Speaker 1: Welcome. It is a verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you, Senator, We've got a lot to talk about,
Speaker 1: including Christopher Ray being grilled in front of the House
Speaker 1: side of Congress and there was some very awkward responses
Speaker 1: from him. We're going to break all that down for
Speaker 1: everybody listening. Plus, we don't just have cocaine at the
Speaker 1: White House. We've got other illegal drugs that have now
Speaker 1: been disclosed. But don't worry, we're never going to find
Speaker 1: any of these people. Apparently. We'll give you an up
Speaker 1: down that. But before we get to that, Senator, there's
Speaker 1: a big victory that took place in the Foreign Relations
Speaker 1: Committee that's going to have a huge impact on commerce
Speaker 1: not just in this country, but specifically as well with Texas.
Speaker 1: Talk about this victory and what it means, Well, that's
Speaker 1: exactly right.
Speaker 2: It was a massive victory that we won yesterday for
Speaker 2: the state of Texas before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Speaker 2: and it concerns commerce and trade with Mexico. So tech
Speaker 2: this engages in a massive amount of trade with the
Speaker 2: nation of Mexico. About eight hundred billion dollars a year
Speaker 2: is the value of the goods and services that travel
Speaker 2: north and south across the border to Mexico, and much
Speaker 2: of that travels over bridges that cross the Rio Grande.
Speaker 2: And that you have trucks and cars that are driving
Speaker 2: across the Rio grand either north from Mexico to Texas
Speaker 2: or south from Texas to Mexico. And that there's an
Speaker 2: enormous amount of whether it's agricultural trade and commerce or
Speaker 2: manufacturing trade and commerce or auto parts. Uh, it's just
Speaker 2: a massive volume.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration bizarrely has been doing everything it can
Speaker 2: to slow walk new bridges across the Rio grand new
Speaker 2: bridges to Mexico, and in particular in South Texas, there
Speaker 2: are four bridges that are that that that are trying
Speaker 2: to be either built or expanded, bridges that would allow
Speaker 2: more traffic, more trucks, more cars to travel, and more
Speaker 2: commerce to travel, and the Biden administration has been putting
Speaker 2: unnecessary bureaucratic roadblocks in the way of doing so. In particular,
Speaker 2: if you want to build a bridge anywhere in the
Speaker 2: state of Texas, anywhere in another state, you can do
Speaker 2: so and you don't need a special permit from the
Speaker 2: White House. If you want to build a bridge across
Speaker 2: an interstate border. There's a federal law that says you
Speaker 2: have to get a permit from the President of the
Speaker 2: United States because it's crossing a border. Now, the process
Speaker 2: used to be, and this is what the Trump White
Speaker 2: House did, that the President would grant that permit for
Speaker 2: a new bridge or an expansion of a bridge across
Speaker 2: the border, and the president would grant that permit conditional
Speaker 2: on completing the environmental review that is required for every
Speaker 2: bridge that's.
Speaker 1: Built in this country.
Speaker 2: Anywhere you're building a bridge, you have to do under
Speaker 2: a statute called NIPA, an environmental review. And so the
Speaker 2: way President Trump would do this, he'd approve the bridge,
Speaker 2: but you'd still have to complete the environmental review on
Speaker 2: the back end before you built the bridge. Biden came
Speaker 2: into office and he implemented a new rule that made
Speaker 2: no sense whatsoever. And his new rule was that the
Speaker 2: presidential permit would not be issued until all of the
Speaker 2: environmental review was completed. And the problem is that actually
Speaker 2: delays these bridges by years, two to three years. It
Speaker 2: pushes them back. And there's an even bigger problem, which
Speaker 2: is that the groups that are building these bridges are
Speaker 2: having a difficult time getting financing because the financing doesn't
Speaker 2: want to commit until after the presidential permit is granted,
Speaker 2: and the presidential permit won't be granted until after the
Speaker 2: environmental review is complete, and so it's delaying the projects dramatically.
Speaker 2: This makes zero and so for months I have been
Speaker 2: working leaning on the Biden administration to change this policy.
Speaker 2: I have raised this directly and repeatedly with the White House.
Speaker 2: I've raised this directly and repeatedly with the Department of State.
Speaker 2: I've raised this directly and repeatedly with the Secretary of Transportation.
Speaker 2: And I worked to bring together a bipartisan coalition in
Speaker 2: South Texas and in particular to get every member of
Speaker 2: Congress from South Texas, both Democrats and Republicans, all united
Speaker 2: behind this issue, behind building the bridges. And so I
Speaker 2: drafted a letter to Secretary of State Tony Blinken, and
Speaker 2: it was signed by all four of the Rio Grand
Speaker 2: Valley congressmen. It was signed by Vicente Gonzalez, a Democrat.
Speaker 2: It was signed by Monica Delacruz, a Republican. It was
Speaker 2: signed by Henry Quayar, a Democrat. It was signed by
Speaker 2: Tony Gonzalez, a Republican. And so all four of them
Speaker 2: signed my letter, and John Cornan signed the letter, and
Speaker 2: so we had complete bipartisan agreement. And even so the
Speaker 2: Biden administration continued to slow walk these bridges. Well, yesterday
Speaker 2: in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I filed an amendment
Speaker 2: to the Department of State Authorization, and the amendment would
Speaker 2: dramatically streamline the approval of these bridges. And in particular,
Speaker 2: it directs the White House and it directs the State
Speaker 2: Department not to delay the presidential permit until after the
Speaker 2: deeper review is concluded, and so it forces them to
Speaker 2: decide and issue the presidential permit and then move forward
Speaker 2: and the environmental review occurs as it does ordinarily for
Speaker 2: any other bridge. Well, it was initially a battle, and
Speaker 2: it went round and round and round, and there were
Speaker 2: initially Democrats who were fighting me on this. And yet
Speaker 2: yesterday afternoon I ended up getting the support of both
Speaker 2: Democrats and Republicans on the committee and it was voted
Speaker 2: into the bill. So the amendment is now adopted with
Speaker 2: big bipartisan support. And the next step is that the
Speaker 2: chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Speaker 2: are trying to attach the entire bill the Senate the
Speaker 2: State Authorization Bill to the National Defense Authorization Act, which
Speaker 2: is right now moving in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Speaker 2: The reason for that is is every year Congress passes
Speaker 2: the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, and it is
Speaker 2: often a vehicle for passing legislation because it's considered must
Speaker 2: pass legislation. And so we ended up with a big,
Speaker 2: big victory that for two and a half years, the
Speaker 2: Biden administration had been stiff arming Texas and hurting the
Speaker 2: people of South Texas, and we got this amendment adopted,
Speaker 2: which if it goes forward and gets signed into law,
Speaker 2: and I think it will be, it will speed up
Speaker 2: these bridges by several years. Man, that's good for South
Speaker 2: Texas in terms of jobs. That has the potential to
Speaker 2: produce thousands of high paying jobs. It's good for Texas farmers,
Speaker 2: it's good for Texas ranchers. It's good for Texas small
Speaker 2: businesses and manufacturers. And I'll tell you the amazing thing,
Speaker 2: not only is this good for jobs and commerce and
Speaker 2: farmers and manufacturing, it's also very good for the environment.
