September 13, 2023 • 40 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 it as verdicts with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
with you, a massive news day with impeachment and Kevin
McCarthy announcing that the Republicans in the House are going
to move forward. We're going to do a very deep
dive into that explain everything that's happening and what's going
to happen in the days and weeks and months ahead.
But before we get to that center, there was also
some other shocking news, and that is at the House
(00:24):
was informed. Congress was informed on the anniversary of nine
to eleven that there was going to be a prisoner
swap with a RAN and oh, by the way, we're
going to send them basically allow them to get their
hands on six billion dollars that they had in assets.
This is a terrible move in my opinion. I want
to get your take on this. It's shocking that's happened,
(00:46):
especially notifying Congress on the anniversary nine to eleven.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, it's outrageous and it's dangerous. On September eleventh, I
was in New York City. I was at the fire
station that lost the most post firefighters at Ground zero,
fifteen firefighters from the station. I was at never returned,
and I had the opportunity to speak at a memorial
(01:10):
and to thank the families that were grieving those heroes,
and I pointed out, you know, the word hero is
used cheaply a lot of times to refer to athletes,
to refer to musicians' hero doesn't apply to any of them.
The men who charged into burning buildings knowing they were
(01:34):
headed to certain death, they are heroes. And it was
really an extraordinary honor to give tribute to them and
to try to try to tell the story for young
people of what happened on September eleventh. While we're there, remembering,
Joe Biden couldn't bother to show up. But to add
insult to injury, Joe Biden announces that he's given six
(01:57):
billion dollars to the Ayatola, a radical Islamic theocratic who
regularly chance death to America and death to Israel. The
six billion dollars is in exchange for five Americans. On
top of that, there are another five Iranians that are
being released. At this point, they have not publicly said
(02:19):
who they are of what they've done. I'm sure it's bad,
because if it weren't bad, they would, they would have
told us already. There are lots of reasons why this
is wrong, one of which is this money, the six
billion dollars will go directly to fund terrorism.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
This money, Oh no, no, the Biden administration promised us
their words, this will only go for humanitarian issues. They
were saying that six billion dollars will never be used
for anything bad at all. What's even worse than that
is the lie is the Iranian president came out and
said that we will spend the money from the prisoner
swap how we want. In other words, screw you, Biden.
(02:56):
You're lying to the American people about it, and we'll
do whatever the hell we want with the money.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
The exact quote from the Iran's president was that the
funds will be used quote wherever we need it, and
it is a metaphysical certainty this money will be used
to fund terrorism. Why because Iran is the leading state
sponsor of terrorism in the world. That Americans will be murdered,
is Raelis will be murdered, and it's not just six
billion dollars, because they're also refusing to enforce sanctions, which
(03:23):
collectively is tens of billions or even hundreds of billions
of dollars to fund terrorism. This is part of a
secret nuclear deal. The Biden administration doesn't want to take
a nuclear deal to Congress because they know they can't
get it through Congress, so as they're doing it in secret.
And on top of that, this creates an incentive for
every tin pot dictator in the world to seize more Americans.
(03:46):
They're setting the going rate at one point two billion
per American hostage. More Americans will be taken hostage because
of this, and to do it on the anniversary of
nine to eleven is disgusting and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
There was something else in here center that really shocked me.
In all of the most recent prisoner swaps that we've had,
we knew who we were trading and who they were
and what they had done, whether it was Britney Grinder
and Russia. We knew that we were trading the merchant
of death, whether when it was bo Bergdal, We knew
the people that we were trading, for example, in Afghanistan,
(04:21):
and we knew their resume of terror, what they'd done.
I can't find anywhere, and I want to know, as
a member of Congress, have you been briefed on who
the five Iranians are that they're getting back, and what
the hell have they done?
Speaker 3 (04:34):
So I have not.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I assumed that at some point we will be and
I also assume at some point the names and what
they did will be made public. I very much hope so.
But this is profoundly dangerous. When you funnel billions of
dollars to theocratic, homicidal maniacs, you endanger lives. And it
(04:56):
is tragically a certainty that Americans will die because of
this decision from the Biden administration, and to do it
on the anniversary of nine to eleven shows really a
complete lack of awareness of the magnitude of the threat.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
To be clear, and I think this goes back to
nine to eleven. Iran killed more or help kill more
and dismember more Americans with roadside bombs and giving safe
haymn to terras after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan than
any other country in the Middle.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
East by far, not even close, and.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
We just gave them money that they can do, in
their words, whatever they.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Want to do with it, six billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Is there any way that Congress can stop this or
is this a straight up executive decision and that's it.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, I'm going to fight for Congress to stop it.
But let's be clear, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will
stand with Biden and stand with Iran against America and
against our Israeli allies.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
We're going to keep trying to get answers to these questions, obviously,
and we'll keep you updated on. I do want to
deal with, obviously, the massive story of the day that
is taking the headlines, and that's exactly when we wanted
to make sure you knew what was going on with
the RAN, and that is with impeachment. We are moving
forward with impeachment. The House side, Ken McCarthy has come
out announcing that this podcast started with the first impeachment.
Did you ever imagine Center that we would be sitting
(06:13):
here on this podcast now looking like we're going into
a third impeachment when you started this show originally.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
It really is hard to believe. It's not impeachment number one,
it's not impeachment number two. It's impeachment number three of
the president, mind you, not not even impeachment of Aljidro
majorcas non impeachment of Merrick Garland. It is the House
has formally opened its impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, and
what I want to do in this podcast is really
(06:42):
do a deep dive into what that means and where
things stand, because it's a big deal. This announcement is
a big, big deal. It is consequential, and it's important
listeners to verdict. You know already the details of what's happening,
but it's worth breaking down the arguments so that you
(07:04):
understand it because I guarantee you tomorrow at work, tomorrow
at school, people are going to be asking about it.
Family members are going to be asking about it, and
you're going to want to know.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Now.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
One of the best ways to assess just the magnitude
the mountain of evidence that has come out and listen,
I've been calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries
for months.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I think the.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Evidence long ago cleared that threshold. But they've finally done it.
