Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senater Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
Speaker 2: you and Senator it is a rock star week. I
Speaker 2: gotta say for you on Capitol Hill. You got feisty
Speaker 2: during some hearings and it's gone viral. What just happened
Speaker 2: with one of the radical nominees put up by the
Speaker 2: Biden administration.
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right. Joe Biden has nominated a lot
Speaker 3: of extreme radicals to the bench. This week, we had
Speaker 3: a hearing with a district court nominee who sent a
Speaker 3: serial child rapist who is a man who decided that
Speaker 3: he was a woman, sent him into a woman's prison,
Speaker 3: disregarded the rights of the women. It is outrageous. I
Speaker 3: cross examined this nominee. We're going to get into that.
Speaker 3: We're also going to get into what happened at the
Speaker 3: Trump trial this week. We're going to get into, in particular,
Speaker 3: the bombshell news that Michael Cohen testified about a crime.
Speaker 3: We finally found a crime at the Trump trial. It
Speaker 3: just happened to be Michael Cohen was the criminal. He
Speaker 3: testified and admitted that he stole tens of thousands of
Speaker 3: dollars from the Trump organization that might well be relevant
Speaker 3: for charging him, but it doesn't prove any crime on
Speaker 3: the part of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very important there, and it's shocking to find out
Speaker 2: those details will have for you in a moment.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you a question real quick.
Speaker 2: If you knew that you were giving money to a
Speaker 2: company that was supporting hardcore lefties running for office, if
Speaker 2: you knew you were giving money to a company that
Speaker 2: was supporting planned parenthood, if you knew that you were
Speaker 2: giving money to a company that was giving money to
Speaker 2: take away your First and Second Amendment rights, would you
Speaker 2: keep doing it and do it every single month? Well,
Speaker 2: if you're with Big Mobile, that's exactly what is happening.
Speaker 2: You may not realize it, but now you know. Big
Speaker 2: Mobile supports big leftist causes, including planned parenthood. And that's
Speaker 2: why I want you to make the switch to Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2: For more than a decade, Patriot Mobile has been America's
Speaker 2: only Christian conservative wireless provider and the number one reason
Speaker 2: why people don't switch cell phone providers.
Speaker 1: They think it takes forever, and it used to.
Speaker 2: You used to have to go into a store, you
Speaker 2: had to sit there, you had to port your number
Speaker 2: over it was exhausting, and so people are like, forget it,
Speaker 2: I'll just stick with what I've got. It doesn't work
Speaker 2: that way anymore. In fact, you can switch right now
Speaker 2: to Patriot Mobile over the phone. It is incredibly easy
Speaker 2: because of technology now and you get to keep your
Speaker 2: same cell phone number you have, and you can keep
Speaker 2: the same cell phone you have in your hand right now,
Speaker 2: or you can upgrade to a new one. Now here's
Speaker 2: the best part. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, they
Speaker 2: actually take about five percent of your bill every month
Speaker 2: at no extra cost to you, and they fight for
Speaker 2: the values that we believe in. That's right, your bill
Speaker 2: every month goes to support free speech, religious freedom, the
Speaker 2: sanctity of life, as well as supporting our Second Amendment.
Speaker 2: And then they do something else.
Speaker 1: It's amazing.
Speaker 2: They stand with our military veterans, our wounded warriors, and
Speaker 2: our first responder heroes. So in essence, when you make
Speaker 2: a phone call, when you pay your bill every month,
Speaker 2: you're standing up for what you believe in. Just go
Speaker 2: to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriotmobile dot com
Speaker 2: slash verdict, or call them at nine seven to two
Speaker 2: Patriot that's nine seven to two Patriot And here's the
Speaker 2: other thing. You'll get free activation when you use the
Speaker 2: offer code Verdict Patriotmobile dot com slash Verdict or nine.
Speaker 1: Seven to two Patriot Center.
Speaker 2: Before we get in to you and this incredible cross
Speaker 2: examination of this radical judicial nominee.
Speaker 1: I got a bone to pick with you.
Speaker 2: For four years you've been abstaining from going on CNN,
Speaker 2: And in the last four years, CNN's ratings have gone
Speaker 2: to hell in a handbasket, so bad that they drew
Speaker 2: just eighty three thousand viewers ages twenty five to fifty
Speaker 2: four during the week of May the thirteenth to the nineteenth.
Speaker 2: That is the lowest rating they've had since nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 2: according to the Nielsen ratings. And then all of a sudden,
Speaker 2: you showed up on CNN yesterday for an interview. Are
Speaker 2: you trying to save the network, sir? Because it's going
Speaker 2: Are you going to help them?
Speaker 3: Well, look, once Ben Ferguson left CNN, they were in
Speaker 3: a downward spiral.
Speaker 2: And I'm glad you remember that. That was about four
Speaker 2: years ago as well, thank you, And.
Speaker 3: The company's been hurting ever since. So you know, I
Speaker 3: want to do what I can for a poor, struggling, drowning,
Speaker 3: fake journalistic network.
Speaker 2: In all fairness, you actually went on there to talk
Speaker 2: about the important piece of legislation that you've been pushing
Speaker 2: that deals with IVF, and they gave you a platform
Speaker 2: to talk about that for a moment before they didn't
Speaker 2: try to come after you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And Kaitlyn, Kaitlyn Collins, we
Speaker 3: actually had the first segment. It's kind of funny. My
Speaker 3: team said this. I was going to be on for
Speaker 3: two segments. My team said, the first segment, they'll play nice,
Speaker 3: they'll actually let you talk about what you're here to
Speaker 3: talk about, and you'll have a reasonable conversation. And the
Speaker 3: second segment, she'll get all nasty and she'll perform for
Speaker 3: all of their left wing stakeholders. And that's exactly what
Speaker 3: she did. And she was snarky and interrupted me and
Speaker 3: didn't want me to answer, and you know, played the
Speaker 3: same gotcha game that we're seeing the media do. Their
Speaker 3: favorite thing right now to do to Republicans is say
Speaker 3: will you swear on a stack of Bibles? Actually, they
Speaker 3: don't say a stack of bibles because lefties don't believe
Speaker 3: in bibles. But if they did. They would say, will
Speaker 3: you swear on a stack of Bibles that, no matter what,
Speaker 3: you will fully accept the election results in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: And you know I laugh and say, well, no, who
Speaker 3: on earth would do that. Of course I will accept
Speaker 3: them if they're legitimate. But we have in every state
Speaker 3: we have laws in place to challenge voter fraud when
Speaker 3: they are regularities. We have elections that are challenged all
Speaker 3: the time, and the courts overturn election results when they're fraud.
