September 22, 2023 • 39 mins
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):
Welcome and as verdict with Senator Ted Kruz Ben Ferguson
with you as well, and Senator A mountain of evidence
against the Biden crime family is really starting to mount up.
But it's actually not pressure on the president or his
family or Hunter Biden. It's on the Attorney General Merrick Garland.
He was testifying before Congress on the latest on the
(00:22):
impeachment inquiry, and your overall reaction I want to get
because I was shocked, not really by his arrogance as time,
by his I would say, lack of just candid answers
to basic questions that were asked of him.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Were you shocked by his demeanor?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
You know?
Speaker 4 (00:41):
Unfortunately I wasn't. Merrick Garland, from the day he was
sworn in, has demonstrated a contempt for Congress, a contempt
for the American people, a smug entitlement that no one
is allowed to question him, that he doesn't have to
answer any questions. I have questioned Merrick Garland now many
(01:02):
times and he will not answer. He will not give
you a straight answer to anything. And so as the
evidence keeps mounting, not just of Joe Biden's personal corruption,
but of Merrick Garland being personally implicated now in multiple felonies,
he has not wavered at all from his attitude that
(01:23):
seems to say, how dare you question me? He is,
He's the legal equivalent of Anthony Fauci. Fauci says, I
am the science. Merrick Garland's response is essentially, I am
the law, and they're both wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
I want to play a few quips that really went viral,
and they went viral because of just the shock of
the lack of response and, like you said, the arrogance
of Garland. One of them was just a basic question
talking about, hey, what did you know and when did
you kind of know it?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (02:00):
Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI headquarters
about the hunter by an investigation?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Really don't.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
I don't recollect the answer to that question. But the
FBI works for the Justice Department.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
It's I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you don't recollect. You don't
recollect whether.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
You've talked with anybody at FBI headquarters about an investigation
of the President's son.
Speaker 6 (02:22):
I don't believe that I did.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
I promised the Senate when I came before it for
confirmation that I would leave mister Weiss in place, and
then I would not interfere with his investigation. Okay, did
you have ever I have kept that promise? All right?
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Do you believe him, Senator, because I don't.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
Well, the I R S whistleblowers both testified to the
House that that that he lied when when he made
that promise to the Senate, when he made that promise
to me. In my questioning, we have now two careers
or I R S employees who had gone before the
House and said that he flat out lied, that he
(03:04):
has directly interfered. And I got to say the question
here this is very specific. Have you had personal contact
with anyone at FBI headquarters about the Hunter Biden case?
And for him to say, well, I don't remember. How
do you not remember that? This isn't asking generally. Have
you talked to FBI headquarters? Of course he has, as
(03:26):
he says, and in his answer, the FBI works for
the Justice Department. So yes, the Attorney General has talked
to FBI headquarters. But if he is recusing himself from
the matter, if he is not interfering, then he would
know whether or not he had had those conversations. And
the fact that he doesn't remember with the entirety of
(03:48):
the evidence is highly dubious.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
There is also another congresswoman who asked a question of Garlands.
He was testifying by the House Judiciary, said committee hearing,
and I want you to hear what she had to say.
It was a lengthy back and forth, but it was
an important one as well. And I say important because
it was the accusation that Merrick Garland basically is not
acting on behalf of the American people, or on behalf
(04:13):
of the law of the laws of this country, or
making sure these laws are being followed, but instead he's
basically working as a defense lawyer for the Biden crime
family by purposely slow walking the probes into the Clintons.
And this is something we haven't talked about in a while.
(04:34):
But also into Hunter Biden, also into Joe Biden, also
into the FBI's involvement in things like January sixth. It's
like he's in a personal attorney for anyone of the
Democratic Party that does something that's nefarious.
Speaker 7 (04:46):
Second, my town FBI phone numbers all over the district.
Please call that. People are truly afraid. I just want
to make sure if you're not aware, is that you are,
and this is a big problem. People are afraid of
their own government. And I'll share some other things. We're
talking about justice system.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
I don't question you.
Speaker 7 (05:08):
Probably not a bad person. I don't know you, but
well i'll tell you you're in charge of the department and
people right now feel you know. I'll look at Durham
report and I call on the fights of relations of
querious of millions Americans. Right, it's like KGB. But when
I read Durham reports, we have this, you have a nice,
you know, playbook. First, let's have a special council and
(05:29):
then you don't have to answer any questions here.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Then let's extend slow.
Speaker 7 (05:35):
Walk investigation on Hillary Clinton, on Hunter ever see a
slow walk? We were all very quick on Donald Trump,
but you are very slow walk. Then by the time
you know that investigation and its statute of limitation expired
and all of your agents need to be tested from mesia,
and no one recalls anything. Okay, you probably should have
as part of your hiring policy, so no one held accountable,
(05:58):
which was agreed. What happened you know in that report?
When I read about them, I.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Can't believe it happened in the United States.
Speaker 6 (06:05):
Of America.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
This is my frustration.
Speaker 6 (06:08):
I'll be honest with you. Then it's very interesting.
Speaker 7 (06:11):
You know, regardless what it is. Even people in Obama
administration raise concerns, you know, how can president sons be
serving on you know, corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. Do you understand
that it actually can undermine the one Ukrainian effort and policy.
I think those concerns were raised above. Administration didn't do
anything about it. These people are dying right now, and
(06:34):
Americans don't trust this president.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
So you I want to ask you.
Speaker 7 (06:39):
One thing, you know, as you you know, I don't
need answer because I know you're not going to but
I think you're probably got American and you care. And
a lot of these people are so afraid they cover
up this stuff, I think in your department because they're
embarrassed that what we became as a country to say
that what our department is justice became that allows Russians
(06:59):
to do proper and then Chinese it allows them to
destabilize our country. That is danger to our republic. It
is significant danger. And I have just one more question
from you. You know, I mean I agree on corporate
crimes and vices stuff even with Democrats that we need
to do a better job. One more questions for you.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Do you believe that.
Speaker 7 (07:18):
You know you talk about rights to vote, but do
you believe that only you as citizens should be voting
in this election and doing anything to make sure that
only eligible people.
Speaker 6 (07:28):
Vote in elections?
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yes?
Speaker 7 (07:30):
And yes, okay, I would like to see that what
you do?
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Thank you?
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Nilt I play that because I feel like this is
the level of frustration and anger that so many Americans
have that this congresswoman, Missus Sparks displayed there. She's livid
over the way that this man's doing his job, almost
the point of like, how the hell can you live
with yourself? And how are you getting away with this?
(07:54):
And this is where I think many Americans are at
this point.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Well, you're right, that's very powerful. That's Victoria Sparts. She
is a congresswoman from the state of Indiana. And Victoria
was born in the Soviet Union, and she grew up
in the Soviet Union, and so she saw a communist dictatorship.
She saw when she's referencing the KGB, she's familiar with
what the KGB would do. And Victoria came to America
(08:19):
when she was twenty two years old, and so she
came to America seeking freedom, seeking a better life. And
the outrage that she's expressing there that how can it
be that the US Department of Justice is behaving like
the KGB did? That is from personal experience, from life experience.
(08:40):
She's seen oppression firsthand. And notice Garland doesn't respond at
all to any of what she said there. He just
sits there passively, which frankly is what I guess the
KGB would do as well. Now I guess they would
actually arrest her for saying that. So it's still marginally better.
But at the end of the day, the points she
(09:03):
made are fundamentally the same. The slow walking. Look, they
just brought charges against Hunter Biden for buying a gun
illegally when he was on crack. They've had the evidence
of that for years. There's been no new evidence on that.
They could have brought that years ago. What they did, though,
was slow walk the investigation so that the statute of
(09:25):
limitations now has expired on the most serious tax offenses.
They've allowed that statute limitation to expire. The statute of
limitations has now expired on Joe Biden's corruption with communist China.
The text app the text on WhatsApp that Hunter sent
to the Chinese Communist officials saying, I'm sitting next to
(09:47):
my father. Well, you know what, Merrick Garland has magically
let the statute of limitations expire on that, and he
doesn't defend himself, he doesn't dispute it. His attitude is
I don't answer to you, I don't answer to anybody.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I want to tell you about our friends at Chalk.
