Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you,
Speaker 1: and we've got a lot to talk about on the
Speaker 1: show today, including some breaking news on Hunter Biden, also
Speaker 1: this big rail vote. But even more shocking than that
Speaker 1: is the fact that Senator Cruz apparently, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: confirm this fist bumped with Bernie, says I before I
Speaker 1: deal with Hunter Biden. Senator, I just seem to know
Speaker 1: this really happened. This wasn't fake news on the internet.
Speaker 1: It is true and accurate. Bernie and I fist bumped
Speaker 1: on the floor of the Senate today. And if it
Speaker 1: rapture alert. If you're not right with the Lord, get
Speaker 1: right with the Lord, because when things like this happened,
Speaker 1: you never know what could happen next. We're gonna deal
Speaker 1: with that vote in a moment. But Senator, there's some
Speaker 1: fireworks that happened this week and it has been spreading,
Speaker 1: and that is you asking questions, some pretty tough questions
Speaker 1: in a Senate confirmation hearing that dealt with the issue
Speaker 1: of Hunter Biden. Now before I play this clip of
Speaker 1: it's questioning set the stage for everybody to understand what
Speaker 1: this was about, and this confirmation and why it mattered
Speaker 1: and it was relevant to bring up Hunter Biden. Well,
Speaker 1: this was in a hearing for the Senate Foreign Relations
Speaker 1: Committee this week, and in particular, I was questioning an
Speaker 1: individual named George Kent, who was a State Department employee,
Speaker 1: and he was a senior State Department official that handled
Speaker 1: things concerning Ukraine. He's been now nominated by Joe Biden
Speaker 1: to be the ambassador to Estonia. So he was having
Speaker 1: his confirmation hearing. And you may remember George Kenty. He
Speaker 1: wears a bow tie and he was one of the
Speaker 1: Democrats star witnesses in the impeachment of Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: he had all sorts of bad things to say about Trump.
Speaker 1: But he also said in front of the House and
Speaker 1: sworn testimony that he had raised with the Biden and
Speaker 1: the Obama White House concerns about Hunter Biden's being on
Speaker 1: the board of Barisma, and that that the Office of
Speaker 1: the Vice President blown him off and said, we don't
Speaker 1: have time to deal with this, And so I questioned him.
Speaker 1: I had a posterboard behind me with a picture of
Speaker 1: his sworn testimony saying that he had told the White
Speaker 1: House that it raised the appearance of conflict of interest,
Speaker 1: and so I questioned to begin under oath on that.
Speaker 1: And one of the things he was saying was, well,
Speaker 1: Biden didn't do anything to benefit the corrupt oligarch who
Speaker 1: had who was paying Hunter Biden a million bucks a year,
Speaker 1: and that's just not true, and so I questioned about that.
Speaker 1: I want to play this and one of the things
Speaker 1: that you're going to play is one of my favorite
Speaker 1: pieces of audio that just shows not just the corruption
Speaker 1: of the Biden crime family, but the arrogance of the
Speaker 1: Vice president at the time, where he was basically saying
Speaker 1: to the Ukraine, unless you get rid of the prosecutor
Speaker 1: that's investigating this that coming that my son's on, you're
Speaker 1: not getting any money from the United States of America.
Speaker 1: You read that quote when when Biden was had left
Speaker 1: the vice presidency and was literally bragging about how much
Speaker 1: power he had to get this done. Here is that
Speaker 1: back and forth and then the Democrat shutting you down.
Speaker 1: It's interesting someone who disagrees with you, mister Kent is
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. And I want to read from what he
Speaker 1: said on January twenty, twenty eighteen at the Council of
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations. Quote this is Joe Biden speaking, and I
Speaker 1: went over, I guess the twelve thirteenth time to Kiev,
Speaker 1: and I was supposed to announce that there was another
Speaker 1: billion dollar loan guarantee. And I'd gotten a commitment from
Speaker 1: Porschenko and yet Yatsenyuk that they would take action against
Speaker 1: the state prosecutor, the prosecutor that was investigating Barisma, and
Speaker 1: they didn't. So Biden continues, I said, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to We're not going to give you the billion dollars.
Speaker 1: They said, you have no authority, you're not the president.
Speaker 1: The president said, I said, call him. I said, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said,
Speaker 1: you're not getting the billion dollars. I'm gonna be leaving here.
Speaker 1: And I think it was about six hours. I looked
Speaker 1: at them and said, I'm leaving here in six hours.
Speaker 1: If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well,
Speaker 1: son of a bitch, he got fired. Let me ask
Speaker 1: you something. Do you think Joe Biden holding a billion
Speaker 1: dollars hostage to force the Ukrainian government to fire the
Speaker 1: prosecutor that is investigating the corrupt oligarch who's paying his
Speaker 1: son a million dollars a year. Did getting that prosecutor
Speaker 1: fired benefit that oligarch? Thank you, Senator Cruz. Senator Van
Speaker 1: are you going to allowhim to answer the question, Madam Chairman,
Speaker 1: I am not going to allow him to answer the question.
