-
FBI Reopening Investigations
- Cocaine in the White House: The hosts discuss the discovery of cocaine near the Situation Room during the Biden administration and criticize the lack of accountability.
- January 6 Pipe Bomber: They express frustration that the individual who planted a pipe bomb near the DNC has not been identified or prosecuted.
- Supreme Court Leak (Dobbs Decision): The leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade is described as a historic breach of trust and institutional integrity. Cruz emphasizes the need to identify and prosecute the leaker.
-
Allegations Against James Comey
- The former FBI Director is accused of implicitly calling for violence against Donald Trump via a social media post featuring seashells spelling “86 47” (interpreted as slang for “kill Trump”).
- Comey’s subsequent interviews and explanations are mocked and criticized as disingenuous.
-
NPR Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
- NPR and affiliated stations are suing over defunding efforts, claiming First Amendment violations.
- Cruz and Ferguson argue that NPR is biased and should not receive taxpayer funding, framing the lawsuit as an absurd defense of government-funded propaganda.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton #rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats #republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
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):
Good Wednesday morning. Nice to have you with us.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
It's verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you
and Senator We're gonna get some redows on some cover
ups on the Democratic Party. Apparently this is gonna be
music to many people's ears on accountability.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Well, the FBI has announced three brand new investigations on
stories that just broke, things that just happened yesterday. So,
just yesterday, cocaine was found in the White House. Just yesterday,
there was a secret leak from the Supreme Court of
a decision the court had not yet issued. It was
a decision overturning Roe versus Weight. It was shocking, it
(00:39):
was incredible, and I'll tell you the FBI was on it.
And just yesterday, unbelievably, a pipe bomb was planted outside
the DNC. It was on the day of the certification
of what ended up being the certification of Joe Biden's presidency.
And all three of these, understandably when they occur, they
(01:00):
were major news stories, horrific crimes, grotesque violation of laws.
So of course the FBI devoted all of the resources
to discover nothing. Well, we have a new FBI, We
have a new DJ, And now the FBI and DJ
is going back to do what they should have done
years ago when these stories actually happen. They're going to
(01:20):
go investigate and I hope they're gonna find find that
the wrong doers, find the criminals, prosecute them, and put
them in jail. Also, we're going to look into recent
comments and actions by the former head of the FBI,
that crack law enforcement official who managed not to investigate, uh,
those crimes. We just talked about James Comy, who who
spent the entire Trump presidenc here much of the Trump presidency,
(01:44):
undermining the President of the United States, attacking the President
of the United States until finally he was rightly fired.
He's made some comments that are that are nothing short
of shocking. Uh and and and he is effectively called
for the assassination of the President of the United States.
You might think that as hyperbole, but we're going to
break down exactly what James Comey did. And and finally,
(02:07):
we're going to talk about a lawsuit that NPR has filed. NPR,
National Public Radio, has filed a lawsuit saying that President
Trump trying to cut off taxpayer funding for their wildly partisan, biased,
dishonest reporting. Well, their allegation is that not paying for
that wildly dishonest partisan reporting violates the First Amendment to
(02:30):
the Constitution, that the First Amendment mandates that you and
I and all of us pay for NPR's lying. We're
going to explain that the the absolute nonsense of that lawsuit,
and and we're going to we're going to get into
the details right now.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Yeah, it's really an incredible story.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Let me tell you real quick about the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. And you're seeing something that's really
shocking and disturbing. It's anti Semitism, and it's on the rise,
not just around the world, but sadly right here in
the US. Jewish schools have been targeted, synagogues have been threatened,
Families are actually living in fear, and it's something we
(03:08):
hoped we'd never see again in our lifetime. And right
now is the time that we make sure we're not
silent as this is happening. This is the moment that
we can all take a stand for the people in Israel.
And that's why I want you to know about the
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They're on the front lines,
providing real help where it's needed the most. They're giving
(03:30):
food and shelter to Jewish families under threat. They're even
building bomb shelters for children in Israel as we speak.
And they help survivors of hate rebuild their lives. And
they don't just respond to the crisis, they work every
day to prevent it as well. That is where your
simple gift of only forty five dollars will help support
(03:51):
their life saving work by helping provide food, shelter, and
so much more. The Bible's pretty clear it says I
will bless those who bless you, and supporting the IFCJ
is a spiritual stand. It's showing up for God's people
when it counts. So give them a buzz and get
in the game. The number eight a eight four eight
(04:13):
eight IFCJ. That's eight a eight four eight eight four
three two five. You can also go online to IFCJ
dot org. Every dollar helps, don't wait be the difference.
Visit IFCJ dot org or eight at eight four eight
eight if CJ. All right, so center, let's talk about
(04:36):
And you had some humor there in the in the
lead up to this topic, because it is insane that
we had these three massive investigations that got us no information.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Everybody just moved on.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
In the last administration and the opening up of these investigations.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Yet again by the FBI.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
I don't think this should be looked at is a
issue of like revenge. It's an issue of just is
it clearly didn't happen and was covered up in the past.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Well understand that when you're dealing with the politicization and
weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI and
the law enforcement apparatus, there are two components of it.
One component of it is using it as a weapon
to attack your political opponents. We saw Joe Biden the
Democrats do that over and over and over again, most
notably when they indicted Donald Trump, not once, not twice,
(05:25):
not three times, four separate times. That was a clear
illustration of weaponization. It was designed ultimately to fight democracy.
It was designed because they were terrified the voters would
do what in fact they did in November re elect
Donald J.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Trump as President of the United States.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
But there's another aspect of weaponization, and that is refusing
to investigate crime, refusing to enforce the law against your
friends and political allies, and we saw the Biden Department
of Justice, the Biden FBI do that over and over
and over again. And these three cases are among the
most egregious. You know you're and my friend Dan Bongino. So,
(06:02):
Dan Bongino is now the Deputy Director of the FBI.
Cash Fortells, the Director of the FBI. Dan tweeted out
this week the following a few updates, the Director and
I have most of our incoming reform teams in place
by next week. The hiring process can take a little
bit of time, but we are approaching that finish line.
This will help us both in doubling down on our
(06:23):
reform agenda. Shortly after swearing in, the Director and I
evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that
understandably have garnered public interest. We made the decision to
either reopen or push additional resources and investigative attention to
these cases. These cases are number one, the DC pipe
(06:44):
bombing investigation, Number two the cocaine discovery at the prior
administration's White House, and number three the leak of the
Supreme Court Stops case. I receive requested briefings on these
cases weekly and we are making progress if you have
any investigative tips on these matters that may assist us,
(07:05):
then please contact the FBI. That is really significant, and
and and and by the way, I'm I'm gonna add
a fourth one that is not in this tweet, but
it is something that both Cash Battel and Don Bongino
and also Pambondi have committed to, which is transparency regarding
Jeffrey Epstein. And I will say that Jeffrey Epstein sex
(07:26):
trafficking case was grotesque. I think the American people need
to know every name in that little black book. I
think they need to know the clients. I think they
need to know everyone who participated uh in in in
the child sex trafficking. And I do believe I've had
multiple conversations with Pambondi, with Cash Patel, with Dan Bongino
about it. I do believe we will see transparency. I
(07:48):
know a lot of people are frustrated that we haven't
seen all that information yet. My understanding from those conference
conversations is on Epstein, there is a vast trove of information,
much of which implicates miners. And what I've been told
is that is they are working to put it in
a format where it can be released where you don't.
Where you don't release, say, video of a miner being
(08:11):
sexually assaulted, which would obviously be inappropriate for protecting that child,
a little boy or girl should not have that image
released by the government for the world. But at the
same time, the assaulter, the criminal, his image should be released.
And I have every expectation we will see transparency on
that front, and I will continue asking both of the
(08:33):
Department of Justice and FBI to provide transparency and pressing
them to do so as fast as possible. But on
these three cases as well. Look, let's take him one
at a time. Cocaine in the West wing of the
White House? All right, Ben, you worked in the West Wing.