It's worth reviewing the bidding. In terms of Joe Biden's explanations,
Explanation number one that he made on the campaign trail
repeatedly that he made his president repeatedly is he said
he had never discussed, not even once discussed with unter
Biden's overseas business dealings. That was explanation number one. There
(07:49):
was a minor problem. It was a flat out, bald
face lie, and it was demonstrably disproven, including by Devin
Archer saying some twenty times Joe would call in to
talk to Hunter's overseas business partners. So then explanation number
two was Joe Biden was not in business with his
(08:13):
son Hunter in his corrupt overseas deals. Now that's very
different from I never discussed it, but they realized they
couldn't defend that, so it wasn't in business. So they've
run away from not in business anymore. That's no longer
defensible because it's clear the entire business was selling favors
from Daddy. So talking point number three, which you're seeing
(08:34):
multiple Democrats use word for word you're seeing the media
use word for word, is there is no direct evidence
of Joe Biden's involvement of Joe Biden's corruption. Now at
the outset, that throws Hunter overboard. I think the Democrats
have realized, all right, Hunter as crooked as the day
(08:55):
as long, we can't defend this guy, so Hunter to
heck with him. But there's no direct evidence of Joe.
I want to break that down because that is false
and it's a lie, and it's every bit as false
as Biden never discussed it or wasn't in business with it.
But let's take the no direct evidence and explain why
(09:16):
it's wrong. Let me start by explaining what direct evidence is.
So that's the kind of lawyer word that you see
people use that.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
If you're not a lawyer, you're like, well, what does
that even mean?
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Right, So, in a court.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Of law, there are two types of evidence that are
typically relied on to prove a factual matter. Number one
is direct evidence. Number two is circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence
is evidence that goes directly to a factual matter in dispute.
Circumstantial evidence is based on the circumstances you can draw
(09:54):
inference that leads to the factual matter in dispute.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
All right, what does that mean?
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Let me give an ext If you go to bed
tonight and you look out the window and the street
is dry and clean, and you wake up in the
morning and you look out the window and the street
is covered in snow, that is circumstantial evidence that it
snowed last night. It's pretty damn good circumstantial evidence. Yeah,
(10:22):
there's snow, but you were drawing the inference from seeing
the snow on the ground that it snowed last night. Now,
if you bring in a witness who stayed up all night,
who said, ben, I saw it snow last night, that
would be direct evidence. The most common type of direct
evidence is eyewitness testimony saying I saw this happen. Now,
(10:45):
one of the lies right at the heart of the
no direct evidence is so what, it's not true. But
before I get to not true, so what? People are
literally convicted of crimes every day based on circumstantial evidence.
They are sentenced to jail every day based on circumstantial evidence.
(11:08):
So the modifier direct is how they're getting around the
mountain of evidence we've got. But I want to tell
you how the statement there is no direct evidence is
a lie. And anytime a Democrat says, at any time
the media says that, you know they're lying.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
But first let me tell you about our friends over
Patriot Mobile. For ten years, 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 at Patriot
Mobile does amazing work every time you pay your bill
and you get amazing nationwide coverage. Patriot Mobile offers dependable
(11:45):
nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three
major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've
been accustomed to without funding the Left. Did you know
the Big Mobile actually gives massive donations the Planned Parenthood.
Well that's why you should switch to Patriot Mobile, because
not only are you sending a message that you support
free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment,
(12:06):
and our military veterans and first responder heroes, but when
you pay that bill, a portion of your bill goes
to support those causes. They also have a one hundred
percent US based customer service team making switching easy. So
keep your same cell phone number that you have now,
keep your same phone or upgrade to a new one,
and their team will help you find the best plan
for you and your needs. Go to Patriot Mobile dot
(12:29):
com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict
or eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot
get free activation when you use a promo code. Verdict
that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or eight seven
eight Patriot.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
So, as I mentioned, there at least two significant pieces
of direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement and corruption. Piece
number one, the heart of the allegations, again Joe Biden,
is bribery that he solicited and received bribes from foreign oligarchs.
(13:09):
You'll recall, and we've talked about this before on verdict
that the essence of bribery is quid pro quo Latin
for this, for that, and for bribery, you need to
show the official action that was taken.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
That's the quote, the.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Money or thing of value that was given, that's the quid,
and that the two were connected, that's the pro Well.
One of those elements, the official action, is conclusively proven
by Joe Biden in his on camera admission to the
Council of Foreign Relations, where he described how he flew
(13:50):
to Ukraine, he held a billion dollars of federal tax,
federal loan guarantees hostage and demanded that the Ukrainian government
fire Victor Schoken, who was the prosecutor who was prosecuting
the Ukrainian oligarch and Joe Biden. As we all know,
as we played on this show many times, says son
(14:11):
of a bitch. They fired it, and.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
He was critic by the way because he was like
he was so prideful, and it was the arrogance of
that moment. It was like, couldn't help himself. It was like,
this is how powerful I was. I could go over
to Ukraine and tell them who to fire and I
could own them while it was happening. And if you
watch that video, when I see it, it actually makes
me angry because it was a glimpse into the abuse
(14:37):
of power that Joe Biden was willing to wield around
the world on a litany probably of issues. And now
we know why he was doing it. It was for
the money and for the Biden crime family.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
That's exactly right. But of the elements of bribery, Joe
Biden's confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed
one of the critical elements of bribery. Now we don't
yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime,
but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical,
(15:09):
critical aspects of the crime, which is the quote that
Joe Biden has admitted, and that is unequivocally direct evidence,
and it's pretty damn compelling direct evidence. There's a second
very clear instance of direct evidence, and that is Hunter
Biden's what's app message to the Chinese Communist official, and
(15:30):
I want to read it to you again, Hunter Biden
texted quote. I am sitting here with my father and
we would like to understand why the commitment made has
not been fulfilled. Tell the director I would like to
resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and
(15:51):
now means tonight and z if I get a call
or a text from anyone involved in this other than you,
Zang or the chairman, I will make certain that between
the man sitting next to me and every person he knows,
and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you
(16:12):
will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here
waiting for the call with.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
My father not to shake down.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Now.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
That is direct evidence. That is a written text sent
by Hunter Biden. That is direct evidence that he and
his father are shaking down a Chinese Communist official. It's
not circumstantial, it is direct evidence. Now it is possible
(16:41):
that direct evidence is false, just as if if Hunter
Biden came into court and testified my father and I
shook down a Chinese Communist official, he could be lying.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, he could, yeah, but I doubt it.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
You can teach his credibility. You could say he's lying,
but it is direct evidence. Direct evidence doesn't necessarily mean
that it is true. Sometimes direct evidence is false. But
that's not only direct evidence. It's pretty damn compelling direct evidence.
