Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is a Verdict with Ted Cruz Week in Review
Speaker 2: live from Austin. Ben Ferguson with you, and these are
Speaker 2: the stories that you may have missed that we talked
Speaker 2: about this week. First up, Catherine Heritage was let go
Speaker 2: from NBC News and the most shocking part is apparently
Speaker 2: her notes were seized by the network.
Speaker 1: What was behind that shocking decision.
Speaker 2: Also, what's going on in Russia and will there be
Speaker 2: reaccountability for Vladimir Putin for killing his top political opponent.
Speaker 1: We're going to break that down for you. And finally,
Speaker 1: the media turning on.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden this week in the headlines that we never
Speaker 2: thought they would ever write. So will this continue or
Speaker 2: is just just gonna be a bad week for Biden?
Speaker 2: That will go back to the media praising him. It's
Speaker 2: the Week in Review and it starts right now. There's
Speaker 2: also another shocking story, and I want to make sure
Speaker 2: we spend some time on this. Many people may know
Speaker 2: the name Katherine Herrid. She is a phenomenal reporter. She
Speaker 2: was at Fox for a long time. She then moved
Speaker 2: to CBS News. She did incredible reporting on tough issues
Speaker 2: and stories, including what's been happening with the Biden crime family.
Speaker 2: She was let go, slash fired, whatever you want to
Speaker 2: call it, laid off with some other people as CBS
Speaker 2: is having financial issues and downsizing. But it was shocking
Speaker 2: that she was let go in that because she's basically
Speaker 2: that one of their best and only tough investigative reporters,
Speaker 2: certainly in Washington, d C. Now we have found out
Speaker 2: that CBS News went full communists after quote seizing her
Speaker 2: journalistic files. That is not what's supposed to happen in
Speaker 2: America in journalism. And yet now we're finding out and
Speaker 2: only they get rid of her. But the question is
Speaker 2: what was she what did she have? What was she
Speaker 2: about to report on? I would say this enter, I
Speaker 2: know you love her reporting. I think we should try
Speaker 2: to get her on Verdict because I would love to
Speaker 2: hear what she has to say about everything she uncovered
Speaker 2: that maybe she hasn't been able to tell us yet.
Speaker 3: So I agree with you that we should have Catherine
Speaker 3: Herridge as a guest on Verdict. We're going to try
Speaker 3: to make that happen. And I will say, look, in
Speaker 3: many ways, Catherine Herridge is a unicorn because the corporate
Speaker 3: media is so utterly corrupt, that they do not report
Speaker 3: on news that is inconvenient to the regime. And Catherine
Speaker 3: Harridge was a rebel in that she actually reported on
Speaker 3: things the Biden White House didn't like. And so CBS
Speaker 3: was engaged in layoffs. And I get, Look, the media
Speaker 3: are a bunch of dishonest, lying hacks. I understand that
Speaker 3: they're firing people because people don't want to purchase their
Speaker 3: goods anymore, because it is useless. They're no longer journalists,
Speaker 3: they're liars. That being said, if you're laying off people,
Speaker 3: and some corporate suit in a corner office made a decision,
Speaker 3: who do we want to lay off. Let's lay off
Speaker 3: the person who actually is criticizing the White House, and
Speaker 3: so Catherine herriage they laid off. That was shocking in
Speaker 3: and of itself because she is such a unicorn. But
Speaker 3: then the news broke this week that then not only
Speaker 3: do they layer off, but CBS officials took the unusual
Speaker 3: step of seizing her files, her computers, her records, including
Speaker 3: her information on privileged sources.
Speaker 2: And and that I've got to say, so explain people
Speaker 2: privileged sources, so people understand why that's such a shocking,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, abuse of power by CBS.
Speaker 3: Well, listen, reporters have sources that give information and under
Speaker 3: promises of confidentiality, and those promises are that their name
Speaker 3: be held secret, they will not be outed.
Speaker 1: And that's that.
Speaker 3: That is right at the heart the essence of journalism,
Speaker 3: of free press. Well, CBS, the corporate suits have said,
Speaker 3: we want to know who your sources are. And the
Speaker 3: problem is that nobody rational with their head not inserted
Speaker 3: in a bodily orifice, believes that the corporate suits want
Speaker 3: that for any reason other than bad purposes. Look, I'm
Speaker 3: going to read from an article in The Hill. So
Speaker 3: in the Hill, this is something written by Jonathan Turley,
Speaker 3: who has been really terrific on a lot of these issues.