Speaker 2: Because right now, let's take the city of Laredo. Laredo
Speaker 2: is the single largest land port in the United States.
Speaker 2: A massive amount of commerce flows through Laredo each and
Speaker 2: every day. Right now, if you go down to the
Speaker 2: bridge in Laredo, it's a massive bridge, and there are
Speaker 2: one hundreds, sometimes thousands of eighteen wheelers backed up waiting
Speaker 2: to cross the bridge, and they can sit there two, three, four,
Speaker 2: five hours just sitting there, spewing out pollution, just sitting
Speaker 2: there doing nothing. One of the bridges that's going to
Speaker 2: be expanded is that big, that main bridge that the
Speaker 2: proposal is to add eight new lanes to that bridge.
Speaker 2: Doing that will dramatically speed up commerce across that bridge,
Speaker 2: and that's good for the environment. No one wants hundreds
Speaker 2: or thousands of eighteen wheelers sitting there idling and just
Speaker 2: spewing pollution into the air. And so this is good
Speaker 2: all around. The Biden administration's policy made no sense. But
Speaker 2: I'll tell you it was a hard fought battle and
Speaker 2: one that I was really pleased to see a lot
Speaker 2: of allies came together. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce came
Speaker 2: and supported my amendment, supported my effort, and it was
Speaker 2: a big win. And Senate Foreign Relations.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that this was bipartisan as well. At the
Speaker 1: end and did that shocked the White House how bipartisan
Speaker 1: this became, as you mentioned there at the end, because
Speaker 1: this what was I mean, the politics behind this was
Speaker 1: this just a stiket to Texas, a border state, and
Speaker 1: that's that's the reason why they made the change the beginning.
Speaker 1: Obviously you said it didn't make sense why they did this,
Speaker 1: but what was their reason for doing it? Was it
Speaker 1: solely political? And then when it became bipartisan, that's how
Speaker 1: you're gonna overcome it.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: I actually think it was more mundane than that. I
Speaker 2: had a former boss who used to say, never blame
Speaker 2: on malice. What can be explained with incompetence. I think
Speaker 2: there's a lot of wisdom to this. What I think
Speaker 2: happened is I think there was some twenty six year
Speaker 2: old knucklehead, either at the Department of State or the
Speaker 2: White House, who just is a green New Deal zealot
Speaker 2: and they said, no, we're not approving anything till all
Speaker 2: the environmental review has done. And it just was sort
Speaker 2: of a knee jerk no no, no. But it never
Speaker 2: made any sense. And I have to tell you when
Speaker 2: I explained it to people, you know, Pete Boodajetge sat
Speaker 2: in my office when I explained it to him. His
Speaker 2: reaction was, that doesn't make any sense at all. Now
Speaker 2: the Department of Transportation doesn't have a formal role in
Speaker 2: this process, but he offered his help to try to
Speaker 2: get it fixed. And so what I decided to do,
Speaker 2: and what I explained to the White House, what I
Speaker 2: explained to the State Department is I said, this is
Speaker 2: a massive priority for me, because this is a massive
Speaker 2: priority for Texas. And I said, I'm a big believer
Speaker 2: in carrot and stick, and so I'm going to continue
Speaker 2: ratcheting up the pressure and I'm going to ratchet it
Speaker 2: up higher and higher and higher, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: make it more and more unpleasant until you change these policies.
Speaker 2: And that's the one thing the Biden administration responds to.
Speaker 2: And so in particular, I had placed a hold on
Speaker 2: a number of State Department nominees and I said, I'm
Speaker 2: not going to let these go through unlessen until you
Speaker 2: fix these this problem and stop putting idiotic roadblocks in
Speaker 2: the way of these these four bridges in Texas. Part
Speaker 2: of the way we got this done yesterday is the
Speaker 2: State Department desperately wanted these holds lifted, and State asked, well, gosh,
Speaker 2: if we agree to go along with this, will you
Speaker 2: lift the holds?
Speaker 1: And I said, sure, of course.
Speaker 2: The whole point of the holds is to get you
Speaker 2: to change the policy, and so State at the end
Speaker 2: of the day was willing willing to go along with it,
Speaker 2: which in turn is what led the Democrats on the
Speaker 2: committee to agree to it as well. Is that State
Speaker 2: wanted me to end the holds that I had put
Speaker 2: in place in order to incentivize them to do the
Speaker 2: right thing for the state of Texas.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you one more question about what
Speaker 1: this also means outside of Texas nationally with its opening up,
Speaker 1: and how that's going to affect other states. Before I
Speaker 1: do that, let me tell you about our good friends
Speaker 1: over our Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone,
Speaker 1: and virtually everyone does, now, how would you like to
Speaker 1: be with a company that actually supports causes that you
Speaker 1: believe in with every single bill you pay and noakes
Speaker 1: a cost to you. That's exactly what Patriot Mobile, the
Speaker 1: only conservative Christian cell phone provider in the country, does.
Speaker 1: They take a portion of your bill every month when
Speaker 1: you pay your bill at no extra cost to you,
Speaker 1: and they support causes things like free speech and religious freedom.
Speaker 1: They protect the unborn children and protect the sanctity of life.
