden. And
Speaker 3: so this was all headed to an epic battle where
Speaker 3: Chris Ray, the director of the FBI, was saying, no,
Speaker 3: you can't have this document, and James Comer and the
Speaker 3: House said fine, we're gonna hold you in contempt. And
Speaker 3: I got to say, thankfully, at the last minute blinked.
Speaker 3: The director of the FBI was about to be held
Speaker 3: in contempt to Congress when suddenly he blinked and said, okay,
Speaker 3: you can see the document, but we're going to carry
Speaker 3: it over to you and Comer and the ranking Democrat.
Speaker 3: The two of you can sit down and review the
Speaker 3: document in person. And Comer said, okay, So that is
Speaker 3: going to happen today today. The FBI is going to
Speaker 3: carry the document over. I don't know what it contains,
Speaker 3: but that is happening today, And on the face of it,
Speaker 3: it is an informant the FBI had trusted in the past,
Speaker 3: who had been reliable in the past, who alleged that
Speaker 3: Joe Biden was directly involved in a multimillion dollar bribery scheme.
Speaker 1: This piece of paper.
Speaker 2: Is this a power play by the FBI and Christopher
Speaker 2: Ray just to say you can't have the piece paper,
Speaker 2: we'll let you look at it. Or is this a
Speaker 2: we don't want this piece of paper to get out
Speaker 2: to the public because so damning to the president who
Speaker 2: was then the vice president went Apparently this bribery scheme
Speaker 2: allegedly happened. Why are they so helpent on protecting this
Speaker 2: piece of paper? Could it be both the same time,
Speaker 2: or is it probably the fact that this is a
Speaker 2: much bigger deal than they want anybody to know about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look that there are a combination of factors, and
Speaker 3: to be fair, we don't know for sure right now.
Speaker 3: On one level, the FBI is naturally protective of information
Speaker 3: involving confidential informants. The FBI gets confidential informants all the time.
Speaker 3: They don't want to out their confidential informants. So that
Speaker 3: is a reasonable law enforcement instinct, let's protect our informants
Speaker 3: on the other side. And look, we've talked about this before.
Speaker 3: I've known Chris Ray for twenty five plus years. Chris
Speaker 3: Ray is not a hardcore lefty. He's not even a Democrat.
Speaker 3: Chris Ray is a company man. Chris Ray is non political,
Speaker 3: non ideological, but he views his role as I've got
Speaker 3: to protect the institution of the FBI. And I mean
Speaker 3: I have been on the phone yelling at Chris Ray
Speaker 3: explaining to him, you're not, in fact protecting the FBI.
Speaker 3: When you protect the hardcore partisans who've corrupted the FBI,
Speaker 3: you are hurting the institution. If you actually cared about
Speaker 3: the institution, you wouldn't protect those partisans who are perverting
Speaker 3: law enforcement. You would instead hold them to account and
Speaker 3: you would terminate them. You would clean a house. That's
Speaker 3: what needs to happen. And when it comes to Congress,
Speaker 3: I think Chris Ray has a very limited view of accountability.
Speaker 3: He has a view that the FBI is above reproach
Speaker 3: and how dare anyone ask what the hell they're doing?
Speaker 3: So when Congress asked for something, he has an imperious
Speaker 3: response of we don't report to you and He's right,
Speaker 3: they don't report to Congress. He reports to the Department
Speaker 3: of Justice. The Department of Justice, on the other hand,
Speaker 3: is directly accountable to Congress, and Congress is accountable to
Speaker 3: the American people. And when Chris Ray says, we don't
Speaker 3: report to you, what he's really saying to the American
Speaker 3: people is, we don't report to the American people. We
Speaker 3: have no standards that govern us. We are the FBI.
Speaker 3: We can do whatever the hell we want, and that
Speaker 3: is profoundly harmful for the rule of law and for
Speaker 3: fair and impartial administration of justice.
Speaker 2: There's a time also aspect of this piece of paper center.
Speaker 2: It's a piece of paper apparently that the FBI has
Speaker 2: had for quite some time. James Comer mentioned that, and
Speaker 2: I want to play it for people because I think
Speaker 2: that also brings a different dynamic into this. How long
Speaker 2: have they had this and what have they not done
Speaker 2: since they've had it? Before we play that, though, I
Speaker 2: want to tell you about Patriot Mobile. If you are
Speaker 2: sick and tired of giving your money to woke companies
Speaker 2: and organizations that are obviously fighting against your value, and
Speaker 2: we've seen a lot of this lately with Bud light,
Speaker 2: and target. The list goes on and on. With cell phone,
Speaker 2: you really didn't have an option for many years. You
Speaker 2: just had to go along with it because there was
Speaker 2: big companies. They were given a ton of money to
Speaker 2: left its organizations. You don't have to do that anymore.
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile was the only conservative Christian cell phone company
Speaker 2: in the US, and when you pay your bill, they're
Speaker 2: actually fighting for what you believe in. Now you get
Speaker 2: the same great coverage you're used to right now, except
Speaker 2: you're giving your money to an organization that's fighting for
Speaker 2: the First and the Second Amendment, fighting for a veterans,
Speaker 2: fighting for a police, and fighting for the rights of
Speaker 2: unborn children in this country. Check out Patriot Mobile. If
Speaker 2: you're sick and tired of giving your money to woke organizations,
Speaker 2: go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: dot com slash verdict. Use the promo code verdict, and
Speaker 2: you'll also get free activation. Plus, you can keep your
Speaker 2: same cell phone number you have now, your same cell
Speaker 2: phone you have in your hand, or you can upgrade.
Speaker 2: Call them eight seven eight Patriot that's eight six eight
Speaker 2: Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict Senator James Comer
Speaker 2: was talking about the years this letter has just been
Speaker 2: sitting there and if it wasn't for Wistlebler, we wouldn't
Speaker 2: know they ever had it.
Speaker 1: Here's where we had to say on Fox.
Speaker 4: They've had the document for four years. We don't know
Speaker 4: if they've even investigated it. That's my fear that they
Speaker 4: never did anything. Which you look at what's happened with
Speaker 4: the RS. With the RS was the blowers claim is
Speaker 4: they were told to stand down. There's a pattern within
Speaker 4: our federal government of when looking at any type of
Speaker 4: wrongdoing by the Biden family, that people in the government
Speaker 4: bureaucracy have told rank and foul government employees to stand
Speaker 4: out or to give them the file and don't worry
Speaker 4: about it. That's basically what Director Ray has told me.
Speaker 4: I have demonstrated a pattern of Joe Biden traveling all
Speaker 4: over the world, and weeks after he leaves the country,
Speaker 4: his family starts mysterious getting wires from that foreign country
Speaker 4: into shell companies that then are wired back to the
Speaker 4: individual family. Let me ask you, not normal behavior.
Speaker 2: If this letter is as damning as it seems it
Speaker 2: could be, Senator, what happens next? Can if Comer looks
Speaker 2: at the FBI director and says, hey, did you guys
Speaker 2: investigate this? And he says, I'm not going to tell
Speaker 2: you if he claims it's an ongoing investigation, how do
Speaker 2: we find out more? What are the options on the table?
Speaker 2: And could this go to even bigger stand offs?