Tell me how big a deal would it be when
you worked to the George W. Bush White House. Can
you imagine the reaction if cocaine were found in that
(08:55):
White House?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
No, And it would have been a wall to wall story,
and it would have been twenty four to seven, and
the media would have dug and dug and dug and
demanded answers, and they would not have let up until
they had a name or someone who had been fired
or dismissed, and they would have also been I think
tmz'ed it where they would have said, how many people
are high at the White House, how many people are
(09:17):
around the Situation Room, which, by the way, this cocaine
was not far from the stories would have exploded to
hurt Ben Jordan's bush.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Ben, explain to people where this work, where this was,
because you said it wasn't far from the situation room,
You're right, But get people a sense of the layout
of the West Wing and where's.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Thatchly this was.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
If you walk in the West Wing from basically the
EEO be the Old Executive or the Eisenhower Building, there's
kind of a breezeway and when you walk in there.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
For you, I want to stop you for a second.
There is an interesting divide in Washington, and you can
tell how long someone has been in Washington by what
acronym you use, and you actually just use both of them.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Yes, so there's a bill ridging the gap there, did you?
Speaker 4 (10:00):
I did?
Speaker 3 (10:00):
But I want to explain it to our listeners because
this is this is a very insidery little thing, but
it is kind of funny and it's real. So there's
a giant building right next to the White House, that
is the Executive Office Building, And a lot of the
offices that are said to be quote in the White
House are actually in that building. That building is much
bigger than the White House and is part of the
(10:21):
White House campus. So when you enter the White House grounds,
if you're walking up Executive Avenue, on the right is
the West Wing. On the left, it is the Executive
Office Building. Now, the folks who have been in DC
a long time, they call that the OEO B.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Why is that?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
That stands for the Old Executive Office Building.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
So the O is OEO B.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
And at some point, and I don't know what year,
actually maybe when we're talking you can google it and
give us the answer, Bend. But at some point they
renamed the building the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. They put
up a sign that says Eisenhower Executive Office Building. And
so now it's called EO B. And you can tell
people who I would say, have been to d C
in the last decade or two they call it the
(11:06):
EO B and old farts. And you're actually young enough,
you're not fully an old fart exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
I'm gonna take pride in that, by the way, and
by the way, I can tell you when they changed
the name.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Are you ready for this?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
I heard you typing when I said use the Google.
You click clacked on your keyboard, so I knew you
had an answer.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
President Bill Clinton approved legislation changing the name on November
the ninth of nineteen ninety nine from the old Executive
Office Building, too, was renamed the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive
Office Building. So there you go, ninety nine, November ninth.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
So that's just a quick aside, and you can really
tell someone's So.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
Look, I came to d C.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I was a law clerk in d C in nineteen
ninety five to ninety six, and then I was a
law clerk at the Supreme Court in ninety six to
ninety seven. And so when I first moved there, it
was called the OEO B. So I'm just barely on
the old old fart line of it. You said it
was renamed in nineteen ninety nine, so you're very much
on the young fart nine line of it.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
And yet I like that you use them both.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yeah, it's it's a it's a cool building. And you
can also all we always we always used to laugh
because you can always tell who was full of it,
and who was lying if they said they worked in
the White House and then they actually worked in the EOB.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I called on a second like, wait, wait are they are?
Speaker 2 (12:21):
They are they flexing saying that they work in the
West Wing when they really don't because ninety nine percent
of the staff does not work in the actual White House.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yes, say works EO B.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
And so the White House itself, you've got a lot
of the White House that's like a museum and that
has beautiful rooms and you have tours going through it,
and it's it's it's a quasi public area. You've got
the residence, which is upstairs and that's where the president
of the First Family lives. And then you have the
West Wing, which is where the senior offices working for
(12:54):
the president are. And the West Wing is not very big.
It's no, it's tiny. It's three stories. You've got a basement,
you've got a first floor and second floor. The offices
are not very big. Actually, the OEO B offices are
much bigger than the West Wing offices. But in the
White House, power and prestige is measured by one thing,
and that is proximity to the president. Proximity to the
Oval Office, and so a tiny little closet next to
(13:18):
the Oval is much more prestigious than a huge, grand office.
All right, I'll tell you something funny, Ben. So you
know the little office off the West wing where Bill
Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Yes,
And by the way, for those of you be all
too young to remember Bill Clinton, when he was accused
of having oral sex with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, he
(13:41):
said to press conference, I did not have sexual relations
with that woman, miss Lewinsky. That was turned out to
be a flat out lie because he did. There's a
little room off the West wing where those interactions occurred.
Do you know what Donald Trump has turned it into.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
So I know this, it's a night and a half.
It's the trinket room.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Now. If he likes you and he says, come over here,
you can get you some swag from the Oval Office.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Like he's got maga hats in there, he's got presidential
cuff links, he's got all sorts of it. He just
goes and says, take whatever you like, and there's just
like a bunch of stuff and it's really cool. So
so he's got he doesn't have those in the swag room.
But but but he also has Have you seen Trump's
challenge coins?
Speaker 1 (14:26):
They're incredible.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
You So when you went into the Oval recently, you
you got a couple coming back and I got to
see him.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
They're amazing and they're huge.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
So, so a challenge coin, for those of y'all who
are not familiar, a challenge coin is a tradition both
in the military and in law enforcement. And so when
you when you meet with with typically senior officers of
the military, they'll have a challenge coin that that that
that that is branded with their unit, with their battalion,
and and they'll give it to you. And there's a
whole culture of like having to present your challenge coin
(14:54):
and if you don't have it, having to buy drinks.
And so in my office, I have a whole display
behind my desk of probably one hundred and fifty challenge
coins that have been given to me by military leaders
across the country, across the world. That's behind my desk,
and then in front of my desk on the other
end of the office is a display with challenge coins
(15:14):
from law enforcement. And so it's a similar thing police officers, sheriffs,
police chiefs, firefighters federal law enforcement will have challenge coins
and they give them and usually they're about the size
of a silver dollar and they're elaborate. Well, Trump has
made these presidential challenge coins that are about the size
somewhere between the size that the diameter of a baseball
(15:37):
and a softball. I think they're a little bigger than
a baseball, but not quite as big as a softball.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
And they're gorgeous.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
And of course Trump's challenge coin is bigger, because how
would it be otherwise.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
And that's the part about I do say, people that
go to the Oval office and get to meet with him,
you have no idea what you're gonna leave with, including
I will say his cup links. I got a pair
in the first in the forty five years. You got
the new pair from forty seven. I'm very jealous because
they are absolutely beautiful.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
So, anyway, where the cocaine was found is right as
you walk into the entrance of the West Wing. By
the way, that entrance is where Trump now parks his
brand new Tesla. It's literally parked right up front. So
I tweeted out a picture. It's because I've never seen
a car of the president. Like when you become president,
they take your car keys and they don't let you drive,
(16:28):
and you're driven around in the beast. And so his
cars parked right up front. Now, actually they don't let
Trump drive either, so he doesn't get to drive his tesla.
And so I'm told a staffer about once a week
has to drive the tesla like several times around the block.
So it just so it doesn't die entirely.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
That's not a bad job, by the way, if you
get that job.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
But as you mentioned, you walk in that entrance there
and where they found the cocaine. It is probably I
don't know, thirty to forty feet away from the door
to the situation room. Because when you walk in the
west wing, your lockers are to the left where you
put your phones up. Traditionally that's where they found this
cocaine was over in that area. You go straight for
(17:11):
ten twelve feet, you go to your right, and then
right down there is a little area we can get
food and turn to drink, and immediately to your right
is where you walk in to the situation room. I
gets right there. Like the idea that cocaine was found
in the White House, it should have been like hell
to pay, and no one stopped reporting on the story
(17:33):
until somebody was arrested.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
So look, I am very glad the FBI is going
to investigate that. You take in another case, January sixth,
the Biden Justice Department spent thousands and thousands of man hour,
spent enormous money investigating every little old lady on the
mall waving a flag singing God bless America. They treated
(17:57):
those poor little old ladies like they were Osama bin
lad and the actual terrorist who plants a pipe bomb
outside the DMC. Look, if you plant a pipe bomb
that can blow up people and murder people, there's a
word for that. You are a terrorist if you're planning
a pipe bomb. There is video of this dude planning
the pipe bomb. And yet we've had four plus years
(18:22):
transpire and we know nothing about the actual terrorist who
planted a pipe bomb that could have killed multiple people.
It was actually it was found before it exploded, thank god,
but it could have been. It could have resulted a
serious loss of life if it hadn't. I'm very glad
that they're finally investigating that.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
And then.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
An action PAUSO would ask your gut on this one.
Why was it not investigating.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
I don't know. I really look. There's conspiracy theories online.