Speaker 3: But here's what he But he wrote quote, I've spoken
Speaker 3: confidentially with current and former CBS employees who have stated
Speaker 3: that they could not recall the company ever taking such
Speaker 3: a step before. One former CBS journalist said that many
Speaker 3: employees quote are confused why Herridge was laid off. As
Speaker 3: one of the correspondents who broke news regularly and did
Speaker 3: a lot of original reporting. This has led to concerns
Speaker 3: about the source of the pressure. He added that he
Speaker 3: has never seen a seizure of records from a departing
Speaker 3: journalist and that the move has sent a chilling signal
Speaker 3: to the ranks of CBS and that is deeply, deeply disturbing.
Speaker 3: By the way, there have been reports that when Catherine
Speaker 3: Herridge published stories that were critical of the Biden White House,
Speaker 3: that CBS executives pushed back, including someone CBS News president
Speaker 3: Ingrid Cyprianne Matthews, who I don't know, but good god,
Speaker 3: her name sounds like something out of a science fiction
Speaker 3: movie about some overlord in the star chamber who wants
Speaker 3: to silence all dissent Ingrid Cyprian Matthews, let's fire the
Speaker 3: reporter that dares report anything of substance because we are propagandists.
Speaker 3: And I got to say, there was a time when
Speaker 3: CBS actually had a reputation as being real journalists. How
Speaker 3: many Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave at
Speaker 3: what has happened to CBS today.
Speaker 2: There's I want to just talk about the quality of
Speaker 2: Catherine's reporting for a moment. There are reporters that you
Speaker 2: don't talk to. There's reporters that I don't talk to
Speaker 2: you see them, you roll their eyes. You deal with
Speaker 2: it a lot more than I do. There's certain reporters
Speaker 2: on Capitol Hill You're like, really, you again, give me
Speaker 2: a break because you know they're hacks. When you when
Speaker 2: you saw Katherine and now there's like there seemed to
Speaker 2: be mutual respect from both sides out because she wasn't partisan,
Speaker 2: she just was a truth teller and investigative journalism. It's
Speaker 2: something that we've lost in this country and that's what
Speaker 2: ultimately I think made her lose her job at CBS.
Speaker 3: Look sadly what Catherine Herridge does used to be the
Speaker 3: Norman journalism. Yeah, you would have journalists who would actually
Speaker 3: investigate stories, they would follow the facts, they would report
Speaker 3: on the substance. That used to be how the entire
Speaker 3: enterprise worked. Now and I really think this is post Trump.
Speaker 3: Trump broke the corporate media. They hate him so much
Speaker 3: that they've abandoned any effort at truth telling, any effort
Speaker 3: at reporting facts, any effort at being even handed, at
Speaker 3: the effort reporting both sides. Instead, Look, if you go
Speaker 3: back a decade ago, if you go back to twenty fourteen,
Speaker 3: twenty fifteen, you would have people at CBS you'd have
Speaker 3: people at c and NMSNBC, even MSNBC that would claim
Speaker 3: they're trying to be journalists and report both sides. What
Speaker 3: has changed is Trump convinced a lot of the so
Speaker 3: called journalists and all of the corporate brass that reporting
Speaker 3: fairly was no longer acceptable, that Trump was the devil,
Speaker 3: and because he was the devil, their mission was no
Speaker 3: longer present both sides. Their mission and this is the
Speaker 3: way they framed it was to save democracy. And what
Speaker 3: they mean by save democracy is elect left wing Democrats
Speaker 3: in every election, no matter what, which means never ever
Speaker 3: ever pored on anything harmful to left wing Democrats and
Speaker 3: only be propagandists for the left wing of the party.
Speaker 3: Now listen, I don't like the New York Times. I
Speaker 3: think they're a bunch of freaking communists. I don't particularly
Speaker 3: like the Washington Post. I don't like much.
Speaker 4: Of the media.
Speaker 3: But bizarrely, Ben, I think they're valuable. How many years
Speaker 3: were you an employee of CNN?
Speaker 1: Seven years? In hell is how long I was there
Speaker 1: fighting the good fight.
Speaker 3: Okay, but compare CNN all right, you're a former employee.
Speaker 3: You were an employee there from win.
Speaker 1: To win, gosh, it was.
Speaker 2: I mean, go back what two years ago and then
Speaker 2: and then add seven on to there. So in the
Speaker 2: middle of it, right before Trump was elected, when it
Speaker 2: wasn't that bad. I was there for I guess about
Speaker 2: two years before the sixteen election when Trump was elected,
Speaker 2: and then the will came off.
Speaker 3: So give your perspective, because you were a paid employee
Speaker 3: of CNN. Give your perspective of CNN before twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: in the Trump election and after, because look, what I'm
Speaker 3: describing is real, but you experienced it from the inside.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when I first got hired, it was funny.
