September 14, 2023 • 46 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
So I'm sitting here in Washington, d C. And I've
spent the last two days with Senator Ted Cruz. And
while we've been here, the news that has erupted has
been incredible. Not only do we have this Iranian deal,
which is disgusting, and I'm going to let you hear
what Cinder Cruz has to say about that in a moment,
(00:21):
but we also have this other big story, and that
is on the issue of impeachment. The White House, by
the way, has made their first official comments as Republicans
are moving on impeachment. This is White House Press Secretary
Jean Pierre, and here's what she had to say in
(00:42):
response to the impeachment moving forward. Trying to tell you, well,
there's no reason impeaching because everything's great with the economy,
Everything is great in this country. You should be thankful
you've got Joe Biden as your president.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
So want to be clear about a couple of things.
You know, I just talked about bionomics. I just talked
about what the President's going to do tomorrow, really deliver
a major speech, something that the American people want to
hear about what are we doing to improve their lives?
Work on the economy, and these are real issues, real
priorities for Americans, and like I said, like lowering costs.
(01:17):
But what you see Republicans in Congress, right, they have
spent all year investigating the president. That's what they have
spent all year doing and have turned up with no evidence, none,
that he did anything wrong. I mean, that is what
we've heard over and over again from their almost year
long investigation. And that's because the President didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Well, there it is, so I guess we should just
shut it down.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
No reason to move forward because the White House, who
also lied to you about the president having no conversations
with the son about business dealings. Then they lied to
you again when they said, okay, well change that narrative
real quick, and the new narrative as well, he's never
directly involved in his son's business dealings. Then that didn't suffice.
So now they're saying, well, then he was just a dad.
(02:05):
He was taking the phone calls of his son talking
about the weather, and sometimes there happen to be some
business people around his son while they were talking about
the weather. These scumbags and the White House Press Secretary
is supposed to be honest with the American people. Her salary,
by the way, is paid for by you and I
the tax payers.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
She is lying.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
It's very clear that she's lying, and she's saying that
there is no evidence. Now, that's when the White House
Press Corps should have erupted with all of the examples
of evidence, all the examples of suspicious activity reports, all
the examples of Joe Biden and his burner phone and
his aliases and his burner email accounts, and should have
(02:49):
immediately been a massive loud shouting match.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
But it wasn't.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Why because they are now going back in to protect
the president.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
It all costs mode.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
That's what you're witnessing here, same exact thing where this
White House also cannot answer questions about Iran, and many
of the questions that are now coming out about this
prisoner swap with Iran are truly shocking. And I'm going
to get to that in a moment, and I'm going
to let also let you hear what Centator Ted Cruz
had to say about that as we were chatting. But
let me also let you hear what Kevin McCarthy said
(03:23):
today about impeachment and this inquiry. Listen to the latest
from him.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
What more, do Republicans need to prove and provide hard
evidence of any possible robbing doing, he.
Speaker 5 (03:35):
Used, any possible wrong If you had an FBI informant
alleged someone who's brig and they use shell companies, how
do you prove that? You'd have to get the document.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
If we don't have any of.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
The credit card statements from all the credit cards.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
From this shell companies, we don't have the president's bank statements,
we don't have hundred.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Guidance bank statements.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
Providing information like that would answer the question.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
All we're looking at in an impeachment Choir is answering
the question.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
So he's laying it out very clearly.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
This is about having it laid out to the American people.
Where is the money, Where did the money go? What
were you doing with the money?
Speaker 3 (04:16):
And you have.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Now you know John Pierre who's coming out here and saying, well,
we're not worried about impeachment, right, that's not what.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
We're worried about.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
We're worried about Bidenomics, and we're worried about you knowing
exactly what's happening here with Bidenomics and how great things
are with Bidenomics, right, Like.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
This is where they're going with this.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
It's it's truly shocking to me to hear them talk
this way. Now, look, the Democrats are out full full
court press saying Biden's impeachment is all smoke, no fire.
I'll give you an example of that. John Deane, all right,
hardcore lefty, said this on CNN today for.
Speaker 6 (04:56):
A trial, I don't see any probable cause here. As
Dan Goldman said at the top of the show, there's
just no evidence. So this is all smoke and no fire.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
So to be clear, all of the money that's come
in the irs, whistleblowers and everyone else that's involved, they're
now saying the official line of the media in the
White House says there's all smoke and there's no fire. Now,
if that's not enough, okay, today you had Raskin who
(05:31):
came out and said this about the impeachments, saying this
is nothing but coming from Donald Trump. And Donald Trump's
in died of mand so you shouldn't listen to him anyway.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
There's ninety one criminal charges against Donald Trump right now,
thirteen criminal charges against Congressman Santos, who was just on
the show a few moments ago. They have nothing to
say about that. There are no charges against Joe Biden,
and they want to impeach the guy that's obviously coming
from Donald Trump. It's sort of like January sixth. January
sixth would not have happened had Donald Trump not got
(06:00):
all of the right wing groups to change their permits
from the National Park Service from January twentieth, where they
were just going to have an inaugural protest to January sixth.
And it's the same thing here. If Donald Trump were
not demanding impeachment, does anybody think this would be going on?
Speaker 1 (06:15):
So this is the new and I play this for you.
It should frustrate you, it should make you angry, but
I also want you to know and understand your enemy,
and the enemy this is their defense. Their defense is well,
Donald Trump somehow is the one that brought this up.
Donald Trump is somehow the bad guy here. This is
all a ruse. Donald Trump's the one that should be
(06:36):
in jail. And Kevin McCarthy is an idiot, and Kevin
McCarthy and everybody else around him, they're all stupid, and
Donald Trump is the worst person in the world. And
they're going to keep going back to this. It's going
to be a rerun the entire time. They're also going
to tell you there's no crimes that were committed. They're
going to tell you that there's no smoke here. They're
(06:57):
going to tell you that everything is just fine. They're
going to tell you that there's no evidence here, even
though and we will lay out the evidence. And that's
part of my conversation that I had with Senator Ted
Cruz as we sat down in DC to talk about this,
was how much evidence here and how this trial is
going to move forward. And that's part of the reason
why I want to play it for you, because he
(07:18):
explains the evidence and how they're going to lay out
this case and how you win this case with impeachment
and what you need to do, and what I should
say the Republicans need to do, and also how you
can explain it.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
I would say to your friends.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Now, before I get to that, I also have to
play for you something that was absolutely disgusting. The White
House lied about Iran today as well. And the Iranian payments. Okay,
the Iranian president says Taran will spend the six billion
dollars release the prisoner exchange. However, the hell they want
(07:50):
to That means the White House lied to you and
they said it would only be used for humanitarian aid.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Listen to this from the Nightly News.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Do you believe you have a right to use that
money in any way that you see fit.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
A little bit?
Speaker 7 (08:07):
This money belongs to the Islamic to public of Iran,
and naturally we will decide is nomic to public, k
Iran will decide to spend it. Yeah, we need it.
How to spend our money? Of course, it is under
the authority of the stomach to public.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Ran So Iran saying, you guys are a bunch of idiots.
We're gonna spend this six billion dollars on terrorism. If
we want to spend this money on terrorism, we don't.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Care, right it.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Also, you go to the White House, John Kirby, John
Kirmy said, this is not ransom.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
This is the NSC Coordinator for Strategic Comms at the
White House defending the unfreezing of the six billion Iranian assets.
And then they lied and said will only be used
for humanitarian reasons, And Iran's like, no, it's not. We
can use it for terrorism. We can use it kill Americans,
just like we did in the Rafghanistan, rac we can
use it to kill Israelis, we can use it to
send money to al Qaeda or ISIS or anyone else.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
And where's the White House? Say listen?
Speaker 2 (09:05):
I also want to be clear, this is not a
payment of any kind.
Speaker 5 (09:09):
It's not ransom. These aren't US tax payer dollars. And
we haven't lifted a single one of our sanctions on Iran.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Iran will be getting no sanctions relief.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
So then why did you have this money frozen in
the first place, and then why did you unfreeze it?
If what you're saying is true, John Kirby in the
White House, they are paying ransom to terrorists that are
going to use this money for terrorism.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Every day.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
There are two different economies that are growing bigger and bigger.
One of them is powered by everyday Americans who are
sick and tired of all the woke propaganda being jammed
into every product that we're consuming.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Well, big mobile companies are no different.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
For years, they've been dumping millions and millions into leftist causes,
including planned parenthood. And you had to have a cell phone,
and that's the reason why you paid that bill. You
didn't have an alternative well, guess what. Now, there's an alternative.
Patriot Mobile. They are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider
and they use your money to fight back. They offer
(10:12):
you dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks, so
you get the best possible service in your area.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Without the woke politics.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Now, when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you are sending
a loud message that you support free speech, religious freedom,
the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, and our military
veterans and first responder heroes. They have one hundred percent
US based customer service team as well, so they make
switching easy. You get to keep your phone, keep your
phone number two. Just go to Patriotmobile dot com slash
(10:44):
ferguson or call them eight seven eight Patriot get free
activation today with the offer code ferguson. Ask about their
coverage guarantees while you're there, get the same dependable service
that you want, and take a stand for the values
that you demand. Patriotmobile dot com slash ferguson or eight
seven eight Patriot. For the last two days, I've been
(11:07):
with center Ted Cruz and we did a really extensive
conversation on our podcast Vertict with Ted Cruz about Iran
and also about what's happening when it comes to this impeachment,
and explaining to you how this impeachment is going to
go down. I want you to hear though the first
part of what he had to say about this Iranian deal.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
The House was informed, Congress was informed on the anniversary
of nine to eleven that there was going to be
a prisoner swap with a Ran and oh, by the way,
we're gonna send them basically allow them to get their
hands on six billion dollars that they had in assets.