So I promise you in the next week you will
see multiple Democrats and multiple yabbering puppets in the corporate
(17:17):
media say there's no direct evidence. You know, there's no
direct evidence. The AP will say the allegations of corruption
against Joe Biden, of which there is no direct evidence,
and they'll state it as a fact, and it is
a lie. Every time they say it. They're lying. Because
those two are serious pieces of direct evidence.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Let me ask you about not only that, but let's
connect this to suspicious activity reports. Is this the type
of stuff that will come out in impeachment when they
go through it as saying, Hey, we can connect the
quid pro quote, we can connect these these audio recordings,
We can connect the present's words to these financial bank
records and all of the bank records that James comert
on this show. If you missed a podcast we did
(17:58):
with them, go back and listen to it, Jim Jordan,
the same thing. They have so much evidence with the
specious activity reports and the cash going to the Biden crime
family members, right, we know direct payments, we're going to
multiple Biden family members. Is that where this could be
so damning to this president, could put his presidency at risk?
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Absolutely? Yes.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
And let me underscore if you didn't listen to our
two part series with James Comer, you ought to go
back and listen to it because we walk through at length.
Now everything you just listed is circumstantial evidence. And I
want to take a minute because there's a ton of
circumstantial evidence and all of the smarmy people on TV
who are saying no direct evidence, they're pretending like direct
evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists. So, Ben,
(18:42):
if there's a dead body and with multiple gunshot wounds, and.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
I love how I'm always the bad guy in these scenarios.
If you notice this, like everybody, I'm always the bad
guy here, I'm ready for it.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Keep going next to the dead body. It appears that
the dead with his bloody finger scrawled in the ground.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Ferguson did it? Did it?
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Ferguson did it?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Now that's not actually direct evidence. And let's say furthermore
that you're found at home covered in the man's blood,
with gunpowder covering your body and the murder weapon.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
At your feet.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Okay, none of that is direct evidence either. And you
know what, You're going.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Away for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
I don't need any more evidence that evidence bye bye, yeah.
I Circumstantial evidence convicts people every single day. So what
is the circumstantial evidence. Look with James Comber, he walked
through the suspicious activity reports over and over and over again.
The massive number of suspicious activity reports, the more than
twenty shell companies. That is circumstantial evidence. As we talked
(19:52):
through with James Comber, you don't create shell companies unless
it is to hide the source of cash. That is
serious circumstance. The allegations in the FD ten twenty three
from a confidential human source that the FBI had previously
found reliable who says that the Ukrainian oligarch told him
(20:13):
that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden demanded five million each
in order for Joe to get the prosecutor fired. Now
that's not direct evidence because the confidential human source doesn't
know it directly. He's repeating what he says that that
that the oligarch said, so that that is hearsay, but
it is circumstantial evidence and is significant the twenty plus
(20:37):
million dollars that the House of Representatives has already documented
that flowed into the Biden family to people, by the way,
who by all appearances, have no connection to foreign countries.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
It's just like, hey, I need your bank count and
here's some.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Money, and it's it's it's it.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Must be nice. That's gotta be a fun day. Like
we haven't talked about that enough. Center the fact that
you could just have the last name Biden and you
and randomly you get like a text from Hunter right
or from Joe's like handy Jaman account if I'm going
to send you over one hundred thousand bucks, Like that's
gotta be kind of cool if you're in that situation
where it's just like, hey, I'm a Biden. Now every
once in a while, this money just randomly shows up
(21:14):
in my bank account with a random LLC. Because that's
what they've been doing for years, if not decades.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Well, yeah, although it may not be all that cool
because remember Hunter Biden in a twenty nineteen text to
his daughter complains about how his father, Joe Biden, made
him give him quote half.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
His salary, yeah, half everything.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Yeah, Loo, Look this is that that likewise, all of
this piles to a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
and that mountain of evidence is serious.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
But there's something else, which is the cover up. So
let's go back to this hypothetical of the guy you
whacked and I don't know why you killed him, you eat.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I'm not sure it was I'm sure it was God.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
But we should at the end of the year just
come up with all the possible crimes and as examples
that I have committed in my and the last year
on verdict and just turn it into a best steff,
keep going.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
So if you're caught on film driving out on.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
A bridge now and flinging the gun.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Over the bridge, over the bridge into the water, now, look,
that doesn't prove if the gun has never recovered that
it's the murder weapon.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
But if it's the night of the murder, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
And you're doing it really urgently, it's pretty strong circumstantial
evidence that you are hiding evidence that that that demonstrates
your guilt, and in fact, you will see in a
court of law. If a defendant destroys evidence h a
court can instruct the jury to draw a negative inference
(22:53):
that that evidence would would have demonstrated would.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Have been bad for them.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
In this instance, we know that Joe Biden had multiple
burner phones. We know that he had multiple fake emails,
up to five thy four hundred of them in the
National Archives. We know that he emailed Hunter Biden. We
know that he emailed Hunter Biden about Ukraine. And we
know also that two senior IRS career employees have come
(23:23):
forward as whistleblowers and have said the Biden administration engage
number one in line to Congress under oath of felony
YEP and number two in multiple instances of obstruction of justice.