Speaker 2: When I got hired by CNN, the call came in
Speaker 2: and they said, look, we want real and genuine conservatives
Speaker 2: on the air. I got hired, I think it was
Speaker 2: on the same day with New Gingrich and they said,
Speaker 2: we want to have a robust debate and it was
Speaker 2: and that's exactly what it started out as. And even
Speaker 2: when they were covering Donald Trump in sixteen, remember CNN
Speaker 2: would go wall to wall with him campaign event after
Speaker 2: campaign event, and I remember, well, yeah, it was huge
Speaker 2: for their ratings. You remember, you were running against him.
Speaker 2: It's like CNN was giving It was almost like the
Speaker 2: Trump News Network during the primary, and then once he
Speaker 2: got the nomination, and then once he actually looked like
Speaker 2: he might have a chance of winning, they started to
Speaker 2: turn a little bit. It wasn't until the night and
Speaker 2: I was I was at CNA that night all night
Speaker 2: long on election night, and you could see the shock
Speaker 2: and the anger because everyone there from the highest up
Speaker 2: people they assumed till they assumed Hillary was going to win.
Speaker 2: So this was basically just great TV drama until he won.
Speaker 2: And then when he won, they basically and once he
Speaker 2: started saying they were fake news, and he was in
Speaker 2: there going after them as the president and going after
Speaker 2: them in the in the White House Press briefing room
Speaker 2: and allowing Sara Huckabee, Sanders and others to fight back,
Speaker 2: they couldn't take it out on Trump enough, so they
Speaker 2: started taking it out on the commentators that were left.
Speaker 2: I was one of the last, I think, real concertives
Speaker 2: left at CNN. I actually begged them to not re
Speaker 2: sign me at the end. They had a right to
Speaker 2: sign and right to match, and they did it anyway,
Speaker 2: And in my last year they signed me to silence me.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've ever talked about this publicly.
Speaker 2: Actually, in my last year, I asked them not to
Speaker 2: and they said, no, we're going to resign. I had
Speaker 2: other offer and they were gonna matchine and that was it.
Speaker 2: I can say this and you'll laugh. I will go
Speaker 2: down in history as being the highest paid CNN contributor
Speaker 2: in history if you count it per appearance, because in
Speaker 2: the last year of my contract, when they extended it,
Speaker 2: they signed me to bench me just to say they
Speaker 2: had a pro Trump commentator on the payroll. And I
Speaker 2: did a total of two appearances in twelve months under contract.
Speaker 1: Yes, one of appearances.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's I've never really talked about this publicly. So
Speaker 2: they resigned me and I said, please don't and they
Speaker 2: did it anyway, and they didn't have me on for
Speaker 2: like three and a half four months.
Speaker 3: All right, Ben, I don't want to out your personal finances,
Speaker 3: but I kind of do. How much to see Ann
Speaker 3: pay someone? I mean, look, if you don't want to
Speaker 3: answer that, don't answer that. But I'm kind of curious.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it all depends on if you're hosting. What you're
Speaker 2: resume was, how long you been there? And so I
Speaker 2: made I mean low six figures when I was there.
Speaker 2: My first yeah, clus I think it's what it was.
Speaker 3: And you did two appearances in a year, in a year,
Speaker 3: in a year, they paid you fifty freaking thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: Per appearance, a little more than that.
Speaker 2: That's why I said, I go down in history is
Speaker 2: the highest paid CNN contributor in history per appearance. But
Speaker 2: they benched me, and the Hollywood Reporter noticed that there
Speaker 2: was like two or three of us that were pro Trump,
Speaker 2: and we vanished from the screen. Because a normal week
Speaker 2: when I was there in the first, you know, six years,
Speaker 2: I would probably average four to six appearances a week
Speaker 2: some weeks to be eleven, twelve, thirteen. During the political campaigns,
Speaker 2: I did so many appearances in my first contract.
Speaker 3: That I'm doing some quick math. Let's say five appearances
Speaker 3: a week fifty two weeks. That's over two hundred and
Speaker 3: fifty appearances a year. That's that's what you used to be.
Speaker 3: And you went from two hundred and fifty appearances a
Speaker 3: year to.
Speaker 2: Two to two in my last year two and it
Speaker 2: was only I did one appearance where they tried to
Speaker 2: I think it was actually to try to get rid
Speaker 2: of me. They had me come on to defend Rush
Speaker 2: Limball and they try to turn me into a racist
Speaker 2: bigot that was defending Rush Limball, that was anti gay,
Speaker 2: and I didn't take the bait. And you could see
Speaker 2: I was very angry when I was on TV because
Speaker 2: I knew what they were trying to do and it
Speaker 2: didn't work, and I didn't take the bait, and I
Speaker 2: fought back. And then there was a bunch of articles
Speaker 2: from you know, scumbags and media were trying to imply
Speaker 2: that I said something I didn't say. And then Hollywood
Speaker 2: Reporter noticed that the pro Trump surrogates, in essence, these
Speaker 2: conservatives at CNN had vanished from the air, and they
Speaker 2: wrote an article.