Speaker 3: Like what imbecile would say, even if something's illegitimate, I'll
Speaker 3: accept it anyway. I'll accept it if it's fair, if
Speaker 3: it follows the law, absolutely, but I'm going to fight
Speaker 3: to uphold the law. And they don't accept that answer,
Speaker 3: and so so Caitlin Collins had kind of a meltdown
Speaker 3: when I gave that answer.
Speaker 2: Over under, you're going to be back in the next
Speaker 2: four years. That's what I really want to know.
Speaker 3: Oh well probably, you know, if nothing else. I sort
Speaker 3: of enjoy going round a round, you know, it gets
Speaker 3: the blood flowing.
Speaker 2: There you go, it's hey, something to do on a
Speaker 2: random Thursday, right, you gotta love it all. Right, let's
Speaker 2: get to the bigger issue here, and that comes up
Speaker 2: with the Biden nominee. You had one heck of a
Speaker 2: time with this Biden radical nominee, Sarah Netbourne. I want
Speaker 2: you to set the stage for this nominee that was
Speaker 2: coming before you guys in the Senate. It's a nominee
Speaker 2: for the judge for the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 2: Obviously that's gonna be someone that's pretty liberal, but this
Speaker 2: went off the charts radical and is now putting women's
Speaker 2: lives at risk in prison because of decisions that this
Speaker 2: judge is made in the past.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right. So we had a hearing this
Speaker 3: week with a total of five Biden District Court nominees,
Speaker 3: and all five of them were quite left wing. And
Speaker 3: in fact, what Dick Durbin, who's the chairman of the
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee, did is he stacked them all together because
Speaker 3: this one, in particular was so egregious that I think
Speaker 3: Durbin knew that she would draw all the fire and
Speaker 3: the other four would would basically skate by because you
Speaker 3: only have a limited number time to cross examine, and
Speaker 3: so this one's record was so bad that the others
Speaker 3: got very little scrutiny. But this particular judicial nominee is
Speaker 3: a woman named Sarah Netburn, and she is a She's
Speaker 3: a magistrate judge in New York. That Biden's nominated to
Speaker 3: be a federal district judge in New York, And that
Speaker 3: means she's the pick of Chuck Schumer. And I got
Speaker 3: to say, even for Biden nominees, and Biden nominees have
Speaker 3: been hard left, they've been much more radical than Obama
Speaker 3: nominees ever were. Even for Biden nominees, this nominee was
Speaker 3: wildly outside the mainstream. And well, look, rather than relive it,
Speaker 3: we should just just just play the cross examination.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's gone viral on social media. More than thirty
Speaker 2: eight million have watched this on act so far.
Speaker 1: Take a listen, Well, Judge that Burn.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna can tinue on this line of questioning in
Speaker 3: your court, what matters more the rights of individuals or
Speaker 3: your political ideology?
Speaker 4: I apply the law to the facts.
Speaker 3: I asked a question which matters more.
Speaker 4: Well, my political ideology doesn't matter at all.
Speaker 3: Okay, So I don't believe you, and I think this
Speaker 3: case demonstrates that you are willing to subjugate the rights
Speaker 3: of individuals to satisfy your political ideology. This case involves
Speaker 3: a male defendant who raped a nine year old boy?
Speaker 3: Was he guilty of that?
Speaker 4: Yes, the petitioner pled guilty to that.
Speaker 3: Okay, So he raped a nine year old boy. He
Speaker 3: also raped a seventeen year old girl. Was he guilty
Speaker 3: of that?
Speaker 4: He pled guilty. The petitioner pled guilty of that crime
Speaker 4: as well.
Speaker 3: So was he guilty?
Speaker 4: I hope so because she pled guilty to it?
Speaker 3: He was a he when he did this, that's correct,
Speaker 3: and also criminal deviant conduct, which the record doesn't disclose
Speaker 3: what that it was exactly. Then, after serving in prison,
Speaker 3: mister mclan was released for parole, but then violated the
Speaker 3: terms of parole by having Internet and was sent back
Speaker 3: to prison. One year after being released again, he was
Speaker 3: convicted of having child pornography. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: I'm unclear on exactly the timeframe that you're at, but
Speaker 4: the petitioner was convicted of distributing child pornography.
Speaker 3: Child pornography that was images of adults violently raping children.
Speaker 4: Abhorrent conduct, okay, for which there are real victims.
Speaker 3: And this individual six foot two biologically a man A
Speaker 3: minute ago, you said that when this man decided that
Speaker 3: he was a she, you said, this individual was quote
Speaker 3: I wrote it down, sober and entirely a female. That
Speaker 3: phrase struck me as remarkable. Did this individual have male genitalia?
Speaker 4: I think what I said, or at least.
Speaker 3: That is a verbatim quote entirely a female?
Speaker 4: Sorry, what I meant to say was hormonally a female.
Speaker 3: Okay, but that's not entirely. Did this individual have male genitalia?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 3: So you took a six foot two serial rapist, serial
Speaker 3: child rapist with male genitalia, and he said, you know,
Speaker 3: I'd like to be in a women's prison, and your
Speaker 3: answer was that sounds great to me. Let me ask
Speaker 3: you something. The other women in that prison? Do they
Speaker 3: have any rights?