Speaker 3: Yeah, look at it, certainly? Could you know? I will
Speaker 3: say what James was saying right there is really significant
Speaker 3: this pattern. Joe Biden gets on a plane, he flies
Speaker 3: to a foreign country. This is mostly when he was
Speaker 3: vice president. He lands in the foreign countries there for
Speaker 3: a day or two, he leaves, and then a few
Speaker 3: weeks later, millions of dollars start coming from that foreign
Speaker 3: country in wires to shell companies that distribute that money
Speaker 3: to Biden family members. He said, that's not normal. I
Speaker 3: actually think that's not normal. Is an insane understatement. That's friggin' bizarre. Look,
Speaker 3: I've been in the Senate eleven years. My family doesn't
Speaker 3: get wires from foreign countries, Like, why would we. I
Speaker 3: don't know of anyone in the Senate whose family gets
Speaker 3: wires from foreign countries. That would be bizarre. I don't
Speaker 3: know of anyone in the federal government I don't know
Speaker 3: of any cabinet official. I don't know of anyone whose
Speaker 3: family miraculously gets paid off by shady Ukrainians or shady
Speaker 3: Chinese communists. I mean, these facts, this is these are
Speaker 3: criminal allegations. These are allegations of serious criminal corruptions. And
Speaker 3: it's not like, oh, oh, come now, who hasn't had
Speaker 3: a few million dollars sent to your uncle Benny when
Speaker 3: you happen to come back from Beijing. Well, no, no,
Speaker 3: normal people don't do that. And by the way, the
Speaker 3: Chinese communists don't send a few million dollars in exchange
Speaker 3: for nothing. It's not publisher's clearinghouse. They don't show up
Speaker 3: with Ed McMahon at your door and say, guess what,
Speaker 3: here's a check for you. It's not because they like
Speaker 3: Joe Biden's aviators. They're getting something for it. They're not
Speaker 3: in the business of giving away money. And so the
Speaker 3: fact that the FBI, and by the way, they've had
Speaker 3: it four years four years ago, who was President Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: So this is during the Trump administration. The FBI gets
Speaker 3: this in information. But the FBI, the deep state is
Speaker 3: so corrupted. Listen, the FBI was waging war against Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: The FBI was functionally on the Biden presidential campaign, and
Speaker 3: we also know that from the Twitter files. I get
Speaker 3: that sounds like it should be hyperbole. Come on, that
Speaker 3: can't be right, and yet it's reality until we look
Speaker 3: at the Twitter files where the FBI was asking big tech, Hey,
Speaker 3: don't run any stories on the Hunter Biden laptop. Hey
Speaker 3: suppress anyone else from even talking about it. Hey use
Speaker 3: your monopoly power to silence discussion of topics that would
Speaker 3: hurt Joe Biden in the election. Why well, they don't
Speaker 3: actually state it, but it's not complicated to figure out
Speaker 3: because they wanted Biden to win and Trump to lose,
Speaker 3: and that level of corruption. So this report comes in,
Speaker 3: and by the way, it is unusual. Look, I worked
Speaker 3: at DOJ. I worked five years at the Texas Attorney
Speaker 3: General's office to get to get a report of a
Speaker 3: senior government official getting millions of dollars of bribes from
Speaker 3: a foreign nation. I've never seen that happen before. That's bizarre,
Speaker 3: just that report. Now, the report may not be true,
Speaker 3: although the fact that the informant was someone else who
Speaker 3: had proven reliable and they relied on before, that gives
Speaker 3: it greater indissia of reliability.
Speaker 2: The media is really, by the way, looked over that point.
Speaker 2: I think we should just make it very clear. This
Speaker 2: was a person who the FBI trusted, who they've used
Speaker 2: before as an informant before on other issues not related
Speaker 2: to the five million dollar bribery accusation with a former
Speaker 2: vice president Joe Biden. That is significant. It should be
Speaker 2: leading on the front page of newspapers. No one's talking
Speaker 2: about this first off, but they're certainly not telling you
Speaker 2: that piece of information.
Speaker 3: Look our newspapers, our major networks. They are corrupt. I
Speaker 3: don't use the phrase mainstream media because there's nothing mainstream
Speaker 3: about the Marxists who are running these institutions. The phrase,
Speaker 3: as you know that, I use as corrupt corporate media.
Speaker 3: They are corporations. Their political decision is decided from the
Speaker 3: corner office, and they are right now the left wing
Speaker 3: of the Democrat Party. They're not talking about these facts.
Speaker 3: But you asked, what are the next steps. Look, comer's
Speaker 3: gonna look at this document number one. See, okay, what
Speaker 3: was reported? The obvious next question is going to be
Speaker 3: what'd you do? Do you interview with him? Okay, I
Speaker 3: want to see the notes from that interview. I assume
Speaker 3: they interviewed the guy. If they didn't interview the guy,
Speaker 3: holy crap. Yeah, so I'm assuming they interviewed him. I'm
Speaker 3: the level of malfeasans. If they didn't even bother to
Speaker 3: follow up on it, somebody should be fired and maybe
Speaker 3: go to jail. If they didn't follow up on it,
Speaker 3: I'm going to assume they did. The next thing Comber
Speaker 3: is going to ask, let me see the meeting notes. Now,
Speaker 3: it's worth noting this document, the twenty three it's not classified.
Speaker 2: Why is that, by the way for people to understand?
Speaker 2: Because we hear it's not classified, so we assume that
Speaker 2: it's not as important.
Speaker 3: That's not always classified typically involves national security matters. So
Speaker 3: if you have a schematic of the electronics of the
Speaker 3: F thirty five, that's classified. Sure, we don't want our
Speaker 3: enemies to know how our advanced fighter jets operate. If
Speaker 3: you have a spy, we've got a spy in Moscow
Speaker 3: that tells us something Putin's saying, whether it's an American
Speaker 3: spy or it's a Russian asset for US asset who's
Speaker 3: doing something that's classified. Because you don't want to expose
Speaker 3: our intelligence. There's lots of things, but generally things that
Speaker 3: are classified deal with either the military or foreign policy.
Speaker 3: This has not been classified. It is something that is
Speaker 3: referred to as law enforcement confidential, which is I go
Speaker 3: back to the FBI. Is not unreasonable. That is a
Speaker 3: general matter what confidential informants put forward should be protected,
Speaker 3: because going back to the drug mule, if the drug
Speaker 3: mule knew that he or she would be outed, you
Speaker 3: wouldn't come forward and provide information. And law enforcement depends
Speaker 3: upon the idea that we're going to protect enforcements. In
Speaker 3: this instance, however, there is a massive public interest in
Speaker 3: knowing was the vice president of the United States, who
Speaker 3: now happens to be the President of the United States
Speaker 3: corrupt and being paid off by a foreign nation. That
Speaker 3: is an issue of public importance. I would say, at
Speaker 3: the very highest level, if the president is on the
Speaker 3: take from one of our enemies, every American deserves to
Speaker 3: know about it. And Congress has a right not just
Speaker 3: to write an obligation to get to the bottom of that.
Speaker 3: You know, you look at impeachment a lot of discussion
Speaker 3: about high crimes and misdemeanors. Yeah, but treason and bribery
Speaker 3: are explicitly named reason for a good reason, impeachment lies
Speaker 3: for trees and bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Speaker 3: Treason and bribery are right at the top of the
Speaker 3: list there, at the top of the pyramid. They're the
Speaker 3: worst things a president can do. And if a president
Speaker 3: is being bribed by a foreign nation who is an
Speaker 3: enemy of America to make decisions against America's interest, that
Speaker 3: could well be not just bribery, but treason as well.
Speaker 3: Now we don't know, I'm engaging in speculation upon speculation there.
Speaker 3: Why don't know because the I won't release the information.