And in particular it's worth focusing on what was the
obstruction of justice. Let's go back to the WhatsApp, to
the message that Hunter said. The IRS whistleblowers said they
(23:44):
wanted to examine GPS data to determine well, when Hunter
sent that text, was Daddy sitting next to him? There's
an answer, it's either yes or no. If it's yes,
that is not direct evidence that Hunter was telling the truth,
but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence, and according to the
(24:06):
IRS whistleblowers, the Biden DOJ said no, no, no, no, no,
you cannot examine the GPS locations. They likewise said no,
you cannot ask anything about Joe. The fact that the
Biden Department of Justice is willing to commit felonies allegedly,
according to the whistleblowers, yeah, in order to prevent investigation
(24:28):
into Joe's involvement is powerful evidence of Joe's.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Significant involvement.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Because just like throwing the gun off the bridge, you
don't do it if you didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
All right, let me ask you this question about this
impeachment compared to the Trump impeachment, the first impeachment, and
if you were the lawyer for Trump, then it was
more about defending yourself. A friend of mine, Jay Seque,
as you know, helped with that first impeachment, defended the president.
It was more about a vigorous defense of the absurdity
of what they were charging Donald Trump with. This is
(25:06):
obviously completely different than that. This is a one point
eighty from that. We knew that Russian collusion was crap.
They knew it was crap, they knew how to defend it.
And they defended him. I think pretty well this impeachment,
if you were defending Joe Biden from a legal standpoint,
what are your biggest concerns if you're having to meet
with Joe Biden, and what are your biggest concerns for
(25:28):
his presidency if you're meeting with Joe Biden from a
legal standpoint that could come out in this impeachment that
maybe has never been you know, has come out either
a before you haven't had to at least answer questions for.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Your biggest concern is all the evidence against you, uh,
the direct evidence, the evidence that you basically admitted to
one of the elements of bribery, the evidence the text
message that your son has been caught shaking down Chinese
communists for millions of dollars and explicitly threatening that you're
(26:04):
the one who would engage in retaliation. That has tied
you into it. That direct evidence is certainly troubling, but
all the circumstantial evidence which would trouble you as well.
And look, here's what the Biden White House is going
to do. They're going to count on the corporate media
to ignore that. They're going to count on the corporate
(26:24):
media to echo their talking points.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
And not cover it like they did the Trump impeachment.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
It's to completely ignore it and refuse to address the facts.
And every day you will see a night and day difference,
not just between the Joe Biden impeachment and the Trump impeachments,
but between the Joe Biden impeachment and the ridiculous Trump indictments.
There is a world of difference. And we've discussed at
(26:49):
great length on this podcast the Trump indictments, which are
political and partisan. In this instance, the evidence of actual
bribery by the President of the United States is serious
and severe, and there's not a single Democrat who is
willing to address the merits. They're counting on the press
(27:10):
just to take their blanket dismissals.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Let me tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
If you're a guy and you feel like you are
losing your edge, maybe fatigue is sitting in and you're
just sick and tired of feeling tired, and you want
to get back to that strength of vitality used to have, well,
then you need to check out chalk choq dot com.
Now the problem is men says stostorm levels are off
(27:34):
a cliff. Historically, now at all time low. Thankfully, the
patriots at Chalk are here to help real men just
like you take back and proudly maximize your masculinity by
boosting testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days.
If you're sick and tired of feeling weak and complacent,
you're tired of sitting on the couch and feeling like
(27:56):
you're just not who you are, you need to check
out Chalks voq dot com. Now check out the Male
Vitality Stack. It will help you boost your disastrom levels
up to twenty percent over ninety days. It's manufactured right
here in the USFA. I've been taking it for months.
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
(28:17):
changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So
get off the couch and get back to feeling like
you used to. Go to chalkchoq dot com. Use the
promo code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk
subscription for Life Choq dot com Use promo code Ben
for thirty five percent off. Sinta, I want to ask
(28:39):
you also in impeachment real quick about witnesses. Are there
people that can now be called that may have to
answer for their involvement, whether it's those the DOJ, whether
it's Hunter Biden, whether it's other Biden family members. Walk
us through how impeachment works when it comes to witnesses.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Well.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Merrick Garland is expected to testify before the House Judiciary
Committee in the coming days, and he will certainly face
significant questions about the allegations that he personally lied under
oath and committed a felony. Now, I assume he'll dodge
all of them and defiantly and arrogantly refuse to engage
in the substance. I also assume he will get questions
(29:18):
about the allegations of obstruction of justice, and I expect
Merrick Garland to not be remotely forthcoming. I think at
some point you will see David Weiss called before Congress
to testify. David Weiss has been directly implicated in the
obstruction of justice, which is I believe why Merrick Garland
named him the quote special counsel. Because Garland and the
(29:39):
Biden DOJ knew they could count on Weiss to protect
the big guy, and that's their most important objective. We've
talked about how Schwerin, who was the kind of money
guy and fixer for Biden is a very likely witness
and could be a very damning witness, and I would
anticipate seeing him come. And then we may well assume
(30:00):
Hunter Biden, if he's called to testify, will stonewall at
this point the legal.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
What does that look like when you say stonewall? Is
it a tactic or are you saying he just won't
answer questions?
Speaker 3 (30:12):
My assumption is will plead the fifth.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Okay, So he just come in say I plead the
fifth and that's the end of it.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
I assume that's the case, given the multiple felonies and
the fact that he even Dad's White House seems to
be running away from him. I would be shocked if
Hunter Biden said anything else other than on the advice
of counsel, I plead the fifth. I will say one
other thing, which is this Biden impeachment is demonstrating the
(30:41):
utter and complete hypocrisy of congressional Democrats. Let me read
what Chuck Schumer said this week, right after the House
announced it's impeachment. Schumer said, quote, I think the impeachment
inquiry is absurd. The American people want us to do
something that will make their lives better not go off
on these chases witch hunts. So Schumer is literally using
(31:08):
Trump's language about witch hunts and just repeating word for
word what the defense was. Now, look, I think the
Biden impeachments of Trump were witch hunts. Ironically, this is not.