Speaker 4: Is that a question?
Speaker 3: Yes? The other women in that prison? Do they have
Speaker 3: any rights?
Speaker 4: Of course?
Speaker 3: Do they have the right not to have a six
Speaker 3: foot two man who is a repeat serial rapist put
Speaker 3: in as their cellmate?
Speaker 4: Senator Cruz, I considered the facts presented to me, and
Speaker 4: I reached a decision.
Speaker 3: I asked you a question a lot. I asked you
Speaker 3: a question. Do they have a right not to have
Speaker 3: a six foot two man who is a serial rapist
Speaker 3: put in as their cellmate. Do those women have a
Speaker 3: right to that.
Speaker 4: Every person who's incarcerated has the right to be safe
Speaker 4: in their space.
Speaker 3: But you didn't think so. You didn't think so. And
Speaker 3: in fact, I'm gonna give some quotes from your order
Speaker 3: because Senator Kennedy is right. This is not a judge's order.
Speaker 3: This is a political activist. By the way, the beginning
Speaker 3: of your order says, at birth, people are typically assigned agender.
Speaker 3: I gotta say that would astonish a lot of Americans.
Speaker 3: A lot of Americans think, you go to the hospital,
Speaker 3: baby is born, and congratulations, you have a little boy,
Speaker 3: a little girl the assigned agender. I know you went
Speaker 3: to Brown, but it sounds like it's in a college
Speaker 3: faculty lounge with no bearing on reality. The Bureau of
Speaker 3: Prison argued what I'm saying right now, that if you
Speaker 3: put this person in a female prison, there will be
Speaker 3: a risk of sexual assault to the women. And you
Speaker 3: know what you did. You said you didn't care about
Speaker 3: the women. I'm gonna quote what you wrote. You wrote
Speaker 3: quote the Bureau of Prisons claim penological interest in protecting
Speaker 3: female prisoners from sexual violence and trauma. This interest is legitimate.
Speaker 3: That's kind of you to say, But there are no
Speaker 3: signs that petitioner is at risk of reoffending. The record
Speaker 3: is devoid of evidence of incidents of violence or assault
Speaker 3: during petitioners incarceration when she was the perpetrator. Only the victim.
Speaker 3: A theoretical risk of sexual assault by the prisoner without
Speaker 3: more cannot support the BOP's position. No evidence theoretical have
Speaker 3: you dealt in what universe is someone who is a serial,
Speaker 3: repeat child rapist not at a risk of reoffending?
Speaker 4: Senator? As I do in every case?
Speaker 3: Okay, I know you've been told to repeat the line,
Speaker 3: I follow the law. I asked a question, in what
Speaker 3: universe is someone who is a serial, repeat child rapist
Speaker 3: not at risk of reoffending?
Speaker 5: Sir?
Speaker 4: I looked at the facts that were before me in
Speaker 4: this case, all of the evidence, including the statements of
Speaker 4: every warden who had supervised this petition.
Speaker 3: You also wrote, the BOP also posits the permitting petitioner
Speaker 3: to live among women will be traumatizing and possibly dangerous
Speaker 3: to them. This concern is overblown. I have to say,
Speaker 3: if I were the father of one of those women,
Speaker 3: and you decided that my daughter's cellmate was going to
Speaker 3: be a six foot two man who over and over
Speaker 3: and over again committed violent sexual assault. I would say
Speaker 3: the entire justice system is absurd, and it is clear
Speaker 3: on your record your political ideology matters a heck of
Speaker 3: a lot more than the rights of those women that
Speaker 3: you endangered. I think you're a radical, and I think
Speaker 3: you have no business being a judge.
Speaker 1: Senator.
Speaker 2: I want to take a moment and explain to people
Speaker 2: the strategy when there is a judge that is nominated
Speaker 2: in this scenario. One of the first questions that the
Speaker 2: team that is supposed to be helping here right on
Speaker 2: the Biden side would say, is okay, hey, let's look
Speaker 2: at a record. Are there any liabilities out there? Are
Speaker 2: there any cases that you can't explain? Are there going
Speaker 2: to be things they're gonna embarrass us or hold us up?
Speaker 2: Is that now like completely gone for the nomination process
Speaker 2: if you're on the on the on the left, on
Speaker 2: the Democratic side, where hey, it doesn't matter how radical
Speaker 2: you are, if we like you and we think you're
Speaker 2: one of us, we'll just nominate you no matter what
Speaker 2: you've done in your past.
Speaker 3: So Ben, I'll say, it's worse than that the more
Speaker 3: radical you are, the more of a plus it is.
Speaker 3: They're deliberately looking for people who do things like this.
Speaker 3: The fact that this woman is a left wing radical
Speaker 3: who sees this, this transgender six foot two men who
Speaker 3: claims he's a woman and wants to be in a
Speaker 3: women's prison and says great, puts ideology above the law.
Speaker 3: Puts ideology above the rights of women. By the way,
Speaker 3: today's radical leftist that that there's a hierarchy of whose
Speaker 3: rights matters, and and and to the left, transgender people
Speaker 3: rights matter more than women's rights, and so the women's
Speaker 3: rights just don't matter at all. And you know, it's
Speaker 3: very easy for a privileged life just to say this
Speaker 3: because you know what, this judge, she didn't have a
Speaker 3: cell mate who was a serial rapist. She was just
Speaker 3: subjecting other people to that, and so it made her
Speaker 3: ideology feel very good.
Speaker 1: But qualified her is what you're saying. This is what
Speaker 1: qualities might.
Speaker 3: Seek out people like this. This is who they're looking for.
Speaker 3: And i'll tell you for a district judge, in all likelihood,
Speaker 3: this person was selected by Chuck Schumer. The way it
Speaker 3: works for district judges is the home state senators have
Speaker 3: enormous ways. So to give you a sense, for the
Speaker 3: past twelve years that I've been in the Senate, practically
Speaker 3: every district court nominee from the state of Texas, John
Speaker 3: Cornyn and I have submitted to the White House one
Speaker 3: name for each vacancy. And that's been true under Democrat
Speaker 3: and Republican presidents. As a practical matter, the Senators typically
Speaker 3: pick the district judges.