Speaker 3: So Comber's going to sit down and look at it.
Speaker 3: Depending on what it says. Comber's next question is going
Speaker 3: to be did you interview the person? And I assume
Speaker 3: there's going to be an escalation from there to say
Speaker 3: this information needs to go public, we need to have
Speaker 3: a hearing, depending on the credibility of the source. If
Speaker 3: I were Comer, I'd say I want this informant to testify. Now,
Speaker 3: at some level, the concerns about why you want an
Speaker 3: informant their identity to be protected, presumably those concerns are
Speaker 3: less here. If it's a drug mule, you want to
Speaker 3: protect the identity because the drug dealers will murder him.
Speaker 3: That's a pretty good reason. Sure, one would hope Joe
Speaker 3: Biden is not going to murder this informant. So the
Speaker 3: reasons of protecting a witness from violence from the target
Speaker 3: of whatever it is the forman is passing on should
Speaker 3: presumably be less now depending on the foreign nation. If
Speaker 3: it's Russia, if it's North Korea, if it's Iran. I
Speaker 3: mean there are enemies of America, China. We know it's
Speaker 3: not China, but at least okay, we actually don't know anything.
Speaker 3: What is being said in the leaky world suggests that
Speaker 3: it's not China, but you know, there are friends. It
Speaker 3: could be I'm just picking a country out of the hat.
Speaker 3: It could be France. France presumably's not going to whack
Speaker 3: the guy for making it public. Iran might or Russia.
Speaker 3: So who the country is matters in terms of the
Speaker 3: risk to the individual. Could easily be Ukraine. We obviously
Speaker 3: know of Hunter Biden's long history of being paid for,
Speaker 3: paid and paid for by Barisma and making millions of dollars,
Speaker 3: so Ukraine is certainly a real contender given the other
Speaker 3: history or it's another country, we don't know about it altogether,
Speaker 3: and that that could open a whole new chapter in there.
Speaker 3: But I think the House will believe assuming there's there there. Now, look,
Speaker 3: it's possible. You look at this document. The guy's a
Speaker 3: crank and he says, you know, little green men who
Speaker 3: were Martians arrived and gave cash to Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: But if that's true, why would they really do this
Speaker 2: to protect this document the way they make any sense
Speaker 2: to Yeah, you would just say here, see it right?
Speaker 2: Why would you fight so hard to the point where
Speaker 2: you're almost held in contempt to Congress?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the next stage will be to fight to make
Speaker 3: this information public. And so comer took as an intermediate ground.
Speaker 3: Let's look, I'm glad Ray gave in. And by the way, look,
Speaker 3: at some level, Ray had a stronger hand, and that
Speaker 3: if Ray is held in contempt to Congress, the next
Speaker 3: step of contempt holding does not is not self executing.
Speaker 3: In order for Ray to go to jail for that,
Speaker 3: DOJ has to prosecute him, And the chances that the
Speaker 3: Biden DOJ would prosecute Chris Ray for contempt of Congress
Speaker 3: are zero zero chance. But at the same time, look,
Speaker 3: the FBI relies on subpoenas all the time, like in
Speaker 3: a gazillion different cases, they're sending subpoenas out. The FBI
Speaker 3: doesn't really want the director of the FBI held in
Speaker 3: contempt for refusal to comply with a subpoena. That's a
Speaker 3: problem for the FBI and Chris Ray. Eric Holder was
Speaker 3: held in contempt of Congress when he was Attorney General
Speaker 3: and the Eric Holder DOJ refused to prosecute him. So
Speaker 3: there's a history with Obama of ignoring contempt findings. You know,
Speaker 3: Ray is not the partisan that Holder is. Chris Ray,
Speaker 3: I think, really wants to avoid being held in contempt
Speaker 3: of Congress. He wouldn't wear it as a badge of
Speaker 3: honor in a way that Holder was such a partisan
Speaker 3: he was glad to do so. That's why Ray blinked.
Speaker 3: He's at least providing this information. What I don't know
Speaker 3: is how bad the information is. The House is going
Speaker 3: to try to make it public, and you may see
Speaker 3: an escalation of this battle.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you one other question about whistleblowers
Speaker 2: and how important they're becoming because we're finding all this
Speaker 2: out from whistleblowers. And before I get your response to that,
Speaker 2: I want to tell you in our friends they gust
Speaker 2: of Precious Medals. You know what's been going on in
Speaker 2: the economy, you know what's been happening with interest rates,
Speaker 2: you know what's been happening with bank failures. If you
Speaker 2: are in retirement, you're close to retirement, and you are
Speaker 2: just tired of being stressed out, you know that there's
Speaker 2: not a lot of time to make up losses. That's
Speaker 2: why you should call a gust of Precious Medals. Now
Speaker 2: I use them, and the reason why is I want
Speaker 2: to diversified portfolio. I want to protect some of my
Speaker 2: hard earned assets in gold, and you can protect your
Speaker 2: retirement in this crazy economy with a gold IRA. Now
Speaker 2: when you call Augusta Precious Medals, they're going to actually
Speaker 2: do a one on one web conference with you. They're
Speaker 2: going to send you your free investors God on Gold
Speaker 2: and you can even get free gold when you open
Speaker 2: an account. So call the company that I use and
Speaker 2: I trust eight seven to seven the number four Gold IRA.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code Verdict. You'll get the free guid
Speaker 2: on gold. You'll get to sit down with them as
Speaker 2: well seven the number four gold Ira or visit them
Speaker 2: online at Augusta Precious Metals dot Com. That's Augusta Precious
Speaker 2: Metals dot Com. Get that gold Ira info and get
Speaker 2: that peace of mind that you want Augusta Precious Metals
Speaker 2: dot Com. Lastly, on this Senator, whistleblowers are becoming a
Speaker 2: really big deal and a big problem for this White House.
Speaker 2: They are risking their careers when they come out as whistleblowers.
Speaker 2: Yet we're seeing this start to get I think some
Speaker 2: momentum where people are becoming brave because they're seeing other
Speaker 2: people be brave.
Speaker 1: This is all from a whistleblower here.
Speaker 2: How big of an issue is this going to be
Speaker 2: for the Biden administration moving forward and for the deep
Speaker 2: state because we've never seen this, at least in my lifetime,
Speaker 2: never seen this many whistleblowers come forward with such big info.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I think it's going to become bigger and
Speaker 3: bigger in part. Listen, you look at what's happened right now.
Speaker 3: The FBI has never been held in such lowercas guard
Speaker 3: as it is right now. The Department of Justice has
Speaker 3: never been held in such low regard as it is
Speaker 3: right now. That's actually not good for America. DJ is
Speaker 3: incredibly important to this country. The FBI is incredibly important
Speaker 3: to this country. We want a strong, vibrant, effective FBI
Speaker 3: and DOJ that is nonpartisan, that's not a political weapon,
Speaker 3: that's not targeting the enemies of the White House, that
Speaker 3: is targeting bad guys, that is enforcing the law. And
Speaker 3: I think part of the reason why we're seeing whistleblowers
Speaker 3: come forward is there are thousands and thousands of good,
Speaker 3: honorable people of patriots who sign up to be in
Speaker 3: the FBI or the DOJ. You know, Ben, your dad's
Speaker 3: a cop. Why did your dad sign up to be
Speaker 3: a copy.
Speaker 1: You want to keep you ale safe in service country,
Speaker 1: plain and simple.