Speaker 3: So I say this seriously, and look, I don't watch CNN.
Speaker 3: So but I can't recall a single pro Trump surrogate
Speaker 3: in years they've had. Yeah, I can tell you I
Speaker 3: used to do CNN. I didn't do it five times
Speaker 3: a week because they paid me zero and in my
Speaker 3: entire life have been paid zero by CNN, and you know,
Speaker 3: I feel it was a fair trade. But I used
Speaker 3: to do CNN once a week consistently. I haven't done
Speaker 3: them in years, years because they're not interested in a
Speaker 3: fair discussion. They are propagandas, yes, and they're not even
Speaker 3: Democrat propagandists. They are the left wing of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 3: And it's not just CNN. Why did CBS seese Catherine
Speaker 3: Herridge's confidential source notes that is extremely unusual, but it
Speaker 3: is a manifestation of the complete corruption of the corporate media.
Speaker 2: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 2: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 2: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. Let's
Speaker 2: talk about what's happening also with this adversary to Vladimir
Speaker 2: Putin and give a little context here so people understand
Speaker 2: the Russian regime has been trying to murder Alexi for
Speaker 2: now years. You go back to Joe Biden, and he
Speaker 2: even went on the record in Geneva, Switzerland, back on
Speaker 2: June the sixteenth of twenty twenty one, saying that there
Speaker 2: would be major consequences if he died in captivity by
Speaker 2: the Russians, by Putin. I want to play this from
Speaker 2: June sixteen, twenty twenty one, mister presidents, a quick following
Speaker 2: the same theme of consequences you said just now, you
Speaker 2: spoke to him a lot about human rights.
Speaker 4: What do you say would happen if opposition later Alexi
Speaker 4: Dvanni dies.
Speaker 5: I made it clear to him that I believe the
Speaker 5: consequences of that would be devastating for Russia. I'll go
Speaker 5: back to the same point. What do you think happens
Speaker 5: when he's saying it's not about hurting navalne, all the
Speaker 5: stuff he says to rationalize the treatment of navalney, and
Speaker 5: then he dies in prison. I pointed out to him
Speaker 5: that it matters a great deal.
Speaker 1: I mean, Senator, that was twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: What changed, Well, actually nothing changed, And I'm going to
Speaker 3: explain in a minute that he didn't believe what he
Speaker 3: was saying then. But before I explain that, let's play
Speaker 3: what Biden is saying now, because even he is admitting
Speaker 3: today that what he said then was full of crap.
Speaker 3: Listen to what he's saying right now.
Speaker 5: Now's the time for even greater unity among our NATO
Speaker 5: allies to stand up to the threat that Putin's rush
Speaker 5: of poses. You know, I sent my deepest condolence as
Speaker 5: Alexi staff and supporters are going to continue his work
Speaker 5: despite this loss, despite all of Putin's desperate attempts to
Speaker 5: stamp out the opposition, and most of all to his family,
Speaker 5: especially to his wife, his daughter, and his son. We've
Speaker 5: already sacrificed so much for their family and a shared
Speaker 5: dream for a better future for Russia.
Speaker 2: Now, that was him making his first statement at the
Speaker 2: White House. But then the media asked him that question, Hey,
Speaker 2: what happened to what you said three years ago? First?
Speaker 1: Was this an assassination?
Speaker 5: The answer is that we don't know exactly what happened,
Speaker 5: but there is no doubt that the death of the
Speaker 5: Volny was the consequence of something that Putin and his
Speaker 5: thugs did.
Speaker 2: And to be clear, you warned Vladider Putin when you
Speaker 2: were in Geneva of devastating consequences if Navali died.
Speaker 1: In Russian custody.
Speaker 3: What consequences should he and Russia face?
Speaker 5: That was three years ago. In the meantime, they faced
Speaker 5: a hell of a lot of consequences. They've lost and
Speaker 5: or had wounded over three hundred and fifty thousand Russian soldiers.
Speaker 2: I mean, he doesn't answer the questions. He says, that
Speaker 2: was three years ago, and now, because of the war with Ukraine, Well,
Speaker 2: they've had some somehow, some consequences that have nothing to
Speaker 2: do with killing this individual.