Speaker 1: And why are you covering for the vice president? Do
Speaker 1: you not want to answer that question? He said that
Speaker 1: the vice president, I think the benefit. I think it's
Speaker 1: unfortunate for you, Senator Cruz, to put in position that
Speaker 1: are uncomfortable the nominees to be our ambassador. This is
Speaker 1: because testimony sort testimony. I understand that president that he
Speaker 1: is going to raise those concerns anytime. Was his testimony
Speaker 1: crew or false? Biden did nothing to benefit the oligarch.
Speaker 1: I want to answer the question, why are you afraid
Speaker 1: of him answering the question? I'm not. I just want
Speaker 1: to move on. But you won't let him answer. I asked, yes,
Speaker 1: no question. Will you allow him to answer the yes
Speaker 1: no question? Yes, you can answer yes or no. Thank you.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor who was fired by the Ukrainian Parliament did
Speaker 1: nothing to investigate Slatchevsky and everything the Vice President, Biden,
Speaker 1: the State Department, and the US embassy did acted in
Speaker 1: good faith to reduce corruption and help the Ukrainian so
Speaker 1: firing him did not benefit the old Thank you, Senator Cruz,
Speaker 1: Senator van hollend I was shocked by how fast they
Speaker 1: decided to go past you on that one has that
Speaker 1: happened to you very often? I mean, how does these
Speaker 1: rule work for people that don't understand the rules? Okay,
Speaker 1: So the person sharing the hearing was Jeane Sheheen as
Speaker 1: a Democrat senator from New Hampshire, and she realized that
Speaker 1: the question I asked was a real problem because it
Speaker 1: showed real corruption on the part of Joe Biden, so
Speaker 1: she didn't want him to answer. But this is where
Speaker 1: the Democrats, frankly, they're just not very good at this.
Speaker 1: They're not very good at being chairman because they're so
Speaker 1: obviously scared of it that it is very unusual. It
Speaker 1: pretty much never happens that if you ask a witness
Speaker 1: a question, a chairman in the Senate won't won't let
Speaker 1: the witness answer. But she didn't want the answer, and
Speaker 1: I guess she thinks that I'm just going to roll
Speaker 1: over and meekly go Okay, I don't want an answer
Speaker 1: to my question. But it's like, no, you are transparently
Speaker 1: covering up for Joe Biden, and it's obvious to anyone watching.
Speaker 1: And you know the kind of way she stammers, well, well,
Speaker 1: well you're making the witness feel uncomfortable. Well you know what,
Speaker 1: that's actually what you're supposed to do when you're questioning
Speaker 1: someone for a confirmation hearing. And when she finally gave
Speaker 1: in and realized how obvious it was that she was
Speaker 1: trying to cover up for a Joe Biden, she said,
Speaker 1: all right, you can answer. He gives the smarmiest, most
Speaker 1: dishonest answer. He makes perfectly clear that he is nothing
Speaker 1: but a partisan hack when he's like, oh, the prosecutor
Speaker 1: that was investing in the getting the oligarch wasn't actually
Speaker 1: investigating the oligarch. That's not true, and Joe Biden only
Speaker 1: wanted good government. Really, then why did his son get
Speaker 1: a million bucks a year when he didn't know a
Speaker 1: damn thing about oil and gas and he couldn't speak Ukrainian.
Speaker 1: He was there for one reason, which was to get
Speaker 1: Joe Biden to get the prosecutor fired, and it was
Speaker 1: a good investment. That oligarch is glad he paid Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden that money and Jean Shaheen they don't want the
Speaker 1: American people to know about it. I also think it's
Speaker 1: important that people understand this ambassadorship right now is probably
Speaker 1: more important than it's been in a long time because
Speaker 1: it's right there and aston yet dealing with that's going
Speaker 1: on in Ukraine, dealing which has happened Russia. This matters
Speaker 1: right now. That's one of the other reasons why this,
Speaker 1: the question you asked, was so important. Well, and I
Speaker 1: will say his answer, look Kent as someone who there
Speaker 1: are a whole bunch of State Department bureaucrats who liked
Speaker 1: to hold themselves out as nonpartisan and just principled public servants.
Speaker 1: Well his answer, and by the way, he did actually
Speaker 1: demonstrate some courage what Obama was president, and that he
Speaker 1: raised the issue with the White House and said, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm worried about this, but now he's decided he hates
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. And so everything Joe Biden did was honorable.
Speaker 1: Never mind what he said and sword testimony before the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives. Now he just speaks like he's Korean
Speaker 1: John Pierre giving the Democratic talking points, and I think
Speaker 1: it illustrates that he's a partisan and he's not bothering
Speaker 1: to hide it anymore. One of the perks of her
Speaker 1: doing what she did was now everyone's talking about this story.