This is serious evidence that Congress would be derelict if
it didn't investigate. Here, by the way, is a quote
from from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
This is what banana dictatorships do is arrest political opponents
without any evidence. Now that's screamingly funny. Yeah, given that
the Democrats have arrested their political opponent like a banana republic.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
But part of the reasons Democrats can be such total
hypocrites is they know the corporate media will never call
them out on it. That the corporate media will nod
say yes, yes, but at a republic terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible,
no direct evidence, no direct evidence. And if you take
nothing else from this podcast today, remember every time they
(32:10):
say the words no direct evidence, they're.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
Lying one other thing about this. And this is where
people say, Okay, we have this thing, it happens. Let's
say it is a big deal. Let's say there are
some some some you know minds that the Democrats step on,
the White House steps on, we still don't have the
votes and the Senate to do anything about it. Right,
That's what they're gonna That's what people that are cynical
(32:34):
and frustrated are gonna say about this. So how should
we be looking at this impeachment?
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Is this?
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Should? Should?
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Should?
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Should? People that are listening to look at it from
a standpoint of, Hey, we're getting the truth out there
in a very big way about Joe Biden before he's
running for reelection and that can be extremely powerful and
and in other words, judgment day may be election day.
Or should we look at it and be frustrated and
cynical because like, well, even if we nail this thing
in the House, it ain't going to pass the Senate.
So he's not going to be impeached and lose his
(33:02):
job over this? What mindset? What hatch to listeners put on?
Speaker 2 (33:06):
So a little bit of both, listen, The cynicism is
not misplaced. Senate Democrats and House Democrats do not care
what evidence there is of Joe Biden being corruptive, is
soliciting and receiving bribes from falling foreign oligarchs. They don't care.
Partisan politics trumps everything. To use my hypothetical, if the
dead guy had scrawled in blood Ferguson did it.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
With Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Yeah, and Joe Biden walked out covered in his blood,
Democrats would be like nothing to see here.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Remind people what the makeup of the Senate right now.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Makeup of the Senate is fifty one Democrats, forty nine
republic All.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Right, we've heard about some of you maybe becoming independent.
We've heard, you know, wishy washy things about Joe Manchin
for example. Is there any scenario where the evidence could
be so damning on the House side that you could
you could flip two different people's people in the Senate?
Speaker 2 (33:59):
It wouldn't matter if you flip two, because you need
two thirds, you need sixty seven.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
There you go, and right now we have zero.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Right now we have zero Democrats who, to the best
of my knowledge, I'm not aware of a single Democrat
who's even asked a skeptical question, who has even said, well,
you know, if Biden did, in fact solicit and receive
bribes from foreign nationals, that would be a problem. No,
Democrat has even said that. And you contrast this to
Richard Nixon. Listen, the reason Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace
(34:27):
is Republicans turned on him. They turned on him when
the evidence got over. And I don't believe Democrats would ever, ever,
ever turn on Biden because partisanship matters more than anything.
But be that as it may, that does not mean
that impeachment is a waste of time, because it is
the only way to put these facts before the American people.
(34:50):
In a sane and normal world, the Department of Justice
would investigate and prosecute him. We'd get a special counsel
who was independent, who was consistent with the DOJ rules,
was not an employee of DJ, and actually would investigate
in conveni grand jury and potentially prosecute these crimes. The
Biden DOJ won't do that because it's the most partisan
(35:12):
and political DJ we've ever seen. But putting these facts
before the American people is valuable, nonetheless. But to be clear,
a critical part of that is what we're doing right
now on Verdict, which which is the million people who
listen to Verdict. All of y'all now have the information
when you go and you're talking to your brother in law,
(35:33):
you're talking to your coworker, you're talking to your classmate,
and they say, well, you know there's no direct evidence
because that's the talking point they've heard. You now know
how to refute that, and that is powerful. That has
a multiplier effect, and it's how I believe, ultimately you
force accountability.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Want to tell you about our friends of the Gust
of Precious Metals. You've been seeing what's going on in
the economy. You've seen some of these bank failures. You've
seen interest rates, for example, on loans hit a twenty
one year high for home loans right now, and a
lot of people are wanting to protect their wealth, especially
if you're in retirement or close to retirement. Well, let
me tell you about Augusta Precious Medals. They do things
differently when it comes to your IRA or your four
(36:15):
oh one K and using a portion of it in
gold to make sure that you are protecting your hard
earned dollars. Now, when you call Augusta Precious Metals, they
actually do more than just send you an investor's god
on gold that gives you background and understanding historical context
to what gold has done over periods of time. They
actually do a one on one web conference with each
(36:36):
and every one of you to make sure that you
understand how it could affect your retirement and how it
can help you preserve your wealth. Check out Augusta Precious Medals,
go online to Augusta Precious Metals dot com. You can
also call them and find out and get the investors
got on Gold. Now you'll get to do the web
conference that doesn't cost you a dime. It's free to
(36:59):
see if Gold can help you with your retirement planning.
Eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA. That's eight
seven seven, the number four Gold IRA or online Augusta
Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com.
Last question on this and that is the politics of
(37:19):
overplaying your hand. I said on my podcast today, I
always worry because you've noticed this in the polls. Biden
poll numbers right now are not good, and the media
seems to be telling more the truth about how bad
the poll numbers are. And the majority of Americans now
say they do believe that Joe Biden was corrupt in
some manner with his son in the business dealings. That's
(37:40):
that's that's significant. CNN even came out PBS on Sunday.
They even had one of their commentators and said, I
underestimated Joe Biden's involvement with Hunter Biden and the Biden
family businesses. Is there a concern that if the Republicans
play this too strong and don't take their time toly
at the evidence, this could backfire in the same way.
(38:02):
And again I'm asking from a political standpoint that every
time the Democrats indict Donald Trump, what happens, Republicans stand
behind Donald Trump even more, they say, send him money,
they support him, His poll numbers go up. Is there
a concern that if Republicans don't nail this the right way,
that this actually galvanizes people that maybe are wherehy washy
(38:23):
on Biden and then it actually helps him stand up
better than he is right now, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Look that that is conceivable. And there's no doubt that
the multiple indictments against Trump have added a lot of points,
at least ten points to his numbers in the primary
because Republicans have understandably gotten pissed off that it's obviously
a political persecution. So that counsels that the Republicans, the
Republicans in the House need to proceed carefully. They need
(38:48):
to be facts based, they need to be evidence based.