Speaker 2: So they look at her or she looks at these
Speaker 2: cases and says, hey, I want to move up the ranks.
Speaker 2: I got to do something that signals to them that
Speaker 2: I'm an activist, I'm an extremist, and that gets me
Speaker 2: to the front of the line. Because if you're normal,
Speaker 2: insane and you would say, of course, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to put a serial rapist in a women's prison who's
Speaker 2: a six foot two dude, then you may get passed
Speaker 2: up by the entire Democratic administration.
Speaker 3: Look, it's one of the striking things under Biden. The
Speaker 3: judicial nominees under Biden have been much, much, much more
Speaker 3: radical than they were under Obama. Listen, I was not
Speaker 3: a fan of Obama's nominees. To put it mildly, they
Speaker 3: were all quite left wing, but Biden has made them
Speaker 3: look positively middle of the road. They are seeking out radicals,
Speaker 3: They're seeking out people who are extreme. We had one another,
Speaker 3: actually New York District Court nominee, who described himself in
Speaker 3: his own words as a quote wild eyed liberal who
Speaker 3: said every morning he wakes up motivated by hatred for conservatives. Well,
Speaker 3: apparently that's how you get selected by Chuck Schumer. He
Speaker 3: got nominated, and I and others made the point, Look,
Speaker 3: there are actually some Republicans, some conservatives in the state
Speaker 3: of New York. If God forbid, you find yourself in
Speaker 3: this judge's court, how are you supposed to believe you
Speaker 3: can get a fair treatment and equal justice under the
Speaker 3: law from a judge who told you he woke up
Speaker 3: that morning motivated by his hatred for you. Well it
Speaker 3: didn't matter. The Democrats all voted party line. They got
Speaker 3: behind him. He's now a judge in New York. He
Speaker 3: was confirmed by this Democrat Senate. There was another judge
Speaker 3: nominated in Connecticut, so the Connecticut senators decided they wanted
Speaker 3: this judge. She was a law professor. She signed a
Speaker 3: letter to the Governor of Connecticut arguing during COVID that
Speaker 3: he should release every single prisoner from pre trial to
Speaker 3: atention with no qualification. So that included murderers, that included rapists,
Speaker 3: that included child molesters, all of them should be released
Speaker 3: from prison because of COVID.
Speaker 1: That's just nuts that.
Speaker 3: There was another judiciale from the Central District of California who,
Speaker 3: again in a law review article, argued that the laws
Speaker 3: restricting where sexual predators can live should be struck down
Speaker 3: and and pedophiles should be able to live next to
Speaker 3: daycare centers and kindergartens. Listen, I urged the Democrats and
Speaker 3: the Judiciary Committee. I said, I get that it's a
Speaker 3: Democrat president. You're Democrats. You're going to confirm most of
Speaker 3: the nominees. You know, when Trump was president, we confirm
Speaker 3: most of the nominees. But you know what we did
Speaker 3: when Trump was president. We rejected several of them because
Speaker 3: the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to to to
Speaker 3: advise and consent, and there were some of the nominees
Speaker 3: the Trump White House missed on and even though he
Speaker 3: was a Republican, we said, no, this is not going
Speaker 3: to do and they withdrew those nominees.
Speaker 1: The Senate, you'ee right, Yes.
Speaker 3: We got much better nominees that that's actually the constitutional
Speaker 3: process that's doing our job. The Democrats are just like
Speaker 3: the polit girl. And on this judge that said that
Speaker 3: you should not restrict where sexual predators live, I said,
Speaker 3: I don't care how blue a state you live in,
Speaker 3: whether New York or Connecticut or New Jersey or WII
Speaker 3: or Vermont, whatever state you're in. I promise you gather
Speaker 3: fifty one hundred year constituents, get them together and ask them, hey,
Speaker 3: do you think pedophiles should live next to a kindergarten.
Speaker 3: They're all going to say no. No, normal rational person
Speaker 3: answers yes to that. But in this Biden White House,
Speaker 3: with this Chuck Schumer Democrat Senate, those are the kind
Speaker 3: of radicals they want to be federal judges.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great point, and it's sad that these
Speaker 2: are the people getting these jobs and then they get
Speaker 2: sit there for years on end, affecting people's lives in
Speaker 2: a major way. And we're going to talk about the
Speaker 2: Trump trial in a minute. It's a perfect example of that.
Speaker 2: Want to talk to you real quick about something we
Speaker 2: started talking about about a year ago. I told you
Speaker 2: about a year ago about chalk. Now, if you're a
Speaker 2: guy and you're like me, and you've gotten a little
Speaker 2: bit older, and you feel like that you've lost that edge,
Speaker 2: you feel like you've lost some of your energy, your focus,
Speaker 2: and you're not able to get up and work out
Speaker 2: and play sports and be active the way you used to,
Speaker 2: and you want to go back to that, then you
Speaker 2: need to check out what chalk can do for you.
Speaker 2: Low testostrum levels are now incredibly bad. In fact, they're
Speaker 2: off a cliff historically at an all time low.
Speaker 1: And that is where chalk comes in. Chalk Choq.
Speaker 2: They're helping real American men just like you, take back
Speaker 2: your right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boosting testostrum
Speaker 2: levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now in
Speaker 2: the last year I have lost about fifty six or
Speaker 2: seven pounds so far. I got to tell you, taking
Speaker 2: chalk is at a huge difference on my ability to
Speaker 2: work out and to cant Can you working out without
Speaker 2: that fatigue setting in? So if you are sick and
Speaker 2: tired of feeling sick and tired of just not feeling
Speaker 2: like yourself, you need to check out chalk. I've been
Speaker 2: taking the Chalk Male Vitality Stack, like I said, for
Speaker 2: over a year now, and that is what it's done
Speaker 2: for me. It's manufactured right here in the US of A.