This is a terrible move in my opinion. I want
(11:49):
to get your take on this as shocking that's happened,
especially notifying Congress on the anniversary nine to eleven.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
Well, it's outrageous and it's dangerous. On September eleventh, I
was in New York City. I was at the fire
station that lost the most firefighters at ground zero. Fifteen
firefighters from the station I was at never returned, and
I had the opportunity to speak at a memorial and
(12:16):
to thank the families that were grieving those heroes. And
I pointed out, you know, the word hero is used
cheaply a lot of times to refer to athletes, to
refer to musicians' hero doesn't apply to any of them.
The men who charged into burning buildings knowing they were
(12:39):
headed to certain death, they are heroes, and it was
really an extraordinary honor to give tribute to them and
to try to try to tell the story for young
people of what happened on September eleventh. While we're there, remembering,
Joe Biden couldn't bother to show up. But to add
insult to injury, Joe Biden announces that he's given six
(13:03):
billion dollars to the Ayatola, a radical Islamic theocratic who
regularly chance death to America and death to Israel. The
six billion dollars is in exchange for five Americans. On
top of that, there are another five Iranians that are
being released.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
At this point. They have not.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
Publicly said who they are of what they've done. I'm
sure it's bad, because if it weren't bad, they would
they would have told us already. There are lots of
reasons why this is wrong, one of which is this money,
the six billion dollars will go directly to fund terrorism.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
This money, Oh no, no, the Biden administration promised us
their words, this will only go for humanitarian issues. They
were saying that six billion dollars will never be used
for anything bad at all. What's even worse than that
is the lie is the Iranian president came out and said,
now I.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Will spend the money from the prisoner swap how we want.
In other words, screw you, Biden.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
You're lying to the American people about it, and we'll
do whatever the hell we want with the money.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
The exact quote from the Iran's president was that the
funds will be used quote wherever we need it, and
it is a metaphysical certainty this money will be used
to fund terrorism. Why because Iran is the leading state
sponsor of terrorism in the world. That Americans will be murdered,
is Raelis will be murdered, and it's not just six
billion dollars, because they're also refusing to enforce sanctions, which
(14:29):
collectively is tens of billions or even hundreds of billions
of dollars to fund terrorism. This is part of a
secret nuclear deal. The Biden administration doesn't want to take
a nuclear deal to Congress because they know they can't
get it through Congress, so as they're doing it in secret,
and on top of that, this creates an incentive for
every ten pot dictator in the world to seize more Americans.
(14:52):
They're setting the going rate at one point two billion
per American hostage. More Americans will be taken hostage because
of this, and to do it on the anniversary of
nine to eleven is disgusting and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
There was something else in here Centat that really shocked me.
In all of the most recent prisoner swaps that we've had,
we knew who we were trading and who they were
and what they had done, whether it was Britney Grinder
and Russia. We knew that we were trading the merchant
of death, whether when it was bo Bergdal, We knew
the people that we were trading, for example, in Afghanistan,
(15:26):
and we knew their resume of terror, what they'd done.
I can't find anywhere, And I want to know, as
a member of Congress, have you been briefed on who
the five Iranians are that they're getting back and what
the hell have they done?
Speaker 3 (15:39):
So I have not.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I assumed that at some point we will be and
I also assume at some point the names and what
they did will be made public. I very much hope so.
But this is profoundly dangerous when you funnel billions of
dollars to theocratic, homicidal maniacs lives and it is tragically
(16:02):
a certainty that Americans will die because of this decision
from the Biden administration, and to do it on the
anniversary of nine to eleven shows really a complete lack
of awareness of the magnitude.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Of the threat, to be clear, and I think this
goes back to nine to eleven. Iran killed more or
help kill more and dismember more Americans with roadside bombs
and giving safe Haymanto terraces after we invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan than any other country in the Middle.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
East by far, not even close.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
And we just gave them money that they can do,
in their words, whatever they want to do with it,
six billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Is there any way that Congress can stop this or
is this a straight up executive decision and that's it.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Well, I'm gonna fight for Congress to stop it. But
let's be clear, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will stand
with Biden and stand with Iran against America and against
our Israeli allies.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
We're gonna keep trying to get answers to these questions, obviously,
and we'll keep you up there. I do want to
deal with, obviously, the massive story of the day that
is taking in the headlines, and that's exactly when we
wanted to make sure you knew what was going on
with the RAN, and that is with impeachment.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
We are moving forward with impeachment.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
The House side, Kevin McCarthy has come out announcing that
this podcast started with the first impeachment. Did you ever
imagine center that we would be sitting here on this
podcast now looking like we're going into a third impeachment
when you started this show originally.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
It really is hard to believe. It's not impeachment number one,
it's not impeachment number two. It's impeachment number three of
the president, mind you, not not even impeachment of Alejandro
majorcas non impeachment of Merrick Garland. It is the House
has formally opened its impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. And
what I want to do in this podcast is really
(17:47):
do a deep dive into what that means and where
things stand, because it's a big deal. This announcement is
a big, big deal. It is consequential, and it's important
listeners to verdict. You know already the details of what's happening,
but it's worth breaking down the arguments so that you
(18:09):
understand it because I guarantee you tomorrow at work, tomorrow
at school, people are going to be asking about it.
Family members are gonna be asking about it, and you're
gonna want to know.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Now.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
One of the best ways to assess just the magnitude
the mountain of evidence that has come out, and listen,
I've been calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries
for months. I think the evidence long ago cleared that threshold.
But they've finally done it. It's worth reviewing the bidding.
In terms of Joe Biden's explanations, explanation number one that
(18:44):
he made on the campaign trail repeatedly that he made
his president repeatedly, is he said he had never discussed,
not even once discussed with unter Biden's overseas business dealings.
That was explanation number one. There was a minor problem.
It was a flat out, bald face lie and it
was demonstrably disproven on including by Devin Archer. Saying some
twenty times Joe would call in to talk to Hunter's
(19:06):
overseas business partners. So then explanation number two was Joe
Biden was not in business with his son Hunter in
his corrupt overseas deals. Now that's very different from I
never discussed it, but they realized they couldn't defend that,
so it wasn't in business. So they've run away from
(19:27):
non in business anymore. That's no longer defensible because it's
clear the entire business was selling favors from Daddy. So
talking point number three, which you're seeing multiple Democrats use
word for word, you're seeing the media use word for word,
is there is no direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement
(19:51):
of Joe Biden's corruption. Now at the outset that throws
Hunter overboard. I think the Democrats have realized, all right,
Hunter is crooked as the day is long. We can't
defend this guy, so Hunter to heck with him. But
there's no direct evidence of Joe. I want to break
that down because that is false and it's a lie,
(20:12):
and it's every bit as false as Biden never discussed
it or wasn't in business with it. But let's take
the no direct evidence and explain why it's wrong. Let
me start by explaining what direct evidence is. So that's
the kind of lawyer word that you see people use that.
If you're not a lawyer, you're like, well, what does
that even mean?
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Right?
Speaker 5 (20:33):
So, in a court of law, there are two types
of evidence that are typically relied on to prove a
factual matter. Number one is direct evidence. Number two is
circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that goes directly to
a factual matter in dispute. Circumstantial evidence is based on
(20:58):
the circumstances you can draw inference that leads to the
factual matter in dispute. All right, what does that mean?
Let me give you an example. If you go to bed
tonight and you look out the window and the street
is dry and clean, and you wake up in the
morning and you look out the window and the street
is covered in snow, that is circumstantial evidence that it
(21:21):
snowed last night. It's pretty damn good circumstantial evidence. Yeah,
there's snow, but you were drawing the inference from seeing
the snow on the ground that it snowed last night. Now,
if you bring in a witness who stayed up all night,
who said ben I saw it snow last night. That
(21:42):
would be direct evidence. The most common type of direct
evidence is eyewitness testimony saying I saw this happen. Now,
one of the lies right at the heart of the
no direct evidence is so what, it's not true. But
before I get to not true, so what, people are
literally convicted of crimes every day based on circumstantial evidence.
(22:07):
They are sentenced to jail every day based on circumstantial evidence.
So the modifier direct is how they're getting around the
mountain of evidence we've got. But I want to tell
you how the statement there is no direct evidence is
a lie. And anytime a Democrat says at anytime the
(22:28):
media says it, you know they're lying. So, as I mentioned,
there at least two significant pieces of direct evidence of
Joe Biden's involvement and corruption. Piece number one, the heart
of the allegations against Joe Biden is bribery that he
solicited and received bribes from foreign olagarchs. You'll recall, and
(22:54):
we've talked about this before on verdict that the essence
of bribery is quid pro quo Latin for this, for that,
and for bribery, you need to show the official action
that was taken. That's the quote, the money or thing
of value that was given, that's the quid, and that
(23:15):
the two were connected, that's the that's the pro well.