Speaker 1: It's gone viral on social media. It would not have
Speaker 1: gone viral if there would have just been a normal
Speaker 1: exchange between you and the nominee. And that may be
Speaker 1: one of the blessings in disguise here is now people
Speaker 1: are really focused on this. I want to move to
Speaker 1: the rail vote. Obviously, we talked about the fifth pump
Speaker 1: with Bernie Standers. Before I do that, though, I want
Speaker 1: to remind you guys about our good friends over Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile is the only conservative Christian's cellphone company in
Speaker 1: the US to use this same exact towers that your
Speaker 1: cell phone you have in your hand is using right now.
Speaker 1: And switching to them is pretty awesome because not only
Speaker 1: can they save you money, but when you pay your bill,
Speaker 1: a portion of your bill every month goes back to
Speaker 1: support conservative causes and candidates that protect and defend our
Speaker 1: first and our secondment rights, the rights the unborn, even
Speaker 1: help with adoptions. If you've never checked out Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: check them out. Go online to Patriot Mobile dot com.
Speaker 1: Slash Verdict you can call them as well, nine to
Speaker 1: seven to Patriot use promo code verdict and you'll save
Speaker 1: money as well and get free activation. You can keep
Speaker 1: your same cell phone and your same cell phone number,
Speaker 1: plus every time you use that phone, you'll actually be
Speaker 1: standing up for the beliefs that you stand for. Right now,
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or call them nine
Speaker 1: to seven to Patriot makes use a promo code verdict. Senator,
Speaker 1: you had this vote, and we did our last podcast
Speaker 1: talking about this rail vote, and thing changed in this vote.
Speaker 1: The Senate voted to impose this rail contract. It reject
Speaker 1: the measures granting workers seven paid six days for example.
Speaker 1: This was a contentious vote that passed this resolution posing
Speaker 1: a contract on the freight rail workers. This was a
Speaker 1: big life from the beginning from this administration. They said
Speaker 1: we were never going to get to this point. Everything
Speaker 1: was figured out before the election. Then after the mid
Speaker 1: terms they are like, just kidding. We may have a
Speaker 1: major strike which would be catastrophic to our economy and
Speaker 1: to shipping and everything else that we deal with on
Speaker 1: the rail system. Here now this vote happened. Explain your
Speaker 1: vote and how it's possible that you and Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: were in essence on the same side of this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we had today three different votes on the rail issue,
Speaker 1: and we talked about this in the last POT podcast.
Speaker 1: But what happened is the freight rail companies had been
Speaker 1: in negotiations with their unions for many months and they
Speaker 1: reached an in pass and it went to a Presidential
Speaker 1: advisory Board, which which is allowed understatute, and the Presidential
Speaker 1: Advisory Board made a recommendation, and then that recommendation was
Speaker 1: was sent before the unions and of the twelve different unions,
Speaker 1: four of them voted it down. But those four actually
Speaker 1: represent more than half the rail workers in America, so
Speaker 1: it's so it's it's a majority of the rail workers
Speaker 1: voted no, and they didn't want it and their principal
Speaker 1: area of disagreement. So so the deal had some things
Speaker 1: they liked. So it had a twenty four percent pay
Speaker 1: increase over five years. Now, I would note that sounds
Speaker 1: great until you remember that we're having eight percent inflation
Speaker 1: each year under Joe Biden, and that means over five
Speaker 1: years compounded, you're looking at about forty to fifty percent
Speaker 1: inflation to twenty four percent wage increase. That's about half
Speaker 1: of the inflation under Biden. Doesn't sound nearly that good
Speaker 1: when you when you realize what Biden's done to the
Speaker 1: economy generally. But what the workers in particular were upset
Speaker 1: about was sick leave. That that they did not have
Speaker 1: any policy in place where they could get sick leave
Speaker 1: if they got sick. And in particular, if you wanted
Speaker 1: sick leave, you have to put in several days in advance,
Speaker 1: and the problem is you often don't know if you're
Speaker 1: going to be sick several days in advance. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's kind of strange to say, hey, I'm planning
Speaker 1: on having the flu a week from Wednesday, Like like,
Speaker 1: that's not how people, that's not how it's right. So
Speaker 1: now look, the railroads say, well, we've got to run
Speaker 1: a railroad. We got to know what's going on, and
Speaker 1: so it's easier for us logistically if even if you're sick,
Speaker 1: you got to come in. And the workers understandably don't
Speaker 1: like that. Um so more than half of the workers
Speaker 1: voted down the deal. What happened, Well, Joe Biden before
Speaker 1: the election, and you pointed it out this just a
Speaker 1: second ago, had told the American people. This issue has resolved.