Speaker 3: There are thousands of patriots just like that who say,
Speaker 3: I want to be an FBI agent. What a great
Speaker 3: Go go after drug traffickers, go after terrorists, go after kidnappers,
Speaker 3: go after bank robbers. I mean, that's that's fun stuff.
Speaker 3: That's important stuff. Look, my my favorite show on TV
Speaker 3: is Criminal Minds. I love you know, the bau going
Speaker 3: after serial killers. That stuff's awesome. Height he hates it,
Speaker 3: by the way, absolutely hates it. I turn it on
Speaker 3: TV and it's look, you're dealing with crazy psychopaths, who are,
Speaker 3: you know, eating someone's liver like it's uh, you know,
Speaker 3: with fava beans. I mean it's uh. She's like, why
Speaker 3: is that evil and darkness coming into our house. I'm like, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: I'm rooting for the good guys. They're catching the But
Speaker 3: the FBI does incredible work in lots of different areas.
Speaker 3: As it the politicization has gotten more brazen, there are
Speaker 3: thousands of people within those agencies who are horrified. I
Speaker 3: talked to a USA's assistant US attorneys who are really concerned.
Speaker 3: They don't like that DOJ acts like it's part of
Speaker 3: the DNC. They don't like that the FBI has such
Speaker 3: an obvious double standard that it's laughable. And so I
Speaker 3: think you're going to see more whistleblowers of people who
Speaker 3: believe in the mission of the agency and they're offended
Speaker 3: that these cynical partisans are willing to destroy it to
Speaker 3: achieve a political end.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great point there.
Speaker 2: It's gonna be interesting to see how this unfolds. We're
Speaker 2: obviously going to cover it on verdict and let everybody
Speaker 2: know how this moves forward after this document comes out.
Speaker 1: I do want to get something else.
Speaker 3: By the way, for the record, this podcast today has
Speaker 3: already covered the topic more than CNN will in a year.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one podcast throwing MSNBC in there as well, that
Speaker 2: might be in a decade.
Speaker 3: You know, if they had viewers, you might know about it.
Speaker 2: You and I I wish sometimes people could see our
Speaker 2: text threads. I try not to send you something unless
Speaker 2: it's to me shocking. Over the weekend, I was looking
Speaker 2: at different podcasts. I was scrolling through, and there's a
Speaker 2: New York Times podcast. It's very popular called The Daily,
Speaker 2: usually ranks the top of the podcast charts. But there
Speaker 2: was a title that I saw that shocked me, and
Speaker 2: I sent it to you and I was like, you
Speaker 2: got to.
Speaker 3: See those as you know, Verdict has beaten The Daily
Speaker 3: more than once.
Speaker 1: Yes, which which makes me very very happy. This one though.
Speaker 2: The title of this and I want to throw it
Speaker 2: up there with the first audio clip because I want
Speaker 2: people to understand that the context of what they were doing,
Speaker 2: which was basically saying the Republican Party chose a war
Speaker 2: on transgenderism, which is not the case at all, And
Speaker 2: their title they had was how the GOP picked trans
Speaker 2: kids as a rallying cry. Now, before we play the audio,
Speaker 2: I want people to understand one thing center, and that
Speaker 2: is we didn't pick it as a rallying cry.
Speaker 1: We saw the.
Speaker 2: Abuse of children at the hands of these activists and
Speaker 2: surgeons at places like Vanderbilt that are mutilating at very
Speaker 2: young ages, doing things that you can never reverse, and
Speaker 2: talking about they're making millions, like we should be getting
Speaker 2: into this because we're making so much money, acting almost
Speaker 2: like it. They're drug dealers at that point, like, hey,
Speaker 2: once we grab them, they need us for life. They
Speaker 2: gotta have hormones, they gotta have this, they gotta have this.
Speaker 2: This is a seven figure deal for us. Grab as
Speaker 2: many of these kids as you can bring in here.
Speaker 2: We didn't pick this. We started defending children. And yet
Speaker 2: The New York Times and their big podcast actually says
Speaker 2: there was some scheme behind closed doors for conservatives to
Speaker 2: use this as a rallying cry to get votes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's interesting. So you texted this podcast to me.
Speaker 3: I'd actually seen the title. Now, I don't listen to
Speaker 3: the Daily I have no interest in listening to what
Speaker 3: The New York Times dissembles and lines.
Speaker 1: This first time ever listened by the way.
Speaker 3: But I do look at the podcast charts and this
Speaker 3: was the number one podcast episode in the country. So
Speaker 3: I saw the title before you sent it to me.
Speaker 3: I had seen it earlier in the day and it
Speaker 3: was the number one episode or earlier this past week.
Speaker 3: And I will tell you I cursed out loud. I
Speaker 3: literally saw the title and it made me curse out loud, like, wait,
Speaker 3: how the GOP picked trans kids of the rallying cry?
Speaker 3: We didn't pick them, You lunatics started cutting their genitals
Speaker 3: off like this all healthcare. This is Marxism perfectly captured.
Speaker 3: They start this new phenomenon. Let's take little kids, eight, nine,
Speaker 3: ten year olds, Let's cut their genitals off, let's sterilize them,
Speaker 3: make them never able to have babies. And then we'll say,
Speaker 3: how did you guys pick this issue? We'll stop doing
Speaker 3: this and we won't make it an issue like it is.
Speaker 3: It is the most perverse Freudian projection slash jiu jitsu
Speaker 3: you could imagine. Were they engage in conduct that is shocking.
Speaker 3: Go back through any period of human history three years ago,
Speaker 3: ten years years ago, fifty years ago, one hundred years ago,
Speaker 3: five hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, two thousand
Speaker 3: years ago, all right, two thousand years ago. The when
Speaker 3: Jesus walked the earth. You walked up to people, You
Speaker 3: walked up to the Romans in Jerusalem, said hey, what
Speaker 3: do you think of the idea of cutting the genitals
Speaker 3: off eight year old kids? They'd say you're insane, yes,
Speaker 3: and they might well crucify you like this has been
Speaker 3: a lunatic idea for the entire existence of the human
Speaker 3: race until about the last thirty six months, when a
Speaker 3: bunch of reality denying zealots decided it was a good idea.
Speaker 3: And what is the old gray Lady The New York Times,
Speaker 3: the paper of records say, oh, conservatives invented this issue. No,
Speaker 3: it wasn't an issue until you started doing something truly horrifying.
Speaker 3: All right, play this first clip.
Speaker 5: I think for some on the right this was a
Speaker 5: matter of genuine concern, but there were somewhere this was
Speaker 5: also a political decision, or a calculator decision. They saw
Speaker 5: this as a potent issue, and they began to realize
Speaker 5: that this could replace gay marriage, is something that could
Speaker 5: help them organize, raise money, get attention, become relevant.
Speaker 3: Okay, become relevant. So you got to understand. Look the
Speaker 3: New York Times, they're in Manhattan. They're all little Marxists,
Speaker 3: They're all woke. They all think this is a wonderful thing,
Speaker 3: and they think anyone who disagrees with them is truly
Speaker 3: a nutbag. By the way, they look at forty nine
Speaker 3: states and they think probably forty six of them are insane.
Speaker 3: They might acknowledge California, New Jersey, and may Well for
Speaker 3: New Yorkers to even admit New Jersey exists as hard
Speaker 3: valid point. The Connecticut they might be able to do.
Speaker 3: They might say Grantwiches is okay. But most of the
Speaker 3: country they think were a bunch of Neanderthals and Rubes
Speaker 3: and apparently the only way to become relevant is to
Speaker 3: be upset at the insanity of what they're doing. But
Speaker 3: listen to the second clip.