Speaker 3: Well, he did answer the question, actually, and his answer
Speaker 3: is nothing. That he's so weak, that he's so ineffective
Speaker 3: that he's not going to do anything. And Putin knows
Speaker 3: that everybody else knows that Navalney knew that. So last week,
Speaker 3: when the news of Navalney's death broke, here's the statement
Speaker 3: that I put out. Quote. The Russian regime has been
Speaker 3: trying to murder Alexi Navolney for years to stop his
Speaker 3: criticism of Vladimir Putin's corruption and ontocracy and to intimidate
Speaker 3: the Russian people from similar criticism. Tragically, they appear to
Speaker 3: have finally succeeded in murdering him. We must ensure that
Speaker 3: they will never succeed in silencing him. The regime interprets
Speaker 3: weakness from the United States as appeasement and has only
Speaker 3: escalated it suppression in recent years. The Russian people are
Speaker 3: entitled to express their views peacefully without fear of retribution,
Speaker 3: and I will work with my colleagues to hold accountable
Speaker 3: those in the Russian regime responsible for this atrocity. So
Speaker 3: that's what I put out. But I want to go
Speaker 3: back because I said that Biden didn't mean the tough
Speaker 3: consequences when he said that. How do I know that,
Speaker 3: Because if you go back to twenty twenty one, you
Speaker 3: go back to the beginning of the Biden administration where
Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin poisoned Alexi Nevaldi actually poisoned him in August
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty and he was poisoned with a Novachok
Speaker 3: class nerve agent, which is the same class that was
Speaker 3: used by Russia in the twenty eighteen assassin assassination attempt
Speaker 3: against a former British intelligence agency. It's a strategy of
Speaker 3: murder that the Russians are fond poisoning. And at the
Speaker 3: time Biden announced really mild sanctions on Russia, said okay,
Speaker 3: we're going to slap your hand. And what I called
Speaker 3: for at the time was sanctioning and shutting down the
Speaker 3: nord Stream two pipeline. Now remember nord Stream two pipeline
Speaker 3: was a pipeline that Putin was building that went straight
Speaker 3: from Russia to Germany. It circumvented Ukraine. The entire point
Speaker 3: of the nord Stream two pipeline was to enable Russia
Speaker 3: to get its natural gas to Europe without needing to
Speaker 3: go through the pipelines in Ukraine. Why did Putin want
Speaker 3: the nord Stream two pipeline so he could invade Ukraine.
Speaker 3: I authored the sanctions that shut nord Stream two down.
Speaker 3: I passed them into law in December of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: got overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, got overwhelming bipartisan
Speaker 3: support in the House. Donald Trump signed my sanctions legislation
Speaker 3: into law. Law and listen to this. Putin stopped building
Speaker 3: the nord Stream two pipeline literally the day, the very
Speaker 3: same day that Donald Trump signed my sanctions legislation, the
Speaker 3: pipeline was done. That was December of twenty nineteen. December
Speaker 3: of twenty twenty, I passed another set of sanctions legislation
Speaker 3: on nord Stream two, again with overwhelming bipartisan support. Again,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump signed it to law. The pipeline remained dead.
Speaker 3: Now fast forward to January twenty twenty one. On January twentieth,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden takes the oath of office. He becomes president.
Speaker 3: Four days later, four January twenty fourth, twenty twenty one,
Speaker 3: Putin resumes deep sea construction of the nord Stream two
Speaker 3: pipeline literally four days into the Biden presidency. Why because
Speaker 3: Biden was already showing weakness. Putin understood Biden was weak,
Speaker 3: and by the way, that foreshadowing of weakness was true,
Speaker 3: it was accurate. Why do we know that because several
Speaker 3: months later Biden formally waived the sanctions on nord Stream two.
Speaker 3: He gave Vladimir Putin a multi billion dollar gift. He
Speaker 3: let him complete that pipeline, and that pipeline waving those
Speaker 3: sanctions is why Putin invaded Ukraine. It is Biden's fault.
Speaker 3: But when Navalney, when Putin went after Navalney, I called
Speaker 3: on Biden. I said, all right, you gave Biden this
Speaker 3: gift of Nordstream too. How about now, when Navalney's in jail,
Speaker 3: how about now impose the sanctions on Nordstream two. How
Speaker 3: about now grow a backbone and stand up to Putin?
Speaker 3: And Biden refused to do so, instead put little slap
Speaker 3: of the wrist sanctions on it. And so when he
Speaker 3: said severe consequences, he didn't meet it in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 3: and he's admitted it now. The consequences he has in
Speaker 3: mind are nothing. And you know what, Putin will continue
Speaker 3: to behave worse, will continue to be more oppressive, will
Speaker 3: continue to be more of a threat. China, she will
Speaker 3: continue to behave worse, to be more oppressive, to be
Speaker 3: more of a threat North Korea, will, Venezuela will, Iran will,
Speaker 3: every enemy of America Hamas will has blow will all
Speaker 3: of them. When we have a weak commander in chief,
Speaker 3: America is at greater peril and every one of our
Speaker 3: allies is at greater peril.