Speaker 2: Chalk's natural Aurble supplements are clinically proven to have game
Speaker 2: changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. And
Speaker 2: you can maximize your masculinity today by boosting your testosterum
Speaker 2: levels up to twenty percent of ninety days by going
Speaker 2: to Chalkchoq dot com. Use the promo code Ben for
Speaker 2: a massive discount on any subscription for life. Choq dot
Speaker 2: com promo code Ben for lifetime savings on any subscription.
Speaker 2: Limited time offer and subscriptions are cancible at any time.
Speaker 2: Choq dot com promo code Ben Center. I want to
Speaker 2: move into the Trump trial now because I think it's
Speaker 2: a perfect example of the radicals that get on these
Speaker 2: courts and what can happen. We know that the federal
Speaker 2: government seven eight years ago said no to even taking
Speaker 2: this case on.
Speaker 1: They thought it was ridiculous.
Speaker 2: They chose not to move forward with it because they
Speaker 2: didn't think there was anything there. And then you've got
Speaker 2: an activist judge or activist da and Alvin Bragg who says, hey, hey,
Speaker 2: vote for me and I'll go after Trump. And then
Speaker 2: he finds the perfect judge, the perfect place in Manhattan
Speaker 2: where ninety percent of the people vote against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Last time, you go to trial and all of a
Speaker 2: sudden we find a crime that's been committed. Now, but
Speaker 2: it wasn't Donald Trump that committed that crime. It's the
Speaker 2: key witness for the government who had to admit in
Speaker 2: court that he took money, stole money from the Trump organization.
Speaker 2: How is this trial not at that point just immediately canceled, saying, hey,
Speaker 2: we're gonna have it, miss trial, it's over.
Speaker 3: Well, listen, this has been a partisan circus from day one.
Speaker 3: As you noted, the district attorney is a hard left
Speaker 3: wing Democrat partisan. He was elected with money from George Soros.
Speaker 3: He came in with an agenda, an agenda to get
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, and it didn't matter what the charge was,
Speaker 3: he was going to try to take Trump down. So
Speaker 3: that they got particularly creative in this case to create
Speaker 3: a prosecution where there was no crime. Now, we all
Speaker 3: know about the alleged affair with Stormy Daniels and the
Speaker 3: hush money, and that is salacious, but it's not in
Speaker 3: fact criminal. So here's their argument, and it's it's a
Speaker 3: bootstrap on top of a bootstrap. They argue, first of all,
Speaker 3: that paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet and not tell
Speaker 3: her story that constituted a illegal campaign contribution under federal
Speaker 3: campaign finance laws. Now, if that were the case, it's
Speaker 3: not the Manhattan DA that prosecutes violations of federal campaign
Speaker 3: finance laws, it's the federal government. The federal government looked
Speaker 3: at this and concluded, Nope, we're not going to bring
Speaker 3: a case here. So that's a problem. Their predicate crime
Speaker 3: they don't have the jurisdiction to prosecute. So they then
Speaker 3: have a different New York statue that makes it a
Speaker 3: crime to keep fake fraudulent books. And the problem is
Speaker 3: that that crime is ordinarily a misdemeanor, but in this
Speaker 3: case they elevated to being a felony howe by saying, well,
Speaker 3: the fraudulent books are in furtherance of a crime in
Speaker 3: this case, the federal crime that the federal government declined
Speaker 3: to bring. And so it is literally a non crime
Speaker 3: on top of a non crime. Because the payment to
Speaker 3: the lawyers that allegedly went out to Stormy Daniels were
Speaker 3: labeled as legal expenses, and that's what they're claiming is
Speaker 3: the crime of covering up the non crime of the
Speaker 3: campaign finance offense. Now their star witness is Michael Cohen.
Speaker 3: This is a lawyer who has lied over and over
Speaker 3: and over again. He lied during the trial. He got
Speaker 3: caught lying during the trial. He's someone who has a
Speaker 3: long history of lying. But even with that long history
Speaker 3: of lying, I really didn't think he would sit on
Speaker 3: the stand and admit himself to being a felon, to
Speaker 3: having stolen from Trump. And I'll tell you what to
Speaker 3: listen to what CNN's legal expert Eli Hannig said on this.
Speaker 6: I think the revelation though this morning about the theft
Speaker 6: of thirty thousand dollars, which was doubled because they covered
Speaker 6: his taxes, so sixty thousand dollars, it came out in
Speaker 6: a glancing, unclear way on direct It came out like
Speaker 6: a bomb earlier today. I don't know how much they
Speaker 6: can do to fix that. It just at a certain point,
Speaker 6: it is the fact Michael Cohen did steal this money.
Speaker 6: And what makes that really so important, Wolf is it's
Speaker 6: not as if Michael Cohen was just stealing on the side,
Speaker 6: that'd be bad enough. The problem is he was stealing
Speaker 6: from the exact reimbursement at issue in this case. So
Speaker 6: the prosecution's core argument is Donald Trump knew what that
Speaker 6: four hundred and twenty five dollars was all about. He
Speaker 6: was totally read in on.
Speaker 1: It turns out.
Speaker 6: Michael Cohen was stealing from him within that four hundred
Speaker 6: twenty thousand.
Speaker 7: Does Michael Cohen's acknowledgment admission that he stole tens of
Speaker 7: thousands of dollars from the Trump organization potentially opening him
Speaker 7: up opened him up to further criminal criminal process.
Speaker 1: It's a great question.
Speaker 6: The answer is not anymore because the statutal limitations has
Speaker 6: run out. But it's a very fair question to ask
Speaker 6: j folks of the jury. They gave him a free pass.