Some of them have to do with FBI informants under
cover agents in the crowd on January sixth. As you know,
I've questioned the FBI and the Department of Justice multiple
times about the informants they had underground. They refused to
(19:08):
make that public. I'll tell you. I also have urged
Pambondi and Cash Betel to make that public.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
I hope that.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
They do, that they engage in radical transparency.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
I find it weird because it is the action on
that day that could have resulted in the greatest loss
of life had the pipe bomb detonated. I mean, it's
on a busy public street where people are walking by
every minute. It could have killed multiple people, and we
don't know, and so all sorts of people, I mean,
(19:38):
the Twitter and the Internet speculates like crazy. I'm not
interested in speculation. I would like to find out who
actually planted it, why, and I'd like them to go
to jail. And I hope listen. I'm encouraged by Dan
Bongino's post on X that we are making progress. I
hope that we can find out who did it. We
(20:00):
will say of the three, ironically, the one that is
the most consequential, I think is the third one, which
is the leak of the Supreme Court's Dobs case.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
And it is hard to.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Overstate how much damage that leak did, not just to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
But but also to the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
The way the Supreme Court operates, Justices deliberate on cases,
They circulate opinion drafts back and forth. They change opinion drafts.
A given opinion, particularly in a consequential opinion, can change
one hundred times or more. They're literally negotiating every sentence
over every footnote.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
And in two.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Hundred and nearly fifty years of our nation's history, never
once has a draft of an opinion of the Supreme
Court been leaked until the Dobs case. And it did
I think, irreparable damage to the trust between the justices,
the ability of the justices to have candor with each other,
(21:04):
and the person who leaked it. At the end of
the day, it is a really small universe of people
who would have access to that draft opinion. It is
essentially the justices, and I refuse to believe a justice
did that unless you had irrefutable proof. I have too
much faith in the institutions of our country to believe
(21:25):
a justice did it. I believe it was very likely
a law clerk at a law clerk from one of
the liberal justices. But look, there are only thirty six
law clerks. There are not that many, and I am confident,
having been one of them myself, these people are not
master criminals. They are not incredibly adept at hiding their tracks,
and so I think we did not get a thorough
(21:47):
investigation into it. And of the three, if I could
pick one to be solved, it would be finding the
leaker of the Dobs opinion, prosecuting him or her and
locking them up, because I think that did lasting damage
to the rule of law in this country.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
This is again goes back to the basic issue of
law and order, and this is something that this administration
keeps saying over and over again, like they're not joking.
They're going to treat everyone the same, and we're going
to look at things through the glasses of law and
order instead of picking winners and losers based on politics.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
Well, yes, and that is unless the head of the
FBI is calling for the murder of the president of
the United States, And that is another story that broke
in the last few days. So the former FBI director
James Comy, he tweeted out this this image, and it
is an image of seashells on the beach that spell
(22:47):
out eighty six forty seven. Now forty seven is obviously
Donald Trump, and eighty six on the face of it,
to eighty six someone is standard slang for killing someone.
And as I posted on social media, is there any
other reasonable interpretation of this other than the former head
(23:08):
of the FBI publicly calling for the murder of the
president of the United States, and Comy backed away from it.
I got to say, part of the reason I think
he put it out is he's got a new book
coming out and he wanted some attention. But it is
unimaginable that a head of the FBI would be particularly
(23:31):
a president who has had two assassination attempts. This is
not theoretical. Donald Trump was shot. He came within a
half inch of being killed in Butler, Pennsylvania, and yet
the head of the FBI is openly calling for people
to eighty six Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Well, and not only as you mentioned, is it a
dog whistle, but also, yeah, he had a book coming out.
He's like, hey, if I do this, and maybe they're
just narcissm and arrogance to a level that even I
didn't realize with him, and I thought it was pretty
high where he's like, I'm i'm, I'm, I'm so powerful,
I can get away with this, and then everybody will
(24:11):
want to interview me. I get to dog whistle this
against the president while also guaranteeing that every single show
will want to book me to talk about my book
a KA and also the seashells.
Speaker 4 (24:23):
On the beach.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
It was one hell of a move and and I
think it's one where he thought nothing's going to happen
to me, even if I do get interviewed by the
Secret Service, who cares well?
Speaker 3 (24:33):
And I will say he doubled down this week. Uh,
but by calling on the FBI essentially to fight the
President of the United States, and and and and and
accusing the Trump administration of being, in his words, quite
white supremacists adjacent.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Listen to this, So follow.
Speaker 5 (24:53):
Up on the seashell situation when explaining why you took
it down, But what will you trying to communicate to
the public impete Trump. What was your reasoning for it?
Speaker 6 (25:06):
No, I just thought it was a cool picture. Someone
was expressing a political view in a very clever way
in shells that were organized by the like they had
the same color for each of the letters. I just thought,
what a cool thing. And I'm well known as a
political opponent of Donald Trump, and I just thought, well,
that's cool. My Instagram account is family politics stuff, including
(25:26):
stuff like this. I put a shell on last fall.
I thought it was cool. Someone had painted the inside
of a big shell to say vot Kamala, and I
thought that's really cool, so I put that on. But
so it's not a particular message other than that.
Speaker 5 (25:38):
I was just going to ask you what the MSNBC
interview you were doing, because on social media everyone's saying
he's talking about the white supremacist adjacent Republican Party. Everybody
in the party, Yeah, voters, what what's you want to
thank you? No clarification at all.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
No, I'm not going to comment on Okay, thank you, well,
thank you?
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Hello, I love it.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Be well, I'm not gonna clarify and that I'm going
to keep that out there as well.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Buy my book, What utter garbage. Oh, I just thought
it was kind of interesting. I just thought it was,
you know, kind of pretty. The seashells were pretty. Like,
what an absurd claim, And there's something mocking about it
(26:25):
that he could claim. Okay, Number one, James Comy is
not a stupid man.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Yeah, he's smart. He knows what he's doing.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
He knows exactly what he is doing. And James Comy
number one, he knows who forty seven is. He knows
exactly who forty seven is. Forty seven is the forty
seventh President of the United States Donald J. Trump Number two.
The claim that he didn't know what eighty six is. Listen,
(26:57):
that is that that is absurd. It is it is
not remotely credible. And the fact that he's saying that,
the fact that he's saying that is mocking. It is
a level of contempt. And listen. I gotta say, I
don't know Comy personally, but in my view, he is
(27:21):
someone who was consumed by power. When he was the
head of the FBI, I think he had delusions of grandeur.
I think he believed he was j Edgar Hoover and
he wanted to have presidents of the United States reporting
to him. By the way, do you happen to know
off the top of your top of your head what
eighteen USC. Section eight seventy one provides, No, what is it?
(27:44):
What's funny? It's actually a felony. Threatening the President of
the United States is a felony that's punishable by up
to five years in Prisonman, you would think the head
of the FBI would know that, and yet he blithely said, Oh,
I just saw some pretty seashells. You know, nothing to
see here.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
And let's just remind people when you said that he's smart.
This is the same guy that mocked the Trump administration
the first time, right when they got into office, when
he just sent a couple FBI agents over to try
to entrap General Flynn. Like, never forget. That's how calculated
this guy is. So for him to say, oh, I
just saw a picture here and I thought it was
really cute to seashells, I don't buy that crap for
(28:23):
a moment.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
He proposed sending someone wearing a wire to entrap the
President of the United States. And I want you to
listen to him with Nicole Wallace and MSNBC because I
want you to listen to just this this smarmy, sanctimonious,
dishonest You can tell what I think about him here
to just play his words and see if you agree
with me.
Speaker 7 (28:43):
You're back in the middle of a political firestorm.
Speaker 6 (28:47):
Yeah, for walking on the beach with my wife. So
I don't know how we ended up here. Never occurred
to me that it was any kind of controversial thing,
but that's the time we live.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
In, Okay.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Then there's a technical word for what he just said
there that would be called a lie. He is deliberately lying,
he knows he's lying. He is not in trouble for
walking on the beach with his wife. He is understandably
in trouble for publicly advocating the murder of the president
of the United States.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
And yet there's a lot of you think he knew
exactly what he was doing. And yeah, he may get
hauled in for some questioning, but he's not going to
get arrested because he's a former MPI director and that
guy never gets in trouble.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Right, Well, we shall see.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
I will say Cash Betel and Dan Bongino are not
your typical heads of the FBI.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Yeah, that's a great point. It'd be very interesting to
see what happens moving forward. We'll keep you updated on it.