One of those elements the official action is conclusively proven
by Joe Biden in his on camera admission to the
Council of Foreign Relations, where he described how he flew
to Ukraine, he held a billion dollars of federal tax,
(23:39):
federal loan guarantees hostage and demanded that the Ukrainian government
fire Victor Choken, who was the prosecutor who was prosecuting
the Ukrainian oligarch, and Joe Biden, as we all know,
as we played on this show many times, says, son
of a bitch, they fired him.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
And he was critic by the way, because he was
like he was so prideful, and it was the arrogance
of that moment. It was like, couldn't help himself. It
was like, this is how powerful I was. I could
go over to Ukraine and tell them who to fire,
and I could own them while it was happening. And
if you watch that video, when I see it, it
actually makes me angry because it was a glimpse into
(24:19):
the abuse of power that Joe Biden was willing to
wield around the world on a litany probably of issues.
And now we know why he was doing it. It
was for the money and for the Biden crime family.
Speaker 5 (24:31):
That's exactly right. But of the elements of bribery, Joe
Biden's confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed
one of the critical elements of bribery. Now we don't
yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime,
but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical,
(24:52):
critical aspects of the crime, which is the quo that
Joe Biden has admitted. And that is unequivocally direct evidence,
and it's pretty damn compelling direct evidence. There's a second,
very clear instance of direct evidence, and that is Hunter
Biden's what's app message to the Chinese communist official and
(25:14):
I want to read it to you again, Hunter Biden
texted quote. I am sitting here with my father and
we would like to understand why the commitment made has
not been fulfilled. Tell the director, I would like to
resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and
(25:35):
now means tonight and Z if I get a call
or a text from anyone involved in this other than
you Zang or the chairman. I will make certain that
between the man sitting next to me and every person
he knows, and my ability to forever hold a grudge,
(25:55):
that you will regret not following my direction. I am
sitting here way for the call with my father not
to shake down. Now that is direct evidence. That is
a written text sent by Hunter Biden. That is direct
evidence that he and his father are shaking down a
(26:16):
Chinese communist official. It's not circumstantial. It is direct evidence. Now,
it is possible that direct evidence is false, just as
if if Hunter Biden came into court and testified my
father and I shook down a Chinese Communist official. He
could be lying.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Yeah he could, yeah, but I doubt it.
Speaker 5 (26:37):
You can teach his credibility. You could say he's lying.
But it is direct evidence. Direct evidence doesn't necessarily mean
that it is true. Sometimes direct evidence is false. But
that's not only direct evidence. It's pretty damn compelling direct evidence.
So I promise you in the next week you will
see multiple Democrats and multiple yabbering uppets and the corporate
(27:01):
media say there's no direct evidence. You know, there's no
direct evidence. The APLS say, the allegations of corruption against
Joe Biden, of which there is no direct evidence, and
they'll state it as a fact, and it is a
lie every time they say it. They're lying because those
two are serious pieces of direct evidence.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Let me ask you about not only that, but let's
connect this to the suspicious activity reports. Is this the
type of stuff that will come out in impeachment when
they go through it as saying, hey, we can connect
the quid pro quote, we can connect these these audio recordings,
We can connect the president's words to these financial bank
records and all of the bank records that James Comert
on this show. If you missed a podcast we did
(27:41):
with them, go back and listen to it. Jim Jordan,
the same thing. They have so much evidence with the
suspicious activity reports and the cash going to the Biden crime
family members, right, we know direct payments, we're going to
multiple Biden family members. Is that where this could be
so damning to this president could put his presidency at risk?
Speaker 5 (28:02):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yes.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
And let me underscore if you didn't listen to our
two part series with James Comer, you ought to go
back and listen to it because we walk through at length. Now,
everything you just listed is circumstantial evidence. And I want
to take a minute because there's a ton of circumstantial
evidence and all of the smarmy people on TV who
are saying no direct evidence, they're pretending like direct evidence
is the only kind of evidence that exists. So, Ben,
(28:25):
if there's a dead body and with multiple gunshot wounds.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
And I love that, I'm always the bad guy in
these scenarios. If you noticed this, like everybody, I'm always
the bad guy here, I'm ready for it.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
Keep going next to the dead body. It appears that
the dead man with his bloody finger scrawled in the ground,
Ferguson did it?
Speaker 3 (28:48):
Did it? Ferguson did it?
Speaker 5 (28:50):
Now that's not actually direct evidence. And let's say furthermore
that you're found at home covered in the man's blood,
with gunpowder covering your body and the murder weapon at
your feet.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Okay, none of.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
That is direct evidence either, And you know what, You're
going away for the rest of your life. I don't
need any more evidence.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
Yea that evidence bye bye.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
Circumstantial evidence convicts people every single day. So what does
the circumstantial evidence look with James Comber He walked through
the suspicious activity reports over and over and over again.
The massive number of suspicious activity reports, the more than
twenty shell companies. That is circumstantial evidence. As we talked
through with James Comer, you don't create shell companies unless
(29:40):
it is to hide the source of cash. That is serious,
circumstantial evidence. The allegations in the FD ten twenty three
from a confidential human source that the FBI had previously
found reliable who says that the Ukrainian oligarch told him
that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden demanded five million each
(30:00):
in order for Joe to get the prosecutor fired. Now
that's not direct evidence because the confidential human source doesn't
know it directly. He's repeating what he says that that
that the oligarch said, so that that is hearsay. But
it is circumstantial evidence and is significant. The twenty plus
million dollars that the House of Representatives is already documented
(30:24):
that flowed into the Biden family to people, by the way,
who by all appearances, have no connection to foreign countries.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
It's just like, hey, I need your bank account and
here's some money, and it's it's it's it must be nice.
That's gotta be a fun day. Like we haven't talked
about that enough.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Center the fact that you could just have the last
name Biden and you and randomly you get like a
text from Hunter right or from Joe it's like, hey,
I need your bank count if I'm gonna send you
over one hundred thousand bucks, Like, that's gotta be kind
of cool if you're in that situation where it's just like, hey,
I'm Abiden. Now every once in a while, this money
just randomly shows up in my bank account with A
(31:00):
and them LLC, because that's what they've been doing for years,
if not decades.
Speaker 5 (31:03):
Well, yeah, although it may not be all that cool
because remember Hunter Biden, in a twenty nineteen text to
his daughter, complains about how his father, Joe Biden, made
him give him quote half his.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Salary, yeah, half everything.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Yeah, Look, this is that that. Likewise, all of this
piles to a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
and that mountain of evidence is serious. But there's something else,
which is the cover up. So let's go back to
(31:37):
this hypothetical of the guy you whacked and I don't
know why.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
You killed him. I'm not sure but I'm sure he
was a nice guy.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
But we should at the end of the year just
come up with all the possible crimes as examples that
I have committed in my and the last year on verdict,
you just turn it into a best steff keep going.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
So if you're caught on film driving out on.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
A bridge fund now and flinging the gun over the bridge,
over the bridge into the water.
Speaker 5 (32:05):
Now, look, that doesn't prove if the gun has never
recovered that it's the murder weapon. But if it's the
night of the murder, yeah, and you're doing it really urgently,
it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that you are hiding evidence
that that that demonstrates your guilt. And in fact, you
(32:27):
will see at a court of law, if a defendant
destroys evidence h a court can instruct the jury to
draw a negative inference that that evidence would would have
demonstrated would have been bad for them. In this instance,
we know that Joe Biden had multiple burner phones. We
(32:49):
know that he had multiple fake emails, up to five
thy four hundred of them in the National Archives. We
know that he emailed Hunter Biden. We know that he
emailed Hunter Biden about you and we know also that
two senior IRS career employees have come forward as whistleblowers
and have said the Biden administration engage number one in
(33:11):
line to Congress under oath of felony yep, and number
two in multiple instances of obstruction of justice. And in particular,
it's worth focusing on what was the obstruction of justice.
Let's go back to the WhatsApp to the message that
Hunter said. The IRS whistleblowers said they wanted to examine
GPS data to determine, well, when Hunter sent that text,
(33:33):
was Daddy sitting next to him? There's an answer, it's
either yes or no. If it's yes, that is not
direct evidence that Hunter was telling the truth, but it's
pretty strong circumstantial evidence. And according to the IRS whistleblowers,
the Biden DOJ said no, no, no, no, no, you
(33:54):
cannot examine the GPS locations. They likewise said no, you
cannot ask anything about Joe. The fact that the Biden
Department of Justice is willing to commit felonies allegedly, according
to the whistleblowers, yeah, in order to prevent investigation into
Joe's involvement, is powerful evidence of Joe's significant involvement, because
(34:22):
just like throwing the gun off the bridge, you don't
do it if you didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
All right, let me ask you this question about this
impeachment compared to the Trump impeachment, the first impeachment, and
if you were the lawyer for Trump, then it was
more about defending yourself. A friend of mine, Jay Sekulo,
as you know, helped with that first impeachment, defended the president.
It was more about a vigorous defense of the absurdity
of what they were charging Donald Trump with. This is
(34:49):
obviously completely different than that. This is a one point
eighty from that. We knew that Russian collision was crap.
They knew it was crap, they knew how to defend it,
and they defended him. I think pretty well this impeachment.
If you were defending Joe Biden from a legal standpoint,
what are your biggest concerns if you're having to meet
with Joe Biden, and what are your biggest concerns for
(35:12):
his presidency If you're meeting with Joe Biden from a
legal standpoint, that could come out in this impeachment that
maybe has never been you know, has come out either
a before you haven't had to at least answer questions.
Speaker 5 (35:23):
For your biggest concern is all the evidence against you,
the direct evidence, the evidence that you've basically admitted to
one of the elements of bribery. The evidence the text
message that your son has been caught shaking down Chinese
communist officials for millions of dollars and explicitly threatening that
(35:47):
you're the one who would engage in retaliation. That has
tied you into it. That direct evidence is certainly troubling,
but all the circumstantial evidence would would trouble you as well.