Speaker 1: They advocate and support the Second Amendment in our military,
Speaker 1: our veterans, our first responders. They do this with your
Speaker 1: dollars every month now. For years, big mobile companies have
Speaker 1: been dumping millions into leftist causes, including planned parenthood. If
Speaker 1: you don't want your money going there, then switch to
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile. They also give you great, dependable nationwide coverage
Speaker 1: on all three major networks, so you get the best
Speaker 1: possible service in your area without the woke propaganda push
Speaker 1: by leftists working to destroy this country. So check out
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile, Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriotmobile dot
Speaker 1: com slash verdict or eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight
Speaker 1: seven eight Patriot. Use the promo code Verdict. You'll get
Speaker 1: free activation and the best deals of the year. Question,
Speaker 1: keep your same cell phone number you have right now
Speaker 1: if you want to eight seven eight Patriot or Patriotmobile
Speaker 1: dot com slash vertict. Senator, you mentioned this is obviously
Speaker 1: a big win for Texas, but the amount of commerce
Speaker 1: that you're talking about that's going to be moving with
Speaker 1: this expansion in these bridges. That's not just going to
Speaker 1: affect Texas. That's also going to affect all these trucks
Speaker 1: are going all over the country as well and getting
Speaker 1: things there quicker.
Speaker 2: So that's exactly right. It affects the entire country. And
Speaker 2: whether when you go to the grocery store and say
Speaker 2: you buy fresh fruits and vegetables, many of those fruits
Speaker 2: and vegetables are grown in Mexico, and so speeding up
Speaker 2: the travel reduces the cost. It means you'll pay less
Speaker 2: than you would have otherwise at the grocery store. If
Speaker 2: you're buying a new car, many automobiles, there's significant auto
Speaker 2: parts that are assembled in Mexico. A lot of parts
Speaker 2: are built in Texas, a lot of them are built
Speaker 2: in Mexico. And there's actually a trade that goes back
Speaker 2: and forth, sometimes two, three, four times where a component
Speaker 2: will be built partially in Texas and then ship to
Speaker 2: Mexico and more of it will be built there, and
Speaker 2: then it'll ship back to Texas and more of it's
Speaker 2: built there, and it goes back and forth. And so
Speaker 2: every time you're crossing the border, the delay drives up
Speaker 2: the cost, and so if you're buying a car or truck,
Speaker 2: speeding this up lowers the costs that you're paying. But
Speaker 2: there's an even broader benefit to that, and there is
Speaker 2: a national security benefit. Particularly post COVID. Many of us
Speaker 2: rightly have focused on the need to decouple from China,
Speaker 2: and in particular to move more and more manufacturing out
Speaker 2: of China and to move it closer to America. Either
Speaker 2: bring it home and bring manufacturing here to the United States,
Speaker 2: or at a minimum, bring it to allies that are
Speaker 2: not controlled by communist China. And a lot of that
Speaker 2: manufacturing is moving to Mexico. That's a good thing. Decoupling
Speaker 2: from China, and so expanding the ability to have trade
Speaker 2: and commerce crossing our southern border helps us dlink and
Speaker 2: decouple from China. That's unambiguously good for the entire country.
Speaker 1: I want to also move on to another big issue
Speaker 1: that we teased earlier, and that was the Christopher Ray
Speaker 1: testifying before Congress. There's been a lot of fallout from this.
Speaker 1: You've seen a lot of the clips, and before we
Speaker 1: get into some of those, center, give me your overall
Speaker 1: take on Christopher Ray. Did he stabilize the ship or
Speaker 1: did it actually make things worse for his standing and
Speaker 1: the defense or lack thereof. I would say, if some
Speaker 1: of the decisions they've made on sced of one to ten,
Speaker 1: what grade would you have given him before Congress?
Speaker 2: Well, let me focus less on his grade before Congress
Speaker 2: and let me focus more on his grade in the job.
Speaker 2: And in terms of the job, I'd give him an
Speaker 2: F minus because he has utterly failed to correct the
Speaker 2: rabid partisanship and the deep politicization of the FBI. He
Speaker 2: has been at the helm when the FBI has behaved
Speaker 2: like the DNC's political stormtroopers, and it's done enormous damage.
Speaker 2: And he's also been at the helm when the FBI stonewalled,
Speaker 2: which they have done to Congress over and over and
Speaker 2: over again.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan talked about some of that stonewalling when he
Speaker 1: was kind of laying out just how much the FBI
Speaker 1: has fallen under his direction. And here's part of the
Speaker 1: reminder the American people about what's happened with the politicalization
Speaker 1: of the FBI and the.
Speaker 3: Dj Americans have seen the FBI's Richmond Field office put
Speaker 3: together a memorandum saying pro life Catholics are extremist. They've
Speaker 3: seen twenty FBI agents SWAT team members show up the
Speaker 3: home of Mark Halk and arrest him in front of
Speaker 3: his wife and seven children, even though he had indicated
Speaker 3: he'd be happy to turn himself in.
Speaker 1: And what was he arrested for?
Speaker 3: Him and his twelve year old son were praying outside
Speaker 3: an abortion facility. Some guys start screaming in his son's face,
Speaker 3: and he did what, frankly, any dad would do, defended
Speaker 3: his child. What's interesting is the National School Board Association
Speaker 3: apologized for the letter, but the Attorney General refuses to
Speaker 3: rescind his directive. The FBI did resin thank goodness to
Speaker 3: Richmond Catholic memorandum, but they refuse to tell Congress who
Speaker 3: wrote it and who approved it. And mister Halk, mister Halck,
Speaker 3: when he got his day in court, he was acquitted
Speaker 3: by a jury of his peers.
Speaker 1: American speech is censored.
Speaker 3: Parents are called terrorists, Catholics are called radicals. And I
Speaker 3: haven't even talked about the spying that took place of
Speaker 3: a presidential care campaign, of the rating of a former
Speaker 3: president's home.
Speaker 1: You listen to that list, it is stunning to think
Speaker 1: that this is happening in the United States of America.