Speaker 5: You know, I don't think we should assume that some
Speaker 5: of these gay rights groups would automatically move to trans
Speaker 5: issues at the same time. Once that court made a decision,
Speaker 5: they were without an issue that they had used to
Speaker 5: organize and to raise money and to rally support for years,
Speaker 5: so they needed to kind of figure out what to
Speaker 5: do next. And you could see this sort of trend
Speaker 5: toward embracing trans issues, and it began around then.
Speaker 3: So this is an interesting moment when The New York
Speaker 3: Times accidentally has a brief instance of honesty because what
Speaker 3: they acknowledged is, and I talked about before the jiu Jitsu,
Speaker 3: this is true of the left. What they are doing
Speaker 3: they accused the other side of doing. It's straight out
Speaker 3: of Slolenski. For just a moment that lefty reporter acknowledged, gosh,
Speaker 3: these gay rights organizations had a business model. They had
Speaker 3: a business model that raised money. They raised money, and
Speaker 3: it was a fight over gay marriage. Fight to give
Speaker 3: to gay marriage. Give us money, pay our bills. By
Speaker 3: the way, we want to live really nice lifestyles off
Speaker 3: the money you give. We're going to fight for gay marriage. Hurrah, Hurrah, hurrah.
Speaker 3: Well goes to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court decides Bergafel,
Speaker 3: and suddenly gay marriage is the law of the land
Speaker 3: in all fifty states. And they're sitting there, and that's
Speaker 3: what the New York Times just acknowledge, going.
Speaker 1: Oh crap, what's next.
Speaker 3: Our whole issue that exists for us, we just wan on.
Speaker 3: So if that's actually what we're about, we ought to
Speaker 3: pack up our stuff and go home and tell all
Speaker 3: of our donors go give to something else, because you
Speaker 3: got what you wanted. But that's not if you're a grifter. Yeah,
Speaker 3: you got a grift. And so what the New York
Speaker 3: Times is acknowledging is they said, Okay, well we got
Speaker 3: what we wanted on gay marriage, so let's move to
Speaker 3: trans stuff. Because trans stuff, that's the next issue we
Speaker 3: can energize and create. And then it became a political movement.
Speaker 3: And then, in significant part because the left controls entertainment
Speaker 3: and journalism, it became evidence of virtue. It became evidence
Speaker 3: of how enlightened you are. Like, if you think there's
Speaker 3: a problem with severing the healthy genitals of a child,
Speaker 3: clearly you're the problem. Because we've decided this is the
Speaker 3: essence of being sensitive and woke. And as the New
Speaker 3: York Times said, this was all a business model.
Speaker 2: I think one of the other shocking things that they
Speaker 2: said here are they implied is that there was a
Speaker 2: bunch of conservatives in a room. You've run for office,
Speaker 2: you've worked on campaigns as well. The idea that Republicans
Speaker 2: were sitting in a room somewhere and saying, all right,
Speaker 2: let's figure out a way to fundraise over trans kids,
Speaker 2: trans bathrooms, trans ideology in public schools, and in doctor nation.
Speaker 2: It's impossible to have that conversation because the other side
Speaker 2: would have to do all those things to even have
Speaker 2: that conversation. You couldn't control that the way that they're
Speaker 2: trying to imply here, which is that the GOP did
Speaker 2: this out of thin air. No, you actually had activists
Speaker 2: doing this. Look at even Gay Pride Month. It's longer
Speaker 2: a month, it's two months. We know that from what
Speaker 2: just happened at Target. They started putting everything in the
Speaker 2: stores before it was Gay Pride Month.
Speaker 3: Well, here play this next clip, because this is where
Speaker 3: they engage in their sort of fantasy about what's going
Speaker 3: on on the other side.
Speaker 5: I guess the issue of bathrooms just wasn't resonating with
Speaker 5: the public, at least at the time, so some conservative
Speaker 5: strategists began looking around for other ways to frame transgender rights,
Speaker 5: says an issue that could be winning for the Republican Party.
Speaker 3: So what's funny about this? And let's go back to
Speaker 3: the projection. So a minute ago, he just admitted the
Speaker 3: gay rights groups needed a reason to exist and needed
Speaker 3: a business model. And so they decided to embrace the
Speaker 3: trans issues in order to keep raising money. They're envisioning
Speaker 3: some nefarious Republican strategists in a smoke filled room, so
Speaker 3: they don't name this is the issue, the campaign against
Speaker 3: transgender rights as mobilized conservatives. Now they don't name them.
Speaker 3: They don't know who it is either, and they're making
Speaker 3: it up. Here's the dirty little secret. Most Republican officeholders
Speaker 3: are terrified to talk about this. I serve in the
Speaker 3: United States Senate. I served with forty eight other Republicans.
Speaker 3: Forty of them wouldn't bring this topic up if you
Speaker 3: put a gun to their head. They want to talk
Speaker 3: about slightly reducing capital gains taxes and not really ticking
Speaker 3: off the chamber of commerce. That's actually the bulk of
Speaker 3: our Republican party is It is still people who are
Speaker 3: afraid of their own shadows. So the idea that it
Speaker 3: was some political strategists that came up with this is insane. Frankly,
Speaker 3: the people talking about this are a handful of journalists
Speaker 3: and activists, people like Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh has done
Speaker 3: heroic efforts exposing what's going on. Libs of TikTok has
Speaker 3: done heroic efforts exposing what's going on, and then folks
Speaker 3: like you and me who are talking about it. But
Speaker 3: to be honest, not only is there not this mysterious
Speaker 3: Republican strategist, almost all the Republican strategists are like, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: please don't talk about these issues. Please don't talk about them.
Speaker 3: We're scared of them. So they are. The New York
Speaker 3: Times just acknowledged that on the left it is a
Speaker 3: business model decision. The irony is on the right, everyone
Speaker 3: engaged in the business model is saying, don't get anywhere
Speaker 3: near this. And I got to say, look, my view
Speaker 3: is very simple, which is we should protect children, and
Speaker 3: no child, no eight year old, no nine year old,
Speaker 3: no ten year old, has the emotional maturity to make
Speaker 3: a decision that is life altering. And actually I want
Speaker 3: to elaborate on that, but let's play the last clip
Speaker 3: because the last clip will set up the elaboration.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So they realized that there was a power to the
Speaker 5: issue of fairness and sports and to the medical issue
Speaker 5: like should trans teenagers miners have access to what's known
Speaker 5: as gender or firming care. What I mean by that
Speaker 5: is a range of treatments that can include mental health support,
Speaker 5: hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and in rare cases, surgery.
Speaker 1: Rare cases.
Speaker 3: Now what they're trying to do, Play the next clip,
Speaker 3: because let's see how rare the cases are. They say,
Speaker 3: rare cases, so keep playing.
Speaker 5: I think the reason the numbers are growing is because
Speaker 5: in some parts of the country it's more acceptable to
Speaker 5: come out as transgender and care is more accessible, and
Speaker 5: medical professionals will tell you that kids do need this
Speaker 5: kind of treatment at this point in their life when
Speaker 5: there are a lot of changes going on in their bodies,
Speaker 5: and it makes sense from that perspective to delay some
Speaker 5: of these changes until these miners can come to terms
Speaker 5: with what exactly they want to do in terms of transition.
Speaker 5: And we're not talking about many kids getting medical treatment.