I want to move also the MPR lawsuit and get
your take on that center as well.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
So this week NPR, National Public Radio, and three Colorado
Public Radio stations filed a lawsuit in federal court against
the Trump White House against the President's executive order barring
the use of funds for NPR and for PBS, and
the lawsuit says, quote, it is not always obvious when
(30:03):
the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation
of the First Amendment.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
But this wolf comes as a wolf.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
The order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the
President's views, their news and other content is not fair, accurate,
or unbiased. Now let me stop and say, listen, you
could file a reasonable lawsuit arguing that on any of
these particular executive orders that where you're dealing with congressional appropriations,
(30:35):
that challenging the authority of an executive order to limit
congressional appropriations. That's an area that's being litigated. That's going
to be litigated, and reasonable minds can can differ on
what is permissible. And we've talked in previous podcasts that
there is there is a significant dispute over the president's
authority to engage in what is called impoundment, which is
(30:56):
essentially to decline to spend money that comeungress as appropriated.
That you want to file a lawsuit over that, Okay, courts,
we'll sort that out.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
That'll be litigated.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
But here what this lawsuit is claiming is that the
First Amendment prohibits defunding NPR. And the reason they say
it really is absurd is you can't defund the NPR
simply because quote their news and other content is not fair,
accurator unbiased. Now let me say I think no objective
person on planet Earth can contend that NPR or PBS
(31:33):
are fair, accurator unbiased. And so we really are in
Alison Wonderland through the looking glass, where you now have
litigants arguing because NPR and PBS are dishonest and political,
you can't cut off funding because cutting off funding would
be silencing our right to be dishonest and political and
not just look, you absolutely have a right to be
(31:55):
dishonest and political. So MSNBC can publish any nonsense they want,
CNN can publish any nonsense they want. Now nobody watches them.
It's kind of a tree falling in the woods. But
they have a right to say it. They have a
right to to to to say utter nonsense. But NPR's
argument is not only do they have a right to
say it, which I agree they do, but they have
(32:15):
a right to have the taxpayers fund them forever that
that that it is illegal for us to stop paying
for their partisan lives. I gotta say, that is an
absurd claim. And it is the simple simple reality of
of of of the absurdity of the left.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
And and I wonder when we will actually get resolution
on this. Is there a real chance you think that
we could actually defund m p R, PBS and just say, hey,
make it on your own.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
Is there a real chance?
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Look, I certainly hope so. I am pressing to do so.
I'm pressing Congress to do so. I'm pressing Congress to
to enact and codify the Doge cuts that that we've
seen Elon Muskin doche put in play. We're gonna have
a battle on Congress. We're gonna have a battle in
Congress if it has to go through regular order. What
regular order means is is the standard path of legislation.
(33:10):
That means it's subject to filibuster. That means you need
sixty votes in the Senate, which means you need seven Democrats.
If you have to get seven Democrats.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
And that's how they save it, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
That's right, that's their ideal situation is you guys complain
about it and we keep giving billions to our propaganda machines.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Zero Democrats will vote to defund NPR or PBS, which
means if it goes through regular order, it will not happen.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
The other way is did.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
That proof of just how biased they are, the fact
that zero of them would go to defund it because
they know how valuable it is to their propaganda.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
And they don't care.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
In fact, I want you to listen to Catherine Maher,
the CEO of NPR, who describes the First Amendment as
the quote the greatest challenge that she faces to controlling
narratives here.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
Give a listen.
Speaker 8 (33:57):
The number one challenge here that we and is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights. And that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit
(34:19):
tricky to really address some of the real challenges of
where does bad information come from and sort of the
influenced peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
I mean that through your tax hours are going and
that's a woman who's in charge.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Damn it, that pesky First Amendment. We want to censor,
we want to silence voices we disagree with, and that
First Amendment stands in the way. And here I want
you to listen to this, this montage of of Catherine
Marr being being grilled at congressional hearing. Give a listen
to to just how extreme the NPR CEO is.
Speaker 9 (34:53):
And I welcome the opportunity to discuss the essential role
of public media in delivering unbiased, non partisan, fact based
reporting to Americans. Madam Chair, thank you so much for
the opportunity to address this. I know the youth.
Speaker 7 (35:07):
Is it up to you, an MPR, to crack down
on bad information or decide the truth to answer the
question yes or no?
Speaker 9 (35:13):
Miss more absolutely not. I'm a very strong believer in
free speech, and I believe that more sep.
Speaker 7 (35:17):
Your public statements say otherwise. During the COVID pandemic in
the twenty twenty election, you said you censored information through
conversations with government. Which governments were those, Miss Mahr the
Biden administration, yes or.
Speaker 9 (35:31):
No, Madam Chair, Wikipedia never censored any information.
Speaker 7 (35:35):
These are your public statements, Miss More.
Speaker 9 (35:37):
Madam Chair, we are in full compliance and with the
FCC's and Kreen, we'll continue to cooperate.
Speaker 7 (35:42):
I remind you you're under oath. I'm assuming you're concerned.
Both of you are concerned about this, and that's why
you brought so many attorneys with you today.
Speaker 9 (35:49):
First of all, I want to recognize your concerns. One
of the first things that I did in coming in
in May was to beef off our editorial standards.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
Two PR than doing editorial I'm so sorry.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
AD a federally funded entity that's supposed to provide the news,
not provide the news.
Speaker 10 (36:06):
Of course, of course, Congressman, an article by Uri Berlinger.
I've been at NPR for twenty five years. Here's how
we lost America's trust.
Speaker 9 (36:15):
Well, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that
we were mistaken and failing to cover the Hunter Biden
laptop story more aggressively and sooner. Our current editorial leadership wuhan,
we recognize that we were reporting at the time, but
we acknowledged that the new CIA evidence is worthy of
coverage and have covered up.
Speaker 10 (36:31):
You've even talked about the First Amendment kind of getting
in the way of what you wanted to get done.
NPR is now and taking this non biased approach.
Speaker 9 (36:37):
I so appreciate the opportunity to perhaps clarify some things.
My talk about truth was really referencing the way that
people use truth to refer to belief as opposed to facts.
Speaker 10 (36:47):
Your comments said that truth was getting the way of
getting things done and that you were prioritizing what you
wanted to get done over truth.
Speaker 11 (36:54):
Did they come up in your job interview? Like, do
you see a problem?
Speaker 1 (36:59):
Congressman?
Speaker 9 (36:59):
Thank you for the No, they never came up in
my job interview.
Speaker 11 (37:03):
You're a rabid progressive, and do you not think it's
a problem that your political leanings make it seem to
the American people that you're not biased and you're not
doing your job because you agree that your job is
to have journalistic integrity.
Speaker 9 (37:17):
Right, absolutely, But there is a strong firewall between the
newsroom and anything that I let's.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Talk about the newsroom.
Speaker 11 (37:23):
You have eighty seven registered Democrats, not a single Republican
in your editor boards. I mean, how does that work
to give us the perception that you're doing your job
of actually delivering unbiased information.
Speaker 9 (37:36):
I would agree with you that that number is a
concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we
need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of
the American society so that we can report well for
all Americans.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
Well, I just got to stop it there.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
This goes on for several more minutes, but that part
there at the end where he's like, you got eighty
seven people on the editorial board.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
They're all Democrats. You don't have seen a Republican.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
And then she's like, yeah, if that number is true,
then it is a con earn.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
The argument of NPR is that the First Amendment requires
for you and me to keep paying for them to
propagandize and lie. And I got to say one of
my favorite facts, as I said, it's not just NPR,
it's three Colorado radio stations. The statewide Colorado Public Radio
(38:22):
station based in Denver KSUT, which was originally founded by
the Southern Ute Indian tribe.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
And this is the one that cracks me up.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
The Aspen Public Radio, which broadcasts in Aspen, one of
the richest communities on planet Earth. If you're an Aspen
and you look at the airport, you just see a
line of private jets as far as the eye can see.
And their argument is, the First Amendment mandates that we
(38:52):
tax American workers to pay for propaganda in Aspen. Because
the poor, wretched masses of aspend can't afford to pay
for their own propaganda, they need to tax American workers instead.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
Yeah, there it is, and now you know why Donald
Trump's doing what he's doing. Don't forget me to this
show Monday, Wednesday Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download
button so you don't miss a single episode right up
to a five star review if you wouldn't mind. It
helps us reach new listeners and the center. I will
see you back here on Friday morning.