They need to not have it appear political. Now in
today's world, there will be people who naturally assume it's political.
But but that that that is certainly a vulnerability to
be aware of. Another vulnerability is at some point the
Democrats and or the media might decide that Joe Biden
(39:08):
is two wounded and jettison him and try to parachute
someone else in I think that remains a very real risk.
We're going to talk about that a lot more on
the podcast, but not on this one.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Yeah, there was an interesting article this week that mentioned
five other names that came out all of a sudden,
off Joe Biden, don't run. Who's is gonna be? This
is how this podcast started. You want to talk about
full circle, but now it's times three. Senator. We're going
to keep you updated on this. I can promise you
don't forget to hit that follow or subscribe or auto
download button, depending on which platform you're listening right now
(39:41):
and the days in between, make sure you listen to
my podcast, The Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I'll keep you updated
on the breaking news. On in between days, and also
our Saturday Potter Weekend review of things you may have
missed later in each podcast. We put that together for Saturdays,
so it makes you start checking that podcast out as well.
And we'll see you back here in a couple of days, yes,
Welcome it as verdicts with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
with you, a massive news day with impeachment and Kevin
McCarthy announcing that the Republicans in the House are going
to move forward. We're going to do a very deep
dive into that explain everything that's happening and what's going
to happen in the days and weeks and months ahead.
But before we get to that center, there was also
some other shocking news, and that is at the House
(00:24):
was informed. Congress was informed on the anniversary of nine
to eleven that there was going to be a prisoner
swap with a RAN and oh, by the way, we're
going to send them basically allow them to get their
hands on six billion dollars that they had in assets.
This is a terrible move in my opinion. I want
to get your take on this. It's shocking that's happened,
(00:46):
especially notifying Congress on the anniversary nine to eleven.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Well, it's outrageous and it's dangerous. On September eleventh, I
was in New York City. I was at the fire
station that lost the most post firefighters at Ground zero,
fifteen firefighters from the station. I was at never returned,
and I had the opportunity to speak at a memorial
(01:10):
and to thank the families that were grieving those heroes,
and I pointed out, you know, the word hero is
used cheaply a lot of times to refer to athletes,
to refer to musicians' hero doesn't apply to any of them.
The men who charged into burning buildings knowing they were
(01:34):
headed to certain death, they are heroes. And it was
really an extraordinary honor to give tribute to them and
to try to try to tell the story for young
people of what happened on September eleventh. While we're there, remembering,
Joe Biden couldn't bother to show up. But to add
insult to injury, Joe Biden announces that he's given six
(01:57):
billion dollars to the Ayatola, a radical Islamic theocratic who
regularly chance death to America and death to Israel. The
six billion dollars is in exchange for five Americans. On
top of that, there are another five Iranians that are
being released. At this point, they have not publicly said
(02:19):
who they are of what they've done. I'm sure it's bad,
because if it weren't bad, they would, they would have
told us already. There are lots of reasons why this
is wrong, one of which is this money, the six
billion dollars will go directly to fund terrorism.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
This money, Oh no, no, the Biden administration promised us
their words, this will only go for humanitarian issues. They
were saying that six billion dollars will never be used
for anything bad at all. What's even worse than that
is the lie is the Iranian president came out and
said that we will spend the money from the prisoner
swap how we want. In other words, screw you, Biden.
(02:56):
You're lying to the American people about it, and we'll
do whatever the hell we want with the money.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
The exact quote from the Iran's president was that the
funds will be used quote wherever we need it, and
it is a metaphysical certainty this money will be used
to fund terrorism. Why because Iran is the leading state
sponsor of terrorism in the world. That Americans will be murdered,
is Raelis will be murdered, and it's not just six
billion dollars, because they're also refusing to enforce sanctions, which
(03:23):
collectively is tens of billions or even hundreds of billions
of dollars to fund terrorism. This is part of a
secret nuclear deal. The Biden administration doesn't want to take
a nuclear deal to Congress because they know they can't
get it through Congress, so as they're doing it in secret.
And on top of that, this creates an incentive for
every tin pot dictator in the world to seize more Americans.
(03:46):
They're setting the going rate at one point two billion
per American hostage. More Americans will be taken hostage because
of this, and to do it on the anniversary of
nine to eleven is disgusting and it's dangerous.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
There was something else in here center that really shocked me.
In all of the most recent prisoner swaps that we've had,
we knew who we were trading and who they were
and what they had done, whether it was Britney Grinder
and Russia. We knew that we were trading the merchant
of death, whether when it was bo Bergdal, We knew
the people that we were trading, for example, in Afghanistan,
(04:21):
and we knew their resume of terror, what they'd done.
I can't find anywhere, and I want to know, as
a member of Congress, have you been briefed on who
the five Iranians are that they're getting back, and what
the hell have they done?
Speaker 3 (04:34):
So I have not.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I assumed that at some point we will be and
I also assume at some point the names and what
they did will be made public. I very much hope so.
But this is profoundly dangerous. When you funnel billions of
dollars to theocratic, homicidal maniacs, you endanger lives. And it
(04:56):
is tragically a certainty that Americans will die because of
this decision from the Biden administration, and to do it
on the anniversary of nine to eleven shows really a
complete lack of awareness of the magnitude of the threat.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
To be clear, and I think this goes back to
nine to eleven. Iran killed more or help kill more
and dismember more Americans with roadside bombs and giving safe
haymn to terras after we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan than
any other country in the Middle.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
East by far, not even close, and.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
We just gave them money that they can do, in
their words, whatever they.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Want to do with it, six billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Is there any way that Congress can stop this or
is this a straight up executive decision and that's it.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, I'm going to fight for Congress to stop it.