Speaker 1: Everyone's agreed, we fixed it. We now know that was
Speaker 1: a lie. What he did was kick it down down
Speaker 1: the road a couple of weeks to get it past
Speaker 1: election day, and then we were headed to in days
Speaker 1: a nationwide rail strike, which would have a catastrophic impact
Speaker 1: on the economy. The cost of the economy is over
Speaker 1: two billion dollars a day from a rail strike. It's
Speaker 1: actually two point eight billion, close to three billion a day.
Speaker 1: And so what the Biden White House decided to do
Speaker 1: was essentially tell the union workers, go pound sand. We
Speaker 1: don't care that you want this. Biden asked Congress to
Speaker 1: pass legislation ratifying the tentative agreement that had been put
Speaker 1: before the workers that the workers had voted down, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats, because they are more concerned about being partisan
Speaker 1: than actually about standing up for the workers, decided to
Speaker 1: support Biden in that in that effort. Now we had
Speaker 1: three votes today on this. The first one was a
Speaker 1: vote to delay everything for sixty days and to extend
Speaker 1: what's called the cooling off period for sixty days. And
Speaker 1: I don't think Congress ought to be deciding this. I
Speaker 1: think negotiations between labor and management ought to be between
Speaker 1: labor and management, and they should work it out, and
Speaker 1: if they've reached it in past, they should go back
Speaker 1: to the bargaining table and try to work it out.
Speaker 1: And so I thought a sixty day cooling off period
Speaker 1: for them to continue to negotiate made an awful lot
Speaker 1: of sense. Let them figure out the right answer to that. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the White House whipped against it, and that failed. So
Speaker 1: the Senate decided, we're not going to have a sixty
Speaker 1: day cooling off period. We're going to vote right now. Well,
Speaker 1: what's the reasoning behind that? The White House? I mean,
Speaker 1: you would think they would have wanted to make in
Speaker 1: theory union workers happy. That would have made I would
Speaker 1: assume some union workers happy that sixty day period. What
Speaker 1: was the reason behind the White House saying, now, screw
Speaker 1: the work, that's when we're going to stick with the
Speaker 1: big guys in the big companies. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: really know that. They didn't articulate themselves, they didn't explain themselves.
Speaker 1: I think it was just a question of power, which
Speaker 1: is when Democrats address union workers, they tend to think
Speaker 1: almost exclusively in terms of union bosses, and the union
Speaker 1: bosses are typically hardcore Democrat partisans who are writing all
Speaker 1: the checks to the Democrats, and so Biden and the
Speaker 1: White House think if the union bosses happy, I'm happy.
Speaker 1: In this instance, what happened, the union bosses had had
Speaker 1: negotiated this deal, It was the members who were unhappy.
Speaker 1: It was the members. When they put the deal before
Speaker 1: the members, the members voted it down. And remember, today's
Speaker 1: Democrats routinely put policies in place that hurt union members.
Speaker 1: When when Joe Biden the first day in office, canceled
Speaker 1: the Keystone Pipeline, he eliminated eleven thousand high paying jobs,
Speaker 1: including eight thousand union jobs the stroke of a pen.
Speaker 1: The Democrats don't really give a damn about the union
Speaker 1: workers as long as the union bosses are on board.
Speaker 1: I think they believe in just power rather than actually
Speaker 1: caring about the lives of the workers. Well, what you
Speaker 1: and I talked about beforehand is I didn't think Congress
Speaker 1: should be in this business. And actually when we talked
Speaker 1: about it beforehand, you said, well, do you intend to
Speaker 1: vote for Bernie Sanders had a provision to give the
Speaker 1: workers seven day sick leave, and last pat podcast, I
Speaker 1: said no, I wasn't planning to vote for that, and
Speaker 1: the reason was, if you just put that up alone
Speaker 1: on the floor, I'd vote against it because I don't
Speaker 1: think Congress ought to be deciding this. I think we
Speaker 1: ought to have labor and management negotiated and reach an
Speaker 1: agreement between the two of them. Well, once the Senate
Speaker 1: voted down my amendment with Dan Sullivan to delay everything
Speaker 1: sixty days, it became abundantly clear that the Senate was
Speaker 1: going to vote for the White House and Management deal.
Speaker 1: They were just going to say, to hell with the workers.
Speaker 1: We're throwing out what the workers want and we're going
Speaker 1: to force this deal on them. They were just going
Speaker 1: to screw the union members. Once it was clear we
Speaker 1: were going to do that. Then when we were voting
Speaker 1: on the sick leave, listen, I think the request to
Speaker 1: have seven days sick leave over the course of a
Speaker 1: year is a very reasonable request. Um. I didn't think
Speaker 1: the unions were being unreasonable, and given a choice between
Speaker 1: the Senate cramming down a deal that that that benefited
Speaker 1: one side, or being more fair and reflecting the union
Speaker 1: workers reasonable request, I voted for the sick leave. Uh.