And look, here's what the Biden White House is going
to do. They're going to count on the corporate media
to ignore that. They're going to count on the corporate
(36:07):
media to echo their talking points.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
And not cover it like they did the Trump impeachment.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
It's to completely ignore it and refuse to address the facts.
And every day you will see a night and day
difference not just between the Joe Biden impeachment and the
Trump impeachments, but between the Joe Biden impeachment and the
ridiculous Trump indictments. There is a world of difference, and
(36:32):
we've discussed at great length on this podcast. The Trump indictments,
which are political and partisan. In this instance, the evidence
of actual bribery by the President of the United States
is serious and severe, and there's not a single Democrat
who is willing to address the merits. They're counting on
(36:53):
the press just to take their blanket dismissals.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Are there people that can now be called that may
have to add serve for their involvement, whether it's those
the DOJ, whether it's Hunter Biden, whether it's other Biden
family members. Walk us through how impeachment works when it
comes to witnesses well.
Speaker 5 (37:10):
Merrick Garland is expected to testify before the House Judiciary
Committee in the coming days, and he will certainly face
significant questions about the allegations that he personally lied under
oath and committed a felony. Now, I assume he'll dodge
all of them and defiantly and arrogantly refuse to engage
in the substance. I also assume he will get questions
(37:31):
about the allegations of obstruction of justice, and I expect
Merrick Garland to not be remotely forthcoming. I think at
some point you will see David Weiss called before Congress
to testify. David Weiss has been directly implicated in the
obstruction of justice, which is I believe why Merrick Garland
named him the quote special counsel, because Garland and the
(37:52):
Biden DOJ knew they could count on Weiss to protect
the big guy, and that's their most important objective. We've
talked about how Swearin, who was the kind of money
guy and fixer for Biden, is a very likely witness
and could be a very damning witness, and I would
anticipate UH seeing him come and then we may well.
(38:12):
I assume Hunter Biden, if he's called to testify will
Stonewall at this point the legal.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
What does that look like when you say Stonewall, is
it a tactic or are you saying he just won't
answer questions?
Speaker 5 (38:25):
My assumption is will plead the fifth.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
Okay, So he just come in and say I plead
the fifth and that's the end of it.
Speaker 5 (38:29):
I assume that's the case, given the multiple felonies, UH
and and the fact that that he even Dad's white
house seems to be running away from him. I would
be shocked if Hunter Biden said anything else other than
on the advice of counsel, I plead the fifth. I
will say one other thing, which is this Biden impeachment
(38:52):
is demonstrating the utter and complete hypocrisy of Congressional Democrats.
Let me read what what Chuck Schumer said this week,
right after the House announced it's impeachment. Schumer said, quote,
I think the impeachment inquiry is absurd. The American people
want us to do something that will make their lives better,
(39:12):
not go off on these chases witch hunts. So Schumer
is literally using Trump's language about witch hunts and just
repeating word for word what the defense was. Now, look,
I think the Biden impeachments of Trump were witch hunts. Ironically,
this is not. This is serious evidence that Congress would
(39:35):
be derelict if it didn't investigate. Here, by the way,
is a quote from from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
Quote.
Speaker 5 (39:44):
This is what banana dictatorships do is arrest political opponents
without any evidence. Now that's screamingly funny. Yeah, given that
the Democrats have arrested their political opponent like a banana republic.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
But part of the reasons Democrats can be such total
hypocrites is they know the corporate media will never call
them out. On it that the corporate media will nod
and say yes, yes, but out of republic terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible,
no direct evidence, no direct evidence. And if you take
nothing else from this podcast today, remember every time they
(40:22):
say the words no direct evidence.
Speaker 3 (40:26):
They're lying one other thing about this.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
And this is where people say, Okay, we have this thing,
it happens.
Speaker 3 (40:34):
Let's say it is a big deal.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Let's say there are some some some you know minds
that the Democrats step on, the White House steps on.
We still don't have the votes and the Senate to
do anything about it. Right, That's what they're gonna That's
what people that are cynical and frustrated are going to
say about this.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
So how should we be looking at this impeachment? Is this? Should? Should? Should? Should?
Speaker 1 (40:55):
People that are listening look at it from a standpoint of, Hey,
we're getting the truth out there and a very big
way about Joe Biden before he's running for reelection, and
that can be extremely powerful and in other words, judgment
day may be election day. Or should we look at
it and be frustrated cynical because like, well, even if
we nail this thing in the House, it ain't going
to pass the Senate. So he's not going to be
impeached and lose his job over this? What mindset?
Speaker 3 (41:17):
What hat should listeners put on?
Speaker 5 (41:19):
So a little bit of both, Listen, the cynicism is
not misplaced. Senate Democrats and House Democrats do not care
what evidence there is of Joe Biden being corruptive as
soliciting and receiving bribes from falling foign oligarchs. They don't care.
Partisan politics trumps everything. To use my hypothetical, if the
dead guy had scrawled in blood Ferguson did it with
(41:43):
Joe Biden. Yeah, and Joe Biden walked out covered in
his blood, Democrats would be like nothing to see here.
Speaker 3 (41:53):
Remind people what the makeup of the Senate right now.
Speaker 5 (41:55):
The makeup of the Senate is fifty one Democrats, forty
nine republic.
Speaker 1 (41:58):
All right, we've heard about some of you maybe becoming independent.
We've heard, you know, wishy washy things about Joe Manchin,
for example. Is there any scenario where the evidence could
be so damning on the House side that you could
you could flip two different people's people in the Senate.
Speaker 5 (42:12):
It wouldn't matter if you flip two because you need
two thirds you need sixty seven. There you go, and
right now we have zero. Right now we have zero
Democrats who, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not
aware of a single Democrat who's even asked a skeptical
question who has even said, well, you know, if Biden did,
in fact solicit and receive bribes from foreign nationals, that
would be a problem. No Democrat has even said that.
(42:35):
And you contrast this to Richard Nixon. Listen, the reason
Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace is Republicans turned on him.
They turned on him when the evidence got over.
Speaker 3 (42:43):
And I don't.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Believe Democrats would ever, ever, ever turn on Biden because
partisanship matters more than anything. But be that as it may,
that does not mean that impeachment is a waste of time,
because it is the only way to put these facts
before the American people. In a sane and normal world,
the Department of Justice would investigate and prosecute him. We'd
(43:09):
get a special counsel who was independent, who was consistent
with the DOJ rules, was not an employee of DJ,
and actually would investigate in conveni grand jury and potentially
prosecute these crimes. The Biden doj won't do that because
it's the most partisan and political DJ we've ever seen.
But putting these facts before the American people is valuable, nonetheless.
(43:32):
But to be clear, a critical part of that is
what we're doing right now on Verdict, which is the
million people who listen to Verdict. All of y'all now
have the information. When you go and you're talking to
your brother in law, you're talking to your coworker, you're
talking to your classmate, and they say, well, you know
(43:52):
there's no direct evidence because that's the talking point they've heard.
You now know how to refute that, and that is powerful.
That has a multiplier effect, and it's how I believe,
ultimately you force accountability.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Last question on this, and that is the politics of
overplaying your hand. I said on my podcast today, I
always worry because you've noticed this in the polls. Biden
poll numbers right now are not good, and the media
seems to be telling more of the truth about how
bad the poll numbers are. And the majority of Americans
now say they do believe that Joe Biden was corrupt
(44:26):
in some manner with his son in the business dealings.
That's significant. CNN even came out PBS on Sunday. They
even had one of their commentators and said, I underestimated
Joe Biden's involvement with Hunter Biden and the Biden family businesses.
Is there a concern that if the Republicans play this
too strong and don't take their time toly at the
(44:48):
evidence of this could backfire in the same way. And
again I'm asking from a political standpoint that every time
the Democrats indict Donald Trump, what happens, Republicans stand behind
Donald Trump even more, they they send him money, they
support him, his poll numbers go up. Is there a
concern that if Republicans don't nail this the right way,
(45:08):
that this actually galvanizes people that maybe are wishy washy
on Biden and then it actually helps him stand up
better than he is right now.
Speaker 5 (45:16):
Yeah, look that that is conceivable. And there's no doubt
that the multiple indictments against Trump have added a lot
of points, at least ten points to his numbers in
the primary because Republicans have understandably gotten pissed off that
it's obviously a political persecution. So that counsels that the Republicans,
the Republicans in the House, need to proceed carefully. They
(45:36):
need to be facts based, they need to be evidence based.
They need to not have it appear political. Now in
today's world, there will be people who naturally assume it's political.
But but that that is certainly a vulnerability to be
aware of. Another vulnerability is at some point the Democrats
and or the media might decide that Joe Biden is
(45:57):
too wounded and jettison him and try to perish someone
else in I think that remains a very real risk.
We're going to talk about that a lot more on
the podcast, but not on this one.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
Please make sure you share this podcast on social media
so that this info will get out to the masses.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
Write us a five star review. It helps us tremendously
when it to reach a new audience. When you guys,
write a review and I'll see you back here tomorrow.