If you're a guy and you feel like you've lost
a little bit of your edge, that you've lost your
strength and your vitality, that now you are seeing weakness
and complacency sit in. Maybe you want to be active
and you just don't have that energy. Maybe you want
to work out and you just don't have that energy. Well,
you're not alone. Dostostrum levels have dropped off a rock historically,
(10:23):
especially here in the US, and thankfully the patriots at
Chalk are helping real American men just like you, maximize
your masculinity by boosting your testosterum levels up to twenty
percent over ninety days.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Chalk is manufactured right here in the US of A.
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
changing effects on your energy, your focus, and your mood. Now,
I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack now for months
and I can tell you it works. So if you
are sick and tired of just sitting around and maybe
feeling weak or lazy or complacent, and you want to
(10:59):
get that strength and vitality back, go right now to
chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Use the promo code Ben.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
You're gonna get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscriptions
for life. Yeah, thirty five percent off. So go to
chalk choq dot com booster Tesawstrom levels up to twenty
percent over ninety days. That's chalkchoq dot com promo code
Ben for more than thirty percent off right now chalkchoq
(11:26):
dot com centaer.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I also want to ask you.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
About the way the media is covering this now, and
I say the way they're doing it because they're having
to cover obviously this issue with the President and with Garland,
but it's like they don't know how to do it.
And one of the things that was said tonight on CNN,
I want you to hear this after the testimony from Garland.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
This was actually said on CNN.
Speaker 7 (11:54):
Listen, were you disappointed in the Attorney General's lack of
answers there?
Speaker 8 (12:00):
I think he's trying to be very cautious not to
say something that is incorrect. For example, you know, he's
the head of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General
he sees, you know, hundreds thousands of people, you know,
were some of them FBI agents. He doesn't. He made
it very clear he has had no direction towards the
(12:22):
Special counsel on the Biden investigations, completely hands off.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
This is Congresswoman Lofgren. She just made that up. That's
not what Merre Garland said. In response, he said he
didn't know. He couldn't remember it right, He said, I
don't think I have. So she's out there and even
Aaron Burnette, I give her some credit. She's like like,
come on, like you can't even be happy with his
answering here, and she immediately goes into spend modes as well.
(12:50):
I can totally kind of understand why and how. It's like,
are you kidding me?
Speaker 4 (12:55):
Well? The Democrats have talking points, and every Democrat reads
from the same talking points, and they're willing to lie.
We see Kareem John Pierre do that almost on a
daily basis, just stand up there and brazenly lie. It's
like when she stood at the White House podium and
said people aren't just walking across the border. That doesn't happen.
That was a flat out lie. I guarantee you it
is happening right now. And by the way, whatever time
(13:18):
you happen to have downloaded this podcast and played it,
it's happening right now. Whether you're listening to it early
in the morning, you're listening to it at lunchtime, you're
listening to it as you drive home in the evening,
you're listening to it at two in the morning, it's
happening right now. Someone's coming across the border when you
have seven point two million people cross in two and
a half years. She's lying literally every minute of every day.
(13:40):
And they do the same thing on Hunter Biden, on
Joe Biden, on the evidence of corruption. They just stick
to their talking points and they count on the press
not to hold them account.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
There's a lot of things that were brought up with Garlin,
and it's outside of just the Biden crime family. One
of them is a contentious point that I think should
be an election your issue. I'm talking about the presidential
election year, and this is the fact that you had
an FBI that put out that infamous school board memo
targeting parents and treating them like Al Qaeda, just like
(14:11):
they are terrorists, like Al Kaita, calling them domestic terrorists.
And there was a back and forth about this as well.
I wanted to people to listen to what Kevin Kylie
had to say in this back and forth.
Speaker 9 (14:23):
Are you aware that directory a couple months ago and
sworn testimony implicated you in a sweeping abuse of power.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
I doubt he would characterize whatever whatever he said in
that way.
Speaker 9 (14:35):
Well, he testified about the school board memo that you
issued on October fourth of twenty twenty one, in which
you mobilized federal law enforcement powers against American parents. Now,
of course you didn't put it quite like that. Instead,
you found a pretext, which is stated right here in
the first line of the memo. In recent months, there
has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats
(14:57):
of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.
What was your basis for making that claim?
Speaker 3 (15:05):
I will say, again, as I've testified numerous times, in
response to exactly the same question that I saw numerous
reports in the press of violence and threats.
Speaker 9 (15:17):
You saw reports in the press, and so you decided
to instigate a nationwide law enforcement initiative.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
If I may be permitted to answer the question, please,
numerous reports in the media of violence and threats of
violence against school personnel of all kinds.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
By the way, can we just stop there at that
lie centator, there were not wide ranging mass reports of
violence against school board members. That is a lie from
the Attorney jo on the Unit States America, Merrick Garland,
that was not happening in this country when they decided
to go after parents and declare that they're domestic terrorists.
Can we all agree that that's a lie.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Well, not only is it a lie, it's a lie
that he's been caught on before, because when I cross
examined him in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on
exactly this topic, and I pulled up the memo that
he wrote that there were twenty different instances that were
cited in the letter from the National Association of School Boards.
That was the entire predicate for his memo. That's what
he based it on, is the memo that he'd gotten
(16:12):
and they cited twenty different instances, and I asked him,
I said, of the twenty, how many were violent? He said,
I don't know. I said, did you examine any of them?
Speaker 7 (16:21):
No?
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Did you look into whether they were violent or not?
Speaker 2 (16:24):
No.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
One of them was Scott Smith, the father in Loudon
County whose daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy dressed
as a girl in a skirt in the girl's bathroom.
And Scott Smith was wrongfully arrested by the school board
because when the school board covered it up, they went
after the parent instead of defending and protecting the child.
And by the way, they transferred that sexual predator to
(16:47):
another high school where he sexually assaulted another little girl.
He's now a convicted sex offender because he kept on
doing it. And Garland's answer to me, he admitted he
had no idea which ones were violent, which ones were not.
He didn't examine it, He did no due diligence whatsoever.
He simply said, I want to go after the parents.
And so what he just repeated to the house is
(17:09):
repeating the same lies. He has no idea what violence
occurred or not. That was just a pretext to go
after parents because he didn't like them expressing their First
Amendment rights.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
And then listen, he gets even more irritated that he's
having to answer this question.
Speaker 6 (17:27):
Did you consult with the FBI director?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
We received a letter from the National Association of school
Boards reporting.
Speaker 9 (17:33):
Yes, that letter contained anecdotes, it didn't contain data of
an increase. Did you, yes or no, consult with the
FBI director before issuing the memo?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I don't believe I spoke with the FBI director.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
No. Why not? Why wouldn't you consult with the FBI.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
Director Because the purpose of the memo, as is very
clear from the memo, is to ask the FBI to
assess the situation, to hold meetings, and to determine whether.
Speaker 6 (17:56):
It's attorney general.
Speaker 9 (17:57):
You started with a conclusion that there was an increase
in threats. Now, if you had bothered to consult with
the FBI director, here's what he would have said. This
is from his swoln testimony that he was not aware
of any such evidence. So my question to you, sir,
sitting here today, is can you substantiate your claim that
there was an increase? Of course, there will always be
criminal sporadic criminal activity in all quarters of society. But
(18:18):
your claim was there was an increase. Can you substantiate
that sitting here today, I.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Can substantiate that by the reports in the press of
violence and threats of violence, and by the letter sent
by representatives of that's a no.
Speaker 9 (18:30):
You're giving us anecdotes. I'm asking you if you had data.
You also said in your memo that you were committed
to using the department's authority and resources to discourage these threats,
identify them, when did they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
Were there any such prosecutions?
Speaker 3 (18:45):
The emphasis should be there on when appropriate, and there
were no such prosecutions, and that's good news, not badness.
