Speaker 1: Welcome to his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you is well, nice to have you with us,
Speaker 1: and Senator I just want to know, have you ever
Speaker 1: paid your dad forty nine thousand, nine hundred and ten
Speaker 1: dollars in rent to live in his house at any
Speaker 1: point in your life? I just think we should make
Speaker 1: sure we get a good answer on this. I'd look
Speaker 1: to be honest. I don't think I paid my dad
Speaker 1: back the twenty bucks he lent me when I went
Speaker 1: out as a fifteen year old, much less paying a
Speaker 1: dollar of rent to either of my parents at any
Speaker 1: point in my life. This story of Hunter Biden paying
Speaker 1: this rent, and for people that don't know the story,
Speaker 1: there is a document that apparently Hunter Biden filled out.
Speaker 1: Marina Divine the Post she's also the author of Laptop
Speaker 1: from Hell, put this out there. And now we're hearing
Speaker 1: that the House Oversight Committee is going to probe investigating
Speaker 1: these suspicious bank records concerning Hunter Biden's recorded forty nine
Speaker 1: ten dollars in rent. The other thing that could be
Speaker 1: a big problem for the president now is if you
Speaker 1: look back his tax returns from the time when Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden put this on official background check form for another
Speaker 1: place and put the residence and put down his license number,
Speaker 1: and everything was accurate on this piece of paper. Doesn't
Speaker 1: match up with the President's tax returns of anybody paying
Speaker 1: him forty nine thousand dollars a month for rent. That
Speaker 1: could be a problem in so many different ways than
Speaker 1: the president. Well, and let's explain this story because it
Speaker 1: can be confusing and it's important to understand what happened. Look,
Speaker 1: the punchline of this is that, based on what we
Speaker 1: know now, there are two and I think only two possibilities.
Speaker 1: One this is corruption or two this is dishonesty. Or
Speaker 1: I suppose there's option three. It could be both, but
Speaker 1: let's walk through what it is. So Hunter Biden filled
Speaker 1: out a background screening request in California. He was applying
Speaker 1: to get into a Sheshy residential area that he had
Speaker 1: to fill out this background screening request. And I am
Speaker 1: looking at it. I'm reading the background screening requests right now.
Speaker 1: It's handwritten the name Robert Hunter Biden. It gives the
Speaker 1: address it is his father's home in Wilmington, Delaware, and
Speaker 1: it includes also his social Security number. It's blocked out,
Speaker 1: but I'm told the last four digits that are not
Speaker 1: blocked out are Hunter biden SoC security numbers. It also
Speaker 1: includes his driver's license. Part of it's blocked out, but
Speaker 1: I'm told the last three digits that are visible are
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden's driver's license. All of this is handwritten, and
Speaker 1: it says is current residence, and he indicates Number one,
Speaker 1: it asks do you own lease or family friend? Now,
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden indicates that he owns it. He does not
Speaker 1: I believe in fact own the house that mom and
Speaker 1: dad live in, but he claims he does. And by
Speaker 1: the way, there's a box that says family friend. So
Speaker 1: if he's saying I live with my dad, the obvious
Speaker 1: box to check his family friend that it's my dad's house.
Speaker 1: But he also puts there's a box that says monthly
Speaker 1: rent and Hunter Biden handwrights forty nine thousand, nine hundred
Speaker 1: and ten dollars. Now, this raises a gazillion questions all
Speaker 1: at once. Number One, I think there is no reason
Speaker 1: to doubt the accuracy of this document. If it were not,
Speaker 1: in fact a real document handwritten by Hunter Biden, we
Speaker 1: would expect the White House to be screaming that from
Speaker 1: the Mountaintops. It has all the indisso on the face
Speaker 1: of being something Hunter Biden filled out if it is
Speaker 1: in fact accurate, and I don't believe they're going to
Speaker 1: come back with an argument as a forgery. They're not
Speaker 1: going to dispute that. Then he presumably was being dishonest
Speaker 1: and lying when he said that Hunter Biden owns his
Speaker 1: father's house, but he claimed that he was paying his
Speaker 1: father forty nine, nine hundred and ten dollars a month.
Speaker 1: Now let's stop for a second. I want to ask
Speaker 1: folks listening to this pod, have you ever paid fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a month in rent for anything? I certainly haven't. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've played a few, paid a few thousand, but fifty
Speaker 1: grand a month, and and the thing says monthly rent.