Speaker 1: That was Bernie Sanders's amendment, So I supported Bernie in
Speaker 1: that and there were totals of six Republicans voted that way,
Speaker 1: so most most Republicans voted on the other side. But
Speaker 1: but I was, I was, I was proud to stand
Speaker 1: with with with the union workers. Wait, what precedent does
Speaker 1: this set moving forward? Knowing now? And I'm talking about
Speaker 1: from a union perspective, because this could be, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: a civil war brewing that they didn't see coming. If
Speaker 1: if if the Democratic Party is the party of unions, right,
Speaker 1: and that's what they always say. I mean, we saw
Speaker 1: this as a big issue in Michigan and the governor's
Speaker 1: race there. We saw this in Virginia. We've seen this
Speaker 1: in other places like that. But this was a big
Speaker 1: quote union moment, and the White House said to the unions, Uh,
Speaker 1: screw you, guys, We're gonna We're gonna go with with
Speaker 1: your employer, not with you. I think this could be
Speaker 1: catastrophic for them moving forward. Look, I certainly think if
Speaker 1: you're a if you're a rail worker, you're paying attention
Speaker 1: to this. And by the way, the state with the
Speaker 1: most rail workers is the state of Texas. They're about
Speaker 1: seventeen thousand freight rail workers in the state of Texas,
Speaker 1: And you know, I was proud to stand with them.
Speaker 1: And I think what this reveals, and it's something the
Speaker 1: Democrats reveal day in and day out, is is that
Speaker 1: they their view of unions as long as the union
Speaker 1: bosses are in their back pop get, they're happy and
Speaker 1: they're willing to just screw the workers all day long
Speaker 1: if they think the bosses will be okay with it.
Speaker 1: Does this strengthen or wink in the union bosses the
Speaker 1: fact that they couldn't get this deal done on behalf
Speaker 1: of their workers? Does this make the workers basically say,
Speaker 1: all right, well, you guys don't do anything for us.
Speaker 1: We know who you'd take your orders from. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You would certainly think they're going to
Speaker 1: be some workers who are pissed off U and I
Speaker 1: I would understand why they're pissed off. I think wanting
Speaker 1: to have the ability to take a sick day if
Speaker 1: you're actually sick is not a particularly crazy request for
Speaker 1: a worker. And it was really quite striking that the
Speaker 1: Biden White House got virtually every Democrat to to march
Speaker 1: off a cliff. It was interesting right after I cast
Speaker 1: the vote on the sick leave. I walked over to Bernie.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the fist bump. I walked over to Bernie
Speaker 1: and he stuck his fist fisp out and gave me
Speaker 1: a fist bump. He was actually the one who initiated it.
Speaker 1: And I said, Bernie, I just voted with you. And
Speaker 1: I said, I don't know if that hurts me more,
Speaker 1: if it hurts you more, well, and they were even
Speaker 1: they were even all in on Chris Hayes on MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Chris Hayes was talking to Bernie Sanders about this vote,
Speaker 1: and there was a there was a pretty darn funny moment.
Speaker 1: Take a list and for everybody that probably missed it
Speaker 1: because you weren't watching MSNBC. So there's a Dear Colleague
Speaker 1: letter out from Speaker Pelosi about the votes tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: they're saying there will be two votes, a vote on
Speaker 1: the deal, a vote on seven days paid sick leave.
Speaker 1: So then I guess the question that comes and comes
Speaker 1: to the Senate. I assume Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will
Speaker 1: will probably have two votes. Can you get ten Republicans?
Speaker 1: You got Ted Cruis and Mark Rubio, you know, basically
Speaker 1: all but singing the international tongue in cheek because they're
Speaker 1: doing they're doing it in a kind of trolling fashion.
Speaker 1: I thought you would appreciate that center Bernie there because
Speaker 1: he's laughing. And you know, this is when politics it
Speaker 1: just gets weird and it makes me happy at the
Speaker 1: same time that it's not every day that you and
Speaker 1: I would be ever would ever imagine we're sitting here
Speaker 1: talking about you fist bumping Bernie Sanders and this type
Speaker 1: of almost like Saturday Live humor on a real news channel.
Speaker 1: For that moment, well, when I went over and Bernie
Speaker 1: fist bumped me, he said, I, you know, I always
Speaker 1: knew you were a socialist, but listen, it is not
Speaker 1: being a socialist to stand with working men and women.
Speaker 1: I believe passionately that that I think Republicans we should
Speaker 1: be to the party of jobs. We should be a
Speaker 1: blue collar party. That's who we should stand and fight
Speaker 1: for and and and so. Uh. You know, I will
Speaker 1: say there are times when Bernie and I overlap, Like
Speaker 1: I can recall one other time where he and I
Speaker 1: voted together, and that was a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: We both voted in favor of allowing the reimportation of
Speaker 1: drugs pharmaceutical drugs that US farmac companies sell, say to Canada,
Speaker 1: and they sell them really cheap in Canada and really
Speaker 1: expensive in the United States. And I voted and said,
Speaker 1: you ought to be able to and port it back
Speaker 1: to Canada at the cheap levels, because what's happening is
Speaker 1: essentially the big farma companies are using US consumers to
Speaker 1: get their profit, and they're subsidizing foreign overseas sales. And
Speaker 1: I don't see any reason why the federal government should
Speaker 1: protect their price fixing. And so I happily voted for that.