Speaker 2: It is, and as you know, the entirety of that
Speaker 2: list is laid out in detail in my most recent book,
Speaker 2: in the book Justice Corrupted, How the Left has weaponized
Speaker 2: the legal system. The book starts with the sexual assault
Speaker 2: in Louden County, Virginia of the teenage girl by a
Speaker 2: boy dressed in a skirt in the girl's bathroom, and
Speaker 2: the school board covering it up, lying about it, and
Speaker 2: ultimately having the father of the girl arrested because he
Speaker 2: dared speak up for his daughter. And that incident was
Speaker 2: one of the incidents that prompted the letter from the
Speaker 2: National Association of school Boards to President Biden that resulted
Speaker 2: in Merrick Garland five days later issuing a memoai directive
Speaker 2: to the FBI to go after parents, to target them, essentially,
Speaker 2: to treat them as domestic terrorists if they dare speak
Speaker 2: up at school board meetings. That memo was disgraceful. It's
Speaker 2: a perfect example of weaponization. And what has happened is
Speaker 2: is and like the Mark Hawk example is another one
Speaker 2: I discussed at great length Mark Hawk, it is a
Speaker 2: disparate standard of justice to send more than a dozen
Speaker 2: agents with machine guns drawn at the crack of dawn
Speaker 2: to arrest someone at their home in front of their
Speaker 2: crying children. But this administration, if you were pro life,
Speaker 2: if you dare speak up in defensive life, you have
Speaker 2: to worry about the stormtroopers showing up at your front door.
Speaker 2: And by the way, when they tried mister Hawk, the
Speaker 2: jury threw the case out within minutes. They thought the
Speaker 2: case was ridiculous, that he was defending his twelve year
Speaker 2: old son, and and and he was charged with basically
Speaker 2: pushing a guy who was screaming at his son. Uh
Speaker 2: and and that merited sending in the stormtroopers. It is
Speaker 2: an absolute double standard. And I have to say the
Speaker 2: FBI has been willing to be complicit in this, and
Speaker 2: then after it happens, the FBI engages in stonewalling what
Speaker 2: you don't see Chris Ray doing. Let's take the memo
Speaker 2: from the Richmond Field Office targeting Catholics and laying out
Speaker 2: a strategy of let's send undercover agents into Catholic churches
Speaker 2: to spy on churches, and let's see if we can
Speaker 2: recruit the clergy to spy on the members of the parish.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely shameful and disgraceful. And as Jim Jordan noted,
Speaker 2: the FBI rescinded it when it became public. They realized
Speaker 2: it was indefensible. But we don't know who wrote it,
Speaker 2: we don't know who approved it, we don't know who
Speaker 2: thought it was a good idea to target Catholics. And
Speaker 2: the problem with Chris Ray is any time he's given
Speaker 2: a choice between defending the rapidly partisan left wing extremists
Speaker 2: who are in the senior career leadership at the FBI
Speaker 2: or standing with the American people, he chooses the partisans
Speaker 2: who are corrupting the FBI.
Speaker 1: You mentioned one thing, and I want to clarify on
Speaker 1: this point because I think for many Americans they hear
Speaker 1: the defense from Ray. Well, we rescinded it. If they
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been caught in public, and this wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been made public to memo, I think it would probably
Speaker 1: still be going on today, and there's a very good
Speaker 1: chance there where they would have found people to spy
Speaker 1: on their own parishioners.
Speaker 2: And you know what they are doing. They're still going
Speaker 2: after parents who speak up at school boards. There are
Speaker 2: multiple parents across the country who went to express their
Speaker 2: free speech rights. And to be clear, nobody has a
Speaker 2: right to engage in violence. If you threaten someone with violence,
Speaker 2: if you engage in violence, you should be prosecuted. But
Speaker 2: everyone has a right to peaceful speech. And multiple parents
Speaker 2: who go to a school board and speak up because
Speaker 2: they're upset about some policy at the school board, whether
Speaker 2: it was COVID policies or vaccine mandates, or whether it
Speaker 2: was teaching critical race theory, or whether as it was
Speaker 2: in loud In County, turning a blind eye to sexual
Speaker 2: assaults against the children in their care. Multiple parents have
Speaker 2: had the g men show up at their door to
Speaker 2: intimidate them and interview them just because they exercised their
Speaker 2: First Amendment rights. And they're doing that even after they
Speaker 2: got caught. That's how brazen it is.
Speaker 1: It's also not just that one issue that you describe,
Speaker 1: but there's also the other issue of why are you
Speaker 1: not looking into the crimes that have been uh potentially
Speaker 1: committed by the bidens. Matt Gates called him out for that,
Speaker 1: Chrisopher Ray, and here's what he said.
Speaker 4: I'm sitting here with my father, I will make certain
Speaker 4: that between the man sitting next to me and every
Speaker 4: person he knows, and my ability to forever hold a
Speaker 4: grudge that you will regret not following my direction I
Speaker 4: am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.
Speaker 4: Sounds like a shakedown, doesn't a director.
Speaker 5: I'm not going to get into commenting on that.
Speaker 4: You you seem deeply uncurious about it, don't you almost
Speaker 4: suspiciously uncurious? Are you protecting the Bidens?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not the FBI.
Speaker 4: You wan't to answer the question about whether that's a shakedown,
Speaker 4: and everybody knows why you won't answer it because to
Speaker 4: the millions of people who will see this, they know
Speaker 4: it is, and your inability to acknowledge that is deeply
Speaker 4: revealing about you.
Speaker 1: But when he says it's deeply revealing, it's deeply revealing
Speaker 1: about how much she's willing to protect people that screw
Speaker 1: up and make big mistakes, right, I mean, I mean
Speaker 1: that's part of this here is if you talk to
Speaker 1: people in law enforcement, especially people that are in investigative positions,
Speaker 1: they tell you that finding what we just found there,
Speaker 1: seeing what they what they've seen, is that moment where
Speaker 1: you go, this is why I signed up for this, Senator,
Speaker 1: because now I'm going to deal with this corruption and
Speaker 1: get rid of it. And instead it seems like they
Speaker 1: say every time they find the corruption, they help them
Speaker 1: cover it up.