Good Wednesday morning. Nice to have you with us.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
It's verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you
and Senator We're gonna get some redows on some cover
ups on the Democratic Party. Apparently this is gonna be
music to many people's ears on accountability.
Speaker 3 (00:17):
Well, the FBI has announced three brand new investigations on
stories that just broke, things that just happened yesterday. So,
just yesterday, cocaine was found in the White House. Just yesterday,
there was a secret leak from the Supreme Court of
a decision the court had not yet issued. It was
a decision overturning Roe versus Weight. It was shocking, it
(00:39):
was incredible, and I'll tell you the FBI was on it.
And just yesterday, unbelievably, a pipe bomb was planted outside
the DNC. It was on the day of the certification
of what ended up being the certification of Joe Biden's presidency.
And all three of these, understandably when they occur, they
(01:00):
were major news stories, horrific crimes, grotesque violation of laws.
So of course the FBI devoted all of the resources
to discover nothing. Well, we have a new FBI, We
have a new DJ, And now the FBI and DJ
is going back to do what they should have done
years ago when these stories actually happen. They're going to
(01:20):
go investigate and I hope they're gonna find find that
the wrong doers, find the criminals, prosecute them, and put
them in jail. Also, we're going to look into recent
comments and actions by the former head of the FBI,
that crack law enforcement official who managed not to investigate, uh,
those crimes. We just talked about James Comy, who who
spent the entire Trump presidenc here much of the Trump presidency,
(01:44):
undermining the President of the United States, attacking the President
of the United States until finally he was rightly fired.
He's made some comments that are that are nothing short
of shocking. Uh and and and he is effectively called
for the assassination of the President of the United States.
You might think that as hyperbole, but we're going to
break down exactly what James Comey did. And and finally,
(02:07):
we're going to talk about a lawsuit that NPR has filed. NPR,
National Public Radio, has filed a lawsuit saying that President
Trump trying to cut off taxpayer funding for their wildly partisan, biased,
dishonest reporting. Well, their allegation is that not paying for
that wildly dishonest partisan reporting violates the First Amendment to
(02:30):
the Constitution, that the First Amendment mandates that you and
I and all of us pay for NPR's lying. We're
going to explain that the the absolute nonsense of that lawsuit,
and and we're going to we're going to get into
the details right now.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
Yeah, it's really an incredible story.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Let me tell you real quick about the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. And you're seeing something that's really
shocking and disturbing. It's anti Semitism, and it's on the rise,
not just around the world, but sadly right here in
the US. Jewish schools have been targeted, synagogues have been threatened,
Families are actually living in fear, and it's something we
(03:08):
hoped we'd never see again in our lifetime. And right
now is the time that we make sure we're not
silent as this is happening. This is the moment that
we can all take a stand for the people in Israel.
And that's why I want you to know about the
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They're on the front lines,
providing real help where it's needed the most. They're giving
(03:30):
food and shelter to Jewish families under threat. They're even
building bomb shelters for children in Israel as we speak.
And they help survivors of hate rebuild their lives. And
they don't just respond to the crisis, they work every
day to prevent it as well. That is where your
simple gift of only forty five dollars will help support
(03:51):
their life saving work by helping provide food, shelter, and
so much more. The Bible's pretty clear it says I
will bless those who bless you, and supporting the IFCJ
is a spiritual stand. It's showing up for God's people
when it counts. So give them a buzz and get
in the game. The number eight a eight four eight
(04:13):
eight IFCJ. That's eight a eight four eight eight four
three two five. You can also go online to IFCJ
dot org. Every dollar helps, don't wait be the difference.
Visit IFCJ dot org or eight at eight four eight
eight if CJ. All right, so center, let's talk about
(04:36):
And you had some humor there in the in the
lead up to this topic, because it is insane that
we had these three massive investigations that got us no information.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Everybody just moved on.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
In the last administration and the opening up of these investigations.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Yet again by the FBI.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
I don't think this should be looked at is a
issue of like revenge. It's an issue of just is
it clearly didn't happen and was covered up in the past.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Well understand that when you're dealing with the politicization and
weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI and
the law enforcement apparatus, there are two components of it.
One component of it is using it as a weapon
to attack your political opponents. We saw Joe Biden the
Democrats do that over and over and over again, most
notably when they indicted Donald Trump, not once, not twice,
(05:25):
not three times, four separate times. That was a clear
illustration of weaponization. It was designed ultimately to fight democracy.
It was designed because they were terrified the voters would
do what in fact they did in November re elect
Donald J.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Trump as President of the United States.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
But there's another aspect of weaponization, and that is refusing
to investigate crime, refusing to enforce the law against your
friends and political allies, and we saw the Biden Department
of Justice, the Biden FBI do that over and over
and over again. And these three cases are among the
most egregious. You know you're and my friend Dan Bongino. So,
(06:02):
Dan Bongino is now the Deputy Director of the FBI.
Cash Fortells, the Director of the FBI. Dan tweeted out
this week the following a few updates, the Director and
I have most of our incoming reform teams in place
by next week. The hiring process can take a little
bit of time, but we are approaching that finish line.
This will help us both in doubling down on our
(06:23):
reform agenda. Shortly after swearing in, the Director and I
evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that
understandably have garnered public interest. We made the decision to
either reopen or push additional resources and investigative attention to
these cases. These cases are number one, the DC pipe
(06:44):
bombing investigation, Number two the cocaine discovery at the prior
administration's White House, and number three the leak of the
Supreme Court Stops case. I receive requested briefings on these
cases weekly and we are making progress if you have
any investigative tips on these matters that may assist us,
(07:05):
then please contact the FBI. That is really significant, and
and and and by the way, I'm I'm gonna add
a fourth one that is not in this tweet, but
it is something that both Cash Battel and Don Bongino
and also Pambondi have committed to, which is transparency regarding
Jeffrey Epstein. And I will say that Jeffrey Epstein sex
(07:26):
trafficking case was grotesque. I think the American people need
to know every name in that little black book. I
think they need to know the clients. I think they
need to know everyone who participated uh in in in
the child sex trafficking. And I do believe I've had
multiple conversations with Pambondi, with Cash Patel, with Dan Bongino
about it. I do believe we will see transparency. I
(07:48):
know a lot of people are frustrated that we haven't
seen all that information yet. My understanding from those conference
conversations is on Epstein, there is a vast trove of information,
much of which implicates miners. And what I've been told
is that is they are working to put it in
a format where it can be released where you don't.
Where you don't release, say, video of a miner being
(08:11):
sexually assaulted, which would obviously be inappropriate for protecting that child,
a little boy or girl should not have that image
released by the government for the world. But at the
same time, the assaulter, the criminal, his image should be released.
And I have every expectation we will see transparency on
that front, and I will continue asking both of the
(08:33):
Department of Justice and FBI to provide transparency and pressing
them to do so as fast as possible. But on
these three cases as well. Look, let's take him one
at a time. Cocaine in the West wing of the
White House? All right, Ben, you worked in the West Wing.
Tell me how big a deal would it be when
you worked to the George W. Bush White House. Can
you imagine the reaction if cocaine were found in that
(08:55):
White House?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
No, And it would have been a wall to wall story,
and it would have been twenty four to seven, and
the media would have dug and dug and dug and
demanded answers, and they would not have let up until
they had a name or someone who had been fired
or dismissed, and they would have also been I think
tmz'ed it where they would have said, how many people
are high at the White House, how many people are
(09:17):
around the Situation Room, which, by the way, this cocaine
was not far from the stories would have exploded to
hurt Ben Jordan's bush.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Ben, explain to people where this work, where this was,
because you said it wasn't far from the situation room,
You're right, But get people a sense of the layout
of the West Wing and where's.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Thatchly this was.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
If you walk in the West Wing from basically the
EEO be the Old Executive or the Eisenhower Building, there's
kind of a breezeway and when you walk in there.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
For you, I want to stop you for a second.
There is an interesting divide in Washington, and you can
tell how long someone has been in Washington by what
acronym you use, and you actually just use both of them.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Yes, so there's a bill ridging the gap there, did you?
Speaker 4 (10:00):
I did?