Speaker 1: Cener.
Speaker 2: Our final question for you on sanctions, what is the
Speaker 2: point of having sanctions And you mentioned multiple countries there
Speaker 2: that we have sanctions on that we're not doing anything.
Speaker 2: We're not enforcing the sanctions. And if the president and
Speaker 2: his administration will not enforce the sanctions, is there any
Speaker 2: checks and balances that can come into play on the House,
Speaker 2: the Senate, congressional oversight, Because if you've got the sanctions
Speaker 2: and they're worthless because you don't enforce.
Speaker 1: Them, who does that fall on And can it change?
Speaker 3: Well, it certainly can change, and Congress can force the
Speaker 3: president to do it. And the best example of that,
Speaker 3: Let's go back to Nordstream two and I'll finish the story.
Speaker 3: When Biden waived the sanctions. My response, as I put
Speaker 3: a hold on every single nominee at the State Department.
Speaker 3: I blocked them in the Senate, and it caused the
Speaker 3: Biden administration to go nuts. It caused Senate Democrats to
Speaker 3: go nuts. And I said, listen, Joe Biden is handing
Speaker 3: a massive gift of Vladimir Putin. He is causing war
Speaker 3: in Europe. He is causing Russia to prepare to invade Ukraine.
Speaker 3: This makes no sense, and it is endangering Europe, our allies,
Speaker 3: and it's endangering America. For all of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 3: I had those holes in place. In December of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one, I cut a deal with Chuck Schumer. I
Speaker 3: let I think it was thirty four of those holds
Speaker 3: go in exchange four scheduling a vote on new sanctions
Speaker 3: on Nordstream two in January of twenty twenty two. Schumer agreed,
Speaker 3: so I forced the vote on the Senate floor. Now.
Speaker 3: When the vote came up in January twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: the week before the vote, President Zelensky and Ukraine publicly
Speaker 3: begged the United States Senate please please please pass Cruises
Speaker 3: sanctions legislation. This legislation is the last best hope to
Speaker 3: stop Russia from invading Ukraine to avoid war. That same week,
Speaker 3: the government of Poland put out a formal statement pleading
Speaker 3: with the United States Senate to pass my sanctions legislation.
Speaker 3: Poland said, if you do not do so, Russia will
Speaker 3: invade Ukraine. Now, Ben that is highly unusual. Foreign countries
Speaker 3: generally do not put out statements on particular votes in
Speaker 3: the Senate asking the Senate to do something. In this case,
Speaker 3: both Ukraine and Poland put out those statements. The day
Speaker 3: of the vote, Joe Biden came sixteen blocks from the
Speaker 3: White House down to Capitol Hill and he went to
Speaker 3: the Democratic CS Senate lunch and he personally lobbied the
Speaker 3: Democrat senators. This was the first time he had done
Speaker 3: so since he became president, and he came there to
Speaker 3: lobby them. His request was, please please please vote against
Speaker 3: Cruise's sanctions legislation. Please vote for Russia and putin so. Twice,
Speaker 3: when I had introduced my legislation and passed it to law,
Speaker 3: all the Democrats had come together and supported it, so
Speaker 3: they were on record twice supporting my sanctions. In January
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two, because of Biden's personal lobbying, forty four
Speaker 3: Democrat senators flipped their votes. They voted against sanctions, they
Speaker 3: voted in favor of Russia, they voted in favor of Putin,
Speaker 3: and as a result, a month later, Russia invaded Ukraine
Speaker 3: and we had have still today the biggest war in
Speaker 3: Europe since World War II. Look, I'm someone who hates war.
Speaker 3: I am very reluctant to go to war. But I
Speaker 3: agree with Ronald Reagan. I agree with Winston Churchill. I
Speaker 3: agree with Donald Trump in the philosophy of peace through strength,
Speaker 3: that the best way you avoid war is being strong
Speaker 3: enough your enemies don't want to mess with you, and
Speaker 3: sanctions can be a very powerful tool for avoiding war.
Speaker 3: What the Biden White House is all about when it
Speaker 3: comes to our enemies is weakness and appeasement, and waiving
Speaker 3: these sanctions directly cause the war. Once the pipeline was complete,
Speaker 3: Putin's view was he could invade because he could still
Speaker 3: get his gas to Europe even if the pipelines in
Speaker 3: Ukraine were.
Speaker 1: Destroyed as before.