Speaker 9 (18:52):
There were no prosecutions, and in fact Director Ray said
there were no arrests, there were no charges, So you
have no data to show us that there was any
You didn't even bother to consult with the FBI director,
and then there were no resulting prosecutions, even though you
said that they were coming. So I have to ask
you now in retrospect, was there a compelling law enforcement
justification for the memo.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
I think you're mischaracterizing the memo. The question the purpose
of the memo.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
By the way, how's he mischaracterizing the memo Senator.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
Like he's describing it perfectly accurately.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
It's accurate.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
And I go back to how the hell does this
guy keep his job if he can come to before Congress,
whether it's on the House side of the sit side,
and just lie and make stuff up and then can't
answer a basic question is is there ever a day
where this Attorney General is going to be held accountable
for sitting there in this arrogant way, just straight applying
to people, even when the facts are in front of his.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
Face, held accountable. He's doing exactly what Joe Biden and
Kamala Harris want him to do. He is covering up
for Joe Biden, He's covering up for Democrats. He's weaponizing
the Department of Justice as he's weaponizing the FBI. That
there are several things that he said there so he
says no one's been prosecuted. What he didn't acknowledge is
(20:07):
the FBI has gone and interviewed multiple parents who exercised
their First Amendment rights, and they've been willing to be
used essentially to try to intimidate parents. I got to say,
if you're a mom or dad, and you go to
a school board and suddenly the g men are knocking
on your door because you expressed your First Amendment rights.
That is abuse of power. That is a chilling of
(20:28):
First Amendment rights. I hate to break it to Merrick Garland,
but moms and dads are not domestic terrorists. And by
the way he relies on well, I trusted the representatives
of the school boards, National Association of school Boards. You
know what Merrick Garland doesn't say. National Association of school
Boards apologized for sending the letters, said it was a
mistake and said what they said was wrong. Now he
(20:49):
doesn't mention that. But Merrick Garland has left this memo
in place that direction go target parents. It is operative. Today.
I forced a vote on the Senate floor to overturn
that direction, to say that the Senate does not want
parents treated as domestic terrorists. Every single Senate Democrat voted no.
Merrick Garland is doing precisely what the Democrats want. There
(21:12):
is a reason that my latest book, Justice Corrupted, How
the Left has weaponized the legal system, opens with what
happened in Louden County and Merrick Garland's memo to the
FBI directing them to go after parents, because it is
a brazen example of using law enforcement as a tool
to go after it, go after your political enemies, and
(21:36):
it's a willingness to disregard the rule of law and
simply to exercise power.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Let me tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile.
For ten years now, Patriot Mobile has been America's only
Christian conservative wireless provider. And when I say only trust me,
they're the only one. The team over there have been
amazing supporters of conservatives, conservative causes, and the right to life.
They support our veterans and our first responders. And that's
(22:04):
part of the reason why I want you to put
your money where your values are. Patriot Mobile is a
way that you can change a bill and the bill
you pay every month for your cell phone to a
company that's aligned with your values and supports what you
believe in. They offer you nationwide coverage, giving the ability
to access all three major networks, which means you get
(22:25):
the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the
woke left agenda. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're
sending a clear message that you support free speech, religious freedom,
the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment as well as
our military, our veterans, and our first responders are heroes.
This is why I want you to switch. They also
(22:47):
make switching easy. They're one hundred percent US based customer
service team. Make sure that you can do it quickly.
You get to keep your same cell phone number if
you want to keep your same phone, or upgrade to
a new one, and their team will help you find
the best plan to save you money. All you got
to do is go to Patriotmobile dot com, slash verdict
(23:08):
that's Patriot Mobile dot com, slash a verdict, or call
them eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot.
Get free activation when you use a promo code Verdict.
Check them out. Make the switch, and every time you
pay that bill, you're making a difference. And every time
you use that cell phone, you know you're standing up
(23:29):
for the values that you believe in. There was also
another issue center that came up that I also thought
was very interesting with Garland, and that was a simple question,
are you looking in to who leaked the Hunter Biden
probe info to the Washington Post? Right, They've slow played
everything else. They protect the president all costs and his
(23:51):
non answer was to me one of the most disgusting
moments of the day.
Speaker 10 (23:56):
Mister Garland, have have you or are you investing who
leaked the information that appeared in the Washington Post on
October sixth, twenty twenty two about this investigation about the
hunter By and investigation.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
You're saying there was an October twenty twenty two.
Speaker 10 (24:12):
October sixth, twenty twenty two, Washington Post writes a story
about the hunter By an investigation. I'm just I wonder
if you investigated who leaked that information to the Washington Post.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 10 (24:24):
Has it been referred to the Inspector General?
Speaker 6 (24:26):
Do you know that?
Speaker 3 (24:32):
I don't want my answer to suggest that there is
or isn't such an investigation.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
I know that the.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
That the Inspector General sent a letter to Congress explaining
that there was that he had an ongoing assessment with
respect to the whistleblower's charges. I don't know if that's
what you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
I mean, really, you don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
You don't know if you're investigating in a leak that
came from your department.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Do you believe him on that?
Speaker 4 (25:03):
No, of course not now, look, he's a little bit
covering his own rear end because he's saying I think
he doesn't care. So do I believe that he doesn't know?
I guess in some sense. But there's a reason the
answer is no, there is no investigation. And the reason
the answer is no is because this Department of Justice
from the beginning has used leaks aggressively. They leak information
(25:27):
that is damaging to Donald Trump, they leak information that
is damaging to Republicans, and they cover it up. Remember
when they discovered classified documents the first time in one
of Joe Biden's homes. They discovered it before the twenty
twenty two election, and yet miraculously, the Apartment of Justice
was sealed tight as a drum. Nothing was leaked until
(25:50):
after election day. When they want to they can keep secrets,
but when it hurts their political opponents, they have the
press on speed dial. And so I believe the answer
is no, there is no investigation because the political superiors
were very happy with the leak, and they may have
been the ones who leaked it in the first place.
But his answer is a classic lawyer's dodge of well,
(26:13):
you know, I don't know if someone's investigating something, but
from his perspective, there ain't nothing to investigate.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Let's talk about ray Epps for a second and remind
people of ray Epps. You and I have talked about
this on the show before. It's something that came up
obviously with director, with the director, the FBI director, also
with the Attorney General Merrit Garland. But ray Epps out
of nowhere. Many people believe he was undercover.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
FED.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
There were people even chanting at January sixth, fed fed fed.
He was the guy telling people were going to storm
the place the night before, caught on tape. He's a
guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a
guy that was encouraging people to break into the capitol
on January sixth, had not been charged with anything. Now
fast forward multiple years later, and we find out this
last week that yes, Ray Apps has now officially been
(27:04):
charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to
prison that we're in and around January the sixth, rounding
up people all over the country. Even just days ago
we saw another person rounded up. We put some you know,
some different people in jail for decades now, for January
the sixth. But Ray Apps, who clearly was a ringleader
(27:25):
at least on the day before January sixth and January sixth,
all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor, and we still
can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want
you to hear Representative Thomas Massey and his back and
forth and then your reaction.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
You're signing the constitution. I'm going to sign it. It's
our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now. In that video,
that was your answer to a question to me two
years ago when I said, how many agents are assets
of the government were present on January fifth and January
sixth and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol,
and how many went into the capitol?
Speaker 6 (27:59):
Can you answer that now?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 5 (28:02):
Oh last time. You don't know how many there were
or there were none.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
If there were any, I don't know how many. You've
know whether there are any.
Speaker 5 (28:14):
I think you may have just perjured yourself that you
don't know that there were any. You want to say
that again, that you don't know that there were any.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
No personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I
said the last time.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
You've had two years to find out and the day,
by the way, that was in reference to Rey EPs,
and yesterday you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence
on a misdemeanor.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Meanwhile, you're sending Grandma's to prison.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
You're putting people away for twenty years for merely filming.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Some people weren't even there yet. You got the guy
on video, he's saying, go into the capitol.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
He's directing people to the capitol before the speech ends.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
He's at the site of the first breach.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
You've got all the goods on in ten videos, and
it's an indictment for a misdemeanor. The American public isn't
buying it.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yield to bounce of my time to Chairman Jordans.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Yeah, I answer the question.