Speaker 1: It doesn't say annual rent. It says monthly rent. And
Speaker 1: that is an astonishing figure. And then I want I
Speaker 1: want you to wratch it up a little more. Have
Speaker 1: you ever paid it to your father? If it is
Speaker 1: the case that Joe Biden was extracting fifty grand a
Speaker 1: month from his son, if that is true, as you noted,
Speaker 1: that has apparently not indicated on Joe Biden's tax return,
Speaker 1: so it raises real issues of criminality potentially on Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's side. But number two, we know that RSMA, the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian natural gas company that had Hunter Biden on the board,
Speaker 1: at one period, it appears that paid him fifty thousand
Speaker 1: a month. At another period it appears it paid him
Speaker 1: eighty three thousand a month when it was paying him
Speaker 1: fifty thousand a month. You know what, forty nine thousand,
Speaker 1: nine hundred and ten dollars is really really close to,
Speaker 1: really close to exactly what he was making from the
Speaker 1: board of Barisma monthly. You know, it really is striking
Speaker 1: If it is the case that Barisma, the Ukrainian natural
Speaker 1: gas company, cut a check to Hunter Biden for fifty
Speaker 1: grand a month, and then Hunter turned around and cut
Speaker 1: a check for forty nine thousand, nine hundred and ten
Speaker 1: dollars to daddy. You gotta ask what kind of dad
Speaker 1: lets his poor drug addict son keep ninety dollars of it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Like it's one thing, we all know the phrase ten
Speaker 1: percent for the big guy. This is a lot more
Speaker 1: than ten percent, but it's a great way if you're
Speaker 1: wanting to funnel money, launder money. Uh, this is how
Speaker 1: you would pull this off. And look, you and I
Speaker 1: have both probably done this a lot in our careers
Speaker 1: when you see something that you think is to be
Speaker 1: clear funneled money, laundered money. No, no, I wouldn't say
Speaker 1: a lot, a lot, right there you go. But we
Speaker 1: when we hear stories like this that you want to go,
Speaker 1: there's no way you. I always look, and you're a
Speaker 1: lawyer first and foremost in your career, you probably said,
Speaker 1: all right, we'll hold on a second. If it maybe
Speaker 1: it was an accent and he meant to put annual
Speaker 1: rent of forty nine thousand, Is that the number that
Speaker 1: matches up with Joe Biden's tax return, and it was
Speaker 1: an accident, right, because you could technically do that, it
Speaker 1: could be an accident. That number still doesn't match up.
Speaker 1: And that's where it gets very interesting for me. Center
Speaker 1: is the fact that, look, it's not like he accidentally
Speaker 1: put in the annual rent, because I could have believe
Speaker 1: a forty nine ten for the year to Daddy for
Speaker 1: delivering his thousand dell where and say, now I gotta
Speaker 1: pay something. But so you go to you go to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's sector return and they were public and again,
Speaker 1: so we have them when he was the vice president.
Speaker 1: That number still doesn't match up and doesn't even come
Speaker 1: close to the number they reported on his taxes, which
Speaker 1: goes back to the issue of funneling money. If you
Speaker 1: want to funnel money to your dad and you got
Speaker 1: to give him some cash or your business dealings, this
Speaker 1: would be a brilliant way of pulling this off well.
Speaker 1: And this is where we just need more facts. I
Speaker 1: don't want to jump to conclusions. The document, on its
Speaker 1: face says this was the monthly rent, but there's a
Speaker 1: weird coincidence, and that the number is exactly the same
Speaker 1: as another document indicates was the deposit for an office
Speaker 1: at a place called Swedenhouse forty nine, nine hundred and
Speaker 1: ten dollars. That's a weird number. And the fact that
Speaker 1: a one time deposit is the exact same number as
Speaker 1: what Hunter Biden indicated was his monthly rent. It is possible.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to give the most benign explanation this.
Speaker 1: If the White House spendmeisters are looking for a store
Speaker 1: to go with, this is probably the best one, which
Speaker 1: is Hunter screwed up. He didn't know what he was doing.
Speaker 1: The guy has serious substance abuse issues, So he filled
Speaker 1: out a bunch of stuff and it's all nonsense and false.
Speaker 1: And that might be true. I don't know if it
Speaker 1: is or not. That's the most innocuous explanation because if
Speaker 1: assuming this is a real document, and as I said,
Speaker 1: the White House has not disputed that. If it is
Speaker 1: the case that Hunter was paying mom and dad fifty
Speaker 1: grand a month or just short of that to stay
Speaker 1: in their house, that is corruption through and through. There's
Speaker 1: no other explanation. Let's be clear. If fifty grand a
Speaker 1: month went from Hunter to Joe Biden, in any operating
Speaker 1: justice system, Joe Biden should be indicted. Well, right, And
Speaker 1: why don't you say that again, because that's something I
Speaker 1: don't believe that you've ever said before. And I want
Speaker 1: to make sure that everybody understands why you're saying what
Speaker 1: you just said. Okay, When Hunter Biden was on the
Speaker 1: board of Barissma, Joe Biden was the sitting Vice President
Speaker 1: of the United States. We've talked at great length on
Speaker 1: this podcast about how Barissma took a drug using ne'er
Speaker 1: do well, son of the Vice President, who spoke no
Speaker 1: Ukrainian and knew nothing about natural gas, and put him
Speaker 1: on the board and paid him at one point fifty
Speaker 1: thousand a month, at another point eighty three thousand a month,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that he had no useful skills other
Speaker 1: than Daddy was vice president, didn't speak the language, and
Speaker 1: didn't work in the industry. That screamed corruption on the
Speaker 1: face of it. But this is the other piece that
Speaker 1: makes it not just corrupt in the colloquial sense, but felonious. Look,
Speaker 1: a bribe is when you pay a government official for
Speaker 1: an official act. You know, you look at the old
Speaker 1: old school style of putting fifty grand in a paper bag,
Speaker 1: walking up to a government official and saying, here's fifty grand,
Speaker 1: vote yes or no on the following thing. That's a bribe.