Speaker 2: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
Speaker 2: on this topic, you can go back and down the
Speaker 2: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
Speaker 2: I want to get back to the big story, number
Speaker 2: three of the week you may have missed, Senator. I
Speaker 2: want to move lastly to this other issue, and that
Speaker 2: is it is weird. The media seems to be turning
Speaker 2: on Joe Biden. Headlines now coming from major news organizations.
Speaker 2: The Washington Post, for example, had this headline, what happens
Speaker 2: if Trump or Biden can no longer run for president?
Speaker 2: Obviously to try to act like Donald Trump is in
Speaker 2: cognitive decline. It's not happening, and we know it's different
Speaker 2: with Joe Biden. The New York Times even said this
Speaker 2: how old is too old to be president? An uncomfortable
Speaker 2: question arises again, and now the New York Times taking
Speaker 2: heat for that headline. I want to get your reaction
Speaker 2: to this moment on Fox News Channel as they describe
Speaker 2: this turning on the president.
Speaker 4: On the story thanks for being here this afternoon with us, everybody.
Speaker 4: Interesting when you take a look at a theme that
Speaker 4: seems to be emerging in the coverage of this campaign,
Speaker 4: this presidential race. Right, check out some of these recent headlines,
Speaker 4: quote what we know about cognitive decline? Quote what happens
Speaker 4: if Trump or Biden can no longer run? For president?
Speaker 4: How old is too old to be president? These are
Speaker 4: not your typical electioneer headlines, But this is clearly not
Speaker 4: a typical election year matchup if it turns out to
Speaker 4: be these two presumed nominees. So the publisher of The
Speaker 4: New York Times is standing by his papers reporting on
Speaker 4: the president's quote on popularity and his age, but says
Speaker 4: that the White House is not happy. In fact, he
Speaker 4: says they're extremely upset about the coverage that they're getting
Speaker 4: at the New York Times. And take a listen to
Speaker 4: this exchange. It's a short time ago as President Biden
Speaker 4: left for a fundraising trip to California.
Speaker 1: Watch, Gavin, are you ready? Well, I'm looking for I'm
Speaker 1: looking to you. We're looking to you.
Speaker 2: Okay, with that we bring in our I mean, he
Speaker 2: didn't even know what they were talking about, Senator and
Speaker 2: you can see the media flipping on him. Is this
Speaker 2: the beginning of the end of his presidency with the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party figuring out how to offload him?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Look, that was weird that exchange at the end, being asked,
Speaker 3: are you're going to California for a plan B to
Speaker 3: talk to Gavin Newsom? Look, that was a nasty little question,
Speaker 3: but his answer was bizarre. It was a non sequitor.
Speaker 3: It made no sense. And you know those three headlines
Speaker 3: that that that the Fox story just read. The first
Speaker 3: one was from the Wall Street Journal, the second one
Speaker 3: was from the Washington Post, the third one was from
Speaker 3: the New York Times. And and I do think we
Speaker 3: are seeing the corporate media starting to turn on Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: And we've talked at length. Listen, it was this podcast
Speaker 3: that drove news and drove news across the country when
Speaker 3: we said months ago that that I believe there was
Speaker 3: a very significant chance the Democrat Party would pull the
Speaker 3: court on Joe Biden, yank him out, and replace him
Speaker 3: with Michelle Obama. And I think if they do that,
Speaker 3: they're likely to do it either at the Democrat convention
Speaker 3: this summer or shortly thereafter. And we're seeing the corporate media,
Speaker 3: which is one and the same with the Democrat Party,
Speaker 3: but in many ways they're the left wing of the
Speaker 3: Democrat Party. They're starting to get nervous. They're starting to realize, crap,
Speaker 3: if it's Biden against Trump, we think Trump's gonna win.
Speaker 3: And so they're they're they're hitting the panic button. And
Speaker 3: I think We're going to see more of these stories
Speaker 3: as the media turns on them. I do think you're
Speaker 3: seeing both Democrats in the media getting very, very worried
Speaker 3: about Joe Biden's ability to win in November.
Speaker 2: When you are running for president, you've done this before
Speaker 2: and you see something this significant of a change in
Speaker 2: the news cycle. Joe Biden has had three years of
Speaker 2: basically a media that's been covering for him. I think
Speaker 2: that's why he was so shocked when he had the
Speaker 2: report that came out about his cognitive decline and couldn't
Speaker 2: answer basic questions, and then he came out with that
Speaker 2: very angry, really dysfunctional press conference at night, and the
Speaker 2: media didn't get back in line since then.
Speaker 1: So when you see this, who is moving the needle.
Speaker 2: Is it donors who are saying we're not going to
Speaker 2: give money anymore, or is it the leadership of the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party saying we got to figure something out, we
Speaker 2: got to figure it out fast.
Speaker 1: Or could it even be both?