Speaker 3 (10:00):
But I want to explain it to our listeners because
this is this is a very insidery little thing, but
it is kind of funny and it's real. So there's
a giant building right next to the White House, that
is the Executive Office Building, And a lot of the
offices that are said to be quote in the White
House are actually in that building. That building is much
bigger than the White House and is part of the
(10:21):
White House campus. So when you enter the White House grounds,
if you're walking up Executive Avenue, on the right is
the West Wing. On the left, it is the Executive
Office Building. Now, the folks who have been in DC
a long time, they call that the OEO B.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Why is that?
Speaker 3 (10:38):
That stands for the Old Executive Office Building.
Speaker 4 (10:42):
So the O is OEO B.
Speaker 3 (10:44):
And at some point, and I don't know what year,
actually maybe when we're talking you can google it and
give us the answer, Bend. But at some point they
renamed the building the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. They put
up a sign that says Eisenhower Executive Office Building. And
so now it's called EO B. And you can tell
people who I would say, have been to d C
in the last decade or two they call it the
(11:06):
EO B and old farts. And you're actually young enough,
you're not fully an old fart exactly.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
I'm gonna take pride in that, by the way, and
by the way, I can tell you when they changed
the name.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Are you ready for this?
Speaker 3 (11:17):
I heard you typing when I said use the Google.
You click clacked on your keyboard, so I knew you
had an answer.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
President Bill Clinton approved legislation changing the name on November
the ninth of nineteen ninety nine from the old Executive
Office Building, too, was renamed the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive
Office Building. So there you go, ninety nine, November ninth.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
So that's just a quick aside, and you can really
tell someone's So.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
Look, I came to d C.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I was a law clerk in d C in nineteen
ninety five to ninety six, and then I was a
law clerk at the Supreme Court in ninety six to
ninety seven. And so when I first moved there, it
was called the OEO B. So I'm just barely on
the old old fart line of it. You said it
was renamed in nineteen ninety nine, so you're very much
on the young fart nine line of it.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
And yet I like that you use them both.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Yeah, it's it's a it's a cool building. And you
can also all we always we always used to laugh
because you can always tell who was full of it,
and who was lying if they said they worked in
the White House and then they actually worked in the EOB.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I called on a second like, wait, wait are they are?
Speaker 2 (12:21):
They are they flexing saying that they work in the
West Wing when they really don't because ninety nine percent
of the staff does not work in the actual White House.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yes, say works EO B.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
And so the White House itself, you've got a lot
of the White House that's like a museum and that
has beautiful rooms and you have tours going through it,
and it's it's it's a quasi public area. You've got
the residence, which is upstairs and that's where the president
of the First Family lives. And then you have the
West Wing, which is where the senior offices working for
(12:54):
the president are. And the West Wing is not very big.
It's no, it's tiny. It's three stories. You've got a basement,
you've got a first floor and second floor. The offices
are not very big. Actually, the OEO B offices are
much bigger than the West Wing offices. But in the
White House, power and prestige is measured by one thing,
and that is proximity to the president. Proximity to the
Oval Office, and so a tiny little closet next to
(13:18):
the Oval is much more prestigious than a huge, grand office.
All right, I'll tell you something funny, Ben. So you
know the little office off the West wing where Bill
Clinton did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Yes,
And by the way, for those of you be all
too young to remember Bill Clinton, when he was accused
of having oral sex with an intern, Monica Lewinsky, he
(13:41):
said to press conference, I did not have sexual relations
with that woman, miss Lewinsky. That was turned out to
be a flat out lie because he did. There's a
little room off the West wing where those interactions occurred.
Do you know what Donald Trump has turned it into.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
So I know this, it's a night and a half.
It's the trinket room.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Now. If he likes you and he says, come over here,
you can get you some swag from the Oval Office.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
Like he's got maga hats in there, he's got presidential
cuff links, he's got all sorts of it. He just
goes and says, take whatever you like, and there's just
like a bunch of stuff and it's really cool. So
so he's got he doesn't have those in the swag room.
But but but he also has Have you seen Trump's
challenge coins?
Speaker 1 (14:26):
They're incredible.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
You So when you went into the Oval recently, you
you got a couple coming back and I got to
see him.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
They're amazing and they're huge.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
So, so a challenge coin, for those of y'all who
are not familiar, a challenge coin is a tradition both
in the military and in law enforcement. And so when
you when you meet with with typically senior officers of
the military, they'll have a challenge coin that that that
that that is branded with their unit, with their battalion,
and and they'll give it to you. And there's a
whole culture of like having to present your challenge coin
(14:54):
and if you don't have it, having to buy drinks.
And so in my office, I have a whole display
behind my desk of probably one hundred and fifty challenge
coins that have been given to me by military leaders
across the country, across the world. That's behind my desk,
and then in front of my desk on the other
end of the office is a display with challenge coins
(15:14):
from law enforcement. And so it's a similar thing police officers, sheriffs,
police chiefs, firefighters federal law enforcement will have challenge coins
and they give them and usually they're about the size
of a silver dollar and they're elaborate. Well, Trump has
made these presidential challenge coins that are about the size
somewhere between the size that the diameter of a baseball
(15:37):
and a softball. I think they're a little bigger than
a baseball, but not quite as big as a softball.
Speaker 4 (15:41):
And they're gorgeous.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
And of course Trump's challenge coin is bigger, because how
would it be otherwise.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
And that's the part about I do say, people that
go to the Oval office and get to meet with him,
you have no idea what you're gonna leave with, including
I will say his cup links. I got a pair
in the first in the forty five years. You got
the new pair from forty seven. I'm very jealous because
they are absolutely beautiful.
Speaker 4 (16:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
So, anyway, where the cocaine was found is right as
you walk into the entrance of the West Wing. By
the way, that entrance is where Trump now parks his
brand new Tesla. It's literally parked right up front. So
I tweeted out a picture. It's because I've never seen
a car of the president. Like when you become president,
they take your car keys and they don't let you drive,
(16:28):
and you're driven around in the beast. And so his
cars parked right up front. Now, actually they don't let
Trump drive either, so he doesn't get to drive his tesla.
And so I'm told a staffer about once a week
has to drive the tesla like several times around the block.
So it just so it doesn't die entirely.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
That's not a bad job, by the way, if you
get that job.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
But as you mentioned, you walk in that entrance there
and where they found the cocaine. It is probably I
don't know, thirty to forty feet away from the door
to the situation room. Because when you walk in the
west wing, your lockers are to the left where you
put your phones up. Traditionally that's where they found this
cocaine was over in that area. You go straight for
(17:11):
ten twelve feet, you go to your right, and then
right down there is a little area we can get
food and turn to drink, and immediately to your right
is where you walk in to the situation room. I
gets right there. Like the idea that cocaine was found
in the White House, it should have been like hell
to pay, and no one stopped reporting on the story
(17:33):
until somebody was arrested.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
So look, I am very glad the FBI is going
to investigate that. You take in another case, January sixth,
the Biden Justice Department spent thousands and thousands of man hour,
spent enormous money investigating every little old lady on the
mall waving a flag singing God bless America. They treated
(17:57):
those poor little old ladies like they were Osama bin
lad and the actual terrorist who plants a pipe bomb
outside the DMC. Look, if you plant a pipe bomb
that can blow up people and murder people, there's a
word for that. You are a terrorist if you're planning
a pipe bomb. There is video of this dude planning
the pipe bomb. And yet we've had four plus years
(18:22):
transpire and we know nothing about the actual terrorist who
planted a pipe bomb that could have killed multiple people.
It was actually it was found before it exploded, thank god,
but it could have been. It could have resulted a
serious loss of life if it hadn't. I'm very glad
that they're finally investigating that.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
And then.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
An action PAUSO would ask your gut on this one.
Why was it not investigating.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
I don't know. I really look. There's conspiracy theories online.
Some of them have to do with FBI informants under
cover agents in the crowd on January sixth. As you know,
I've questioned the FBI and the Department of Justice multiple
times about the informants they had underground. They refused to
(19:08):
make that public. I'll tell you. I also have urged
Pambondi and Cash Betel to make that public.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
I hope that.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
They do, that they engage in radical transparency.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
I find it weird because it is the action on
that day that could have resulted in the greatest loss
of life had the pipe bomb detonated. I mean, it's
on a busy public street where people are walking by
every minute. It could have killed multiple people, and we
don't know, and so all sorts of people, I mean,
(19:38):
the Twitter and the Internet speculates like crazy. I'm not
interested in speculation. I would like to find out who
actually planted it, why, and I'd like them to go
to jail. And I hope listen. I'm encouraged by Dan
Bongino's post on X that we are making progress. I
hope that we can find out who did it. We
(20:00):
will say of the three, ironically, the one that is
the most consequential, I think is the third one, which
is the leak of the Supreme Court's Dobs case.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
And it is hard to.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Overstate how much damage that leak did, not just to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
But but also to the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
The way the Supreme Court operates, Justices deliberate on cases,
They circulate opinion drafts back and forth. They change opinion drafts.