But let's be clear, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats will
stand with Biden and stand with Iran against America and
against our Israeli allies.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
We're going to keep trying to get answers to these questions, obviously,
and we'll keep you updated on. I do want to
deal with, obviously, the massive story of the day that
is taking the headlines, and that's exactly when we wanted
to make sure you knew what was going on with
the RAN, and that is with impeachment. We are moving
forward with impeachment. The House side, Ken McCarthy has come
out announcing that this podcast started with the first impeachment.
Did you ever imagine Center that we would be sitting
(06:13):
here on this podcast now looking like we're going into
a third impeachment when you started this show originally.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
It really is hard to believe. It's not impeachment number one,
it's not impeachment number two. It's impeachment number three of
the president, mind you, not not even impeachment of Aljidro
majorcas non impeachment of Merrick Garland. It is the House
has formally opened its impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, and
what I want to do in this podcast is really
(06:42):
do a deep dive into what that means and where
things stand, because it's a big deal. This announcement is
a big, big deal. It is consequential, and it's important
listeners to verdict. You know already the details of what's happening,
but it's worth breaking down the arguments so that you
(07:04):
understand it because I guarantee you tomorrow at work, tomorrow
at school, people are going to be asking about it.
Family members are going to be asking about it, and
you're going to want to know.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Now.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
One of the best ways to assess just the magnitude
the mountain of evidence that has come out and listen,
I've been calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries
for months.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I think the.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
Evidence long ago cleared that threshold. But they've finally done it.
It's worth reviewing the bidding. In terms of Joe Biden's explanations,
Explanation number one that he made on the campaign trail
repeatedly that he made his president repeatedly is he said
he had never discussed, not even once discussed with unter
Biden's overseas business dealings. That was explanation number one. There
(07:49):
was a minor problem. It was a flat out, bald
face lie, and it was demonstrably disproven, including by Devin
Archer saying some twenty times Joe would call in to
talk to Hunter's overseas business partners. So then explanation number
two was Joe Biden was not in business with his
(08:13):
son Hunter in his corrupt overseas deals. Now that's very
different from I never discussed it, but they realized they
couldn't defend that, so it wasn't in business. So they've
run away from not in business anymore. That's no longer
defensible because it's clear the entire business was selling favors
from Daddy. So talking point number three, which you're seeing
(08:34):
multiple Democrats use word for word you're seeing the media
use word for word, is there is no direct evidence
of Joe Biden's involvement of Joe Biden's corruption. Now at
the outset, that throws Hunter overboard. I think the Democrats
have realized, all right, Hunter as crooked as the day
(08:55):
as long, we can't defend this guy, so Hunter to
heck with him. But there's no direct evidence of Joe.
I want to break that down because that is false
and it's a lie, and it's every bit as false
as Biden never discussed it or wasn't in business with it.
But let's take the no direct evidence and explain why
(09:16):
it's wrong. Let me start by explaining what direct evidence is.
So that's the kind of lawyer word that you see
people use that.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
If you're not a lawyer, you're like, well, what does
that even mean?
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Right, So, in a court.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Of law, there are two types of evidence that are
typically relied on to prove a factual matter. Number one
is direct evidence. Number two is circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence
is evidence that goes directly to a factual matter in dispute.
Circumstantial evidence is based on the circumstances you can draw
(09:54):
inference that leads to the factual matter in dispute.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
All right, what does that mean?
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Let me give an ext If you go to bed
tonight and you look out the window and the street
is dry and clean, and you wake up in the
morning and you look out the window and the street
is covered in snow, that is circumstantial evidence that it
snowed last night. It's pretty damn good circumstantial evidence. Yeah,
(10:22):
there's snow, but you were drawing the inference from seeing
the snow on the ground that it snowed last night. Now,
if you bring in a witness who stayed up all night,
who said, ben, I saw it snow last night, that
would be direct evidence. The most common type of direct
evidence is eyewitness testimony saying I saw this happen. Now,
(10:45):
one of the lies right at the heart of the
no direct evidence is so what, it's not true. But
before I get to not true, so what? People are
literally convicted of crimes every day based on circumstantial evidence.
They are sentenced to jail every day based on circumstantial evidence.
(11:08):
So the modifier direct is how they're getting around the
mountain of evidence we've got. But I want to tell
you how the statement there is no direct evidence is
a lie. And anytime a Democrat says, at any time
the media says that, you know they're lying.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
But first let me tell you about our friends over
Patriot Mobile. For ten years, 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 at Patriot
Mobile does amazing work every time you pay your bill
and you get amazing nationwide coverage. Patriot Mobile offers dependable
(11:45):
nationwide coverage, giving you the ability to access all three
major networks, which means you get the same coverage you've
been accustomed to without funding the Left. Did you know
the Big Mobile actually gives massive donations the Planned Parenthood.
Well that's why you should switch to Patriot Mobile, because
not only are you sending a message that you support
free speech, religious freedom, the sanctity of life, the Second Amendment,
(12:06):
and our military veterans and first responder heroes, but when
you pay that bill, a portion of your bill goes
to support those causes. They also have a one hundred
percent US based customer service team making switching easy. So
keep your same cell phone number that you have now,
keep your same phone or upgrade to a new one,
and their team will help you find the best plan
for you and your needs. Go to Patriot Mobile dot
(12:29):
com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict
or eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot
get free activation when you use a promo code. Verdict
that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict or eight seven
eight Patriot.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
So, as I mentioned, there at least two significant pieces
of direct evidence of Joe Biden's involvement and corruption. Piece
number one, the heart of the allegations, again Joe Biden,
is bribery that he solicited and received bribes from foreign oligarchs.
(13:09):
You'll recall, and we've talked about this before on verdict
that the essence of bribery is quid pro quo Latin
for this, for that, and for bribery, you need to
show the official action that was taken.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
That's the quote, the.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Money or thing of value that was given, that's the quid,
and that the two were connected, that's the pro Well.