Speaker 6 (29:04):
I'm gonna ask you one now. We'll let the jump.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Yeah, go ahead. But in discovery, in the cases we're
filed with respect to January sixth, the Just Department prosecutors
provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking.
With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that
(29:30):
he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
Mister Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding I
believe going on today on that subject.
Speaker 6 (29:42):
The charge is a joke, I yielded, Chairman.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
I love the end there, the charge of the joke.
I yielded the Chairman. He's right about that, based on
everything we know about Ray Epp. So who is the guy?
Speaker 4 (29:53):
Well, look, it's a very good question. And you see
the Attorney General once again dodging. And you know, one
of the most telling moments of that exchange is when
is when the when Merrick Garland says, well, I don't
even know if there were any FBI agents there, and
and and I think, uh, I think the point was
made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was
(30:15):
almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look, an earlier Verdict we did,
actually before you and I teamed up, back when it
was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire episode
of Verdict that was entitled who is Ray Epps? And
and you ought to go on YouTube and and it
was it was episode one oh four of Verdict, Who
(30:36):
is Ray Epps? And it followed questioning that I had
done in the Judiciary Committee of senior officials at the
Department of Justice and the FBI, where I asked them
who Rey Epps was and and if if he had been,
if he if he was an employee of the FBI,
if he was a confidential informant. They refused to answer,
the stonewalled. I asked the question, did you have agents there?
(30:59):
They refused to answer, or they stonewalled. I asked whether
federal agents incited violence? They refused to answer the stonewalled
And so this has been a pattern for a long time.
And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance that he has
no idea what the Department of Justice's involvement was in
(31:19):
incite violence or criminality. On January sixth, I can tell
you this is also in the wake of the Department
of Justice losing the case they brought against the individuals
that were charged with a plot to kidnap and murder
the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the basis of their
(31:41):
losing was that the FBI had engaged in entrapment, that
they had incited the criminality.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
And so can you explain a little bit more what
that means inciting criminality?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
So people understand.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
It, well, law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime.
In other words, if if the police send an undercover
agent to you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a
car parked on the street. It's got the keys in it,
why don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you
can do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there,
turn the keys and take it. If they do that,
(32:16):
that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones, they're
the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality. And you
might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were
not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you
to do it. And so it's a defense that a
criminal defendant can give is Look, this was the government's idea.
(32:37):
They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis the
central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover
informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested
the plot, they're the ones who drove it forward. And
these guys were acquitted, the charges were thrown out. And
(32:57):
the fact that the Biden ds is caught with absolute
misconduct it is really stunning and of course, the corporate
the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's exactly
relevant to the question that was just raised about January sixth,
(33:19):
which is, to what degree did the criminal conduct that occurred,
did the violence that occur on that day, to what
degree did law enforcement agents incite it or prompted? And
the reason there's so much focus on rey Epps is
he was caught on tape repeatedly saying, let's go into
the capitol, not just up to the capital, into the capitol.
(33:40):
And there's one point where his behavior was so odd
that the entire crowd begins chanting fed, fed, Fed, fed,
and And so that's why I asked a senior leader
at the FBI if ray Epps was a FED, and
she refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is
pleading complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on
(34:00):
January six except for the fact that he has told
Congress repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals
involved with January six than any other matter in DJ's history,
which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's
yet another example of how the Biden doj is about
(34:21):
politics all of the time, and if you can target
your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
You should choose an air purifier like your life depends
on it. And I can tell you as someone that
has asthma, making sure that I have clean air in
my home is really important. This year alone, there are
more than thirty five thousand wildfires that have devastated the
US and the toxins and the particles in wildfire smoke
can penetrate your lungs and it can threaten your health.
(34:49):
We've also had a lot of ozone warnings and bad
air quality warnings on top of that. And that's why
in viro Quinn's develop military grade air purification specifically for
your home or your office. They just announced their biggest
sale of the year. You can save a massive thirty
percent off and viro Clins is specifically designed to wipe
(35:12):
out airborne chemicals and viruses known to cause illness, allergies,
and difficulty breathing. Even toxic gases and particles found in
wildfire smoke are no match for in viro clins. That's
why the US Navy selected in viro Clints to protect
and purify the air in their facilities and in viro
(35:33):
Clints comes with a free professional air quality monitor, so
you know your family's breathing purified air. I have one
in my house. I have one in my bedroom and
it works. Now's the time for you to save thirty
percent off your air purification unit. You get the free
air quality monitor and fast free shipping. That's a two
(35:54):
hundred and fifty dollars savings right there. Loan, what's the
website ek pure dot com and use the promo code
verdict that's ek pure e k p u r E
dot com. Ekpure dot com promo code verdict and get
the air quality that everyone deserves ekpure dot com center. Finally,
(36:19):
there was one part that I really thought wrapped up
just how bad uh this back and forth was this
testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight when Merrick
Garland has asked a pretty simple question, and that's, Hey,
why do you act like you're the president's lawyer.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
That's not your job.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Our job is not to do what is politically convenient.
Our job is not to take orders from the President,
from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what
to criminally investigate. As the President himself has said, and
I reaffirmed today, I am not the president's lawyer. I
(37:01):
will add I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department
works for the American people. Our job is to follow
the facts and the law, and that is what we do.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar
at this point. I don't think he can be trusted.
And I think he's weaponized a DOJ and turn it
into a weapon of the President of the United States
of America. No matter what he says with his rhetoric
there in those prescripted clear talking points, they knew this
was a problem for them, and so that's why they
(37:35):
had him say it this way.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John
Mitchell was Richard Nixon's attorney general. He was indicted, he
was prosecuted, He served twenty two months in jail for
his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen
as Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland look in The New York
Times reported that Joe Biden quote told confidence that he
(38:02):
wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to stop acting like a
ponderous judge and to take decisive action. Joe Biden knew
exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland. He was
getting someone willing to use the weaponry of the Department
of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously willing to
(38:23):
do whatever is necessary to protect the President, to protect
Hunter Biden, to protect Democrats. And I will underscore again,
We've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the IRS who've
come forward, two different whistleblowers to say what Merrick Garland
just said there is flat out false because the Department
of Justice has consystematically obstructed justice, obstructed the investigation into
(38:49):
Hunter Biden, and especially into Joe Biden. And so he
can say over and over again, I'm not the president's lawyer,
and yet he behaves exactly like he's the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
Should this be an election year issue, just the way
that the DOJ has been weaponizing, specifically, should Republicans be
targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting.
Speaker 4 (39:11):
The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of
the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think
is a major election issue, and it is a major
reason to throw these clowns out because it has done
more to undermine the rule of law than anything that
we have seen in decades.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
If ever, don't forget that you can download Verdict three
days a week Monday, Wednesday, Friday's plus our weekend review
on Saturdays. Hit that subscribe auto download button or the
follow button depending on where you're listing plus and those
in between days. I'll keep you up to date on
my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts on the latest breaking news,
(39:55):
and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.
Welcome and as verdict with Senator Ted Kruz Ben Ferguson
with you as well, and Senator A mountain of evidence
against the Biden crime family is really starting to mount up.
But it's actually not pressure on the president or his
family or Hunter Biden. It's on the Attorney General Merrick Garland.
He was testifying before Congress on the latest on the
(00:22):
impeachment inquiry, and your overall reaction I want to get
because I was shocked, not really by his arrogance as time,
by his I would say, lack of just candid answers
to basic questions that were asked of him.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Were you shocked by his demeanor?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
You know?
Speaker 4 (00:41):
Unfortunately I wasn't. Merrick Garland, from the day he was
sworn in, has demonstrated a contempt for Congress, a contempt
for the American people, a smug entitlement that no one
is allowed to question him, that he doesn't have to
answer any questions. I have questioned Merrick Garland now many
(01:02):
times and he will not answer. He will not give
you a straight answer to anything. And so as the
evidence keeps mounting, not just of Joe Biden's personal corruption,
but of Merrick Garland being personally implicated now in multiple felonies,
he has not wavered at all from his attitude that
(01:23):
seems to say, how dare you question me? He is,
He's the legal equivalent of Anthony Fauci. Fauci says, I
am the science. Merrick Garland's response is essentially, I am
the law, and they're both wrong.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
I want to play a few quips that really went viral,
and they went viral because of just the shock of
the lack of response and, like you said, the arrogance
of Garland. One of them was just a basic question
talking about, hey, what did you know and when did
you kind of know it?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (02:00):
Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI headquarters
about the hunter by an investigation?