A given opinion, particularly in a consequential opinion, can change
one hundred times or more. They're literally negotiating every sentence
over every footnote.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
And in two.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Hundred and nearly fifty years of our nation's history, never
once has a draft of an opinion of the Supreme
Court been leaked until the Dobs case. And it did
I think, irreparable damage to the trust between the justices,
the ability of the justices to have candor with each other,
(21:04):
and the person who leaked it. At the end of
the day, it is a really small universe of people
who would have access to that draft opinion. It is
essentially the justices, and I refuse to believe a justice
did that unless you had irrefutable proof. I have too
much faith in the institutions of our country to believe
(21:25):
a justice did it. I believe it was very likely
a law clerk at a law clerk from one of
the liberal justices. But look, there are only thirty six
law clerks. There are not that many, and I am confident,
having been one of them myself, these people are not
master criminals. They are not incredibly adept at hiding their tracks,
and so I think we did not get a thorough
(21:47):
investigation into it. And of the three, if I could
pick one to be solved, it would be finding the
leaker of the Dobs opinion, prosecuting him or her and
locking them up, because I think that did lasting damage
to the rule of law in this country.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
This is again goes back to the basic issue of
law and order, and this is something that this administration
keeps saying over and over again, like they're not joking.
They're going to treat everyone the same, and we're going
to look at things through the glasses of law and
order instead of picking winners and losers based on politics.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
Well, yes, and that is unless the head of the
FBI is calling for the murder of the president of
the United States, And that is another story that broke
in the last few days. So the former FBI director
James Comy, he tweeted out this this image, and it
is an image of seashells on the beach that spell
(22:47):
out eighty six forty seven. Now forty seven is obviously
Donald Trump, and eighty six on the face of it,
to eighty six someone is standard slang for killing someone.
And as I posted on social media, is there any
other reasonable interpretation of this other than the former head
(23:08):
of the FBI publicly calling for the murder of the
president of the United States, and Comy backed away from it.
I got to say, part of the reason I think
he put it out is he's got a new book
coming out and he wanted some attention. But it is
unimaginable that a head of the FBI would be particularly
(23:31):
a president who has had two assassination attempts. This is
not theoretical. Donald Trump was shot. He came within a
half inch of being killed in Butler, Pennsylvania, and yet
the head of the FBI is openly calling for people
to eighty six Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Well, and not only as you mentioned, is it a
dog whistle, but also, yeah, he had a book coming out.
He's like, hey, if I do this, and maybe they're
just narcissm and arrogance to a level that even I
didn't realize with him, and I thought it was pretty
high where he's like, I'm i'm, I'm, I'm so powerful,
I can get away with this, and then everybody will
(24:11):
want to interview me. I get to dog whistle this
against the president while also guaranteeing that every single show
will want to book me to talk about my book
a KA and also the seashells.
Speaker 4 (24:23):
On the beach.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
It was one hell of a move and and I
think it's one where he thought nothing's going to happen
to me, even if I do get interviewed by the
Secret Service, who cares well?
Speaker 3 (24:33):
And I will say he doubled down this week. Uh,
but by calling on the FBI essentially to fight the
President of the United States, and and and and and
accusing the Trump administration of being, in his words, quite
white supremacists adjacent.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Listen to this, So follow.
Speaker 5 (24:53):
Up on the seashell situation when explaining why you took
it down, But what will you trying to communicate to
the public impete Trump. What was your reasoning for it?
Speaker 6 (25:06):
No, I just thought it was a cool picture. Someone
was expressing a political view in a very clever way
in shells that were organized by the like they had
the same color for each of the letters. I just thought,
what a cool thing. And I'm well known as a
political opponent of Donald Trump, and I just thought, well,
that's cool. My Instagram account is family politics stuff, including
(25:26):
stuff like this. I put a shell on last fall.
I thought it was cool. Someone had painted the inside
of a big shell to say vot Kamala, and I
thought that's really cool, so I put that on. But
so it's not a particular message other than that.
Speaker 5 (25:38):
I was just going to ask you what the MSNBC
interview you were doing, because on social media everyone's saying
he's talking about the white supremacist adjacent Republican Party. Everybody
in the party, Yeah, voters, what what's you want to
thank you? No clarification at all.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
No, I'm not going to comment on Okay, thank you, well,
thank you?
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Hello, I love it.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Be well, I'm not gonna clarify and that I'm going
to keep that out there as well.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
Buy my book, What utter garbage. Oh, I just thought
it was kind of interesting. I just thought it was,
you know, kind of pretty. The seashells were pretty. Like,
what an absurd claim, And there's something mocking about it
(26:25):
that he could claim. Okay, Number one, James Comy is
not a stupid man.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Yeah, he's smart. He knows what he's doing.
Speaker 3 (26:34):
He knows exactly what he is doing. And James Comy
number one, he knows who forty seven is. He knows
exactly who forty seven is. Forty seven is the forty
seventh President of the United States Donald J. Trump Number two.
The claim that he didn't know what eighty six is. Listen,
(26:57):
that is that that is absurd. It is it is
not remotely credible. And the fact that he's saying that,
the fact that he's saying that is mocking. It is
a level of contempt. And listen. I gotta say, I
don't know Comy personally, but in my view, he is
(27:21):
someone who was consumed by power. When he was the
head of the FBI, I think he had delusions of grandeur.
I think he believed he was j Edgar Hoover and
he wanted to have presidents of the United States reporting
to him. By the way, do you happen to know
off the top of your top of your head what
eighteen USC. Section eight seventy one provides, No, what is it?
(27:44):
What's funny? It's actually a felony. Threatening the President of
the United States is a felony that's punishable by up
to five years in Prisonman, you would think the head
of the FBI would know that, and yet he blithely said, Oh,
I just saw some pretty seashells. You know, nothing to
see here.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
And let's just remind people when you said that he's smart.
This is the same guy that mocked the Trump administration
the first time, right when they got into office, when
he just sent a couple FBI agents over to try
to entrap General Flynn. Like, never forget. That's how calculated
this guy is. So for him to say, oh, I
just saw a picture here and I thought it was
really cute to seashells, I don't buy that crap for
(28:23):
a moment.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
He proposed sending someone wearing a wire to entrap the
President of the United States. And I want you to
listen to him with Nicole Wallace and MSNBC because I
want you to listen to just this this smarmy, sanctimonious,
dishonest You can tell what I think about him here
to just play his words and see if you agree
with me.
Speaker 7 (28:43):
You're back in the middle of a political firestorm.
Speaker 6 (28:47):
Yeah, for walking on the beach with my wife. So
I don't know how we ended up here. Never occurred
to me that it was any kind of controversial thing,
but that's the time we live.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
In, Okay.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Then there's a technical word for what he just said
there that would be called a lie. He is deliberately lying,
he knows he's lying. He is not in trouble for
walking on the beach with his wife. He is understandably
in trouble for publicly advocating the murder of the president
of the United States.
Speaker 2 (29:14):
And yet there's a lot of you think he knew
exactly what he was doing. And yeah, he may get
hauled in for some questioning, but he's not going to
get arrested because he's a former MPI director and that
guy never gets in trouble.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
Right, Well, we shall see.
Speaker 3 (29:27):
I will say Cash Betel and Dan Bongino are not
your typical heads of the FBI.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Yeah, that's a great point. It'd be very interesting to
see what happens moving forward. We'll keep you updated on it.