Speaker 1: Bernie did too. It failed. A bunch of Republicans, had
Speaker 1: a bunch of Democrats voted against it. And where I
Speaker 1: would say sometimes you see the far left and far
Speaker 1: right coming together is skepticism of massive corporate power, and
Speaker 1: in both of those instances you can get some overlaps
Speaker 1: of what would otherwise be strange. Bedfellow. There was a
Speaker 1: very interesting moment that happened, and it was a comparing
Speaker 1: contrast between the White House's opinion on Twitter and how
Speaker 1: they're monitoring Twitter like they're the communist China and watching
Speaker 1: closely what is happening with Elon Musk pushing for more
Speaker 1: free speech on the platform and then comparing it to
Speaker 1: what Apple is doing and how the White House is
Speaker 1: happy to look the other way with Apple, I mean,
Speaker 1: doing things to help the Chinese communist government crack down
Speaker 1: on their people, silenced their people. And there was a
Speaker 1: very interesting back and forth between Martha mcconmull. I'm a
Speaker 1: big fan of hers at Fox and John Kirby in
Speaker 1: front of the White House. I want to play part
Speaker 1: of this because it tells you everything you need to
Speaker 1: know about this White House and the hypocrisy with these
Speaker 1: two big companies and how they're treating them so differently generally.
Speaker 1: And we've been clear about this all around the world.
Speaker 1: We want the individual citizens, no matter what government daily wonder,
Speaker 1: to be able to communicate freely and openly, transparently and reliably.
Speaker 1: And we've we've made that clear with the respect to Iran,
Speaker 1: and we certainly continue to make that clear here with
Speaker 1: respect to Apple. Apple Apples a private company, Martha, they
Speaker 1: have to make decisions and they have to speak for
Speaker 1: those decisions. But but here at the White House, here
Speaker 1: in the administration, we want to see that that individual citizens,
Speaker 1: whether they're protesting or not. But in this case. I
Speaker 1: know that's the context we're talking about, are able to
Speaker 1: communicate freely and openly, But why not say something to
Speaker 1: Apple because we were just told the other day that
Speaker 1: the White House is keeping an eye on Elon Musk
Speaker 1: and Twitter. So why would you say that from the podium.
Speaker 1: You didn't say it, but Queen Jehan Pierre said it,
Speaker 1: and not call Apple out for helping the Chinese government
Speaker 1: to suppress their own people's ability to communicate. Again, I
Speaker 1: think we've been very clear and consistent on this, certainly publicly,
Speaker 1: we've been very open about our desires to be able
Speaker 1: to see citizens communicate. Uh. And you know, Apple, if
Speaker 1: this is a decision that they're making, then they should
Speaker 1: have to speak to that. But we you know, we're not.
Speaker 1: We can't and we aren't in the business of telling
Speaker 1: private companies how to execute their But Twitter company too,
Speaker 1: So why is Twitter getting one treatment Apple's getting another?
Speaker 1: Is my question? Well, these are completely two different circumstances.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the potential, well you're talking about the
Speaker 1: potential for perhaps foreign investment and involvement in the management
Speaker 1: of Twitter. That's a different issue than what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, which is a business decision by Apple with
Speaker 1: respect to how one of their applications is being used
Speaker 1: influenced by the by a foreign government, and that government
Speaker 1: is China. I mean, Senator, I want to hit pause
Speaker 1: here because I want to get your initial take on this.
Speaker 1: The White House is trying to claim that these two
Speaker 1: companies are totally different in the scenarios They're not. You're you're.
Speaker 1: You're basically telling one company we're really going to look
Speaker 1: at you and may crack down you, and the other
Speaker 1: company is actually doing the bidding of the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: government and silencing people, and the White House is completely
Speaker 1: looking the other direction. Well, first of all, good on
Speaker 1: on Martha Accallum for for holding them to account. That
Speaker 1: that that was really effective questioning, and it John Kirby
Speaker 1: realized he was in real trouble because what he was
Speaker 1: saying was utterly incoherent. Why has the White House not
Speaker 1: said anything to Apple about their willingly participating in the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist government of pressing and silencing the protesters because
Speaker 1: the Democrats are in bed with China because they support
Speaker 1: the policy. Look, Apple disabled air drop that they are
Speaker 1: literally the instrumentality of silencing the protesters and they're they're
Speaker 1: acting effectively on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party and
Speaker 1: doing so, I think what they're doing is disgraceful and shameful. Well,
Speaker 1: and a person I won't say that as Joe Biden. Well,
Speaker 1: and you had the Apple CEO walking the halls of Congress.