Speaker 5: The best numbers we have show that maybe four thousand
Speaker 5: kids began hormonetherapy in twenty twenty one. But it was
Speaker 5: going on and it's caught the eye of conservatives, and
Speaker 5: they're uncomfortable with the idea of trans people in general,
Speaker 5: and they're uncomfortable with the idea of kids transitioning. So
Speaker 5: it made sense, you know, both for a policy perspective,
Speaker 5: and from a political perspective that Republicans seized on trans
Speaker 5: youth as an issue.
Speaker 3: So I'll tell you what I uncomfortable with. I'm uncomfortable
Speaker 3: with a bunch of sadistic Marxists sterilizing and mutilating children.
Speaker 3: And there's so much in what the New York Times
Speaker 3: said there that that just frankly infuriates me. So one
Speaker 3: of the things they said is, well, there's a range
Speaker 3: of treatment that is gender affirming care. And boy, the
Speaker 3: Left is good at euphemisms. Affirming is good, And wouldn't
Speaker 3: you want something that affirms your gender. You're a man,
Speaker 3: let's affirm your gender like like that seems wonderfully positive,
Speaker 3: and it is. It is language that would make George
Speaker 3: Orwell blush because it is the opposite of gender affirming.
Speaker 3: It is trying to medically alter the gender that you are.
Speaker 3: And then he gave a list of options, and the
Speaker 3: first he said was counseling. Okay, fine, everyone's for counseling.
Speaker 3: Like if a kid's troubled, they ought to have counselors,
Speaker 3: they ought to have a therapist. That's a fairly mild
Speaker 3: So he starts off with oh, yeah, yeah, that's real.
Speaker 3: And then he says, hormone treatments and puberty blockers. Now,
Speaker 3: hormone treatments and puberty blockers are re powerful drugs that
Speaker 3: permanently alter the physiology of a child. And what that
Speaker 3: can mean is, for a little girl, it can permanently
Speaker 3: remove the ability of that girl to ever have children.
Speaker 3: For a little boy, it can permanently remove the ability
Speaker 3: of that boy to father children. And then they said,
Speaker 3: in rare cases, just four thousand, I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: what's the big deal. Four thousand kids were sterilizing. Why
Speaker 3: are you upset about that? In rare cases? Surgery? Now
Speaker 3: number one, those cases are not that rare. We're finding
Speaker 3: hospitals after hospitals after hospitals who have these crazy euphemism.
Speaker 3: They call them top surgery and bottom surgery. So top
Speaker 3: surgery they cut the healthy breasts off young girls. Now,
Speaker 3: by the way you cut them off, they don't grow back.
Speaker 3: And we're seeing hundreds of cases of kids who had
Speaker 3: this happen to them, or in some cases adults who
Speaker 3: had this happened to them, who a few years later say,
Speaker 3: my god, that was a terrible decision and it's not
Speaker 3: coming back.
Speaker 1: Done. Is done.
Speaker 3: And to be clear, look, a top surgery is if
Speaker 3: you have a woman who has breast cancer and she
Speaker 3: has to have a masectomy or double misseectomy, that can
Speaker 3: be part of saving her life. But to do that
Speaker 3: to a child means that child will never breastfeed her daughter.
Speaker 3: As bad as top surgery as bottom surgery, and we
Speaker 3: don't need to get overly graphic, but it is surgically
Speaker 3: removing healthy genitals from kids. Now, listen, if an adult
Speaker 3: wants to do that, if you're twenty years old and
Speaker 3: you decide you want to get it chopped off, do it. Look,
Speaker 3: I grieve for you. I think that's actually a terrible decision.
Speaker 3: But I think as an adult, if you want to
Speaker 3: do it, you can. No eight year old has the
Speaker 3: maturity to know that. Look, when I was eight, I
Speaker 3: wanted to be a dinosaur. Who in their right mind
Speaker 3: would implant velociraptor clause on me because I wanted to
Speaker 3: be a dinosaur. And inevitably, when this is happening, the
Speaker 3: culprit is not the child. The child is the victim.
Speaker 3: The culprit is the adult. If you sterilize a child,
Speaker 3: you're engaged in child abuse. You don't have a right
Speaker 3: to say I've decided that my child will never be
Speaker 3: able to have children of his orro own. That's not
Speaker 3: your right. An adult can make that decision. Look, if
Speaker 3: an adult wants to go make the decision to give
Speaker 3: up his or her ability to have children, you can
Speaker 3: do that. A child doesn't have the maturity and an
Speaker 3: adult doesn't have the right. And by the way, look
Speaker 3: the issue of protecting children. I've spent a lifetime fighting
Speaker 3: to protect children. When I was Solicitor General of Texas,
Speaker 3: I litigated case after case after case of people that
Speaker 3: engaged in the rape of children. Mediine versus Texas. One
Speaker 3: of the biggest cases I argued, and one at the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, involved two teenage girls who were gang raped
Speaker 3: and murdered in the city of Houston. Kennedy versus Louisiana.
Speaker 3: Another case I argued at the Supreme Court involved a
Speaker 3: man who viciously raped a seven year old girl in Texas.
Speaker 3: Texas has a law, the Texas Sexually Violent Civil Commitment Law,
Speaker 3: that provides that if you're a sexually violent predator and
Speaker 3: you're adjudicated to be that, that you can be civilly
Speaker 3: committed to prevent you from either raping women or raping children.
Speaker 3: A court of appeals in Texas struck that law down.
Speaker 3: I personally argued the appeal in the Texas Supreme Court
Speaker 3: and won a unanimous victory nine to zero, reinstating that law.
Speaker 3: So when it comes to protecting children from sexual violence,
Speaker 3: I have spent decades doing this.
Speaker 2: If there's anything I can say, and I think you
Speaker 2: would agree with me on this one, is we didn't
Speaker 2: ask for this war, but we are going to protect
Speaker 2: and defend children at all costs. And that's something that
Speaker 2: more concerns need to be about. They need to be
Speaker 2: fighting harder. We need to be talking about this more.
Speaker 2: We need to be exposing it more. And if you remember,
Speaker 2: they mentioned New York Times and it just reminded me.
Speaker 2: Had he mentioned bathrooms, you know they'd start in the
Speaker 2: schools where a little timmy if he said he was
Speaker 2: Susie could go in the girl's bathroom.
Speaker 1: It was father's.
Speaker 2: They came out and said, I don't want my I
Speaker 2: don't want to buy.
Speaker 3: Stephen Smith in Louden County, Yeah, the father of the
Speaker 3: fourteen year old girl who was sexually assaulted in the
Speaker 3: bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt. That's the result
Speaker 3: of this bathroom issue. And they said New York Times said, oh,
Speaker 3: the bathroom issue didn't work. Really ever heard of Glenn Youngkin. Yeah, because,
Speaker 3: to be honor, he would not be governor were it
Speaker 3: not for their out of controlled ideology and endangering that
Speaker 3: little girl and then the school superintendent lying about it
Speaker 3: and insisting it never happened, and transferring that boy to
Speaker 3: another school where that boy sexually assaulted another little girl
Speaker 3: and arresting the father. And interestingly enough, a bunch of
Speaker 3: suburban moms in northern Virginia who had voted for Joe
Speaker 3: Biden a year earlier were so horrified by the extremes
Speaker 3: of the left that they voted Republican and elected Glen Younk.
Speaker 3: And I will say I did get in trouble on
Speaker 3: a related issue on this on Twitter. So Trevor Noah,
Speaker 3: you know, the really lousy left wing comic who was
Speaker 3: on air for a while and then he wasn't funny
Speaker 3: enough and got canceled. You can tell I'm grieving over that.