So I'm sitting here in Washington, d C. And I've
spent the last two days with Senator Ted Cruz. And
while we've been here, the news that has erupted has
been incredible. Not only do we have this Iranian deal,
which is disgusting, and I'm going to let you hear
what Cinder Cruz has to say about that in a moment,
(00:21):
but we also have this other big story, and that
is on the issue of impeachment. The White House, by
the way, has made their first official comments as Republicans
are moving on impeachment. This is White House Press Secretary
Jean Pierre, and here's what she had to say in
(00:42):
response to the impeachment moving forward. Trying to tell you, well,
there's no reason impeaching because everything's great with the economy,
Everything is great in this country. You should be thankful
you've got Joe Biden as your president.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
So want to be clear about a couple of things.
You know, I just talked about bionomics. I just talked
about what the President's going to do tomorrow, really deliver
a major speech, something that the American people want to
hear about what are we doing to improve their lives?
Work on the economy, and these are real issues, real
priorities for Americans, and like I said, like lowering costs.
(01:17):
But what you see Republicans in Congress, right, they have
spent all year investigating the president. That's what they have
spent all year doing and have turned up with no evidence, none,
that he did anything wrong. I mean, that is what
we've heard over and over again from their almost year
long investigation. And that's because the President didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Well, there it is, so I guess we should just
shut it down.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
No reason to move forward because the White House, who
also lied to you about the president having no conversations
with the son about business dealings. Then they lied to
you again when they said, okay, well change that narrative
real quick, and the new narrative as well, he's never
directly involved in his son's business dealings. Then that didn't suffice.
So now they're saying, well, then he was just a dad.
(02:05):
He was taking the phone calls of his son talking
about the weather, and sometimes there happen to be some
business people around his son while they were talking about
the weather. These scumbags and the White House Press Secretary
is supposed to be honest with the American people. Her salary,
by the way, is paid for by you and I
the tax payers.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
She is lying.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
It's very clear that she's lying, and she's saying that
there is no evidence. Now, that's when the White House
Press Corps should have erupted with all of the examples
of evidence, all the examples of suspicious activity reports, all
the examples of Joe Biden and his burner phone and
his aliases and his burner email accounts, and should have
(02:49):
immediately been a massive loud shouting match.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
But it wasn't.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Why because they are now going back in to protect
the president.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
It all costs mode.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
That's what you're witnessing here, same exact thing where this
White House also cannot answer questions about Iran, and many
of the questions that are now coming out about this
prisoner swap with Iran are truly shocking. And I'm going
to get to that in a moment, and I'm going
to let also let you hear what Centator Ted Cruz
had to say about that as we were chatting. But
let me also let you hear what Kevin McCarthy said
(03:23):
today about impeachment and this inquiry. Listen to the latest
from him.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
What more, do Republicans need to prove and provide hard
evidence of any possible robbing doing, he.
Speaker 5 (03:35):
Used, any possible wrong If you had an FBI informant
alleged someone who's brig and they use shell companies, how
do you prove that? You'd have to get the document.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
If we don't have any of.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
The credit card statements from all the credit cards.
Speaker 4 (03:49):
From this shell companies, we don't have the president's bank statements,
we don't have hundred.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Guidance bank statements.
Speaker 5 (03:56):
Providing information like that would answer the question.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
All we're looking at in an impeachment Choir is answering
the question.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
So he's laying it out very clearly.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
This is about having it laid out to the American people.
Where is the money, Where did the money go? What
were you doing with the money?
Speaker 3 (04:16):
And you have.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Now you know John Pierre who's coming out here and saying, well,
we're not worried about impeachment, right, that's not what.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
We're worried about.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
We're worried about Bidenomics, and we're worried about you knowing
exactly what's happening here with Bidenomics and how great things
are with Bidenomics, right, Like.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
This is where they're going with this.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
It's it's truly shocking to me to hear them talk
this way. Now, look, the Democrats are out full full
court press saying Biden's impeachment is all smoke, no fire.
I'll give you an example of that. John Deane, all right,
hardcore lefty, said this on CNN today for.
Speaker 6 (04:56):
A trial, I don't see any probable cause here. As
Dan Goldman said at the top of the show, there's
just no evidence. So this is all smoke and no fire.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
So to be clear, all of the money that's come
in the irs, whistleblowers and everyone else that's involved, they're
now saying the official line of the media in the
White House says there's all smoke and there's no fire. Now,
if that's not enough, okay, today you had Raskin who
(05:31):
came out and said this about the impeachments, saying this
is nothing but coming from Donald Trump. And Donald Trump's
in died of mand so you shouldn't listen to him anyway.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
There's ninety one criminal charges against Donald Trump right now,
thirteen criminal charges against Congressman Santos, who was just on
the show a few moments ago. They have nothing to
say about that. There are no charges against Joe Biden,
and they want to impeach the guy that's obviously coming
from Donald Trump. It's sort of like January sixth. January
sixth would not have happened had Donald Trump not got
(06:00):
all of the right wing groups to change their permits
from the National Park Service from January twentieth, where they
were just going to have an inaugural protest to January sixth.
And it's the same thing here. If Donald Trump were
not demanding impeachment, does anybody think this would be going on?
Speaker 1 (06:15):
So this is the new and I play this for you.
It should frustrate you, it should make you angry, but
I also want you to know and understand your enemy,
and the enemy this is their defense. Their defense is well,
Donald Trump somehow is the one that brought this up.
Donald Trump is somehow the bad guy here. This is
all a ruse. Donald Trump's the one that should be
(06:36):
in jail. And Kevin McCarthy is an idiot, and Kevin
McCarthy and everybody else around him, they're all stupid, and
Donald Trump is the worst person in the world. And
they're going to keep going back to this. It's going
to be a rerun the entire time. They're also going
to tell you there's no crimes that were committed. They're
going to tell you that there's no smoke here. They're
(06:57):
going to tell you that everything is just fine. They're
going to tell you that there's no evidence here, even
though and we will lay out the evidence. And that's
part of my conversation that I had with Senator Ted
Cruz as we sat down in DC to talk about this,
was how much evidence here and how this trial is
going to move forward. And that's part of the reason
why I want to play it for you, because he
(07:18):
explains the evidence and how they're going to lay out
this case and how you win this case with impeachment
and what you need to do, and what I should
say the Republicans need to do, and also how you
can explain it.
Speaker 3 (07:28):
I would say to your friends.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
Now, before I get to that, I also have to
play for you something that was absolutely disgusting. The White
House lied about Iran today as well. And the Iranian payments. Okay,
the Iranian president says Taran will spend the six billion
dollars release the prisoner exchange. However, the hell they want
(07:50):
to That means the White House lied to you and
they said it would only be used for humanitarian aid.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Listen to this from the Nightly News.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Do you believe you have a right to use that
money in any way that you see fit.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
A little bit?
Speaker 7 (08:07):
This money belongs to the Islamic to public of Iran,
and naturally we will decide is nomic to public, k
Iran will decide to spend it. Yeah, we need it.
How to spend our money? Of course, it is under
the authority of the stomach to public.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
Ran So Iran saying, you guys are a bunch of idiots.
We're gonna spend this six billion dollars on terrorism. If
we want to spend this money on terrorism, we don't.
Speaker 3 (08:35):
Care, right it.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Also, you go to the White House, John Kirby, John
Kirmy said, this is not ransom.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
This is the NSC Coordinator for Strategic Comms at the
White House defending the unfreezing of the six billion Iranian assets.
And then they lied and said will only be used
for humanitarian reasons, And Iran's like, no, it's not. We
can use it for terrorism. We can use it kill Americans,
just like we did in the Rafghanistan, rac we can
use it to kill Israelis, we can use it to
send money to al Qaeda or ISIS or anyone else.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
And where's the White House? Say listen?
Speaker 2 (09:05):
I also want to be clear, this is not a
payment of any kind.
Speaker 5 (09:09):
It's not ransom. These aren't US tax payer dollars. And
we haven't lifted a single one of our sanctions on Iran.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Iran will be getting no sanctions relief.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
So then why did you have this money frozen in
the first place, and then why did you unfreeze it?
If what you're saying is true, John Kirby in the
White House, they are paying ransom to terrorists that are
going to use this money for terrorism.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Every day.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
There are two different economies that are growing bigger and bigger.
One of them is powered by everyday Americans who are
sick and tired of all the woke propaganda being jammed
into every product that we're consuming.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Well, big mobile companies are no different.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
For years, they've been dumping millions and millions into leftist causes,
including planned parenthood. And you had to have a cell phone,
and that's the reason why you paid that bill. You
didn't have an alternative well, guess what. Now, there's an alternative.
Patriot Mobile. They are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider
and they use your money to fight back. They offer
(10:12):
you dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks, so
you get the best possible service in your area.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Without the woke politics.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Now, when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you are sending
a loud message that you support free speech, religious freedom,
the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, and our military
veterans and first responder heroes. They have one hundred percent
US based customer service team as well, so they make
switching easy. You get to keep your phone, keep your
phone number two. Just go to Patriotmobile dot com slash
(10:44):
ferguson or call them eight seven eight Patriot get free
activation today with the offer code ferguson. Ask about their
coverage guarantees while you're there, get the same dependable service
that you want, and take a stand for the values
that you demand. Patriotmobile dot com slash ferguson or eight
seven eight Patriot. For the last two days, I've been
(11:07):
with center Ted Cruz and we did a really extensive
conversation on our podcast Vertict with Ted Cruz about Iran
and also about what's happening when it comes to this impeachment,
and explaining to you how this impeachment is going to
go down. I want you to hear though the first
part of what he had to say about this Iranian deal.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Take a listen.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
The House was informed, Congress was informed on the anniversary
of nine to eleven that there was going to be
a prisoner swap with a Ran and oh, by the way,
we're gonna send them basically allow them to get their
hands on six billion dollars that they had in assets.