Speaker 1: Remember abscam, Yeah, where they showed up with the briefcases
Speaker 1: full of cash. In this case, you have a Ukrainian
Speaker 1: company owned by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch paying Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: fifty grand a year. If he was turning around and
Speaker 1: giving that directly to Daddy while Daddy was the sitting
Speaker 1: vice president leading Obama's Ukraine policy. That is bribery, and
Speaker 1: that is bribery that should come with real jail time.
Speaker 1: Now we don't have all of those pieces, but we
Speaker 1: have Hunter claiming he was giving his dad just under
Speaker 1: fifty grand a year. If that is true, this the
Speaker 1: evidence of Biden family corruption has jumped an order of
Speaker 1: magnitude higher. All right, I want to get your take
Speaker 1: on this center, but before we get to that, I
Speaker 1: want to tell you about our good friends over at
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone, you need
Speaker 1: to check out Patriot Mobile because every time you use
Speaker 1: your phone, every time you send a text, and every
Speaker 1: time you pay your bill, you will be supporting conservative
Speaker 1: causes that we believe in. We're talking about defending the
Speaker 1: First and Second Amendment rights, the rights of the unborn,
Speaker 1: helping with adoptions, funding of those adoptions. That's why we
Speaker 1: love Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is a conservative Christian cell
Speaker 1: phone company, the only one. And instead of giving your
Speaker 1: money to Big Mobile, where they're fighting against your traditional
Speaker 1: family values, Patriot Mobile was started so that you could
Speaker 1: work with a company that actually made a difference with
Speaker 1: every phone call you make. Patriot Mobile also gives you
Speaker 1: nationwide coverage. They give you unlimited talk and text. They
Speaker 1: give you the exact same coverage you have right now.
Speaker 1: Because you'll be using the exact same cell phone towers,
Speaker 1: except when you pay your bill, you'll be standing up
Speaker 1: for the values you believe in. So check them out.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict, use the promo code verdict. You can
Speaker 1: also call them nine seven to Patriot. That's nine seven
Speaker 1: to Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. Well, you
Speaker 1: look at the cash here, and I just want to
Speaker 1: throw the numbers out there so people understand the basic
Speaker 1: math here. If Hunter Biden's telling the truth, this would
Speaker 1: a mean that he paid or as I would describe it,
Speaker 1: funneled five hundred ninety four one hundred twenty dollars in
Speaker 1: rent in the months after Biden departed his role as
Speaker 1: the vice president and January of twenty seventeen. Also, when
Speaker 1: it comes to these boxes in this document indicating he
Speaker 1: owned the Delaware home where classified documents are being stored
Speaker 1: at the time, that brings up center the other part
Speaker 1: of the story here, and that creates a lot of
Speaker 1: questions as that why was he paying rent at the
Speaker 1: residence that he allegedly owned and he had access to
Speaker 1: Apparently these classified documents based on what we know may
Speaker 1: very well have dealt with Ukraine. That brings up the
Speaker 1: special prosecutor aspect of this. And again to put it
Speaker 1: back into perspective, President Joe Biden Center only listed nineteen thousand,
Speaker 1: eight hundred dollars in rents rents plural received in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: That is, according to his tax returns that year. The
Speaker 1: president then listed no rents received in twenty eighteen, So
Speaker 1: these are his tax returns. That's what he had out there,
Speaker 1: Only that he got nineteen thousand, eight hundred rents received
Speaker 1: in seventeen. His son claims he owns the house that
Speaker 1: he's paying rent at and he would have had access
Speaker 1: to the classified documents in the garage while he was
Speaker 1: living there, while he was paying rent on the house.
Speaker 1: He claims he owns. If there's anything that seems screwed
Speaker 1: up but totally makes sense, it would be in the
Speaker 1: Biden family based on now what we know, Well, you're right,
Speaker 1: and you made an important clarification there that is worth noting.
Speaker 1: On the face of this document it says current residence
Speaker 1: and it gives a move in date and to move
Speaker 1: out date, and the move in date it looks like
Speaker 1: initially he wrote one twenty seventeen, and then it looks
Speaker 1: like it's crossed out and turned to three twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: So let's assume it's March of twenty seventeen, and it
Speaker 1: puts the move out date as February of twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: So on the face of this, these payments of monthly
Speaker 1: rent started two months after Joe Biden stepped down as
Speaker 1: vice president, so he wasn't technically being bribed as a
Speaker 1: sitting vice president. But if it was the case that
Speaker 1: he was being paid fifty grand a month, if this
Speaker 1: was effectively money laundering from Ukrainian sources or elsewhere, then
Speaker 1: it still raises a serious prospect. You can't bribe someone
Speaker 1: after the fact, particularly if they had an expectation of
Speaker 1: receiving that bribe. Now, what's confusing about this is that
Speaker 1: this document has at the top it says current address,
Speaker 1: and that's where he lists Joe Biden's home address, and
Speaker 1: then it has below it it says current residence. Now
Speaker 1: it's a strange document. I'm not sure what the difference
Speaker 1: is between current address and current residence. And here Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden has filled out something that says Owasco PC and
Speaker 1: that's where he says it's forty nine, nine hundred and ten.
Speaker 1: So it is possible there's some business address and that
Speaker 1: money is not being paid to mom and dad. But
Speaker 1: at the very minimum, a DOJ that gave a damn
Speaker 1: and cared about the law would be investigating that and
Speaker 1: figure out the answer to it. And even if the
Speaker 1: Biden Department of Justice won't, I have every confidence that
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives is going to investigate this thorough
Speaker 1: how complicated? Senator, does this get from a standpoint off?