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Really don't.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
I don't recollect the answer to that question. But the
FBI works for the Justice Department.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
It's I'm sorry, I'm sorry, you don't recollect. You don't
recollect whether.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
You've talked with anybody at FBI headquarters about an investigation
of the President's son.
Speaker 6 (02:22):
I don't believe that I did.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
I promised the Senate when I came before it for
confirmation that I would leave mister Weiss in place, and
then I would not interfere with his investigation. Okay, did
you have ever I have kept that promise? All right?
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Do you believe him, Senator, because I don't.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
Well, the I R S whistleblowers both testified to the
House that that that he lied when when he made
that promise to the Senate, when he made that promise
to me. In my questioning, we have now two careers
or I R S employees who had gone before the
House and said that he flat out lied, that he
(03:04):
has directly interfered. And I got to say the question
here this is very specific. Have you had personal contact
with anyone at FBI headquarters about the Hunter Biden case?
And for him to say, well, I don't remember. How
do you not remember that? This isn't asking generally. Have
you talked to FBI headquarters? Of course he has, as
(03:26):
he says, and in his answer, the FBI works for
the Justice Department. So yes, the Attorney General has talked
to FBI headquarters. But if he is recusing himself from
the matter, if he is not interfering, then he would
know whether or not he had had those conversations. And
the fact that he doesn't remember with the entirety of
(03:48):
the evidence is highly dubious.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
There is also another congresswoman who asked a question of Garlands.
He was testifying by the House Judiciary, said committee hearing,
and I want you to hear what she had to say.
It was a lengthy back and forth, but it was
an important one as well. And I say important because
it was the accusation that Merrick Garland basically is not
acting on behalf of the American people, or on behalf
(04:13):
of the law of the laws of this country, or
making sure these laws are being followed, but instead he's
basically working as a defense lawyer for the Biden crime
family by purposely slow walking the probes into the Clintons.
And this is something we haven't talked about in a while.
(04:34):
But also into Hunter Biden, also into Joe Biden, also
into the FBI's involvement in things like January sixth. It's
like he's in a personal attorney for anyone of the
Democratic Party that does something that's nefarious.
Speaker 7 (04:46):
Second, my town FBI phone numbers all over the district.
Please call that. People are truly afraid. I just want
to make sure if you're not aware, is that you are,
and this is a big problem. People are afraid of
their own government. And I'll share some other things. We're
talking about justice system.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
I don't question you.
Speaker 7 (05:08):
Probably not a bad person. I don't know you, but
well i'll tell you you're in charge of the department and
people right now feel you know. I'll look at Durham
report and I call on the fights of relations of
querious of millions Americans. Right, it's like KGB. But when
I read Durham reports, we have this, you have a nice,
you know, playbook. First, let's have a special council and
(05:29):
then you don't have to answer any questions here.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Then let's extend slow.
Speaker 7 (05:35):
Walk investigation on Hillary Clinton, on Hunter ever see a
slow walk? We were all very quick on Donald Trump,
but you are very slow walk. Then by the time
you know that investigation and its statute of limitation expired
and all of your agents need to be tested from mesia,
and no one recalls anything. Okay, you probably should have
as part of your hiring policy, so no one held accountable,
(05:58):
which was agreed. What happened you know in that report?
When I read about them, I.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Can't believe it happened in the United States.
Speaker 6 (06:05):
Of America.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
This is my frustration.
Speaker 6 (06:08):
I'll be honest with you. Then it's very interesting.
Speaker 7 (06:11):
You know, regardless what it is. Even people in Obama
administration raise concerns, you know, how can president sons be
serving on you know, corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. Do you understand
that it actually can undermine the one Ukrainian effort and policy.
I think those concerns were raised above. Administration didn't do
anything about it. These people are dying right now, and
(06:34):
Americans don't trust this president.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
So you I want to ask you.
Speaker 7 (06:39):
One thing, you know, as you you know, I don't
need answer because I know you're not going to but
I think you're probably got American and you care. And
a lot of these people are so afraid they cover
up this stuff, I think in your department because they're
embarrassed that what we became as a country to say
that what our department is justice became that allows Russians
(06:59):
to do proper and then Chinese it allows them to
destabilize our country. That is danger to our republic. It
is significant danger. And I have just one more question
from you. You know, I mean I agree on corporate
crimes and vices stuff even with Democrats that we need
to do a better job. One more questions for you.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Do you believe that.
Speaker 7 (07:18):
You know you talk about rights to vote, but do
you believe that only you as citizens should be voting
in this election and doing anything to make sure that
only eligible people.
Speaker 6 (07:28):
Vote in elections?
Speaker 3 (07:30):
Yes?
Speaker 7 (07:30):
And yes, okay, I would like to see that what
you do?
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Thank you?
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Nilt I play that because I feel like this is
the level of frustration and anger that so many Americans
have that this congresswoman, Missus Sparks displayed there. She's livid
over the way that this man's doing his job, almost
the point of like, how the hell can you live
with yourself? And how are you getting away with this?
(07:54):
And this is where I think many Americans are at
this point.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Well, you're right, that's very powerful. That's Victoria Sparts. She
is a congresswoman from the state of Indiana. And Victoria
was born in the Soviet Union, and she grew up
in the Soviet Union, and so she saw a communist dictatorship.
She saw when she's referencing the KGB, she's familiar with
what the KGB would do. And Victoria came to America
(08:19):
when she was twenty two years old, and so she
came to America seeking freedom, seeking a better life. And
the outrage that she's expressing there that how can it
be that the US Department of Justice is behaving like
the KGB did? That is from personal experience, from life experience.
(08:40):
She's seen oppression firsthand. And notice Garland doesn't respond at
all to any of what she said there. He just
sits there passively, which frankly is what I guess the
KGB would do as well. Now I guess they would
actually arrest her for saying that. So it's still marginally better.
But at the end of the day, the points she
(09:03):
made are fundamentally the same. The slow walking. Look, they
just brought charges against Hunter Biden for buying a gun
illegally when he was on crack. They've had the evidence
of that for years. There's been no new evidence on that.
They could have brought that years ago. What they did, though,
was slow walk the investigation so that the statute of
(09:25):
limitations now has expired on the most serious tax offenses.
They've allowed that statute limitation to expire. The statute of
limitations has now expired on Joe Biden's corruption with communist China.
The text app the text on WhatsApp that Hunter sent
to the Chinese Communist officials saying, I'm sitting next to
(09:47):
my father. Well, you know what, Merrick Garland has magically
let the statute of limitations expire on that, and he
doesn't defend himself, he doesn't dispute it. His attitude is
I don't answer to you, I don't answer to anybody.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I want to tell you about our friends at Chalk.
If you're a guy and you feel like you've lost
a little bit of your edge, that you've lost your
strength and your vitality, that now you are seeing weakness
and complacency sit in. Maybe you want to be active
and you just don't have that energy. Maybe you want
to work out and you just don't have that energy. Well,
you're not alone. Dostostrum levels have dropped off a rock historically,
(10:23):
especially here in the US, and thankfully the patriots at
Chalk are helping real American men just like you, maximize
your masculinity by boosting your testosterum levels up to twenty
percent over ninety days.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Now.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Chalk is manufactured right here in the US of A.