Speaker 1: He luckily there was a Fox reporter that tried to
Speaker 1: ask the question of the Apple ceo. Here's how that
Speaker 1: went down, and he said nothing and tried to walk
Speaker 1: away from her multiple different directions. Do you support the
Speaker 1: Chinese people's right to protest? He's right there. Do you
Speaker 1: have any reaction to the factory workers that were beaten
Speaker 1: and detained for protesting COVID lockdowns? It's right there, restricting
Speaker 1: air drop access that protesters used to evade surveillance from
Speaker 1: the Chinese government. Do you think it's problematic to do
Speaker 1: business with the Communist Chinese Party when they suppress human rights?
Speaker 1: And there he does, he walks into some other I'm
Speaker 1: assuming Democrats office, the Apple ceo their center. I mean,
Speaker 1: just wouldn't say a word. I mean he's right there,
Speaker 1: he's right next to the microphone. He could have said anything.
Speaker 1: He said not a single word. Well, because they can't
Speaker 1: defend what they're doing because they are in bed with
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist you know, even the simple statement I
Speaker 1: stand with the protesters, he can't say why because he's
Speaker 1: manufacturing a lot of his products in China and because
Speaker 1: he desperately wants continued access to the Chinese market. He
Speaker 1: looks at China and he sees dollar bills as far
Speaker 1: as the eye can see. And this is a problem
Speaker 1: with a lot of corporate America, A lot of the
Speaker 1: Fortune five hundred is eagerly complicit with Chinese atrocities, even
Speaker 1: with murder and torture and concentration camps, because that they
Speaker 1: think they can make a buck off of it. We
Speaker 1: see the same thing with the NBA, who's terrified to
Speaker 1: criticize the Chinese Communist Party in any way, shape or
Speaker 1: form for the same reason. It's all about money. But
Speaker 1: what I liked about the questioning with Martha McCullum. McCollum
Speaker 1: is that the utter hypocrisy. What it concerns Twitter? Where
Speaker 1: where Twitter? You know? Karine Jean Pierre said, we're keeping
Speaker 1: an eye on them. And by the way, John Kirby's answer, well,
Speaker 1: we're concerned about foreign ownership of Twitter. No, no, that
Speaker 1: is not what Karine Jean Pierre said. The question that
Speaker 1: was asked by this lefty reporter is Twitter is allowing
Speaker 1: free speech and millions more new people are signing up
Speaker 1: for it. Aren't you worried that all of these people
Speaker 1: are hearing free speech and they might hear quote misinformation,
Speaker 1: which is the left's code word for anything they disagree with.
Speaker 1: And that's what Karine Jean Pierre respond responded to with
Speaker 1: We're keeping an eye on it. It wasn't foreign ownership,
Speaker 1: it was that the two are identical. Actually, listen the
Speaker 1: White House, the Biden Harris White House, when a company
Speaker 1: is doing what they want, they're happy with them, and
Speaker 1: when a company is not doing what they want, they
Speaker 1: abuse them. The reason they don't like Twitter is that
Speaker 1: under Elon Musk Twit, Twitter has stopped censoring conservatives, and
Speaker 1: the Biden White House wants their opponents censored. The reason
Speaker 1: they're happy with Apple is the Biden White House is
Speaker 1: perfectly happy with the Chinese Communist government censoring and silencing
Speaker 1: the protesters there. In both instances, it's Democrats supporting censorship
Speaker 1: and using power to silence descending vote voices. How concerned.
Speaker 1: Do you think Democrats are in Congress and the White
Speaker 1: House that they not only can they not controlled Twitter
Speaker 1: any longer, but Twitter is going to quite possibly expose
Speaker 1: what they were doing behind the scenes with Twitter. I
Speaker 1: think that's one of their biggest fears, is that the
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is going to put all this out there
Speaker 1: and it's going to show a level of collusion that
Speaker 1: would only be described before you see it in your
Speaker 1: life as the most extreme quote alt right conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: that show that the Democratic Party was working hand in
Speaker 1: hand the media, was working hand in hand with Twitter,
Speaker 1: and that would also mean big tech obviously Facebook and others,
Speaker 1: and that we're going to find out that they were
Speaker 1: influencing elections, including maybe even on the local state level
Speaker 1: where they were silencing candidates and possibly again from what
Speaker 1: we've seen from Elon Musk, that the throttling of candidates
Speaker 1: and the not allowing for your the people that follow
Speaker 1: you to see things. I mean, if you're doing that
Speaker 1: nationwide and you really think about this and you're tweeting
Speaker 1: as a conservative, right, let's use let's use a perfect
Speaker 1: example in Georgia right now. If herschel Walker tweets and
Speaker 1: no one sees it, but Raphael Warnock tweets, and everybody sees,
Speaker 1: especially in a geographical area that's important to him, aka Georgia,
Speaker 1: because that's where people can vote. And this is what
Speaker 1: Elon Musk in the last twenty four hours seems to
Speaker 1: be tipping his hat to a little bit that this
Speaker 1: was far beyond just censoring or silence and information. The
Speaker 1: whole entire system center may have been rigged. Yeah, listen,
Speaker 1: I think when this information is revealed, I think it
Speaker 1: is going to exceed the most fevered paranoid fantasies. I
Speaker 1: think it was so thoroughly corrupt, it was so blatant.