This is a terrible move in my opinion. I want
(11:49):
to get your take on this as shocking that's happened,
especially notifying Congress on the anniversary nine to eleven.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
Well, it's outrageous and it's dangerous. On September eleventh, I
was in New York City. I was at the fire
station that lost the most firefighters at ground zero. Fifteen
firefighters from the station I was at never returned, and
I had the opportunity to speak at a memorial and
(12:16):
to thank the families that were grieving those heroes. And
I pointed out, you know, the word hero is used
cheaply a lot of times to refer to athletes, to
refer to musicians' hero doesn't apply to any of them.
The men who charged into burning buildings knowing they were
(12:39):
headed to certain death, they are heroes, and it was
really an extraordinary honor to give tribute to them and
to try to try to tell the story for young
people of what happened on September eleventh. While we're there, remembering,
Joe Biden couldn't bother to show up. But to add
insult to injury, Joe Biden announces that he's given six
(13:03):
billion dollars to the Ayatola, a radical Islamic theocratic who
regularly chance death to America and death to Israel. The
six billion dollars is in exchange for five Americans. On
top of that, there are another five Iranians that are
being released.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
At this point. They have not.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
Publicly said who they are of what they've done. I'm
sure it's bad, because if it weren't bad, they would
they would have told us already. There are lots of
reasons why this is wrong, one of which is this money,
the six billion dollars will go directly to fund terrorism.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
This money, Oh no, no, the Biden administration promised us
their words, this will only go for humanitarian issues. They
were saying that six billion dollars will never be used
for anything bad at all. What's even worse than that
is the lie is the Iranian president came out and said,
now I.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Will spend the money from the prisoner swap how we want.
In other words, screw you, Biden.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
You're lying to the American people about it, and we'll
do whatever the hell we want with the money.
Speaker 5 (14:06):
The exact quote from the Iran's president was that the
funds will be used quote wherever we need it, and
it is a metaphysical certainty this money will be used
to fund terrorism. Why because Iran is the leading state
sponsor of terrorism in the world. That Americans will be murdered,
is Raelis will be murdered, and it's not just six
billion dollars, because they're also refusing to enforce sanctions, which
(14:29):
collectively is tens of billions or even hundreds of billions
of dollars to fund terrorism. This is part of a
secret nuclear deal. The Biden administration doesn't want to take
a nuclear deal to Congress because they know they can't
get it through Congress, so as they're doing it in secret,
and on top of that, this creates an incentive for
every ten pot dictator in the world to seize more Americans.
(14:52):
They're setting the going rate at one point two billion
per American hostage. More Americans will be taken hostage because
of this, and to do it on the anniversary of
nine to eleven is disgusting and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
There was something else in here Centat that really shocked me.
In all of the most recent prisoner swaps that we've had,
we knew who we were trading and who they were
and what they had done, whether it was Britney Grinder
and Russia. We knew that we were trading the merchant
of death, whether when it was bo Bergdal, We knew
the people that we were trading, for example, in Afghanistan,
(15:26):
and we knew their resume of terror, what they'd done.
I can't find anywhere, And I want to know, as
a member of Congress, have you been briefed on who
the five Iranians are that they're getting back and what
the hell have they done?
Speaker 3 (15:39):
So I have not.
Speaker 5 (15:41):
I assumed that at some point we will be and
I also assume at some point the names and what
they did will be made public. I very much hope so.
But this is profoundly dangerous when you funnel billions of
dollars to theocratic, homicidal maniacs lives and it is tragically
(16:02):
a certainty that Americans will die because of this decision
from the Biden administration, and to do it on the
anniversary of nine to eleven shows really a complete lack
of awareness of the magnitude.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Of the threat, to be clear, and I think this
goes back to nine to eleven. Iran killed more or
help kill more and dismember more Americans with roadside bombs
and giving safe Haymanto terraces after we invaded Iraq and
Afghanistan than any other country in the Middle.
Speaker 5 (16:30):
East by far, not even close.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
And we just gave them money that they can do,
in their words, whatever they want to do with it,
six billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Is there any way that Congress can stop this or
is this a straight up executive decision and that's it.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Well, I'm gonna fight for Congress to stop it. But
let's be clear, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will stand
with Biden and stand with Iran against America and against
our Israeli allies.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
We're gonna keep trying to get answers to these questions, obviously,
and we'll keep you up there. I do want to
deal with, obviously, the massive story of the day that
is taking in the headlines, and that's exactly when we
wanted to make sure you knew what was going on
with the RAN, and that is with impeachment.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
We are moving forward with impeachment.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
The House side, Kevin McCarthy has come out announcing that
this podcast started with the first impeachment. Did you ever
imagine center that we would be sitting here on this
podcast now looking like we're going into a third impeachment
when you started this show originally.
Speaker 5 (17:26):
It really is hard to believe. It's not impeachment number one,
it's not impeachment number two. It's impeachment number three of
the president, mind you, not not even impeachment of Alejandro
majorcas non impeachment of Merrick Garland. It is the House
has formally opened its impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. And
what I want to do in this podcast is really
(17:47):
do a deep dive into what that means and where
things stand, because it's a big deal. This announcement is
a big, big deal. It is consequential, and it's important
listeners to verdict. You know already the details of what's happening,
but it's worth breaking down the arguments so that you
(18:09):
understand it because I guarantee you tomorrow at work, tomorrow
at school, people are going to be asking about it.
Family members are gonna be asking about it, and you're
gonna want to know.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Now.
Speaker 5 (18:20):
One of the best ways to assess just the magnitude
the mountain of evidence that has come out, and listen,
I've been calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries
for months. I think the evidence long ago cleared that threshold.
But they've finally done it. It's worth reviewing the bidding.
In terms of Joe Biden's explanations, explanation number one that
(18:44):
he made on the campaign trail repeatedly that he made
his president repeatedly, is he said he had never discussed,
not even once discussed with unter Biden's overseas business dealings.
That was explanation number one. There was a minor problem.
It was a flat out, bald face lie and it
was demonstrably disproven on including by Devin Archer. Saying some
twenty times Joe would call in to talk to Hunter's
(19:06):
overseas business partners. So then explanation number two was Joe
Biden was not in business with his son Hunter in
his corrupt overseas deals. Now that's very different from I
never discussed it, but they realized they couldn't defend that,
so it wasn't in business. So they've run away from
(19:27):
non in business anymore. That's no longer defensible because it's
clear the entire business was selling favors from Daddy. So
talking point number three, which you're seeing multiple Democrats use
word for word, you're seeing the media use word for word,
is there is no direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement
(19:51):
of Joe Biden's corruption. Now at the outset that throws
Hunter overboard. I think the Democrats have realized, all right,
Hunter is crooked as the day is long. We can't
defend this guy, so Hunter to heck with him. But
there's no direct evidence of Joe. I want to break
that down because that is false and it's a lie,
(20:12):
and it's every bit as false as Biden never discussed
it or wasn't in business with it. But let's take
the no direct evidence and explain why it's wrong. Let
me start by explaining what direct evidence is. So that's
the kind of lawyer word that you see people use that.
If you're not a lawyer, you're like, well, what does
that even mean?
Speaker 3 (20:33):
Right?
Speaker 5 (20:33):
So, in a court of law, there are two types
of evidence that are typically relied on to prove a
factual matter. Number one is direct evidence. Number two is
circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that goes directly to
a factual matter in dispute. Circumstantial evidence is based on
(20:58):
the circumstances you can draw inference that leads to the
factual matter in dispute. All right, what does that mean?
Let me give you an example. If you go to bed
tonight and you look out the window and the street
is dry and clean, and you wake up in the
morning and you look out the window and the street
is covered in snow, that is circumstantial evidence that it
(21:21):
snowed last night. It's pretty damn good circumstantial evidence. Yeah,
there's snow, but you were drawing the inference from seeing
the snow on the ground that it snowed last night. Now,
if you bring in a witness who stayed up all night,
who said ben I saw it snow last night. That
(21:42):
would be direct evidence. The most common type of direct
evidence is eyewitness testimony saying I saw this happen. Now,
one of the lies right at the heart of the
no direct evidence is so what, it's not true. But
before I get to not true, so what, people are
literally convicted of crimes every day based on circumstantial evidence.
(22:07):
They are sentenced to jail every day based on circumstantial evidence.
So the modifier direct is how they're getting around the
mountain of evidence we've got. But I want to tell
you how the statement there is no direct evidence is
a lie. And anytime a Democrat says at anytime the
(22:28):
media says it, you know they're lying. So, as I mentioned,
there at least two significant pieces of direct evidence of
Joe Biden's involvement and corruption. Piece number one, the heart
of the allegations against Joe Biden is bribery that he
solicited and received bribes from foreign olagarchs. You'll recall, and
(22:54):
we've talked about this before on verdict that the essence
of bribery is quid pro quo Latin for this, for that,
and for bribery, you need to show the official action
that was taken. That's the quote, the money or thing
of value that was given, that's the quid, and that
(23:15):
the two were connected, that's the that's the pro well.