Speaker 6: He committed larceny. It's a higher degree of felony than
Speaker 6: what Donald Trump is charged with. Yet they gave Michael
Speaker 6: Cohen a free pass, even though he's now admitted that
Speaker 6: he stole what amounts to sixty thousand dollars. It goes
Speaker 6: to his credibility, it goes to his relationship with the DA.
Speaker 2: You look at his quote and it's it's just obviously
Speaker 2: he knows he's got to get out a jail free
Speaker 2: card because it was a simple question. So you stole
Speaker 2: from the Trump organization, question Mark Cohen, Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: It's almost like he's proud of it.
Speaker 2: He's like, yeah, I was stealing from the guy. And
Speaker 2: by the way, this is the one he admits, we
Speaker 2: have no idea what else you may have done that
Speaker 2: we don't know about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but look, the DA has an objective here, and
Speaker 3: it's not actually to prosecute crimes. It's not actually to
Speaker 3: enforce the law. It's to get Donald Trump. So the
Speaker 3: DA is quite happy with he stole from Donald Trump
Speaker 3: because they're objective. The radical left has decided Donald Trump
Speaker 3: is the devil and they will do anything, anything, anything
Speaker 3: possible to get him. And by the way, the media
Speaker 3: is in terror. We at a prior pod covered Anderson
Speaker 3: Cooper freaking out how badly the trial's going. Take a
Speaker 3: listen to what Jake Tapper and Laura Coach said about
Speaker 3: about this, this Michael Cohen testimony.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's fascinating stuff.
Speaker 8: And I have to say I'm still kind of reeling
Speaker 8: from the revelation that Michael Cohen stole money from the
Speaker 8: Trump organization, and that wasn't, at least to my knowledge,
Speaker 8: that the prosecution didn't get that get that out earlier,
Speaker 8: because it's not as though the prosecution is going to
Speaker 8: be helped by further evidence that Michael Cohen is a
Speaker 8: shady carearacter. I mean, let's I'll get to the newest
Speaker 8: stuff in a second, but like, I mean, what's just
Speaker 8: what's your reaction to that news?
Speaker 3: Because that was just kind of stunning.
Speaker 9: I'm shocked that we are hearing it for the first
Speaker 9: time on day three of cross examination of Michael Cohen,
Speaker 9: that the prosecution did not take the sting out, did
Speaker 9: not front it, because it goes to the heart of
Speaker 9: the actual case. It's not just about establishing him as
Speaker 9: a liar. They've done that. The prosecution fronted that. We
Speaker 9: knew that he has convictions, but going to the heart
Speaker 9: of what you were telling your employer about what money
Speaker 9: you were owed and the extent of it. We're talking
Speaker 9: about four hundred and twenty thousand dollars. We've already seen
Speaker 9: the paper. This is like a fifteen bucks, not afteen bucks,
Speaker 9: and we I mean, if you think are the tablet,
Speaker 9: you can break down what was already known. We've known
Speaker 9: about what the breakdown of the money is. One hundred
Speaker 9: and thirty thousand dollars to Daniels and her attorney. You
Speaker 9: got fifty thousand dollars. That's Redfinch.
Speaker 1: This is important here.
Speaker 9: This was mentioned today that he only gave Redfinch twenty
Speaker 9: thousand dollars and handed them.
Speaker 1: In a brown paper bag.
Speaker 9: By the way, just thinking about how that is.
Speaker 1: One quick note.
Speaker 8: Redfinch is this political organization that apparently, according to Michael Cohen,
Speaker 8: helped them goose these bogus internet polls about which candidate
Speaker 8: is in the lead, et cetera, et cetera, and also,
Speaker 8: according to Lanny Davis, provided adoring fans for Trump's announcement
Speaker 8: of his candidacy in June twenty fifteenth.
Speaker 9: Sorry, really important point to add. Why this is they
Speaker 9: only got twenty thousand of it though the bill was
Speaker 9: for fifty thousand dollars, and you have one hundred and
Speaker 9: eighty thousand dollars, which is again the double of these
Speaker 9: two combinations. And then a bonus for Cohen. Remember all
Speaker 9: that we have so far to link Donald Trump to
Speaker 9: these payments, in part is the statement that quote unquote
Speaker 9: he approved it.
Speaker 1: We also know we have.
Speaker 9: Information about where the checks were, how it was signed.
Speaker 9: But remember mcconnie, that was one of the comptrollers of
Speaker 9: the Trump organization taking notes from Alan Weiselberg about the
Speaker 9: money payment. So this is part of what we're talking about.
Speaker 9: Why this is so important here is because the heart
Speaker 9: of the matter is that Donald Trump was complicit, caused
Speaker 9: to have this happen and knew about the money that
Speaker 9: was going and why if they can establish Michael Cowen
Speaker 9: as somebody who is not to be trusted about the
Speaker 9: amount of money as well, then they might be able
Speaker 9: to suggest that Donald Trump had no idea what he
Speaker 9: was trying.
Speaker 2: So, by the way, I think it's pretty clear Donald
Speaker 2: Trump had no idea what was paying. Otherwise, why would
Speaker 2: you be giving this money to a guy that is
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, a bunch of the money's disappearing,
Speaker 2: like blows the case.
Speaker 1: Out of the water.
Speaker 3: The prosecution's argument is Michael Cohen is a liar, but
Speaker 3: he's a thief too. Like that that's kind of a problem.
Speaker 3: But you know what, the corporate media is so corrupt
Speaker 3: they're trying to defend him. Listen to Laurence o'donald from
Speaker 3: MSNBC trying to explain that the fact that that Cohen
Speaker 3: was stealing from Trump, it's really not a problem.
Speaker 4: It's okay inside the core room, even there, almost every
Speaker 4: day you have the strength of of.
Speaker 1: Beyond mortal men. But what was worth it to you today?
Speaker 1: What did you see?
Speaker 4: What did you hear?
Speaker 5: Well, you know, the courtroom is where I began as
Speaker 5: a writer and a reporter a long time ago. So
Speaker 5: this is a homecoming for me in terms of a workplace.