Speaker 1: You have this investigation into Hunter Biden right in Delaware.
Speaker 1: You don't have a special prosecutor involved, But now it's
Speaker 1: clear that Hunter Biden is claiming that he had access
Speaker 1: and was living at the residence where these classified documents,
Speaker 1: where we do have a special prosecutor involved, was that
Speaker 1: he would have access to this. That would also mean
Speaker 1: that there would probably be a lot of the people
Speaker 1: that he was around, based on his laptop, shady individuals
Speaker 1: who we know from his own pictures and his own
Speaker 1: laptop and his own book, that he was meeting with
Speaker 1: the worst people in the world in the United States
Speaker 1: of America. They were coming here there were Russianoagarks that
Speaker 1: were coming to America. There were people and people that
Speaker 1: worked with the Chinese Communist Party and people that worked
Speaker 1: with the intelligence community within the Chinese Communist Party that
Speaker 1: we're coming and meeting with him in America. We also
Speaker 1: know that he was meeting with people from Ukraine and
Speaker 1: leaders in Ukraine that we're meeting with him here in America.
Speaker 1: Imagine having these top secret documents where you're hanging out
Speaker 1: and dealing with substance abuse issues. How do you not
Speaker 1: look at that if you're a special prosecutor And does
Speaker 1: the Delaware investigation into Hunter Biden have the ability to
Speaker 1: start asking and connecting some of these dots? Are they're
Speaker 1: just going to stay separate the entire time? So look,
Speaker 1: they certainly have the ability. And this is where the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel investigation into Joe Biden potentially could expand as well.
Speaker 1: And we talked talked about previously on this podcast, how
Speaker 1: I'm concerned that the special Counsel was Rob Rosenstein's right
Speaker 1: hand was a protege of Chris Ray and Merritt Garland
Speaker 1: put him in because he wanted a special counsel who
Speaker 1: would protect the White House. I hope that's not the case,
Speaker 1: but that given the behavior of the Biden DOJ, there
Speaker 1: is reason to be deeply suspicious. I will say, when
Speaker 1: it comes to the Hunter Biden issues, what we've discussed
Speaker 1: at great length, it's not an issue of concern public
Speaker 1: concern that Hunter Biden is a troubled soul with substance
Speaker 1: abuse issues. There are a great many people in the
Speaker 1: United States and on planet Earth that struggle with those.
Speaker 1: What makes this a public concern is the connection that
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, by all appearances, had a business of selling
Speaker 1: access to Daddy as a high government official, and not
Speaker 1: just access to Daddy to say some run of the
Speaker 1: mill corporate lobbyists in Washington. That happens a lot in Washington,
Speaker 1: but selling access to Daddy to foreign nations, corrupt foreign oligarchs,
Speaker 1: whether in Ukraine or Communist China, and cashing out in
Speaker 1: the seven figures, cashing out in massive amounts. And you know, Ben,
Speaker 1: early on when we started Verdict, one of the things
Speaker 1: we talked about was the payments from Barisma. And actually
Speaker 1: I got a call from someone who was previously a
Speaker 1: very very senior official in the federal government. I'm going
Speaker 1: to keep him anonymous, but he had an insight, and
Speaker 1: he's someone who's known Joe Biden forty plus years. He said, look,
Speaker 1: even if not a penny of this money made it
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden, when a parent has a ne'er do
Speaker 1: well child who's an adult child who's had enormous challenges,
Speaker 1: that can be enormously expensive to that parent having to
Speaker 1: deal with all of the challenges that adult child has.
Speaker 1: And so this this former senior government official said, it's
Speaker 1: a massive benefit to Joe Biden to just take the
Speaker 1: burden of Hunter Biden off his hands, say hey, we'll
Speaker 1: give him an income stream so you, Joe don't have
Speaker 1: to cover that. So that's an indirect way those millions
Speaker 1: of dollars benefited Joe Biden. But if this application is accurate,
Speaker 1: then we're not just dealing with an indirect benefit. We're
Speaker 1: dealing with Hunter Biden basically becomes the bagman taking effectively
Speaker 1: foreign money and delivering it to dad. This needs serious investigation.
Speaker 1: And if we had a functioning press corps, every question
Speaker 1: at the White House Press briefing tomorrow should be about this,
Speaker 1: would be about it. It It wouldn't even be up for debate.
Speaker 1: But they're deliberately protecting this White House at all costs.
Speaker 1: They are the Praetorian Guard. They are the defenders and
Speaker 1: the propagandists. And in fact, some of the early stories
Speaker 1: on this are already you know, they begin with, you know,
Speaker 1: Republicans pounce, that's their favorite thing. Look his own sons,
Speaker 1: he's paying him fifty grand a month, or he was
Speaker 1: paying him fifty grand a month like that. There are
Speaker 1: two and only two options. That was a lie. And
Speaker 1: we'll see if the White House goes there and says, oh,
Speaker 1: that's our story. Hunter Biden was just lying, or if
Speaker 1: he wasn't lying, that is corrupt. I believe there is
Speaker 1: zero innocent explanation for Hunter Biden paying his father fifty
Speaker 1: grand a month in quote unquote rent. So if those
Speaker 1: payments happen, we're talking serious criminal activity. If they didn't,
Speaker 1: if Hunter lied, we need to demonstrate that with clear
Speaker 1: and real evidence. Well, it's exactly like you said earlier,
Speaker 1: and James Comers said this on the House side quote.