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
changing effects on your energy, your focus, and your mood. Now,
I've been taking the Male Vitality Stack now for months
and I can tell you it works. So if you
are sick and tired of just sitting around and maybe
feeling weak or lazy or complacent, and you want to
(10:59):
get that strength and vitality back, go right now to
chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Use the promo code Ben.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
You're gonna get thirty five percent off any Chalk subscriptions
for life. Yeah, thirty five percent off. So go to
chalk choq dot com booster Tesawstrom levels up to twenty
percent over ninety days. That's chalkchoq dot com promo code
Ben for more than thirty percent off right now chalkchoq
(11:26):
dot com centaer.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
I also want to ask you.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
About the way the media is covering this now, and
I say the way they're doing it because they're having
to cover obviously this issue with the President and with Garland,
but it's like they don't know how to do it.
And one of the things that was said tonight on CNN,
I want you to hear this after the testimony from Garland.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
This was actually said on CNN.
Speaker 7 (11:54):
Listen, were you disappointed in the Attorney General's lack of
answers there?
Speaker 8 (12:00):
I think he's trying to be very cautious not to
say something that is incorrect. For example, you know, he's
the head of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General
he sees, you know, hundreds thousands of people, you know,
were some of them FBI agents. He doesn't. He made
it very clear he has had no direction towards the
(12:22):
Special counsel on the Biden investigations, completely hands off.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
This is Congresswoman Lofgren. She just made that up. That's
not what Merre Garland said. In response, he said he
didn't know. He couldn't remember it right, He said, I
don't think I have. So she's out there and even
Aaron Burnette, I give her some credit. She's like like,
come on, like you can't even be happy with his
answering here, and she immediately goes into spend modes as well.
(12:50):
I can totally kind of understand why and how. It's like,
are you kidding me?
Speaker 4 (12:55):
Well? The Democrats have talking points, and every Democrat reads
from the same talking points, and they're willing to lie.
We see Kareem John Pierre do that almost on a
daily basis, just stand up there and brazenly lie. It's
like when she stood at the White House podium and
said people aren't just walking across the border. That doesn't happen.
That was a flat out lie. I guarantee you it
is happening right now. And by the way, whatever time
(13:18):
you happen to have downloaded this podcast and played it,
it's happening right now. Whether you're listening to it early
in the morning, you're listening to it at lunchtime, you're
listening to it as you drive home in the evening,
you're listening to it at two in the morning, it's
happening right now. Someone's coming across the border when you
have seven point two million people cross in two and
a half years. She's lying literally every minute of every day.
(13:40):
And they do the same thing on Hunter Biden, on
Joe Biden, on the evidence of corruption. They just stick
to their talking points and they count on the press
not to hold them account.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
There's a lot of things that were brought up with Garlin,
and it's outside of just the Biden crime family. One
of them is a contentious point that I think should
be an election your issue. I'm talking about the presidential
election year, and this is the fact that you had
an FBI that put out that infamous school board memo
targeting parents and treating them like Al Qaeda, just like
(14:11):
they are terrorists, like Al Kaita, calling them domestic terrorists.
And there was a back and forth about this as well.
I wanted to people to listen to what Kevin Kylie
had to say in this back and forth.
Speaker 9 (14:23):
Are you aware that directory a couple months ago and
sworn testimony implicated you in a sweeping abuse of power.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
I doubt he would characterize whatever whatever he said in
that way.
Speaker 9 (14:35):
Well, he testified about the school board memo that you
issued on October fourth of twenty twenty one, in which
you mobilized federal law enforcement powers against American parents. Now,
of course you didn't put it quite like that. Instead,
you found a pretext, which is stated right here in
the first line of the memo. In recent months, there
has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats
(14:57):
of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.
What was your basis for making that claim?
Speaker 3 (15:05):
I will say, again, as I've testified numerous times, in
response to exactly the same question that I saw numerous
reports in the press of violence and threats.
Speaker 9 (15:17):
You saw reports in the press, and so you decided
to instigate a nationwide law enforcement initiative.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
If I may be permitted to answer the question, please,
numerous reports in the media of violence and threats of
violence against school personnel of all kinds.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
By the way, can we just stop there at that
lie centator, there were not wide ranging mass reports of
violence against school board members. That is a lie from
the Attorney jo on the Unit States America, Merrick Garland,
that was not happening in this country when they decided
to go after parents and declare that they're domestic terrorists.
Can we all agree that that's a lie.
Speaker 4 (15:52):
Well, not only is it a lie, it's a lie
that he's been caught on before, because when I cross
examined him in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on
exactly this topic, and I pulled up the memo that
he wrote that there were twenty different instances that were
cited in the letter from the National Association of School Boards.
That was the entire predicate for his memo. That's what
he based it on, is the memo that he'd gotten
(16:12):
and they cited twenty different instances, and I asked him,
I said, of the twenty, how many were violent? He said,
I don't know. I said, did you examine any of them?
Speaker 7 (16:21):
No?
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Did you look into whether they were violent or not?
Speaker 2 (16:24):
No.
Speaker 4 (16:25):
One of them was Scott Smith, the father in Loudon
County whose daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy dressed
as a girl in a skirt in the girl's bathroom.
And Scott Smith was wrongfully arrested by the school board
because when the school board covered it up, they went
after the parent instead of defending and protecting the child.
And by the way, they transferred that sexual predator to
(16:47):
another high school where he sexually assaulted another little girl.
He's now a convicted sex offender because he kept on
doing it. And Garland's answer to me, he admitted he
had no idea which ones were violent, which ones were not.
He didn't examine it, He did no due diligence whatsoever.
He simply said, I want to go after the parents.
And so what he just repeated to the house is
(17:09):
repeating the same lies. He has no idea what violence
occurred or not. That was just a pretext to go
after parents because he didn't like them expressing their First
Amendment rights.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
And then listen, he gets even more irritated that he's
having to answer this question.
Speaker 6 (17:27):
Did you consult with the FBI director?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
We received a letter from the National Association of school
Boards reporting.
Speaker 9 (17:33):
Yes, that letter contained anecdotes, it didn't contain data of
an increase. Did you, yes or no, consult with the
FBI director before issuing the memo?
Speaker 3 (17:41):
I don't believe I spoke with the FBI director.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
No. Why not? Why wouldn't you consult with the FBI.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
Director Because the purpose of the memo, as is very
clear from the memo, is to ask the FBI to
assess the situation, to hold meetings, and to determine whether.
Speaker 6 (17:56):
It's attorney general.
Speaker 9 (17:57):
You started with a conclusion that there was an increase
in threats. Now, if you had bothered to consult with
the FBI director, here's what he would have said. This
is from his swoln testimony that he was not aware
of any such evidence. So my question to you, sir,
sitting here today, is can you substantiate your claim that
there was an increase? Of course, there will always be
criminal sporadic criminal activity in all quarters of society. But
(18:18):
your claim was there was an increase. Can you substantiate
that sitting here today, I.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Can substantiate that by the reports in the press of
violence and threats of violence, and by the letter sent
by representatives of that's a no.
Speaker 9 (18:30):
You're giving us anecdotes. I'm asking you if you had data.
You also said in your memo that you were committed
to using the department's authority and resources to discourage these threats,
identify them, when did they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
Were there any such prosecutions?
Speaker 3 (18:45):
The emphasis should be there on when appropriate, and there
were no such prosecutions, and that's good news, not badness.
Speaker 9 (18:52):
There were no prosecutions, and in fact Director Ray said
there were no arrests, there were no charges, So you
have no data to show us that there was any
You didn't even bother to consult with the FBI director,
and then there were no resulting prosecutions, even though you
said that they were coming. So I have to ask
you now in retrospect, was there a compelling law enforcement
justification for the memo.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
I think you're mischaracterizing the memo. The question the purpose
of the memo.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
By the way, how's he mischaracterizing the memo Senator.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
Like he's describing it perfectly accurately.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
It's accurate.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
And I go back to how the hell does this
guy keep his job if he can come to before Congress,
whether it's on the House side of the sit side,
and just lie and make stuff up and then can't
answer a basic question is is there ever a day
where this Attorney General is going to be held accountable
for sitting there in this arrogant way, just straight applying
to people, even when the facts are in front of his.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
Face, held accountable. He's doing exactly what Joe Biden and
Kamala Harris want him to do. He is covering up
for Joe Biden, He's covering up for Democrats. He's weaponizing
the Department of Justice as he's weaponizing the FBI. That
there are several things that he said there so he
says no one's been prosecuted. What he didn't acknowledge is
(20:07):
the FBI has gone and interviewed multiple parents who exercised
their First Amendment rights, and they've been willing to be
used essentially to try to intimidate parents. I got to say,
if you're a mom or dad, and you go to
a school board and suddenly the g men are knocking
on your door because you expressed your First Amendment rights.