Speaker 1: The shocking thing at the.
Speaker 5: End of that cross examination, and I just can't tell
Speaker 5: you how just how stunning it was, because it's the
Speaker 5: thing that I was waiting for. I saw everything Todd Blanche.
Speaker 5: I've seen every minute of cross examination. I've seen every
Speaker 5: single question he's asked. And he sat down and ended
Speaker 5: his cross examination without asking a single question about the
Speaker 5: one hundred and thirty thousand dollars that appears on the
Speaker 5: Alan Weiselberg notes about how they were structuring the payment
Speaker 5: to Michael Cohen. He asked about the fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 5: that's irrelevant to the one hundred and thirty thousand dollars,
Speaker 5: and that's where he very effectively got Michael Cohen to
Speaker 5: say to agree that yes, he stole thirty thousand dollars. Later,
Speaker 5: when Cohen was asked about that on redirect by the prosecution,
Speaker 5: it didn't really sound like stealing thirty thousand dollars. It
Speaker 5: sounded a lot like Michael Cohen doing the little that
Speaker 5: he could within that calculation to rebalance the bonus he
Speaker 5: thought he deserves, and it still came out as less
Speaker 5: than the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus
Speaker 5: you've gotten the year before.
Speaker 2: I mean, I love how he's like justifying the stealing
Speaker 2: because he thought he'd.
Speaker 3: Deserved trying to rebalance the bonus. You know, if you
Speaker 3: steal from your employer, you're just trying to rebalance what
Speaker 3: they're paying you because you know you're worth more, so
Speaker 3: steal away. That is MSNBC's defense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's not a big deal to pay people
Speaker 2: in brown paper bags for work, right, That's also very
Speaker 2: normal apparently in the minds of him an NBC as well,
Speaker 2: So we'll completely overlook that as well. Final question on this,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, You're right not going to take the stand
Speaker 2: that I think is obviously a smart decision.
Speaker 1: As you described it.
Speaker 2: I think it was in the last podcast the one
Speaker 2: before that he's not going to.
Speaker 3: Ye, which is what we predicted on this podcast before
Speaker 3: that decision was made. I said on this podcast the
Speaker 3: chances that Donald Trump will go on the stand or
Speaker 3: zero point zero zero percent. Well that was proven right.
Speaker 3: He's not going on the stand because his lawyers are
Speaker 3: not incompetent in committing malpractice.
Speaker 2: So when you're looking at this now, what do you
Speaker 2: think is going to happen?
Speaker 1: What's your gut?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I remain worried. Listen on the merits.
Speaker 3: This case is frivolous. And I will point out also
Speaker 3: that the judge one of the things he did is
Speaker 3: he blocked the Trump campaign from putting on the witness
Speaker 3: stand the former chairman of the FEC, Brad Smith. Brad
Speaker 3: Smith is a law professor, is one of the most
Speaker 3: well respet did campaign finance experts in the country. Campaign
Speaker 3: finance law is famously complicated, and Bratt Smith was prepared
Speaker 3: to testify that that paying hush money does not constitute
Speaker 3: a campaign expense. If that's correct, the entire case goes
Speaker 3: out the window. And it's interesting. So after the judge
Speaker 3: blocked him from testifying, Smith did an interview did an
Speaker 3: interview with The Washington Examiner where he described what he
Speaker 3: would have testified to and Smith said, here's what Smith said. Quote,
Speaker 3: judges instruct the juries on the law, and they don't
Speaker 3: want a battle of competing experts saying here's what the
Speaker 3: law is. They feel it's their province to make that determination.
Speaker 3: The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is
Speaker 3: extremely complex, and just reading the statute to people isn't
Speaker 3: really going to help them very much. The goal of
Speaker 3: his testimony, Smith said was quote to lay out the
Speaker 3: ways the laws has been interpreted in ways that might
Speaker 3: not be obvious. As an example, Smith cited the phrase
Speaker 3: quote for the purpose of influencing an election, which has
Speaker 3: been heard during much analysis of the trial. Quote you
Speaker 3: read the law and it says that anything intended for
Speaker 3: the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or
Speaker 3: an expenditure, Smith explained. But that's not, in fact the
Speaker 3: entirety of the law. There is the obscure and separate
Speaker 3: from the definitional part idea personal use, which is a
Speaker 3: separate part of the law that says you can't divert
Speaker 3: campaign funds to personal use that has a number of
Speaker 3: specific prohibitions, like you can't buy a country club membership,
Speaker 3: you can't normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses,
Speaker 3: you can't go on vacation, all those kinds of things.
Speaker 3: And then it includes a broader general prohibition that says
Speaker 3: you can't divert campaign funds to any obligation that would
Speaker 3: exist even if you were not running for office. What's
Speaker 3: the point of that quote? We would have liked to
Speaker 3: flag that exception for the jury and to talk a
Speaker 3: little bit about what it means. And also we would
Speaker 3: have talked about quote for the purpose of influence in
Speaker 3: an election is not a subjective test like what was
Speaker 3: my intention? It's an objective test. So hiring campaign staff
Speaker 3: is for the purpose of influencing an election, Renting space
Speaker 3: for your campaign office, buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing
Speaker 3: up bumper stickers, travel to campaign rallies, renting venues for
Speaker 3: campaign rallies. All those things exist only because you're running
Speaker 3: for office. But under the personal use rules, a lot
Speaker 3: of things candidates do running for office are not considered
Speaker 3: campaign expenditures. Things like paying for a weight loss program
Speaker 3: or a gym membership, nicer clothes, teeth whitening, or all
Speaker 3: that sort of thing. It may be true that you
Speaker 3: do those things in part to help get yourself elected,
Speaker 3: and you might not do them otherwise because but they
Speaker 3: are not obligations that exist simply because you're running for office.