Speaker 2: No, that's exactly right. And look, this is in a
Speaker 2: context where we now know that a confidential informant approached
Speaker 2: the FBI with evidence that Joe Biden as vice president
Speaker 2: had personally received a five million dollar bribe from a
Speaker 2: foreign national, and the FBI covered up, refused to acknowledge
Speaker 2: the form they prepared with that complaint, refused to describe
Speaker 2: any investigation they engaged in it. We subsequently learned that
Speaker 2: there were allegedly seventeen voice recordings of conversations between that
Speaker 2: Ukrainian oligarch, and fifteen of them with Hunter Biden, two
Speaker 2: of them with Joe Biden. As you know, as we've
Speaker 2: talked about on this podcast, I questioned the Deputy Director
Speaker 2: of the FBI, Chris Ray's deputy, and asked him, will
Speaker 2: you hand over the FBI form detailing the allegations from
Speaker 2: the confidential informant.
Speaker 1: He refused to do so.
Speaker 2: I said, will you confirm the existence of the seventeen
Speaker 2: voice recordings?
Speaker 1: He refused to do so.
Speaker 2: I asked him, does the FBI have possession of the
Speaker 2: seventeen voice recordings. He refused to answer. I asked him,
Speaker 2: will the FBI give those seventeen voice recordings to the
Speaker 2: Senate Judiciary Committee. He refused to commit to doing so.
Speaker 2: And there is just a brazen defiance. There's an attitude
Speaker 2: at the FBI. We don't work for you, we don't
Speaker 2: work for anybody. We do what we want, and we
Speaker 2: answer to nobody. And the deputy director I was questioning him,
Speaker 2: had just this contempt. How dare you ask me those questions?
Speaker 2: I decide what to investigate, and nobody gets to second
Speaker 2: guess it. And it's a contempt. It's not ultimately a
Speaker 2: contempt for me or for the Senate or for Congress.
Speaker 2: It's a contempt for the American people because when Congress
Speaker 2: andregauges an oversight, we're fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, and we're
Speaker 2: doing so. When I ask those questions, I am doing
Speaker 2: so on behalf of thirty million Texans. I'm doing so
Speaker 2: because I believe Texans would want me to ask those
Speaker 2: questions and get to the bottom of it. And I
Speaker 2: hear that from Texans frequently, that they are grateful that
Speaker 2: I engage in that oversight. But when the FBI has
Speaker 2: this sneering condescension that I'm not going to answer that.
Speaker 2: And in the instance where Matt Gates was asking him
Speaker 2: about that WhatsApp can communication between Hunter, Biden and and
Speaker 2: that the Chinese communist official, that is one of the
Speaker 2: most damning communications I've ever heard. Of course, it's a shakedown.
Speaker 2: It's not transparent, it's not subtle. It is about as
Speaker 2: blatant as shakedown as possible. The only conceivable defense is
Speaker 2: either that that that the communication was false, although at
Speaker 2: this point Hunter and his lawyer have basically implicitly admitted
Speaker 2: that it's true, or that Hunter was lying, that that
Speaker 2: Joe Biden was not sitting next to him, and and
Speaker 2: and that even though Hunter was threatening uh, the the
Speaker 2: retribution from Joe Biden that that that that he was
Speaker 2: not telling the truth. That is a possible defense for
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, although it's not a defense for Hunter but
Speaker 2: the FBI. And remember, by the way, you gotta also
Speaker 2: look at this in the context of the two I R. S.
Speaker 2: Whistleblowers that allege that in the entire course of this investigation,
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice politically interfered with the investigation and
Speaker 2: said do not ask any questions about Joe Biden. Do
Speaker 2: not ask any questions about the big guy.
Speaker 1: Do not.
Speaker 2: They refuse to allow GPS uh GPS to be looked
Speaker 2: at to determine was Joe Biden sitting next to Hunter
Speaker 2: Biden when that communication was sent? They could confirm that.
Speaker 2: But but the allegation from from the the the I
Speaker 2: R S whistleblowers are that that the DOJ didn't want
Speaker 2: to know if Joe Biden was sitting right next to
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden when he said I'm sitting next to my father.
Speaker 2: And so in that context, Chris Ray's refusal to answer
Speaker 2: is stonewalling, and it's ultimately stonewalling the American people, which
Speaker 2: does an enormous disservice to the FBI and to the
Speaker 2: rule of law.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about our friends and a gust
Speaker 1: of precudse metals real quick. If you are close to
Speaker 1: retirement or you are in retirement, you know how important
Speaker 1: it is to protect your hard earned dollars. You know
Speaker 1: how important it is to protect your four oh one k,
Speaker 1: your ira. And that is where Augusta precious medals can
Speaker 1: come in. A lot of people have had losses over
Speaker 1: the last several years and there is no time to
Speaker 1: make up those losses if you are close to retirement
Speaker 1: or in retirement. And that is why Gusta Precious Medals
Speaker 1: wants to talk to you so that they can talk
Speaker 1: to you about how gold can be used to help
Speaker 1: diversify your portfolio. Now a gust is a little bit different.
Speaker 1: They will actually not only send you the free investors
Speaker 1: Guy on Gold right now, but they will do a
Speaker 1: one on one web conference with you as well. They'll
Speaker 1: talk to you about your needs. They'll talk to you
Speaker 1: about what your goals are and about protecting and preserving
Speaker 1: your herd earned dollars. Call them. Not only will they
Speaker 1: send you that Investor's God on gold right now, but
Speaker 1: again they'll do the web conference with you as well.
Speaker 1: Age seven to seven the number four Gold Eye R
Speaker 1: eight seven seven, the number four Gold IRA eight seven seven,
Speaker 1: number four Gold Ira or visit them online Augusta Precious
Speaker 1: Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com. Senator.
Speaker 1: There was also something else that was interesting, and that
Speaker 1: was the FBI director was asked a very answering question
Speaker 1: by the Republican congresswoman from Wyoming, Harriet Hagman, and this
Speaker 1: is what she asked him. And this snarky response from
Speaker 1: Chris Ray may have been one of the biggest backfires
Speaker 1: because it was also something that he really should have
Speaker 1: never said, regardless of what his answer was going to be.
Speaker 1: Here it is.
Speaker 6: Twitter files, Missouri versus Biden, disclosures, the Durham investigation and report,
Speaker 6: and exposure and collapse of the Russian Russian collusion hoax.