Speaker 1: Many questions must be answered about the Biden's family influence
Speaker 1: peddling and President Biden's mishandling and classified documents for his
Speaker 1: time as Vice president. And I think Comer said those
Speaker 1: two things together on purpose, saying these two are interconnected.
Speaker 1: Now you can't take them apart because the family members
Speaker 1: were at the residence during the time these classified documents there.
Speaker 1: And if you can connect these two, then Matt, we
Speaker 1: might actually start to get some real answers here. Thank
Speaker 1: goodness that we, as you've said many times, that the
Speaker 1: Republicans got back control the House, because finally somebody's gonna
Speaker 1: look at this. Lord knows, it's not going to be
Speaker 1: the media. Which brings me, Senator to another amazing story
Speaker 1: that's getting barely any attention, and that is that the
Speaker 1: US has been overcounting COVID deaths. Before I play this
Speaker 1: audio from CNN with doctor Wynn, who used to be
Speaker 1: over at planned parenthood, that you know, the US been
Speaker 1: overcounting COVID deaths and hospitalizations. Shocker there, I say it, sarcasticley,
Speaker 1: Are you surprised at all by this? Because I was not.
Speaker 1: It was like to me, I'm like, yep, of course
Speaker 1: that's what they were doing. Yeah. No, look, I think
Speaker 1: it's clearly right. But go ahead and play the audio
Speaker 1: because the shocker is seeing CNN say this out loud. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and I'll set this up for everybody listening. This
Speaker 1: is doctor Wynn admitting to Don Lemon and Poppy Harlowe
Speaker 1: and whoever the other host is on their new new
Speaker 1: morning show that no one watches. And I you got
Speaker 1: to say, Ben, the fact that you worked at CNN
Speaker 1: for years was just demonstrated by that, because I certainly
Speaker 1: couldn't name who the people were she were talking to.
Speaker 1: And I'm betting you're one of six people on planet
Speaker 1: Earth that could. Yeah, I know, I got two three.
Speaker 1: That's like, that's I mean, that's that's MVP all Star
Speaker 1: status if you're if you're counting in sports books. But
Speaker 1: but you listen to these this conversation, and you can
Speaker 1: tell it's cringeworthy for all of them. Listen to Don
Speaker 1: Lemon set up, and then listen to Doctor Wind's response
Speaker 1: talk about her op ed. Doctor, thank you so much. Listen,
Speaker 1: And I know that you don't want to and we
Speaker 1: don't want to underplay the risk of COVID. After three years,
Speaker 1: it is still a leading cause of death in this country.
Speaker 1: The story I just read about the number of deaths increasing.
Speaker 1: Can you explain end infections? Can you explain why you
Speaker 1: believe COVID deaths are being overcounted. I think it's important
Speaker 1: for us to be intellectually honest in this case, and
Speaker 1: that includes recognizing that circumstances have changed. At the beginning
Speaker 1: of the pandemic, we had a situation where there were
Speaker 1: many people dying from COVID pneumonia, including healthy young people
Speaker 1: were dying because of severe shortness of breath, difficulty breathing,
Speaker 1: they were hospitalized because of it. Then, as a result
Speaker 1: of vaccines and as a result of a lot of
Speaker 1: people getting COVID and having some level of immunity to it,
Speaker 1: we're seeing far fewer cases of that kind of severe
Speaker 1: COVID and severe COVID pneumonias specifically, and yet hospitals are
Speaker 1: still routinely testing everyone who's getting admitted for COVID, and
Speaker 1: so we're seeing many people who are hospitalized with COVID,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important to separate out who is
Speaker 1: being hospitalized because of it, because there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people who are still very concerned about their risk
Speaker 1: from COVID, and we need to give them the most
Speaker 1: accurate data possible so that they could better gauge their
Speaker 1: There are people who are still not resuming enjoy dining
Speaker 1: or going to the gym or socializing, and I think
Speaker 1: we have to give them the most accurate reporting possible.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's one hell of an answer. We're fearmongering
Speaker 1: still yet then we're telling you that we're overcounting COVID
Speaker 1: desks and overcounting hospitalizations, which means the death tracker before
Speaker 1: the presidential election was all propaganda, so you wouldn't vote
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. Look that there are a number of
Speaker 1: things that that scream out from that. Number one, what
Speaker 1: she's saying is obviously and indisputably correct. Number two, it
Speaker 1: was obviously and indisputably correct two years ago at the
Speaker 1: height of the pandemic, when CNN was engaged in their
Speaker 1: pandemic porn every minute of the day, screaming that we're
Speaker 1: all going to die from this. It was true then,
Speaker 1: and by the way, lots of people, including you, including me,
Speaker 1: were making that point then. As I said on this podcast,
Speaker 1: there was a meme I saw online that I thought
Speaker 1: was particularly funny, which is woman eaten by great white
Speaker 1: shark dies of COVID. It showed just how absurd it
Speaker 1: was that every death you're at a car wreck COVID
Speaker 1: killed you. You stub your toe and get an infected
Speaker 1: ingrown toenail. COVID killed you. Whatever it was, they wanted
Speaker 1: to blame it on COVID. You're ninety eight years old
Speaker 1: and dying of old age and you've got COVID. COVID
Speaker 1: killed you. Mind you that you presumably weren't going to
Speaker 1: live forever. Otherwise it was COVID. Well, we had, I mean,
Speaker 1: we had whistleblowers. We had I'll give you a great example.