I want to move also the MPR lawsuit and get
your take on that center as well.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
So this week NPR, National Public Radio, and three Colorado
Public Radio stations filed a lawsuit in federal court against
the Trump White House against the President's executive order barring
the use of funds for NPR and for PBS, and
the lawsuit says, quote, it is not always obvious when
(30:03):
the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose in violation
of the First Amendment.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
But this wolf comes as a wolf.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
The order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the
President's views, their news and other content is not fair, accurate,
or unbiased. Now let me stop and say, listen, you
could file a reasonable lawsuit arguing that on any of
these particular executive orders that where you're dealing with congressional appropriations,
(30:35):
that challenging the authority of an executive order to limit
congressional appropriations. That's an area that's being litigated. That's going
to be litigated, and reasonable minds can can differ on
what is permissible. And we've talked in previous podcasts that
there is there is a significant dispute over the president's
authority to engage in what is called impoundment, which is
(30:56):
essentially to decline to spend money that comeungress as appropriated.
That you want to file a lawsuit over that, Okay, courts,
we'll sort that out.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
That'll be litigated.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
But here what this lawsuit is claiming is that the
First Amendment prohibits defunding NPR. And the reason they say
it really is absurd is you can't defund the NPR
simply because quote their news and other content is not fair,
accurator unbiased. Now let me say I think no objective
person on planet Earth can contend that NPR or PBS
(31:33):
are fair, accurator unbiased. And so we really are in
Alison Wonderland through the looking glass, where you now have
litigants arguing because NPR and PBS are dishonest and political,
you can't cut off funding because cutting off funding would
be silencing our right to be dishonest and political and
not just look, you absolutely have a right to be
(31:55):
dishonest and political. So MSNBC can publish any nonsense they want,
CNN can publish any nonsense they want. Now nobody watches them.
It's kind of a tree falling in the woods. But
they have a right to say it. They have a
right to to to to say utter nonsense. But NPR's
argument is not only do they have a right to
say it, which I agree they do, but they have
(32:15):
a right to have the taxpayers fund them forever that
that that it is illegal for us to stop paying
for their partisan lives. I gotta say, that is an
absurd claim. And it is the simple simple reality of
of of of the absurdity of the left.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (32:35):
And and I wonder when we will actually get resolution
on this. Is there a real chance you think that
we could actually defund m p R, PBS and just say, hey,
make it on your own.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
Is there a real chance?
Speaker 3 (32:48):
Look, I certainly hope so. I am pressing to do so.
I'm pressing Congress to do so. I'm pressing Congress to
to enact and codify the Doge cuts that that we've
seen Elon Muskin doche put in play. We're gonna have
a battle on Congress. We're gonna have a battle in
Congress if it has to go through regular order. What
regular order means is is the standard path of legislation.
(33:10):
That means it's subject to filibuster. That means you need
sixty votes in the Senate, which means you need seven Democrats.
If you have to get seven Democrats.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
And that's how they save it, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
That's right, that's their ideal situation is you guys complain
about it and we keep giving billions to our propaganda machines.
Speaker 3 (33:27):
Zero Democrats will vote to defund NPR or PBS, which
means if it goes through regular order, it will not happen.
Speaker 4 (33:35):
The other way is did.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
That proof of just how biased they are, the fact
that zero of them would go to defund it because
they know how valuable it is to their propaganda.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
And they don't care.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
In fact, I want you to listen to Catherine Maher,
the CEO of NPR, who describes the First Amendment as
the quote the greatest challenge that she faces to controlling
narratives here.
Speaker 4 (33:57):
Give a listen.
Speaker 8 (33:57):
The number one challenge here that we and is, of course,
the First Amendment in the United States is a fairly
robust protection of rights. And that is a protection of
rights both for platforms, which I actually think is very
important that platforms have those rights to be able to
regulate what kind of content they want on their sites.
But it also means that it is a little bit
(34:19):
tricky to really address some of the real challenges of
where does bad information come from and sort of the
influenced peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
I mean that through your tax hours are going and
that's a woman who's in charge.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Damn it, that pesky First Amendment. We want to censor,
we want to silence voices we disagree with, and that
First Amendment stands in the way. And here I want
you to listen to this, this montage of of Catherine
Marr being being grilled at congressional hearing. Give a listen
to to just how extreme the NPR CEO is.
Speaker 9 (34:53):
And I welcome the opportunity to discuss the essential role
of public media in delivering unbiased, non partisan, fact based
reporting to Americans. Madam Chair, thank you so much for
the opportunity to address this. I know the youth.
Speaker 7 (35:07):
Is it up to you, an MPR, to crack down
on bad information or decide the truth to answer the
question yes or no?
Speaker 9 (35:13):
Miss more absolutely not. I'm a very strong believer in
free speech, and I believe that more sep.
Speaker 7 (35:17):
Your public statements say otherwise. During the COVID pandemic in
the twenty twenty election, you said you censored information through
conversations with government. Which governments were those, Miss Mahr the
Biden administration, yes or.
Speaker 9 (35:31):
No, Madam Chair, Wikipedia never censored any information.
Speaker 7 (35:35):
These are your public statements, Miss More.
Speaker 9 (35:37):
Madam Chair, we are in full compliance and with the
FCC's and Kreen, we'll continue to cooperate.
Speaker 7 (35:42):
I remind you you're under oath. I'm assuming you're concerned.
Both of you are concerned about this, and that's why
you brought so many attorneys with you today.
Speaker 9 (35:49):
First of all, I want to recognize your concerns. One
of the first things that I did in coming in
in May was to beef off our editorial standards.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
Two PR than doing editorial I'm so sorry.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
AD a federally funded entity that's supposed to provide the news,
not provide the news.
Speaker 10 (36:06):
Of course, of course, Congressman, an article by Uri Berlinger.
I've been at NPR for twenty five years. Here's how
we lost America's trust.
Speaker 9 (36:15):
Well, I do want to say that NPR acknowledges that
we were mistaken and failing to cover the Hunter Biden
laptop story more aggressively and sooner. Our current editorial leadership wuhan,
we recognize that we were reporting at the time, but
we acknowledged that the new CIA evidence is worthy of
coverage and have covered up.
Speaker 10 (36:31):
You've even talked about the First Amendment kind of getting
in the way of what you wanted to get done.
NPR is now and taking this non biased approach.
Speaker 9 (36:37):
I so appreciate the opportunity to perhaps clarify some things.
My talk about truth was really referencing the way that
people use truth to refer to belief as opposed to facts.
Speaker 10 (36:47):
Your comments said that truth was getting the way of
getting things done and that you were prioritizing what you
wanted to get done over truth.
Speaker 11 (36:54):
Did they come up in your job interview? Like, do
you see a problem?
Speaker 1 (36:59):
Congressman?
Speaker 9 (36:59):
Thank you for the No, they never came up in
my job interview.
Speaker 11 (37:03):
You're a rabid progressive, and do you not think it's
a problem that your political leanings make it seem to
the American people that you're not biased and you're not
doing your job because you agree that your job is
to have journalistic integrity.
Speaker 9 (37:17):
Right, absolutely, But there is a strong firewall between the
newsroom and anything that I let's.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Talk about the newsroom.
Speaker 11 (37:23):
You have eighty seven registered Democrats, not a single Republican
in your editor boards. I mean, how does that work
to give us the perception that you're doing your job
of actually delivering unbiased information.
Speaker 9 (37:36):
I would agree with you that that number is a
concern if it is accurate. I do believe that we
need to have journalists who represent the full breadth of
the American society so that we can report well for
all Americans.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
Well, I just got to stop it there.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
This goes on for several more minutes, but that part
there at the end where he's like, you got eighty
seven people on the editorial board.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
They're all Democrats. You don't have seen a Republican.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
And then she's like, yeah, if that number is true,
then it is a con earn.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
The argument of NPR is that the First Amendment requires
for you and me to keep paying for them to
propagandize and lie. And I got to say one of
my favorite facts, as I said, it's not just NPR,
it's three Colorado radio stations. The statewide Colorado Public Radio
(38:22):
station based in Denver KSUT, which was originally founded by
the Southern Ute Indian tribe.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
And this is the one that cracks me up.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
The Aspen Public Radio, which broadcasts in Aspen, one of
the richest communities on planet Earth. If you're an Aspen
and you look at the airport, you just see a
line of private jets as far as the eye can see.
And their argument is, the First Amendment mandates that we
(38:52):
tax American workers to pay for propaganda in Aspen. Because
the poor, wretched masses of aspend can't afford to pay
for their own propaganda, they need to tax American workers instead.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
Yeah, there it is, and now you know why Donald
Trump's doing what he's doing. Don't forget me to this
show Monday, Wednesday Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download
button so you don't miss a single episode right up
to a five star review if you wouldn't mind. It
helps us reach new listeners and the center. I will
see you back here on Friday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.