One of those elements the official action is conclusively proven
by Joe Biden in his on camera admission to the
Council of Foreign Relations, where he described how he flew
to Ukraine, he held a billion dollars of federal tax,
(23:39):
federal loan guarantees hostage and demanded that the Ukrainian government
fire Victor Choken, who was the prosecutor who was prosecuting
the Ukrainian oligarch, and Joe Biden, as we all know,
as we played on this show many times, says, son
of a bitch, they fired him.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
And he was critic by the way, because he was
like he was so prideful, and it was the arrogance
of that moment. It was like, couldn't help himself. It
was like, this is how powerful I was. I could
go over to Ukraine and tell them who to fire,
and I could own them while it was happening. And
if you watch that video, when I see it, it
actually makes me angry because it was a glimpse into
(24:19):
the abuse of power that Joe Biden was willing to
wield around the world on a litany probably of issues.
And now we know why he was doing it. It
was for the money and for the Biden crime family.
Speaker 5 (24:31):
That's exactly right. But of the elements of bribery, Joe
Biden's confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed
one of the critical elements of bribery. Now we don't
yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime,
but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical,
(24:52):
critical aspects of the crime, which is the quo that
Joe Biden has admitted. And that is unequivocally direct evidence,
and it's pretty damn compelling direct evidence. There's a second,
very clear instance of direct evidence, and that is Hunter
Biden's what's app message to the Chinese communist official and
(25:14):
I want to read it to you again, Hunter Biden
texted quote. I am sitting here with my father and
we would like to understand why the commitment made has
not been fulfilled. Tell the director, I would like to
resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and
(25:35):
now means tonight and Z if I get a call
or a text from anyone involved in this other than
you Zang or the chairman. I will make certain that
between the man sitting next to me and every person
he knows, and my ability to forever hold a grudge,
(25:55):
that you will regret not following my direction. I am
sitting here way for the call with my father not
to shake down. Now that is direct evidence. That is
a written text sent by Hunter Biden. That is direct
evidence that he and his father are shaking down a
(26:16):
Chinese communist official. It's not circumstantial. It is direct evidence. Now,
it is possible that direct evidence is false, just as
if if Hunter Biden came into court and testified my
father and I shook down a Chinese Communist official. He
could be lying.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
Yeah he could, yeah, but I doubt it.
Speaker 5 (26:37):
You can teach his credibility. You could say he's lying.
But it is direct evidence. Direct evidence doesn't necessarily mean
that it is true. Sometimes direct evidence is false. But
that's not only direct evidence. It's pretty damn compelling direct evidence.
So I promise you in the next week you will
see multiple Democrats and multiple yabbering uppets and the corporate
(27:01):
media say there's no direct evidence. You know, there's no
direct evidence. The APLS say, the allegations of corruption against
Joe Biden, of which there is no direct evidence, and
they'll state it as a fact, and it is a
lie every time they say it. They're lying because those
two are serious pieces of direct evidence.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Let me ask you about not only that, but let's
connect this to the suspicious activity reports. Is this the
type of stuff that will come out in impeachment when
they go through it as saying, hey, we can connect
the quid pro quote, we can connect these these audio recordings,
We can connect the president's words to these financial bank
records and all of the bank records that James Comert
on this show. If you missed a podcast we did
(27:41):
with them, go back and listen to it. Jim Jordan,
the same thing. They have so much evidence with the
suspicious activity reports and the cash going to the Biden crime
family members, right, we know direct payments, we're going to
multiple Biden family members. Is that where this could be
so damning to this president could put his presidency at risk?
Speaker 5 (28:02):
Absolutely?
Speaker 3 (28:02):
Yes.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
And let me underscore if you didn't listen to our
two part series with James Comer, you ought to go
back and listen to it because we walk through at length. Now,
everything you just listed is circumstantial evidence. And I want
to take a minute because there's a ton of circumstantial
evidence and all of the smarmy people on TV who
are saying no direct evidence, they're pretending like direct evidence
is the only kind of evidence that exists. So, Ben,
(28:25):
if there's a dead body and with multiple gunshot wounds.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
And I love that, I'm always the bad guy in
these scenarios. If you noticed this, like everybody, I'm always
the bad guy here, I'm ready for it.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
Keep going next to the dead body. It appears that
the dead man with his bloody finger scrawled in the ground,
Ferguson did it?
Speaker 3 (28:48):
Did it? Ferguson did it?
Speaker 5 (28:50):
Now that's not actually direct evidence. And let's say furthermore
that you're found at home covered in the man's blood,
with gunpowder covering your body and the murder weapon at
your feet.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
Okay, none of.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
That is direct evidence either, And you know what, You're
going away for the rest of your life. I don't
need any more evidence.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
Yea that evidence bye bye.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (29:16):
Circumstantial evidence convicts people every single day. So what does
the circumstantial evidence look with James Comber He walked through
the suspicious activity reports over and over and over again.
The massive number of suspicious activity reports, the more than
twenty shell companies. That is circumstantial evidence. As we talked
through with James Comer, you don't create shell companies unless
(29:40):
it is to hide the source of cash. That is serious,
circumstantial evidence. The allegations in the FD ten twenty three
from a confidential human source that the FBI had previously
found reliable who says that the Ukrainian oligarch told him
that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden demanded five million each
(30:00):
in order for Joe to get the prosecutor fired. Now
that's not direct evidence because the confidential human source doesn't
know it directly. He's repeating what he says that that
that the oligarch said, so that that is hearsay. But
it is circumstantial evidence and is significant. The twenty plus
million dollars that the House of Representatives is already documented
(30:24):
that flowed into the Biden family to people, by the way,
who by all appearances, have no connection to foreign countries.
Speaker 3 (30:31):
It's just like, hey, I need your bank account and
here's some money, and it's it's it's it must be nice.
That's gotta be a fun day. Like we haven't talked
about that enough.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Center the fact that you could just have the last
name Biden and you and randomly you get like a
text from Hunter right or from Joe it's like, hey,
I need your bank count if I'm gonna send you
over one hundred thousand bucks, Like, that's gotta be kind
of cool if you're in that situation where it's just like, hey,
I'm Abiden. Now every once in a while, this money
just randomly shows up in my bank account with A
(31:00):
and them LLC, because that's what they've been doing for years,
if not decades.
Speaker 5 (31:03):
Well, yeah, although it may not be all that cool
because remember Hunter Biden, in a twenty nineteen text to
his daughter, complains about how his father, Joe Biden, made
him give him quote half his.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Salary, yeah, half everything.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Yeah, Look, this is that that. Likewise, all of this
piles to a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
and that mountain of evidence is serious. But there's something else,
which is the cover up. So let's go back to
(31:37):
this hypothetical of the guy you whacked and I don't
know why.
Speaker 3 (31:39):
You killed him. I'm not sure but I'm sure he
was a nice guy.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
But we should at the end of the year just
come up with all the possible crimes as examples that
I have committed in my and the last year on verdict,
you just turn it into a best steff keep going.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
So if you're caught on film driving out on.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
A bridge fund now and flinging the gun over the bridge,
over the bridge into the water.
Speaker 5 (32:05):
Now, look, that doesn't prove if the gun has never
recovered that it's the murder weapon. But if it's the
night of the murder, yeah, and you're doing it really urgently,
it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that you are hiding evidence
that that that demonstrates your guilt. And in fact, you
(32:27):
will see at a court of law, if a defendant
destroys evidence h a court can instruct the jury to
draw a negative inference that that evidence would would have
demonstrated would have been bad for them. In this instance,
we know that Joe Biden had multiple burner phones. We
(32:49):
know that he had multiple fake emails, up to five
thy four hundred of them in the National Archives. We
know that he emailed Hunter Biden. We know that he
emailed Hunter Biden about you and we know also that
two senior IRS career employees have come forward as whistleblowers
and have said the Biden administration engage number one in
(33:11):
line to Congress under oath of felony yep, and number
two in multiple instances of obstruction of justice. And in particular,
it's worth focusing on what was the obstruction of justice.
Let's go back to the WhatsApp to the message that
Hunter said. The IRS whistleblowers said they wanted to examine
GPS data to determine, well, when Hunter sent that text,
(33:33):
was Daddy sitting next to him? There's an answer, it's
either yes or no. If it's yes, that is not
direct evidence that Hunter was telling the truth, but it's
pretty strong circumstantial evidence. And according to the IRS whistleblowers,
the Biden DOJ said no, no, no, no, no, you
(33:54):
cannot examine the GPS locations. They likewise said no, you
cannot ask anything about Joe. The fact that the Biden
Department of Justice is willing to commit felonies allegedly, according
to the whistleblowers, yeah, in order to prevent investigation into
Joe's involvement, is powerful evidence of Joe's significant involvement, because
(34:22):
just like throwing the gun off the bridge, you don't
do it if you didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
All right, let me ask you this question about this
impeachment compared to the Trump impeachment, the first impeachment, and
if you were the lawyer for Trump, then it was
more about defending yourself. A friend of mine, Jay Sekulo,
as you know, helped with that first impeachment, defended the president.
It was more about a vigorous defense of the absurdity
of what they were charging Donald Trump with. This is
(34:49):
obviously completely different than that. This is a one point
eighty from that. We knew that Russian collision was crap.
They knew it was crap, they knew how to defend it,
and they defended him. I think pretty well this impeachment.
If you were defending Joe Biden from a legal standpoint,
what are your biggest concerns if you're having to meet
with Joe Biden, and what are your biggest concerns for
(35:12):
his presidency If you're meeting with Joe Biden from a
legal standpoint, that could come out in this impeachment that
maybe has never been you know, has come out either
a before you haven't had to at least answer questions.