Speaker 3: There was if you remember in California, there was like
Speaker 3: a gender reveal party where they had set off. I
Speaker 3: guess it was like fireworks, and it was going to
Speaker 3: be blue or pink to tell everyone the sex of
Speaker 3: their soon to be born baby. And they set it
Speaker 3: off and it started a fire, and it was kind
Speaker 3: of a big scandal because it was a fire, like
Speaker 3: you shouldn't start a fire obviously. But Trevor Noah went
Speaker 3: on air and said, well, why are they doing this?
Speaker 3: After all? How do they know? How do they know
Speaker 3: what the gender is? They won't know for years until
Speaker 3: the child decides what gender he or she is. How
Speaker 3: do they know? And you know what, since the dawn
Speaker 3: of time, when babies have been born, doctor, I suspect
Speaker 3: who's ever walked the planet. When they've handed mom their baby,
Speaker 3: the first sentence out of the mouth has been it's
Speaker 3: a boy or it's a girl. So somehow they figured
Speaker 3: it out for millennia.
Speaker 1: Have that experienced three times? And they got it right
Speaker 1: on all.
Speaker 3: Three both my girls. You know what, they didn't say,
Speaker 3: here's a homo sapey in it. In five years, you'll
Speaker 3: figure out its gender.
Speaker 1: It's whatever you want it to be. Yeah, never said
Speaker 1: by a doctor.
Speaker 3: So I will say I took Trevor Noah's little comment
Speaker 3: and I did retweet it and I said, look, at
Speaker 3: some level, Trevor has a point, because you know, many
Speaker 3: liberal boys never do grow testicles. Yeah, that kind of
Speaker 3: got me in trouble. I sort of had a little
Speaker 3: bit of a lefty backlash.
Speaker 1: On that, and I can tell you lost a lot
Speaker 1: of sleep over that.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, at least ten twelve seconds.
Speaker 2: At least at least I want to end with some
Speaker 2: good news, and that is another radical bid nominee. And
Speaker 2: tell everybody this because Republicans are starting to get their
Speaker 2: act together and realize that you can stop these radical
Speaker 2: nominees from Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Talk little about the latest one to bite the dust.
Speaker 3: Well, in twenty twenty three, first six months of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three, three and exactly three non judicial Biden nominees
Speaker 3: have been defeated in the Senate. All three have been
Speaker 3: defeated in the Senate Commerce Committee, where I'm the ranking member.
Speaker 3: I'm the senior Republican on Commerce. So I've led the
Speaker 3: opposition to all three, and we've defeated all three. No
Speaker 3: other committee has taken down a non judicial nominee. The first,
Speaker 3: as you know, was Gg Sohn. We've talked about her.
Speaker 3: The radical left wing activist nominated to the Federal Communications Commission.
Speaker 3: We built opposition to her. She would have used the
Speaker 3: power of that very powerful regulatory agency to silence conservatives,
Speaker 3: to target our enemies. She was defeated the White House Withdrewer.
Speaker 3: The second was Phil Washington. Phil Washington, very nice man,
Speaker 3: veteran of the military, need to be administrator of the FAA,
Speaker 3: the Federal Aviation Administration. The only problem is he didn't
Speaker 3: know a damn thing about airplanes, had no background in aviation,
Speaker 3: no background in aviation safety. Again, I led the opposition
Speaker 3: to him. We unified Republicans on the committee, and then
Speaker 3: we picked off Democrats who said, we actually ought to
Speaker 3: have a guy in charge of the FAA who knows
Speaker 3: something about planes, who can keep us safe. This wasn't ideological.
Speaker 3: This is Look, you and I both get our airplanes
Speaker 3: all the time. We'd like our kids when they get
Speaker 3: on a plane to be safe and not to crash
Speaker 3: going from point A to point B. We'd like an
Speaker 3: FAA that knows how to do that. So the third
Speaker 3: example was a woman named Ann Carlson, and Carlson was
Speaker 3: nominated to be the administrator of the Federal Highway Traffic
Speaker 3: Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety in Administration NITSA.
Speaker 3: Now NITSA has a very important job. It's charged with
Speaker 3: focusing on safety in automobiles on highways, looking at how
Speaker 3: do we make cars more safe? How do we protect
Speaker 3: our families?
Speaker 1: That important job.
Speaker 3: Yes, And once again, just like with the FAA, the
Speaker 3: FA is a safety job. Biden administration didn't care about
Speaker 3: the safety component. Let's nominate someone who doesn't know anything
Speaker 3: about safety, because it doesn't matter. They treated it instead
Speaker 3: as a political patronage job. Let's take care of someone
Speaker 3: who's a Democrat, who will make Democrat politicians happy, and
Speaker 3: who cares if they know anything about how to do
Speaker 3: the job NITSA. Likewise, they nominated someone that has no
Speaker 3: real background in safety. But what is she? She's an
Speaker 3: environmental activist and extremist. She's a law professor at UCLA
Speaker 3: that runs their environmental litigation clinic, and that spends her
Speaker 3: time suing energy companies trying to force the Green New Deal.
Speaker 3: And in fact, she has a very lucrative business with
Speaker 3: a for profit law firm where she brings these lawsuits
Speaker 3: over and over and over again. And so she was
Speaker 3: quite out in the open and saying this is great.
Speaker 3: I'm going to use NITSA to push the Green New Deal,
Speaker 3: to push to fight climate change. In other words, I'm
Speaker 3: going to use NITSA to say, let's prohibit every internal
Speaker 3: combustion engine in America. Let's force every car to be electric.
Speaker 3: Never mind, if you want to drive a suburban, we're
Speaker 3: not gonna let you why. We're gonna claim its safety,
Speaker 3: which is absurd. But it was all about politics and ideology,
Speaker 3: and they were quite open and brazen about it. If
Speaker 3: you look at if you look at some of the
Speaker 3: things that Ann Carlson said, and I've got to find it. Ah, Okay,
Speaker 3: here it is. Here's one quote from an Carlson quote.
Speaker 3: I think our set salvation relies not on the goodwill
Speaker 3: of individuals. Instead, governments and markets need to take steps
Speaker 3: to make us pay for the full cost of the
Speaker 3: behaviors in which we engage. A carbon price on energy
Speaker 3: usage is a good start. In other words, we need
Speaker 3: to be saved from ourselves. So she wanted to get
Speaker 3: on political.
Speaker 1: It seems pretty political.
Speaker 3: You wanted to use NITSA to save you from yourself.
Speaker 3: You think you want a suburban, but really what you
Speaker 3: want as a prius, and I'm gonna say a suburban
Speaker 3: isn't safe and a prius is safer. Now, mind you, you
Speaker 3: might be a lot more likely to die in a
Speaker 3: traffic accident, which is the entire purpose of NITSA to
Speaker 3: try to minimize that outcome. But I think the planet
Speaker 3: will be safer. So this was their nominee. As with
Speaker 3: Gigi Sohn, as with Phil Washington, I and my team
Speaker 3: led the fight to defeat her nomination. We made the
Speaker 3: case to all of the Republicans on the Commerce Committee,
Speaker 3: and then we began systematically reaching out to Democrats, and
Speaker 3: we did something we did in all three of these
Speaker 3: prior nominations, which is we reached out to stakeholders. We
Speaker 3: reached out to people who were likely to care about
Speaker 3: this nomination and to pay the price for the consequences.