Speaker 1: In my hometown of Memphis is Saint you Children's Research
Speaker 1: Hospital and Laban are two great children's hospitals, and they
Speaker 1: categorized some kids that passed away as COVID deaths. When
Speaker 1: the parents came out and said to the media, this
Speaker 1: was too several years ago. Now, my child died of cancer,
Speaker 1: did not die of COVID. We knew they were terminal,
Speaker 1: and they died of the cancer that weakened their body.
Speaker 1: And then they categorize their deaths COVID. And people are
Speaker 1: asking questions, why are they doing this? Why are they
Speaker 1: acting like even when a child's dying of cancer, which
Speaker 1: is horrific enough, are you politicizing the reason for death
Speaker 1: on their deaths, it is yep, We're gonna chalk that
Speaker 1: one up to COVID as well. Well. One element of
Speaker 1: it was that there were significant financial incentives to category
Speaker 1: huge hospitalizations or deaths as coming from COVID, And so
Speaker 1: I got to ask you the question I have to
Speaker 1: ask you because everybody else listening right now is asking
Speaker 1: the same thing. The financial incentive center. Was that money
Speaker 1: being paid by the insurance companies or was that coming
Speaker 1: through the government or both? Because was this a money
Speaker 1: grab from for tax dollars by categorizing it as COVID
Speaker 1: it was tax dollars. And to blame is both the
Speaker 1: administration and Congress who in response to COVID. Look, when
Speaker 1: the COVID pandemic began, it was reasonable to be concerned
Speaker 1: and if you were very elderly, if you were very vulnerable,
Speaker 1: if you had cancer, if your immune system was compromised,
Speaker 1: that could be very dangerous. But what happened is the
Speaker 1: media and the Democrats took what was a reasonable concern
Speaker 1: for people that were very vulnerable and from the beginning,
Speaker 1: we should have focused on protecting the very vulnerable, and
Speaker 1: they used it as an excuse to restrict everybody else
Speaker 1: to restrict young healthy people to go after kids. It
Speaker 1: never made sense. If you were ninety eight years old
Speaker 1: and had cancer immune issues, yes you should have been protected,
Speaker 1: but they deliberately cooked the books. And the thing that
Speaker 1: is so remarkable about CNN saying this is doctor Leanna Wynn.
Speaker 1: She knew that then. It's not that these people are stupid.
Speaker 1: They knew it then. But if you said it there
Speaker 1: and she was just seen in medical analysts back then
Speaker 1: making a killing, going on TV five times a day
Speaker 1: telling you that you're going to kill grandma and die
Speaker 1: if you don't get the vaccine which will protect you
Speaker 1: from ever getting COVID, when they knew that was a lie.
Speaker 1: And if you don't over saying what she just said
Speaker 1: right now, CNN treated you as a crazy tinfoil hat
Speaker 1: wearing COVID denier. If you made the obvious point that
Speaker 1: someone killed it a car wreck that has COVID didn't
Speaker 1: die from COVID, that that was treated as, oh, you
Speaker 1: crazy people, you know, you know. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that's the kind of thing Twitter was suppressing. Twitter was
Speaker 1: deep platforming at the request of the federal government. This
Speaker 1: is where the Twitter files comes into it. This is
Speaker 1: all it was a propaganda effort from big tech, from
Speaker 1: big government, from the Democrats, from the corrupt corporate media,
Speaker 1: and the consequences have been utterly devastating for the country.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how CNN can get up and say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, we've been lying to you for three years,
Speaker 1: but now we're not. Hey, all's good. No one remembers
Speaker 1: that it's easy because Don Lemon said, quote, let's bring
Speaker 1: in doctor Wyn to talk about her op ed doctor,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I don't want to, you know, again,
Speaker 1: we don't want to underplay the risk of COVID. After
Speaker 1: three years, it's still a leading cause of death in
Speaker 1: this country. We just got rid of the death counters
Speaker 1: on TV because we like the guy who's the president now.
Speaker 1: And then she says in her very first sentence, look,
Speaker 1: I think it's important for us to be intellectually honest
Speaker 1: in this case. And she says it was different before.
Speaker 1: And you know what the difference was Donald Trump was president. There. Yes,
Speaker 1: no matter how you died, it was because of COVID.
Speaker 1: Even if you're still alive, you're probably gonna die because
Speaker 1: of COVID. And the only answer there's elect Democrats, all right,
Speaker 1: I wasn't going to play the center, but I have
Speaker 1: to let you hear Don Lemon's follow up question, right
Speaker 1: because you just said she just kind of said, you know,
Speaker 1: everybody calmed down, but they still leading caused death is COVID.
Speaker 1: Listen to the follow up question from Don Lemon carefully.
Speaker 1: You're gonna love it. It's a quick follow You're not
Speaker 1: suggesting that hospital stop checking people testing people for COVID
Speaker 1: if they come in, that's right. I think that there's
Speaker 1: a better way to do this. And actually one of
Speaker 1: the people that I interviewed, Shira Duran, who is an
Speaker 1: infectious disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center.