Speaker 1: I think big tech oligarchs believe they're utterly unaccountable, and
Speaker 1: I am thrilled. I think it's one of the most
Speaker 1: important things. It's one of the things I've urged Elon
Speaker 1: to do, which is make it public, make it transparent,
Speaker 1: just shine the light. And I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see lots and lots and lots of communications from Democrats
Speaker 1: saying silence this person because I don't like what they're saying.
Speaker 1: We know that doctor Fauci communicated in writing repeatedly with
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, and he could have been the
Speaker 1: first one, right, I mean, let's connect those dots for
Speaker 1: people quick center if a guy that really no one
Speaker 1: knew about, right I mean Faucci. And then he becomes ultimate,
Speaker 1: massively famous, and then he starts using these back channels
Speaker 1: to silence and censor people in certain things and certain
Speaker 1: ideas and certain theories. He didn't just think that was
Speaker 1: possible out of thin air. Somebody had to explain to
Speaker 1: him how the system worked. Hey, man, we do this
Speaker 1: all the time. Hey, this is how you do it. Hey,
Speaker 1: here's the contact, this is how we roll this out. Well,
Speaker 1: to be fair, at that time, Fauci was pretty famous
Speaker 1: because it was during COVID, so he was already front
Speaker 1: and center. He was the face of the response of
Speaker 1: medicine in the government. But Faucci so like one of
Speaker 1: the things in writing that he asked Zuckerberg to do
Speaker 1: is silence is suppress anyone saying that the origins of
Speaker 1: COVID were the Wuhuan Institute for Virology, the Chinese government lab.
Speaker 1: Now we now know that the overwhelming weight of the
Speaker 1: evidence suggests that is in fact the origins of COVID,
Speaker 1: So Fauci was literally asking him to suppress true information
Speaker 1: because it didn't fit his political narrative. We also know
Speaker 1: that the FBI asked Facebook too, and I believe Twitter also,
Speaker 1: yeah and well, to censor stories about Hunter Biden's laptop
Speaker 1: because they said it had all the hallmarks of Russian
Speaker 1: and misinformation. We now know that's false, that the hundred
Speaker 1: Biden laptop story was true, and yet big Tech was
Speaker 1: more than happy to operate on behalf of the deep
Speaker 1: state at the FBI and silence it. I think Elon's
Speaker 1: making this public. It's one of the reasons why Democrats
Speaker 1: are freaking out. You know, Jim Carrey is leaving Twitter.
Speaker 1: Oh the world will be so empty without his ostentatious leftism.
Speaker 1: You know, Hillary Clinton is freaking out. It's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons, by the way, you know, the the the
Speaker 1: corporate America behemoth that is fighting Twitter, the artist that
Speaker 1: would be Apple. Apple was the single largest advertiser on Twitter.
Speaker 1: They've halted all their advertising, which is a huge blow
Speaker 1: to Twitter. Why because even though Apple is happy to
Speaker 1: silence and suppress Chinese protesters, it is mad at Twitter
Speaker 1: that it's not willing to silence and suppress American protesters,
Speaker 1: and this is all the same thing Apple at the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party and Jim Carrey and Hollywood and the deep
Speaker 1: state at the FBI. It is all part of the
Speaker 1: left wing behemoth, the multi tentacled hydra. And I got
Speaker 1: to say, I think they're terrified at what releasing those
Speaker 1: emails and text and the records are going to reveal.
Speaker 1: Because my prediction is as bad as you think it is,
Speaker 1: it is worse. Yeah. Well, and then that question becomes
Speaker 1: how does Congress react to that? And that that's why
Speaker 1: this show will be so important. Don't forget. We do
Speaker 1: this show three days a week, Monday, Wednesday Friday. Make
Speaker 1: sure you hit that subscribe button or auto download. It
Speaker 1: doesn't cost your time, you just automatically get the shows
Speaker 1: each and every day. You can also tell Syrian Alexa
Speaker 1: play Verdict with Ted Cruz and it will do it automatically.
Speaker 1: Don't forget to rise a five star review as well,
Speaker 1: and share this that will share signal and share it
Speaker 1: with your family and friends on all your social media platforms.
Speaker 1: The Center and I will see you back here in
Speaker 1: a couple of days.