Speaker 6: The American people fully understand that there is a two
Speaker 6: tier justice system that has been weaponized to persecute people
Speaker 6: based on their political beliefs, and that you have pursued
Speaker 6: been weapony, that you have personally worked to weaponize the
Speaker 6: FBI against conservatives. I asked mister Durham about this, to
Speaker 6: which he answered, I don't think that things can go
Speaker 6: too much further with the view that law enforcement, particularly
Speaker 6: the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two tiered
Speaker 6: system of justice. The nation can't stand under those circumstances.
Speaker 6: Director Ray, what are you prepared to do to reform
Speaker 6: federal law enforcement in a manner which earns back the
Speaker 6: trust of the American people.
Speaker 7: Well, first off, I would disagree with your characterization of
Speaker 7: the FBI and certainly your description of my own approach,
Speaker 7: The idea that I'm biased against conservatives seems someone insane
Speaker 7: to me, given my own personal background.
Speaker 1: Someone insane to me, Senator. This on top of the
Speaker 1: fact that a new polls come out saying that just
Speaker 1: thirty seven percent of Americans have a favorable view of
Speaker 1: the FBI right now, meaning overwhelmingly the majority of Americans
Speaker 1: do not trust or have faith in the FBI under
Speaker 1: Director ray Well.
Speaker 2: I have to say I understand both sides of that conversation. So,
Speaker 2: Harriet Hageman is a friend of mine. I supported her
Speaker 2: enthusiastically when she ran against Liz Cheney in the primary
Speaker 2: and beat her in the primary in Wyoming, and I
Speaker 2: supported her in the general election, raised a bunch of
Speaker 2: money for Harriet. She is a smart, serious conservative constitutional
Speaker 2: litigator and lawyer. And so her question was carefully constructed,
Speaker 2: and it relied on a number of very specific data points,
Speaker 2: all of which Chris ray Utter ignores. So he doesn't
Speaker 2: actually address the substance of what she says. Instead, he
Speaker 2: says the idea that he is biased against conservatives, he
Speaker 2: thinks is quote somewhat insane. Now, you and I have
Speaker 2: talked in this podcast. It's easy for people at home
Speaker 2: watching everything happening at the FBI to think that Chris
Speaker 2: Ray is some wild eyed liberal. And I've said before
Speaker 2: I don't think that's accurate. I've known Chris Ray for
Speaker 2: twenty five years. He is not a wild eyed liberal.
Speaker 2: He's not even a Democrat. He is a Republican. He's
Speaker 2: been a Republican his whole life. He has been in
Speaker 2: law enforcement much of his life. As far as I know,
Speaker 2: he still considers himself a Republican. So the problem is
Speaker 2: not that he came into the office with an ideological
Speaker 2: hatred for conservatives. By the way, Merrick Garland he has
Speaker 2: that Merrick Garland is a partisan, but Chris Ray is not.
Speaker 2: And remember it was Donald Trump who appointed Chris Ray
Speaker 2: as director of the FBI. Chris's problem is different, which
Speaker 2: is that he is temperamentally he is a company man.
Speaker 2: It's just his instinct. And so when he became director
Speaker 2: of the FBI, he instantly went native. And so in
Speaker 2: every dispute he looks to the senior career officials at
Speaker 2: the FBI and he says, my responsibility as director is
Speaker 2: to have their backs. Now, that is often a good
Speaker 2: instinct in a leader that if you're in an institution,
Speaker 2: you want to support your people, you want to have
Speaker 2: your people's backs. That is a good instinct in a leader,
Speaker 2: unless your people are actively undermining the integrity of the
Speaker 2: institution you serve. And the problem with Chris Ray he
Speaker 2: seems to have an absolute blind spot that he does
Speaker 2: not understand that many of these career bureaucrats at the
Speaker 2: FBI are hard vicious partisans. And because he doesn't perceive that,
Speaker 2: he's not willing to rein them in and in any battle.
Speaker 2: He takes the side of the hard vicious partisan and
Speaker 2: he defends them, and he's stone walls. Chris Ray could
Speaker 2: choose to answer these questions, he doesn't want to. And
Speaker 2: there's a second component, which is he does not have
Speaker 2: the humility that a senior government official should have a
Speaker 2: recognition that he is accountable. He believes, I Chris Ray
Speaker 2: am in charge of the FBI, and I think he
Speaker 2: believes in his heart they are not biased or weaponized.
Speaker 2: And I just think he's utterly blind to what his
Speaker 2: underlings are doing. It's why he doesn't engage in the
Speaker 2: substance of any of the points. And by the way.
Speaker 2: I have had literally screaming arguments with Chris Ray as Director,
Speaker 2: where I've said, you are not defending the FBI. When
Speaker 2: you defend these wild eyed partisans, you are hurting the FBI.
Speaker 2: You are hurting the integrity of the institution you lead.
Speaker 2: I hear from and I've told him this. Your agents
Speaker 2: who come and tell me that they're embarrassed to be
Speaker 2: FBI agents because under your leadership. And it started before
Speaker 2: Chris Ray, it started Jim Comey was much worse. But
Speaker 2: Chris Ray wasn't willing to clean house. He wasn't willing
Speaker 2: to throw the partisans out, and he's not willing to
Speaker 2: go forward and say, you know what, the American people
Speaker 2: deserve transparency here on the investigation of Hunter Biden and
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Right now, the irs whistleblowers are alleging that
Speaker 2: DOJ engaged in a cover up, that the Attorney General
Speaker 2: lied under oath to Congress responding to my questioning in
Speaker 2: the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that the Attorney General likely
Speaker 2: committed obstruction of justice. Those are very serious charges. You
Speaker 2: know who has a lot of information on whether that's true.
Speaker 2: The FBI they were side by side at all of
Speaker 2: this investigation, and Chris Ray feels no obligation to come
Speaker 2: forward and be candid with the American people and answer
Speaker 2: those questions. And look, I get often law enforcement. It's
Speaker 2: a standard response in law enforcement if you ask about
Speaker 2: an investigation for law enforcement to say I can't come
Speaker 2: in on a pending investigation. That's true in the run
Speaker 2: of the mill case. In this instance, when you're dealing
Speaker 2: with serious allegation of corruption, a bribery of multiple felonies
Speaker 2: by the President of the United States and by the
Speaker 2: Attorney General of the United States, I think the FBI
Speaker 2: has a bigger obligation, and that's to the American people
Speaker 2: to say, here's what we know. And in that regard,
Speaker 2: Chris Ray has failed utterly.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about chalk. If you are a
Speaker 1: guy dealing with a real medical condition that account with
Speaker 1: other men are dealing with, and that is a drop
Speaker 1: in testosterum, you don't have to just sit there and
Speaker 1: feel weak and feel complacent. You can actually get up
Speaker 1: to a twenty percent boost in your testosterum levels over
Speaker 1: ninety days. Yeah, all you got to do is see
Speaker 1: my friends at chalk choq dot com. If you are
Speaker 1: sick and tired of feeling like you're losing your edge.