That is abuse of power. That is a chilling of
(20:28):
First Amendment rights. I hate to break it to Merrick Garland,
but moms and dads are not domestic terrorists. And by
the way he relies on well, I trusted the representatives
of the school boards, National Association of school Boards. You
know what Merrick Garland doesn't say. National Association of school
Boards apologized for sending the letters, said it was a
mistake and said what they said was wrong. Now he
(20:49):
doesn't mention that. But Merrick Garland has left this memo
in place that direction go target parents. It is operative. Today.
I forced a vote on the Senate floor to overturn
that direction, to say that the Senate does not want
parents treated as domestic terrorists. Every single Senate Democrat voted no.
Merrick Garland is doing precisely what the Democrats want. There
(21:12):
is a reason that my latest book, Justice Corrupted, How
the Left has weaponized the legal system, opens with what
happened in Louden County and Merrick Garland's memo to the
FBI directing them to go after parents, because it is
a brazen example of using law enforcement as a tool
to go after it, go after your political enemies, and
(21:36):
it's a willingness to disregard the rule of law and
simply to exercise power.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Let me tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile.
For ten years now, Patriot Mobile has been America's only
Christian conservative wireless provider. And when I say only trust me,
they're the only one. The team over there have been
amazing supporters of conservatives, conservative causes, and the right to life.
They support our veterans and our first responders. And that's
(22:04):
part of the reason why I want you to put
your money where your values are. Patriot Mobile is a
way that you can change a bill and the bill
you pay every month for your cell phone to a
company that's aligned with your values and supports what you
believe in. They offer you nationwide coverage, giving the ability
to access all three major networks, which means you get
(22:25):
the same coverage you've been accustomed to without funding the
woke left agenda. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're
sending a clear message that you support free speech, religious freedom,
the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment as well as
our military, our veterans, and our first responders are heroes.
This is why I want you to switch. They also
(22:47):
make switching easy. They're one hundred percent US based customer
service team. Make sure that you can do it quickly.
You get to keep your same cell phone number if
you want to keep your same phone, or upgrade to
a new one, and their team will help you find
the best plan to save you money. All you got
to do is go to Patriotmobile dot com, slash verdict
(23:08):
that's Patriot Mobile dot com, slash a verdict, or call
them eight seven eight Patriot. That's eight seven eight Patriot.
Get free activation when you use a promo code Verdict.
Check them out. Make the switch, and every time you
pay that bill, you're making a difference. And every time
you use that cell phone, you know you're standing up
(23:29):
for the values that you believe in. There was also
another issue center that came up that I also thought
was very interesting with Garland, and that was a simple question,
are you looking in to who leaked the Hunter Biden
probe info to the Washington Post? Right, They've slow played
everything else. They protect the president all costs and his
(23:51):
non answer was to me one of the most disgusting
moments of the day.
Speaker 10 (23:56):
Mister Garland, have have you or are you investing who
leaked the information that appeared in the Washington Post on
October sixth, twenty twenty two about this investigation about the
hunter By and investigation.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
You're saying there was an October twenty twenty two.
Speaker 10 (24:12):
October sixth, twenty twenty two, Washington Post writes a story
about the hunter By an investigation. I'm just I wonder
if you investigated who leaked that information to the Washington Post.
Speaker 3 (24:22):
I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 10 (24:24):
Has it been referred to the Inspector General?
Speaker 6 (24:26):
Do you know that?
Speaker 3 (24:32):
I don't want my answer to suggest that there is
or isn't such an investigation.
Speaker 6 (24:37):
I know that the.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
That the Inspector General sent a letter to Congress explaining
that there was that he had an ongoing assessment with
respect to the whistleblower's charges. I don't know if that's
what you're referring to.
Speaker 2 (24:52):
I mean, really, you don't know.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
You don't know if you're investigating in a leak that
came from your department.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Do you believe him on that?
Speaker 4 (25:03):
No, of course not now, look, he's a little bit
covering his own rear end because he's saying I think
he doesn't care. So do I believe that he doesn't know?
I guess in some sense. But there's a reason the
answer is no, there is no investigation. And the reason
the answer is no is because this Department of Justice
from the beginning has used leaks aggressively. They leak information
(25:27):
that is damaging to Donald Trump, they leak information that
is damaging to Republicans, and they cover it up. Remember
when they discovered classified documents the first time in one
of Joe Biden's homes. They discovered it before the twenty
twenty two election, and yet miraculously, the Apartment of Justice
was sealed tight as a drum. Nothing was leaked until
(25:50):
after election day. When they want to they can keep secrets,
but when it hurts their political opponents, they have the
press on speed dial. And so I believe the answer
is no, there is no investigation because the political superiors
were very happy with the leak, and they may have
been the ones who leaked it in the first place.
But his answer is a classic lawyer's dodge of well,
(26:13):
you know, I don't know if someone's investigating something, but
from his perspective, there ain't nothing to investigate.
Speaker 1 (26:19):
Let's talk about ray Epps for a second and remind
people of ray Epps. You and I have talked about
this on the show before. It's something that came up
obviously with director, with the director, the FBI director, also
with the Attorney General Merrit Garland. But ray Epps out
of nowhere. Many people believe he was undercover.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
FED.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
There were people even chanting at January sixth, fed fed fed.
He was the guy telling people were going to storm
the place the night before, caught on tape. He's a
guy that was pushing on the barricades. He was a
guy that was encouraging people to break into the capitol
on January sixth, had not been charged with anything. Now
fast forward multiple years later, and we find out this
last week that yes, Ray Apps has now officially been
(27:04):
charged with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, we're literally sending grandmothers to
prison that we're in and around January the sixth, rounding
up people all over the country. Even just days ago
we saw another person rounded up. We put some you know,
some different people in jail for decades now, for January
the sixth. But Ray Apps, who clearly was a ringleader
(27:25):
at least on the day before January sixth and January sixth,
all of a sudden gets a misdemeanor, and we still
can't get a straight answer from Merrick Garland. I want
you to hear Representative Thomas Massey and his back and
forth and then your reaction.
Speaker 5 (27:39):
You're signing the constitution. I'm going to sign it. It's
our constitutional duty to do oversight. Now. In that video,
that was your answer to a question to me two
years ago when I said, how many agents are assets
of the government were present on January fifth and January
sixth and agitating in the crowd to go into the capitol,
and how many went into the capitol?
Speaker 6 (27:59):
Can you answer that now?
Speaker 3 (28:00):
I don't know the answer to that question.
Speaker 5 (28:02):
Oh last time. You don't know how many there were
or there were none.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
I don't know the answer to either of those questions.
If there were any, I don't know how many. You've
know whether there are any.
Speaker 5 (28:14):
I think you may have just perjured yourself that you
don't know that there were any. You want to say
that again, that you don't know that there were any.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
No personal knowledge of this matter. I think what I
said the last time.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
You've had two years to find out and the day,
by the way, that was in reference to Rey EPs,
and yesterday you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence
on a misdemeanor.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Meanwhile, you're sending Grandma's to prison.
Speaker 5 (28:38):
You're putting people away for twenty years for merely filming.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Some people weren't even there yet. You got the guy
on video, he's saying, go into the capitol.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
He's directing people to the capitol before the speech ends.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
He's at the site of the first breach.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
You've got all the goods on in ten videos, and
it's an indictment for a misdemeanor. The American public isn't
buying it.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Yield to bounce of my time to Chairman Jordans.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Yeah, I answer the question.
Speaker 6 (29:04):
I'm gonna ask you one now. We'll let the jump.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
Yeah, go ahead. But in discovery, in the cases we're
filed with respect to January sixth, the Just Department prosecutors
provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking.