Speaker 3: And so we got energy producers engaged in speaking out
Speaker 3: and saying, this woman is a radical, don't put her
Speaker 3: in this very important agency. We got farmers and ranchers
Speaker 3: in the ag community to speak out, because look, if
Speaker 3: you are going after internal combustion engines, Last I checked
Speaker 3: a tractor uses one of those. Last I checked a
Speaker 3: truck uses one of those. Last I checked, a combine
Speaker 3: uses one of those, and driving up the cost for
Speaker 3: farmers and ranchers is really harmful to AG. So the
Speaker 3: AG community got engaged. They began reaching out, and what's amazing,
Speaker 3: Biden Whitehouse this last week pulled her nomination. So we
Speaker 3: still haven't had a hearing on it, but I think
Speaker 3: they're shell shocked after losing not one, but two nominees.
Speaker 3: They were so publicly and both of them they said
Speaker 3: we're gonna win, We've got the votes, and it turned
Speaker 3: out no, they didn't, and we defeated them. To be clear,
Speaker 3: all three of these nominees were defeated not by going
Speaker 3: into the gut or not by getting personal, not by engaging.
Speaker 1: Not by politics.
Speaker 3: They were defeated on substance that their records were incompatible
Speaker 3: with the jobs to which they've been nominated. And so
Speaker 3: at a time when there's reason to be dismayed from
Speaker 3: lots of things, get another victory for the good guys.
Speaker 3: That's a reason to celebrate.
Speaker 1: It certainly is.
Speaker 2: And you every once in a while I will send
Speaker 2: out a tweet that makes me laugh. Usually your very
Speaker 2: plan on Twitter. You don't take a lot of shots.
Speaker 2: You don't get snarky with people, but there was one
Speaker 2: this week that I think everyone should see in case
Speaker 2: they missed it before we put it up there.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about our friends at chalk.
Speaker 2: If you're a guy and you're getting a little bit
Speaker 2: older and you feel like you're losing a little bit
Speaker 2: of your strength and vitality, you feel fatigue and weakness
Speaker 2: setting in.
Speaker 1: You're not alone.
Speaker 2: There's a ton of guys that are dealing with a
Speaker 2: loss of testosterum. That's where chalk choq dot com comes in.
Speaker 2: I've been taking the Mail Vitality Stack and I can
Speaker 2: tell you it works. You can boost your testosterum levels
Speaker 2: up to twenty percent over ninety days. Yes, twenty percent
Speaker 2: over ninety days. So if you're not ready to give
Speaker 2: in to just saying all right, I'm getting older and
Speaker 2: I'm just not like I used to be. If you
Speaker 2: want to get back your focus, your strength, you want
Speaker 2: to get those distosterum levels back to where they should be,
Speaker 2: check out chalk choq dot com. Now when you use
Speaker 2: the promo code Ben, You're gonna get thirty five percent
Speaker 2: off any subscription for life. Just use the promo code
Speaker 2: Ben thirty five percent off. Go to chalk choq dot
Speaker 2: com and make sure use the promo code ben maximize
Speaker 2: your masculine by boosting yours a soscer levels up to
Speaker 2: twenty percent over ninety days. Lastly, this one made me
Speaker 2: laugh center because it dealt with Representative Jamal Bowman from
Speaker 2: New York. Let's throw it up there on the screen
Speaker 2: because it's pretty darn funny and put it into context
Speaker 2: for people what this had to deal with.
Speaker 3: So, Jamal Bowman is a hardcore left wing Democrat from
Speaker 3: New York. I don't know the guy at all, but
Speaker 3: he's he's on the AOC progressive looney socialist left. And
Speaker 3: he came out with a statement and he said we
Speaker 3: must stop drilling for oil completely. And in fact his
Speaker 3: quote was the United States must quote stop drilling for
Speaker 3: fossil fuels completely or Americans will continue to suffer from
Speaker 3: severe weather event. These people are not serious. These people
Speaker 3: are not real. They're not actually focused on reality, They're
Speaker 3: not focused on details. So I sent a tweet, I said, lunacy.
Speaker 3: When he rows a row boat from New York City
Speaker 3: to DC and then rides a horse to the Capitol,
Speaker 3: he might have some credibility I won't hold my breath. Yeah. Look,
Speaker 3: and by the way, the jacket he's wearing in that
Speaker 3: picture is made from petroleum products. The buttons on the
Speaker 3: jacket are made from petroleum products. His belt is made
Speaker 3: from petroleum products. His glasses are made from petroleum products.
Speaker 3: His shoes are made for petroleum products. He's literally wearing
Speaker 3: oil and gas. When he's done pointing to the socialist
Speaker 3: future he wants us to go, he will get into
Speaker 3: big suburban and drive to his office. Every week he
Speaker 3: either flies from New York to d C or he
Speaker 3: takes the train from New York to d C, neither
Speaker 3: which will work without oil and gas. The utter hypocrisy
Speaker 3: and the thing about the crazy left, they don't have
Speaker 3: an answer to that. Look. One of the actually two
Speaker 3: of the proponents of the Green New Deal, which which
Speaker 3: advocates abolishing oil and gas, it advocates abolishing jet fuel,
Speaker 3: are the two senators from Hawaii. They're both two of
Speaker 3: the original sponsors of the Green New Deal. I've pointed
Speaker 3: out I don't know about you, but if you looked
Speaker 3: at a map, yeah, like Hawaii, Uh, you're not driving
Speaker 3: an electric car there? Like? How exactly? Okay, No, airplanes.
Speaker 3: So apparently you're just gonna stay on Hawaii. Okay, you
Speaker 3: want to be a hunter gatherer, you know you could
Speaker 3: go fishing, and but you're not going to d C.
Speaker 3: You don't get to go from one to the other.
Speaker 3: If you would like to go from Hawaii to d C,
Speaker 3: you need jet fuel. If you don't got jet fuel.
Speaker 1: You ain't getting there.
Speaker 3: You ain't getting there. And these radicals, they don't care.
Speaker 3: This is all about virtue signaling. He might as well
Speaker 3: be pointing saying, go sterilize that child. This is showing
Speaker 3: his his theology, and it's not related to reality or
Speaker 3: anything people are actually living.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is why I say the Democratic Party is
Speaker 2: dying or dead.
Speaker 1: It's now socialist communist Marxists. That's what it looks like.
Speaker 1: H And he's a leader.
Speaker 3: By the way, he wants to take away your guest stove.
Speaker 3: He wants to take away your suburban like an Carlson Hold.
Speaker 2: Didn't the media say that was a myth. No one
Speaker 2: ever really wanted to take it except New York State
Speaker 2: has now done it. New York State has now done it.
Speaker 2: Unless you're really rich.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the really rich people are grandfathered out because they
Speaker 3: are the party of really rich people. You got to
Speaker 3: understand the rules they want to impose.
Speaker 1: There are rules.
Speaker 3: For thee and not for me. They are rules they
Speaker 3: want to put on the rest of America, but not
Speaker 3: on themselves.
Speaker 1: Great point. Don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesdays
Speaker 1: and Fridays.
Speaker 2: We do special pods in between when there's big breaking news,
Speaker 2: So make sure you hit that subscribe auto download button,
Speaker 2: or if you're listening on Apple, make sure you hit
Speaker 2: the follow button at the top on Apple, and then
Speaker 2: you'll get every single episode that comes out. We do
Speaker 2: it Monday, Wednesday and Fridays, and we'll see you back
Speaker 2: here in a couple of days.