Speaker 1: Ready to get back that strength and that focus and
Speaker 1: the energy that you used to have. Then go to
Speaker 1: Chalk cchoq dot com right now, use the promo code Ben,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna get thirty five percent off all of
Speaker 1: your purchases for life. Yeah, thirty five percent off, So
Speaker 1: check them out. Chalk uses natural herbal supplements that are
Speaker 1: clinically proven to have game changing effects, like I said,
Speaker 1: on your energy, your focus, your mood, and that is
Speaker 1: why I've been taking them now and it works. Choq
Speaker 1: dot com. Use a promo code Ben, You'll get thirty
Speaker 1: five percent off your subscription for life. Check out the
Speaker 1: mal Vitality Stack. That's what I've been taking. It works
Speaker 1: great Chalk choq dot com. Lastly, Centator, I want to
Speaker 1: talk about cocaine at the White House. It's no longer
Speaker 1: just cocaine that we're finding at the White House. The
Speaker 1: Secret Service has now apparently said yeah, we find other
Speaker 1: drugs there, like weed. And yet Democrats have come out
Speaker 1: and they said they actually feel good about this. Representative
Speaker 1: Raskin said this about the investigation into the cocaine who
Speaker 1: brought the White House, and of course we called it
Speaker 1: here on Verdict Center. We're never going to find out
Speaker 1: who brought it in. They're saying they couldn't figure it out.
Speaker 8: I'm satisfied that the Secret Service and the White House
Speaker 8: are on top of it. I was reading a book
Speaker 8: about Lincoln recently, and anybody in Washington could just walk
Speaker 8: right into Lincoln's White House, go directly in and try
Speaker 8: to find the president and talk to them. And obviously
Speaker 8: we're in a very different security environment than that. But
Speaker 8: I don't know how many people would want to go
Speaker 8: to the White House if they were going to be
Speaker 8: administering a drug test on the way in, which is
Speaker 8: what some of my colleagues have suggested. You know, some
Speaker 8: people are saying everybody should be drug tested on the
Speaker 8: way into the White House, and you know, these are
Speaker 8: the same people who are opposed to COVID nineteen tests.
Speaker 8: So I don't see a lot of coherence in the criticism.
Speaker 1: That's one how the statement center your reaction.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's rather hysterical to see a Democrat
Speaker 2: congressman saying, gosh, you know, Democrats would be really afraid
Speaker 2: to go to the White House that we had.
Speaker 1: To get drug tested.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, you got to get drug tested to
Speaker 2: get hired as a truck driver, You got to get
Speaker 2: drug tested to get hired as a fork left operator.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of jobs at America you got
Speaker 2: to get drug tested for. In fact, when I speak
Speaker 2: to small business owners in Texas, they say one of
Speaker 2: the challenges of hiring new employees is finding people who
Speaker 2: can pass the drug test. Well, that's one thing if
Speaker 2: you're dealing with with with ordinary citizens. But you would
Speaker 2: think a member of Congress should be held to a
Speaker 2: higher standard. And yet he's saying, gosh, you know, we
Speaker 2: don't want to go to the White House with drug tests. Look,
Speaker 2: this is a white House that applies no ethical standards
Speaker 2: to itself. This is a white House that covers up
Speaker 2: serious allegations of criminality by the President of the United States,
Speaker 2: including bribery. This is a white House that covers up
Speaker 2: serious allegations of criminality by the president's adult son, Hunter Biden.
Speaker 2: This is a White House that sends a press secretary
Speaker 2: out every day to brazenly lied to the American people.
Speaker 1: This is a white house.
Speaker 2: As you noted, if they said they multiple times found
Speaker 2: marijuana in the White House, and they're like, oh, oh, well,
Speaker 2: no big deal. They just confiscated the marijuana, threw it away,
Speaker 2: but didn't bother naming whose it was, didn't apparently seem
Speaker 2: to have any concern on figuring out whose it was,
Speaker 2: because you know, I mean, you know, who hasn't smoked
Speaker 2: pot in the White House. This is a White House.
Speaker 2: Look this cocaine story. If this cocaine story happened when
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was president, the media would be losing their minds.
Speaker 2: Democrats would be losing their minds. And yet because it's
Speaker 2: under Joe Biden. Listen, this was cocaine that was left
Speaker 2: in a working entrance to the White House where they
Speaker 2: have a log of every person who walked through that
Speaker 2: door in the exact time they walk through that door.
Speaker 2: Just yesterday, the Secret Service announced, oh, we've done our
Speaker 2: investigation and guess what, we can't figure out who did it.
Speaker 2: And let's be clear, this podcast predicted that right after
Speaker 2: the cocaine was found. We said on this podcast, here's
Speaker 2: going to be the result. They're going to announce we
Speaker 2: don't know, Well, what do you know? That's exactly what
Speaker 2: they announced. And the reason they announced that they don't
Speaker 2: want to know because whoever it is, it's somebody embarrassing.
Speaker 1: Well, and you go back to the Secret Service now
Speaker 1: confirming they found marijuana not once, but twice in the
Speaker 1: White House in twenty twenty two alone, long before cocaine
Speaker 1: was located in the West Wing the Secret.
Speaker 2: Service year, not a long time ago, last year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the Secret Service revealed the information of Congress like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: by the way, and this classified briefing on this investigation
Speaker 1: into the cocaine found the way, yeah, we've also found
Speaker 1: some other drugs. We found weed a few times last year.
Speaker 1: This is not normal behavior. Yet they're acting like it is.
Speaker 2: Well, this White House believes they are immune from scrutiny.