Speaker 3: So I don't think it's donors, and I don't think
Speaker 3: it's anyone cutting off money. And understand, the Democrats and
Speaker 3: the media would be perfectly happy if they could wave
Speaker 3: a wand and put Joe Biden there four years more.
Speaker 3: They're not worried that he's incompetent to be president. They're
Speaker 3: not worried that the Department of Justice says he's not
Speaker 3: competent to stand trial. They're not worried that he's such
Speaker 3: a weak commander in chief that our enemies are attacking
Speaker 3: our allies and threat America. They're not worried that he
Speaker 3: lacks the competence to do the job. That there's only
Speaker 3: one thing they're worried about, that he would lose. If
Speaker 3: they believed he would win, they'd be perfectly fine to
Speaker 3: weekend it bernies him to stand him up as a
Speaker 3: corpse and say, Joe Biden's there, and let's keep pulling
Speaker 3: the puppet strings. Their concern is they're worried he's going
Speaker 3: to lose, and that is a very real and an
Speaker 3: acute concern on their part. It's also worth noting you
Speaker 3: were talking about the press turning on him. You know,
Speaker 3: there's a real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Look, on
Speaker 3: my end, the press has always turned on me. They're
Speaker 3: always hostile. Every question they're asking there, they're looking to
Speaker 3: screw me. Nine ways to Sunday. That's just when when
Speaker 3: you're and by the way, and you've been in the
Speaker 3: Capitol with me, Ben, as you know, when I walk
Speaker 3: from my office to the Senate floor, and I do
Speaker 3: so repeatedly, whether it is to vote, or to go
Speaker 3: to meetings or to go to committee hearings, I'm walking
Speaker 3: back and forth through the Capitol and there's a cluster
Speaker 3: of reporters that surround you, and they ask you a
Speaker 3: hostile question after hostile question on every topic under the sun.
Speaker 3: And if you're a Republican, especially a conservative Republican, you're
Speaker 3: used to just getting constant barrages of attacks. The Democrats
Speaker 3: don't get that. They get the kind of questions. Remember
Speaker 3: Joe Biden in his first year in the White House,
Speaker 3: the reporters would ask him things like, mister President, what's
Speaker 3: your favorite flavor of ice cream?
Speaker 1: I mean, that was right. I mean, it's it's embarrassing.
Speaker 3: It's it's they're like groupies chasing the Beatles, throwing their
Speaker 3: pennies at him. And that's just the guys. I mean,
Speaker 3: I mean, it is it's pitiful and and and so
Speaker 3: he is really startled because he's not used to any scrutiny.
Speaker 3: He's not used to journalists actually being journalists. By the way,
Speaker 3: there is this phenomenon for Republicans as well. If you
Speaker 3: remember John McCain, John McCain used to get lots of
Speaker 3: a boring press coverage because when he was a Republican
Speaker 3: senator he would often attack other Republicans and the press,
Speaker 3: and he would attack him from the left, and the
Speaker 3: press loves it when a Republican attacks other Republicans from
Speaker 3: the left. It's the best way to get good press.
Speaker 3: You get called a bipartisan statesman when you agree with
Speaker 3: the Democrats and attack your fellow Republicans. Well, when John
Speaker 3: McCain got the Republican nomination, and you and I both
Speaker 3: supported John McCain once we was our nominee, Yeah, but
Speaker 3: the press turned on him and turned viciously on him.
Speaker 3: If you remember, McCain made a comment something like, I
Speaker 3: don't understand. I thought you guys were my base. And
Speaker 3: he was completely startled. Because it's the same sentiment Biden's having.
Speaker 3: When you're used to just getting your your hindquarters kissed
Speaker 3: by the media, when they start biting, you don't know
Speaker 3: how to handle it.
Speaker 2: And one of two things is going to happen when
Speaker 2: it comes to this center. They're either going to get
Speaker 2: back in line after trying to you know, step out
Speaker 2: and see will others follow us right and test the waters,
Speaker 2: or they're gonna keep going, what's your prediction.
Speaker 3: Well, if he stays the nominee, they'll get back in
Speaker 3: line and they'll immediately begin saying it's agist and racist
Speaker 3: and horrible to even ask these questions, and they have
Speaker 3: no shame. So this is the moment where they're trying
Speaker 3: to see if they can push him out and replace
Speaker 3: them with Michelle Obama. If they can't, if he doesn't go,
Speaker 3: If if we get to September and Biden's the nominee,
Speaker 3: the media will suddenly be completely silent on this front
Speaker 3: and will attack anyone who dares raise the same questions
Speaker 3: they're raising right now.
Speaker 2: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down
Speaker 2: with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast
Speaker 2: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
Speaker 2: day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts,
Speaker 2: and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Speaker 5: Yes,