Speaker 5 (35:23):
For your biggest concern is all the evidence against you,
the direct evidence, the evidence that you've basically admitted to
one of the elements of bribery. The evidence the text
message that your son has been caught shaking down Chinese
communist officials for millions of dollars and explicitly threatening that
(35:47):
you're the one who would engage in retaliation. That has
tied you into it. That direct evidence is certainly troubling,
but all the circumstantial evidence would would trouble you as well.
And look, here's what the Biden White House is going
to do. They're going to count on the corporate media
to ignore that. They're going to count on the corporate
(36:07):
media to echo their talking points.
Speaker 3 (36:09):
And not cover it like they did the Trump impeachment.
Speaker 5 (36:11):
It's to completely ignore it and refuse to address the facts.
And every day you will see a night and day
difference not just between the Joe Biden impeachment and the
Trump impeachments, but between the Joe Biden impeachment and the
ridiculous Trump indictments. There is a world of difference, and
(36:32):
we've discussed at great length on this podcast. The Trump indictments,
which are political and partisan. In this instance, the evidence
of actual bribery by the President of the United States
is serious and severe, and there's not a single Democrat
who is willing to address the merits. They're counting on
(36:53):
the press just to take their blanket dismissals.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Are there people that can now be called that may
have to add serve for their involvement, whether it's those
the DOJ, whether it's Hunter Biden, whether it's other Biden
family members. Walk us through how impeachment works when it
comes to witnesses well.
Speaker 5 (37:10):
Merrick Garland is expected to testify before the House Judiciary
Committee in the coming days, and he will certainly face
significant questions about the allegations that he personally lied under
oath and committed a felony. Now, I assume he'll dodge
all of them and defiantly and arrogantly refuse to engage
in the substance. I also assume he will get questions
(37:31):
about the allegations of obstruction of justice, and I expect
Merrick Garland to not be remotely forthcoming. I think at
some point you will see David Weiss called before Congress
to testify. David Weiss has been directly implicated in the
obstruction of justice, which is I believe why Merrick Garland
named him the quote special counsel, because Garland and the
(37:52):
Biden DOJ knew they could count on Weiss to protect
the big guy, and that's their most important objective. We've
talked about how Swearin, who was the kind of money
guy and fixer for Biden, is a very likely witness
and could be a very damning witness, and I would
anticipate UH seeing him come and then we may well.
(38:12):
I assume Hunter Biden, if he's called to testify will
Stonewall at this point the legal.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
What does that look like when you say Stonewall, is
it a tactic or are you saying he just won't
answer questions?
Speaker 5 (38:25):
My assumption is will plead the fifth.
Speaker 3 (38:26):
Okay, So he just come in and say I plead
the fifth and that's the end of it.
Speaker 5 (38:29):
I assume that's the case, given the multiple felonies, UH
and and the fact that that he even Dad's white
house seems to be running away from him. I would
be shocked if Hunter Biden said anything else other than
on the advice of counsel, I plead the fifth. I
will say one other thing, which is this Biden impeachment
(38:52):
is demonstrating the utter and complete hypocrisy of Congressional Democrats.
Let me read what what Chuck Schumer said this week,
right after the House announced it's impeachment. Schumer said, quote,
I think the impeachment inquiry is absurd. The American people
want us to do something that will make their lives better,
(39:12):
not go off on these chases witch hunts. So Schumer
is literally using Trump's language about witch hunts and just
repeating word for word what the defense was. Now, look,
I think the Biden impeachments of Trump were witch hunts. Ironically,
this is not. This is serious evidence that Congress would
(39:35):
be derelict if it didn't investigate. Here, by the way,
is a quote from from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Speaker 3 (39:42):
Quote.
Speaker 5 (39:44):
This is what banana dictatorships do is arrest political opponents
without any evidence. Now that's screamingly funny. Yeah, given that
the Democrats have arrested their political opponent like a banana republic.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
But part of the reasons Democrats can be such total
hypocrites is they know the corporate media will never call
them out. On it that the corporate media will nod
and say yes, yes, but out of republic terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible,
no direct evidence, no direct evidence. And if you take
nothing else from this podcast today, remember every time they
(40:22):
say the words no direct evidence.
Speaker 3 (40:26):
They're lying one other thing about this.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
And this is where people say, Okay, we have this thing,
it happens.
Speaker 3 (40:34):
Let's say it is a big deal.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Let's say there are some some some you know minds
that the Democrats step on, the White House steps on.
We still don't have the votes and the Senate to
do anything about it. Right, That's what they're gonna That's
what people that are cynical and frustrated are going to
say about this.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
So how should we be looking at this impeachment? Is this? Should? Should? Should? Should?
Speaker 1 (40:55):
People that are listening look at it from a standpoint of, Hey,
we're getting the truth out there and a very big
way about Joe Biden before he's running for reelection, and
that can be extremely powerful and in other words, judgment
day may be election day. Or should we look at
it and be frustrated cynical because like, well, even if
we nail this thing in the House, it ain't going
to pass the Senate. So he's not going to be
impeached and lose his job over this? What mindset?
Speaker 3 (41:17):
What hat should listeners put on?
Speaker 5 (41:19):
So a little bit of both, Listen, the cynicism is
not misplaced. Senate Democrats and House Democrats do not care
what evidence there is of Joe Biden being corruptive as
soliciting and receiving bribes from falling foign oligarchs. They don't care.
Partisan politics trumps everything. To use my hypothetical, if the
dead guy had scrawled in blood Ferguson did it with
(41:43):
Joe Biden. Yeah, and Joe Biden walked out covered in
his blood, Democrats would be like nothing to see here.
Speaker 3 (41:53):
Remind people what the makeup of the Senate right now.
Speaker 5 (41:55):
The makeup of the Senate is fifty one Democrats, forty
nine republic.
Speaker 1 (41:58):
All right, we've heard about some of you maybe becoming independent.
We've heard, you know, wishy washy things about Joe Manchin,
for example. Is there any scenario where the evidence could
be so damning on the House side that you could
you could flip two different people's people in the Senate.
Speaker 5 (42:12):
It wouldn't matter if you flip two because you need
two thirds you need sixty seven. There you go, and
right now we have zero. Right now we have zero
Democrats who, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not
aware of a single Democrat who's even asked a skeptical
question who has even said, well, you know, if Biden did,
in fact solicit and receive bribes from foreign nationals, that
would be a problem. No Democrat has even said that.
(42:35):
And you contrast this to Richard Nixon. Listen, the reason
Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace is Republicans turned on him.
They turned on him when the evidence got over.
Speaker 3 (42:43):
And I don't.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Believe Democrats would ever, ever, ever turn on Biden because
partisanship matters more than anything. But be that as it may,
that does not mean that impeachment is a waste of time,
because it is the only way to put these facts
before the American people. In a sane and normal world,
the Department of Justice would investigate and prosecute him. We'd
(43:09):
get a special counsel who was independent, who was consistent
with the DOJ rules, was not an employee of DJ,
and actually would investigate in conveni grand jury and potentially
prosecute these crimes. The Biden doj won't do that because
it's the most partisan and political DJ we've ever seen.
But putting these facts before the American people is valuable, nonetheless.
(43:32):
But to be clear, a critical part of that is
what we're doing right now on Verdict, which is the
million people who listen to Verdict. All of y'all now
have the information. When you go and you're talking to
your brother in law, you're talking to your coworker, you're
talking to your classmate, and they say, well, you know
(43:52):
there's no direct evidence because that's the talking point they've heard.
You now know how to refute that, and that is powerful.
That has a multiplier effect, and it's how I believe,
ultimately you force accountability.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Last question on this, and that is the politics of
overplaying your hand. I said on my podcast today, I
always worry because you've noticed this in the polls. Biden
poll numbers right now are not good, and the media
seems to be telling more of the truth about how
bad the poll numbers are. And the majority of Americans
now say they do believe that Joe Biden was corrupt
(44:26):
in some manner with his son in the business dealings.
That's significant. CNN even came out PBS on Sunday. They
even had one of their commentators and said, I underestimated
Joe Biden's involvement with Hunter Biden and the Biden family businesses.
Is there a concern that if the Republicans play this
too strong and don't take their time toly at the
(44:48):
evidence of this could backfire in the same way. And
again I'm asking from a political standpoint that every time
the Democrats indict Donald Trump, what happens, Republicans stand behind
Donald Trump even more, they they send him money, they
support him, his poll numbers go up. Is there a
concern that if Republicans don't nail this the right way,
(45:08):
that this actually galvanizes people that maybe are wishy washy
on Biden and then it actually helps him stand up
better than he is right now.
Speaker 5 (45:16):
Yeah, look that that is conceivable. And there's no doubt
that the multiple indictments against Trump have added a lot
of points, at least ten points to his numbers in
the primary because Republicans have understandably gotten pissed off that
it's obviously a political persecution. So that counsels that the Republicans,
the Republicans in the House, need to proceed carefully. They
(45:36):
need to be facts based, they need to be evidence based.
They need to not have it appear political. Now in
today's world, there will be people who naturally assume it's political.
But but that that is certainly a vulnerability to be
aware of. Another vulnerability is at some point the Democrats
and or the media might decide that Joe Biden is
(45:57):
too wounded and jettison him and try to perish someone
else in I think that remains a very real risk.
We're going to talk about that a lot more on
the podcast, but not on this one.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
Please make sure you share this podcast on social media
so that this info will get out to the masses.
Speaker 3 (46:13):
Write us a five star review. It helps us tremendously
when it to reach a new audience. When you guys,
write a review and I'll see you back here tomorrow.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.