Speaker 2: It really is stunning. By the way, look, I'll give
Speaker 2: another example. So there was a really interesting column that
Speaker 2: Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times. Mariene Dowd,
Speaker 2: of course, is a left wing columnist. She is a
Speaker 2: hard partisan Democrat. And the title of her column was
Speaker 2: It's seven grandchildren, mister President. And that, of course is
Speaker 2: because Hunter Biden has an illegitimate child, a little girl,
Speaker 2: Navy Joan, who Hunter Biden has gone to court to
Speaker 2: stop her from using the name Biden, this little four
Speaker 2: year old, she doesn't get to use the name Biden
Speaker 2: because he's unhappy about the circumstances in which he fathered
Speaker 2: a child. Now ed beat dads are not honorable people.
Speaker 2: When you run away from your kid, that's not honorable,
Speaker 2: that's not right, that is frankly shameful. But Joe Biden
Speaker 2: consistently refers to his six grandchildren. In fact, every Christmas
Speaker 2: he puts up six stockings. But as Maureen Down pointed out,
Speaker 2: you don't have six grandchildren, you have seven. And the
Speaker 2: fact that Joe Biden won't even acknowledge that she exists.
Speaker 2: And by the way, we're not speculating that she's a grandchild.
Speaker 2: They did a paternity test and concluded yep, Hunter is daddy.
Speaker 2: And and by the way, look, look, people have children,
Speaker 2: and they have children out of wedlock. That is not
Speaker 2: you know, that happens in the world. It shouldn't, but
Speaker 2: we live in reality. The question is if that happens,
Speaker 2: how does someone behave do they behave honorably? Do they
Speaker 2: provide for the kid? And and Hunter literally said, here,
Speaker 2: you can have a couple of my paintings, Like, holy crap,
Speaker 2: that's dad of the year stuff. You're shaken down Communist
Speaker 2: China and Ukraine for millions of dollars, and you're giving
Speaker 2: your daughter that you deny your name to a couple
Speaker 2: of your idiotic paintings that you're trying to grift money
Speaker 2: off of.
Speaker 1: And you can't have my last name. You can't have
Speaker 1: my last same at the same time.
Speaker 2: You can't have my last name. And the fact that
Speaker 2: Marine Dawd made that point is a big deal. That
Speaker 2: the New York Times is starting to turn on him,
Speaker 2: that's a big deal. But still most of the corporate
Speaker 2: media won't ask Joe Biden, why are you denying this
Speaker 2: four year old child and refusing to acknowledge that she's yours,
Speaker 2: your your grandchild.
Speaker 1: Great point. The media, by the way, wanting to cover
Speaker 1: this up. They're now saying that if you care about
Speaker 1: cocaine in the White House, you are a conspiracy theorist
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd Meet the Press now on MSNBC. This is
Speaker 1: what he had to say about the Secret Service ending
Speaker 1: the White House cocaine investigation.
Speaker 5: People, what do you since Congress? You know, we know
Speaker 5: there's a few members of Congress they are going to
Speaker 5: try to use this as a hobby horse, what do
Speaker 5: you sense? What could they do here? Enforcing more focus
Speaker 5: on this.
Speaker 9: I think one of the questions was, if this can
Speaker 9: get through, is there a vulnerability in some other way?
Speaker 9: And people I've been talking to say, when it comes
Speaker 9: to agents that might have been a powdery substance that
Speaker 9: could be used in a weapon form, that they have
Speaker 9: mechanisms to test for that, that they don't test for
Speaker 9: contraband they don't test for illegal drugs that don't pose
Speaker 9: a threat to the president or others inside the White House.
Speaker 9: It certainly is not a good look, and no one
Speaker 9: feels good about that.
Speaker 5: I was just going to say, I'm guessing the White
Speaker 5: House doesn't like that. There's no answer there.
Speaker 9: Oh, it's unsatisfying because it only feeds the beast, the
Speaker 9: conspiratorial beast.
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, that we know of like trying to.
Speaker 9: Destroy our And to answer that, family members typically don't
Speaker 9: use this entrance, not that they couldn't, but they typically
Speaker 9: don't and they're not asked to put their stuff on copy.
Speaker 5: And this is yes, nice to see.
Speaker 1: You silly, right, Senator, It's just silly. I got the
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist there. There's real cocaine found we find out
Speaker 1: more drugs are in the White House from marijuana as well.
Speaker 1: But your conspiracy theorists, if you want answers, so.
Speaker 2: It's it is, of course not a conspiracy. It is
Speaker 2: a fact that a bag of cocaine was found in
Speaker 2: the West Wing of the White House. I agree with
Speaker 2: the comment there, and we've talked about this on the pod.
Speaker 2: I think it's unlikely that it was Hunter Biden's cocaine
Speaker 2: because the entrance where it was found is the working
Speaker 2: entrance that the staff goes in and out of. It's
Speaker 2: not an entrance that I think Hunter was likely to use.
Speaker 2: So I find it more plausible that it is a
Speaker 2: staff member who works in the West Wing of the
Speaker 2: White House. It could very well be a senior staff
Speaker 2: member of the Biden White House. Now, if a senior
Speaker 2: staff member the Biden White House is bringing cocaine in,
Speaker 2: that's a big damn deal. If they are a drug
Speaker 2: addict while being a senior White House official, that is
Speaker 2: a very serious problem. And the reason that we predicted
Speaker 2: right at the outset we will never know. The Secret
Speaker 2: Service will announce we can't figure out who it is
Speaker 2: is because they recognize it's embarrassing as hell and a
Speaker 2: real problem if senior White House aids are drug addicts.
Speaker 2: Chuck Todd dismisses it all as conspiracy theory. I'll tell
Speaker 2: you this, Chuck wouldn't think that if this were the
Speaker 2: Trump White House. If this were a Trump White House,
Speaker 2: he would be lighting his hair on fire.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great point. Don't forget. We do this show three
Speaker 1: days a week, so make sure if you're listening on
Speaker 1: Apple you hit that follow button. You'll never miss an episode. Plus,
Speaker 1: we've got some really fun shows next week that are
Speaker 1: going to break some serious news. That's my teas for you.
Speaker 1: So you don't want to miss next week. I can
Speaker 1: promise you that, So hit that subscribe by o'dowload button
Speaker 1: as well. Please write us a five star review, as
Speaker 1: we did this show every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and
Speaker 1: we'll see you back here on Monday morning.