Speaker 3: Lots of people do those things. And what he argued
Speaker 3: is that in this instance, I can tell you it
Speaker 3: is my personal belief is that clearly paying hush money
Speaker 3: or paying for a non disclosure agreement does not constitute
Speaker 3: a campaign expense. That's what the former FEC chairman would
Speaker 3: have testified to quote. To use an example I've often used,
Speaker 3: it's not a campaign expense. If a business person is
Speaker 3: running for office and his businesses are getting sued, and
Speaker 3: he goes to his company's lawyers and say, I wish
Speaker 3: to settle these lawsuits against us. We've got some wage
Speaker 3: employment lawsuits and a woman is alleging sexual harassment. We've
Speaker 3: got thirty six thousand employees. What we've got to make
Speaker 3: these three complaints and the press will make a big
Speaker 3: deal about them, So I want you to settle these.
Speaker 3: And the company lawyers say, no, these are great cases,
Speaker 3: we should win. We shouldn't settle them. He says, I
Speaker 3: don't care. I'm running for office. I don't want press
Speaker 3: stories on it. I want them you to settle them quietly. Well,
Speaker 3: he cannot use campaign funds to pay that settlement, even
Speaker 3: though he's clearly doing it for the purpose of influencing
Speaker 3: his campaign. It's kind of similar to what went on here.
Speaker 3: Smith continued quote. So my personal belief is that this
Speaker 3: clearly would not have been a campaign expenditure, never had
Speaker 3: to be reported, and therefore was not misreported. And you
Speaker 3: know what the judge said. The jury can't hear a
Speaker 3: word of that because it demonstrates he didn't say this part,
Speaker 3: but because it demonstrates that the prosecutor's case is utter, incomplete.
Speaker 2: Garbage, unbelievable bias in this case. And it's another example
Speaker 2: of that. I want to tell you real quick about
Speaker 2: an amazing organization that I want you to know about,
Speaker 2: and it is an organization called it preborn. When a
Speaker 2: mother with an unplanned pregnancy meets her baby on ultrasound
Speaker 2: and here's their heartbeat, it is a divine encounter that
Speaker 2: doubles a baby's chance at life by six weeks, eyes
Speaker 2: are forming with a baby by ten weeks, a baby
Speaker 2: is able to suck his or her own thumb, and
Speaker 2: for just twenty eight dollars, you could be the difference
Speaker 2: between the life or death of a child. That is
Speaker 2: what Preborn does. They give women the ability to hear
Speaker 2: their baby's heartbeat on ultrasound. It's just like putting your
Speaker 2: hand over your heart. Right now, you know that you're
Speaker 2: alive because you can feel that heartbeat. And the same
Speaker 2: is for a preborn baby. Their heart begins to form
Speaker 2: at conception and at just three weeks it's already beating
Speaker 2: and five weeks a baby's heartbeat can be heard on
Speaker 2: that ultrasound. And that's why we partnered with Preborn, because
Speaker 2: we need to help these precious babies. Every day Preborn's
Speaker 2: networks of clinics they rescue two hundred babies from abortion.
Speaker 2: That is why I want you to get involved. All
Speaker 2: gifts are tax seductible. You can donate by just dialing
Speaker 2: pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound
Speaker 2: two fifty, say the keyword baby. Or you can donate
Speaker 2: securely at preborn dot com slash verdict. That's preborn dot com,
Speaker 2: slash verdict. Get in the game, help fight back against
Speaker 2: what they're doing over it. Planned Parenthood. Help the people
Speaker 2: at Preborn who are giving mothers a chance to hear
Speaker 2: their baby's heartbeat for the very first time. Pound two
Speaker 2: fifty on your phone and then use the keyword baby
Speaker 2: or donate securely at preborn dot com slash verdict. Lastly,
Speaker 2: on this issue center, the war on truth is really,
Speaker 2: I think incredible. You can see it. And you mentioned
Speaker 2: this earlier. In the media's coverage of the Trump case,
Speaker 2: you had MSNBC. You and I were texting back and
Speaker 2: forth on this because it was it was a headline
Speaker 2: that was so laughable, and the headline was how Michael
Speaker 2: Cohen's pass lie make him a more credible witness. And
Speaker 2: they weren't the only ones to try to pull this,
Speaker 2: you know, Jedi mind trick on people. The New York
Speaker 2: Times had a headline it says, when Michael Cohen's lies
Speaker 2: help the case against Trump? What world are we living
Speaker 2: in where this is what the media comes up with afterwards?
Speaker 3: A spinnet Well listen. Number one, The media unfortunately regularly lies,
Speaker 3: They engage in lies. They view their role as propagandists.
Speaker 3: It's not they're not interested in the truth. They're not
Speaker 3: interested in reporting both sides. They're not interested in facts.
Speaker 3: They frame their mission as saving democracy, which means pushing
Speaker 3: this country to the left, and as it concerns Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: it means doing everything you can to destroy Trump and
Speaker 3: make sure, no matter what, that he's not re elected
Speaker 3: president of the United States. The spins are rather pitiful.
Speaker 3: The idea that, well, you know what, Cohen lies so
Speaker 3: much that he's really a believable witness, Like that's just weird.
Speaker 3: And I got to say, the media lies about Cohen's
Speaker 3: lies making them more credible are so absurd. It just
Speaker 3: shows they're really bad liars.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're going to continue to do this to
Speaker 2: push this case. Like you said, there's still reason to
Speaker 2: be very concerned. We're going to keep covering it that
Speaker 2: we promise you don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 2: and Friday. We have a week in review of things
Speaker 2: you may have missed during the week on Saturdays as well.
Speaker 2: Hit that subscribe or auto download button, and on those
Speaker 2: in between days make sure you grab my podcast.
Speaker 1: I'll keep you up to date. The Ben Ferguson Podcast.
Speaker 1: It is free.
Speaker 2: You can download it wherever you're listening to this show
Speaker 2: right now, and the Senator, I will see you back
Speaker 2: here for the weekend review on Saturday,