With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that
(29:30):
he was not an employee or informant of the FBI.
Mister Epps has been charged and there's a proceeding I
believe going on today on that subject.
Speaker 6 (29:42):
The charge is a joke, I yielded, Chairman.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
I love the end there, the charge of the joke.
I yielded the Chairman. He's right about that, based on
everything we know about Ray Epp. So who is the guy?
Speaker 4 (29:53):
Well, look, it's a very good question. And you see
the Attorney General once again dodging. And you know, one
of the most telling moments of that exchange is when
is when the when Merrick Garland says, well, I don't
even know if there were any FBI agents there, and
and and I think, uh, I think the point was
made quite accurately that what Merrick Garland said there was
(30:15):
almost certainly a deliberate lie. Look, an earlier Verdict we did,
actually before you and I teamed up, back when it
was Michael Knowles and me, we had an entire episode
of Verdict that was entitled who is Ray Epps? And
and you ought to go on YouTube and and it
was it was episode one oh four of Verdict, Who
(30:36):
is Ray Epps? And it followed questioning that I had
done in the Judiciary Committee of senior officials at the
Department of Justice and the FBI, where I asked them
who Rey Epps was and and if if he had been,
if he if he was an employee of the FBI,
if he was a confidential informant. They refused to answer,
the stonewalled. I asked the question, did you have agents there?
(30:59):
They refused to answer, or they stonewalled. I asked whether
federal agents incited violence? They refused to answer the stonewalled
And so this has been a pattern for a long time.
And now Merrick Garland is pleading ignorance that he has
no idea what the Department of Justice's involvement was in
(31:19):
incite violence or criminality. On January sixth, I can tell
you this is also in the wake of the Department
of Justice losing the case they brought against the individuals
that were charged with a plot to kidnap and murder
the Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the basis of their
(31:41):
losing was that the FBI had engaged in entrapment, that
they had incited the criminality.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
And so can you explain a little bit more what
that means inciting criminality?
Speaker 2 (31:52):
So people understand.
Speaker 4 (31:53):
It, well, law enforcement can't entrap you into committing a crime.
In other words, if if the police send an undercover
agent to you and they say, hey, Ben, there's a
car parked on the street. It's got the keys in it,
why don't you steal that car? Come on, Ben, you
can do it. Just steal that car. Just hop in there,
turn the keys and take it. If they do that,
(32:16):
that's an example of entrapment where they're the ones, they're
the impetus, they're the genesis for the criminality. And you
might never have stolen the car otherwise if it were
not for the law enforcement officer who is prompting you
to do it. And so it's a defense that a
criminal defendant can give is Look, this was the government's idea.
(32:37):
They entrapped me into doing it. And the basis the
central defense of these defendants in Michigan was that undercover
informants for the FBI, they're the ones who had suggested
the plot, they're the ones who drove it forward. And
these guys were acquitted, the charges were thrown out. And
(32:57):
the fact that the Biden ds is caught with absolute
misconduct it is really stunning and of course, the corporate
the corrupt corporate media completely ignores it. And it's exactly
relevant to the question that was just raised about January sixth,
(33:19):
which is, to what degree did the criminal conduct that occurred,
did the violence that occur on that day, to what
degree did law enforcement agents incite it or prompted? And
the reason there's so much focus on rey Epps is
he was caught on tape repeatedly saying, let's go into
the capitol, not just up to the capital, into the capitol.
(33:40):
And there's one point where his behavior was so odd
that the entire crowd begins chanting fed, fed, Fed, fed,
and And so that's why I asked a senior leader
at the FBI if ray Epps was a FED, and
she refused to answer that question. Merrick Garland now is
pleading complete ignorance. He knows nothing of what happened on
(34:00):
January six except for the fact that he has told
Congress repeatedly that they've devoted more resources to prosecuting individuals
involved with January six than any other matter in DJ's history,
which is truly a stunning misallocation of resources. But it's
yet another example of how the Biden doj is about
(34:21):
politics all of the time, and if you can target
your political enemies, they're more than eager to do so.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
You should choose an air purifier like your life depends
on it. And I can tell you as someone that
has asthma, making sure that I have clean air in
my home is really important. This year alone, there are
more than thirty five thousand wildfires that have devastated the
US and the toxins and the particles in wildfire smoke
can penetrate your lungs and it can threaten your health.
(34:49):
We've also had a lot of ozone warnings and bad
air quality warnings on top of that. And that's why
in viro Quinn's develop military grade air purification specifically for
your home or your office. They just announced their biggest
sale of the year. You can save a massive thirty
percent off and viro Clins is specifically designed to wipe
(35:12):
out airborne chemicals and viruses known to cause illness, allergies,
and difficulty breathing. Even toxic gases and particles found in
wildfire smoke are no match for in viro clins. That's
why the US Navy selected in viro Clints to protect
and purify the air in their facilities and in viro
(35:33):
Clints comes with a free professional air quality monitor, so
you know your family's breathing purified air. I have one
in my house. I have one in my bedroom and
it works. Now's the time for you to save thirty
percent off your air purification unit. You get the free
air quality monitor and fast free shipping. That's a two
(35:54):
hundred and fifty dollars savings right there. Loan, what's the
website ek pure dot com and use the promo code
verdict that's ek pure e k p u r E
dot com. Ekpure dot com promo code verdict and get
the air quality that everyone deserves ekpure dot com center. Finally,
(36:19):
there was one part that I really thought wrapped up
just how bad uh this back and forth was this
testimony before Congress and the Justice Department oversight when Merrick
Garland has asked a pretty simple question, and that's, Hey,
why do you act like you're the president's lawyer.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
That's not your job.
Speaker 3 (36:39):
Our job is not to do what is politically convenient.
Our job is not to take orders from the President,
from Congress, or from anyone else about who or what
to criminally investigate. As the President himself has said, and
I reaffirmed today, I am not the president's lawyer. I
(37:01):
will add I am not Congress's prosecutor. The Justice Department
works for the American people. Our job is to follow
the facts and the law, and that is what we do.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
I don't believe him. I think he's a pathological liar
at this point. I don't think he can be trusted.
And I think he's weaponized a DOJ and turn it
into a weapon of the President of the United States
of America. No matter what he says with his rhetoric
there in those prescripted clear talking points, they knew this
was a problem for them, and so that's why they
(37:35):
had him say it this way.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
Well, John Mitchell is rolling over in his grave. John
Mitchell was Richard Nixon's attorney general. He was indicted, he
was prosecuted, He served twenty two months in jail for
his corruption. And John Mitchell never dared be as brazen
as Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland look in The New York
Times reported that Joe Biden quote told confidence that he
(38:02):
wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland to stop acting like a
ponderous judge and to take decisive action. Joe Biden knew
exactly what he was getting with Merrick Garland. He was
getting someone willing to use the weaponry of the Department
of Justice to target his enemies and simultaneously willing to
(38:23):
do whatever is necessary to protect the President, to protect
Hunter Biden, to protect Democrats. And I will underscore again,
We've got multiple whistleblowers, career employees at the IRS who've
come forward, two different whistleblowers to say what Merrick Garland
just said there is flat out false because the Department
of Justice has consystematically obstructed justice, obstructed the investigation into
(38:49):
Hunter Biden, and especially into Joe Biden. And so he
can say over and over again, I'm not the president's lawyer,
and yet he behaves exactly like he's the president's lawyer.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
Should this be an election year issue, just the way
that the DOJ has been weaponizing, specifically, should Republicans be
targeting Merrick Garland for the way he's acting.
Speaker 4 (39:11):
The weaponization and politicization of the Department of Justice, of
the FBI, of the machinery of federal government, I think
is a major election issue, and it is a major
reason to throw these clowns out because it has done
more to undermine the rule of law than anything that
we have seen in decades.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
If ever, don't forget that you can download Verdict three
days a week Monday, Wednesday, Friday's plus our weekend review
on Saturdays. Hit that subscribe auto download button or the
follow button depending on where you're listing plus and those
in between days. I'll keep you up to date on
my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcasts on the latest breaking news,
(39:55):
and we'll see you back here in a couple of days.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.