Speaker 1: She and her colleagues came up with a different measure room,
Speaker 1: which is using dexamethasone. So dexamethasone is a steroid that's
Speaker 1: used to treat cases of severe COVID, and she and
Speaker 1: her colleagues found them in cases of hospitalizations that do
Speaker 1: not involve dexamethasone, it's very unlikely that the primary cause
Speaker 1: is COVID, and so the state of I mean, I
Speaker 1: just have just out there. So she's actually saying the
Speaker 1: COVID test at this point in the hospital should not
Speaker 1: be used and it's pretty much worthless, and we should
Speaker 1: actually use a drug if it is administered to people
Speaker 1: as a way to count who actually died of COVID
Speaker 1: or had severeness with COVID or with I see you
Speaker 1: for COVID. Why didn't somebody say this a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago, because CNN would have taken you off air,
Speaker 1: they would have branded you a denier, they would have
Speaker 1: treated you like a heretic. Social media would have banned you,
Speaker 1: and it would be one thing if CNN is saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: we were mistaken, we apologized, we thought we were right,
Speaker 1: we were operating under limited information. But now we've learned
Speaker 1: they don't admit any of that. There is no error.
Speaker 1: There is no rear view mirror at CNN or MSNBC
Speaker 1: or any of the other corrupt corporate media. They've been
Speaker 1: lying to you forever and ever and ever, and now
Speaker 1: they'll just shift and hope nobody remembers. And it's there
Speaker 1: is a reason the American people have so much distrust
Speaker 1: and institutions, and it's because today's institutions that used to
Speaker 1: have some modicum of integrity are utterly broken, and they
Speaker 1: are willing to lie, and they bear no responsibility. The
Speaker 1: Washington Post and The New York Times one Pulitzer prizes
Speaker 1: for reporting stories that were based on a fraud about
Speaker 1: the alleged Trump Russia collusion, and they never took the
Speaker 1: awards back by They never took the awards back, they
Speaker 1: never apologized for it. There is no shame. CNN doesn't
Speaker 1: feel a moment of shame airing this story, saying we
Speaker 1: lie to you for two years. But this is CNN. Well, hey,
Speaker 1: I will say this. I listen to this crap so
Speaker 1: other people don't have to. And that's why I saved
Speaker 1: some of the best for last, because there's many of
Speaker 1: you that may be asked the same question I was asking,
Speaker 1: which is okay when it deals with these hospitalizations for COVID,
Speaker 1: My question is, right, how much have they been overstating COVID?
Speaker 1: You're ready because she's going to give you a glimpse
Speaker 1: into just how overstated COVID may be actually being counted
Speaker 1: in hospitals. Here is her definition of it, and then
Speaker 1: I want to get your reaction. That's a shoes. It's
Speaker 1: actually turned to use this measure. So they're reporting both
Speaker 1: the total hospitalizations with COVID as well as the total
Speaker 1: hospitalizations with decks and methasone, which are the hospitalizations for
Speaker 1: which COVID is the primary cause. And they found that
Speaker 1: about thirty percent of the current hospitalizations are actually for
Speaker 1: COVID as opposed to seventy percent with COVID. Can we
Speaker 1: just stop there, Senator, She just told America obviously at
Speaker 1: the very end of the interview, which should have been
Speaker 1: the lead. Right, if you're being intellectually honest to quote her,
Speaker 1: you would have come on TV and said, in a
Speaker 1: shocking Massachusetts COVID tracking patients primarily hospitalized for COVID is
Speaker 1: completely different than what the number of hospital pa with
Speaker 1: coronavirus actually is in America. How big of a difference.
Speaker 1: We're talking about seventy all the way down to thirty percent.
Speaker 1: That's how wrong We've been getting it for three years.
Speaker 1: And they waited till the very end to just slide
Speaker 1: that in there for you, the real info in the
Speaker 1: number you needed to hear. Yeah, Look, what she's admitting
Speaker 1: is that for three years, the deaths have been wildly exaggerated.
Speaker 1: For three years, the hospitalizations have been wildly exaggerated. It's
Speaker 1: been deliberate. It's been done by government. It's been done
Speaker 1: by doctor Fauci, It's been done by the corrupt corporate media.
Speaker 1: It's been done by big Tech. It's been done to
Speaker 1: the enormous profit of big Pharma, who is in bed
Speaker 1: with everyone here. And it has been done with everyone
Speaker 1: knowing they were lying to you. And part of the
Speaker 1: way they get away lying to you. You may wonder
Speaker 1: why is the Democrat Party and the corrupt corporate media
Speaker 1: is so invested in censorship. Why do they hate Elon
Speaker 1: Musk so much? Because if you are going to make
Speaker 1: it a business model to lie to the American people,
Speaker 1: the biggest threat to you is that someone will shine
Speaker 1: sunlight and tell the truth. They knew they were lying,
Speaker 1: and they know it today. It wasn't accidental, it was deliberate. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And if you think, by the way that this is
Speaker 1: just going to end, I'll end very quickly with this story.
Speaker 1: The Eleventh Circuit of Appeals heard arguments over a federal
Speaker 1: mass mandate on Tuesday. After a Florida federal judge struck
Speaker 1: down a mass mandate for planes and other transportation last April,
Speaker 1: the CDC quickly countered by requesting an appeal through the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. That appealed your criticism from the US Travel Association,
Speaker 1: which along with other industry groups have been pressuring the
Speaker 1: Biden administration for months to end the mass mandate for travel.
Speaker 1: We don't have the mass mandate for travel right now.
Speaker 1: There's not a bunch of people that are dying because
Speaker 1: of this. If we had got it wrong, it would
Speaker 1: have clearly played out by now. Yet this administration is
Speaker 1: still refusing to just say, okay, fine, let's walk away
Speaker 1: from this. They still want to fight and still have
Speaker 1: the power to tell you to put a mask on
Speaker 1: while you're traveling. Look, no rational or sane person following
Speaker 1: the evidence in science supports a mask mandate for airplanes
Speaker 1: for everyone. Remember, these are the people that want forced
Speaker 1: you to put your two year old children in masks
Speaker 1: or threw families off planes because their two year old
Speaker 1: was crying rather than be masked. It is indefensible. And
Speaker 1: by the way, let me be clear, Number one, I'm
Speaker 1: on planes every week. I spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: on a lot of airplanes. Right now today, there are
Speaker 1: fewer than twenty percent of the passengers wearing masks in
Speaker 1: many instances it's ten percent or less. It varies on
Speaker 1: if you're flying too some bright blue city, it may
Speaker 1: get as high as twenty percent, but it's usually much
Speaker 1: lower than that number. Two Democrats don't wear masks in
Speaker 1: the Senate. Democrats don't wear masks. They don't wear masks
Speaker 1: in big groups. They don't wear masks in small groups
Speaker 1: only the most sort of Actually, when I walk through
Speaker 1: airports that I see the people wearing masks unless someone
Speaker 1: is is frail and ill. I understand someone if you're
Speaker 1: taking your grandmother and she's you know, really frail and
Speaker 1: you want a protector, that's reasonable. Or maybe someone has
Speaker 1: a disease that makes them vulnerable that I'm all for.
Speaker 1: Take steps protect yourself if you have a medical condition
Speaker 1: that makes you vulnerable to all sorts of things, including
Speaker 1: the colder flute. But when you see young, healthy people
Speaker 1: wearing masks, when you see and you do sometimes see
Speaker 1: now parents that put little kids in a mask, you
Speaker 1: just wonder, Okay, what is it going through your head
Speaker 1: that makes you want to do this to your children,
Speaker 1: to your family? Are you Are you that scared? Do
Speaker 1: you believe what the propaganda to so much? Are you
Speaker 1: just so addicted to virtue signaling that it is your
Speaker 1: It is like your gay pride flag. You got to
Speaker 1: show that your virtue. But the amazing thing is, look,
Speaker 1: when the federal court struck down the mask mandate on planes,
Speaker 1: you and I both saw the videos that were taken
Speaker 1: spontaneously in all sorts of people's phones, of passengers just
Speaker 1: cheering aloud and pulling their masks off. And yet yesterday
Speaker 1: the Biden administration was in the Federal Court of Appeals arguing,
Speaker 1: we want the power to reimpose the mask mandate, we
Speaker 1: want that, we don't want to give it up. At
Speaker 1: the same time, Biden's trying to victory lap COVID is over.
Speaker 1: So they want power. They want power to arbitrarily infringe
Speaker 1: your life. And yet they want to claim to have
Speaker 1: also solved the crisis. And it's part of why you're
Speaker 1: seeing CNN acknowledge the deaths are exaggerated. Why because they
Speaker 1: want the Democrats to get credit for it. Yeah. See,
Speaker 1: yet you know the start and charge, and they want
Speaker 1: to believe that they're the ones that somehow fixed all
Speaker 1: your problems. And this is the biggest problem they're fixing
Speaker 1: right now. And by the way. It's the same way
Speaker 1: to get into a different topic. They cook the numbers
Speaker 1: on global warming. So if you look at the numbers
Speaker 1: on global warming, they adjust the temperatures from long ago down.
Speaker 1: They adjust the temperatures from today up, and then they say, gosh,
Speaker 1: look the temperatures we've adjusted up are higher than the
Speaker 1: temperatures we adjusted down. Look at what's going on. When
Speaker 1: you cook the books, you can get the results you want.
Speaker 1: In this case, now they want to show that Biden,
Speaker 1: the Democrats have cured COVID, and one of the best
Speaker 1: ways to do it is, well, if we can magically
Speaker 1: reduce hospitalizations by seventy percent by suddenly acknowledging what was
Speaker 1: true three years ago, then voila through the power yep,
Speaker 1: crooked book keeping. The Democrats have solved everything well. And
Speaker 1: that scary part is one day when the government's going
Speaker 1: to really ask a favor of the American people, that's
Speaker 1: based in fact, no one's gonna want to listen to
Speaker 1: them Center. As always, it's been a pleasure. If you're listening,
Speaker 1: don't forget hit that subscribe or auto download button. We'll
Speaker 1: have an audio and video podcast coming out on Friday,
Speaker 1: so you can watch it on YouTube on Facebook as well.
Speaker 1: Make sure you write a five star review and hit
Speaker 1: that subscribe button. Share this podcast with your family and friends,
Speaker 1: or if you just want to make a global friend
Speaker 1: go crazy. It's a nice thing to send them and
Speaker 1: we will see you all back here on Friday morning.