One of those elements, the official action, is conclusively proven
by Joe Biden in his on camera admission to the
Council of Foreign Relations, where he described how he flew
(13:50):
to Ukraine, he held a billion dollars of federal tax,
federal loan guarantees hostage and demanded that the Ukrainian government
fire Victor Schoken, who was the prosecutor who was prosecuting
the Ukrainian oligarch and Joe Biden. As we all know,
as we played on this show many times, says son
(14:11):
of a bitch. They fired it, and.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
He was critic by the way because he was like
he was so prideful, and it was the arrogance of
that moment. It was like, couldn't help himself. It was like,
this is how powerful I was. I could go over
to Ukraine and tell them who to fire and I
could own them while it was happening. And if you
watch that video, when I see it, it actually makes
me angry because it was a glimpse into the abuse
(14:37):
of power that Joe Biden was willing to wield around
the world on a litany probably of issues. And now
we know why he was doing it. It was for
the money and for the Biden crime family.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
That's exactly right. But of the elements of bribery, Joe
Biden's confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed
one of the critical elements of bribery. Now we don't
yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime,
but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical,
(15:09):
critical aspects of the crime, which is the quote that
Joe Biden has admitted, and that is unequivocally direct evidence,
and it's pretty damn compelling direct evidence. There's a second
very clear instance of direct evidence, and that is Hunter
Biden's what's app message to the Chinese Communist official, and
(15:30):
I want to read it to you again, Hunter Biden
texted quote. I am sitting here with my father and
we would like to understand why the commitment made has
not been fulfilled. Tell the director I would like to
resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and
(15:51):
now means tonight and z if I get a call
or a text from anyone involved in this other than you,
Zang or the chairman, I will make certain that between
the man sitting next to me and every person he knows,
and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you
(16:12):
will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here
waiting for the call with.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
My father not to shake down.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Now.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
That is direct evidence. That is a written text sent
by Hunter Biden. That is direct evidence that he and
his father are shaking down a Chinese Communist official. It's
not circumstantial, it is direct evidence. Now it is possible
(16:41):
that direct evidence is false, just as if if Hunter
Biden came into court and testified my father and I
shook down a Chinese Communist official, he could be lying.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, he could, yeah, but I doubt it.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
You can teach his credibility. You could say he's lying,
but it is direct evidence. Direct evidence doesn't necessarily mean
that it is true. Sometimes direct evidence is false. But
that's not only direct evidence. It's pretty damn compelling direct evidence.
So I promise you in the next week you will
see multiple Democrats and multiple yabbering puppets in the corporate
(17:17):
media say there's no direct evidence. You know, there's no
direct evidence. The AP will say the allegations of corruption
against Joe Biden, of which there is no direct evidence,
and they'll state it as a fact, and it is
a lie. Every time they say it. They're lying. Because
those two are serious pieces of direct evidence.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Let me ask you about not only that, but let's
connect this to suspicious activity reports. Is this the type
of stuff that will come out in impeachment when they
go through it as saying, Hey, we can connect the
quid pro quote, we can connect these these audio recordings,
We can connect the present's words to these financial bank
records and all of the bank records that James comert
on this show. If you missed a podcast we did
(17:58):
with them, go back and listen to it, Jim Jordan,
the same thing. They have so much evidence with the
specious activity reports and the cash going to the Biden crime
family members, right, we know direct payments, we're going to
multiple Biden family members. Is that where this could be
so damning to this president, could put his presidency at risk?
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Absolutely? Yes.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
And let me underscore if you didn't listen to our
two part series with James Comer, you ought to go
back and listen to it because we walk through at length.
Now everything you just listed is circumstantial evidence. And I
want to take a minute because there's a ton of
circumstantial evidence and all of the smarmy people on TV
who are saying no direct evidence, they're pretending like direct
evidence is the only kind of evidence that exists. So, Ben,
(18:42):
if there's a dead body and with multiple gunshot wounds, and.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
I love how I'm always the bad guy in these scenarios.
If you notice this, like everybody, I'm always the bad
guy here, I'm ready for it.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Keep going next to the dead body. It appears that
the dead with his bloody finger scrawled in the ground.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Ferguson did it? Did it?
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Ferguson did it?
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Now that's not actually direct evidence. And let's say furthermore
that you're found at home covered in the man's blood,
with gunpowder covering your body and the murder weapon.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
At your feet.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Okay, none of that is direct evidence either. And you
know what, You're going.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Away for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
I don't need any more evidence that evidence bye bye, yeah.
I Circumstantial evidence convicts people every single day. So what
is the circumstantial evidence. Look with James Comber, he walked
through the suspicious activity reports over and over and over again.
The massive number of suspicious activity reports, the more than
twenty shell companies. That is circumstantial evidence. As we talked
(19:52):
through with James Comber, you don't create shell companies unless
it is to hide the source of cash. That is
serious circumstance. The allegations in the FD ten twenty three
from a confidential human source that the FBI had previously
found reliable who says that the Ukrainian oligarch told him
(20:13):
that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden demanded five million each
in order for Joe to get the prosecutor fired. Now
that's not direct evidence because the confidential human source doesn't
know it directly. He's repeating what he says that that
that the oligarch said, so that that is hearsay, but
it is circumstantial evidence and is significant the twenty plus
(20:37):
million dollars that the House of Representatives has already documented
that flowed into the Biden family to people, by the way,
who by all appearances, have no connection to foreign countries.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
It's just like, hey, I need your bank count and
here's some.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Money, and it's it's it's it.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Must be nice. That's gotta be a fun day. Like
we haven't talked about that enough. Center the fact that
you could just have the last name Biden and you
and randomly you get like a text from Hunter right
or from Joe's like handy Jaman account if I'm going
to send you over one hundred thousand bucks, Like that's
gotta be kind of cool if you're in that situation
where it's just like, hey, I'm a Biden. Now every
once in a while, this money just randomly shows up
(21:14):
in my bank account with a random LLC. Because that's
what they've been doing for years, if not decades.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Well, yeah, although it may not be all that cool
because remember Hunter Biden in a twenty nineteen text to
his daughter complains about how his father, Joe Biden, made
him give him quote half.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
His salary, yeah, half everything.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Yeah, Loo, Look this is that that likewise, all of
this piles to a mountain of evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
and that mountain of evidence is serious.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
But there's something else, which is the cover up. So
let's go back to this hypothetical of the guy you
whacked and I don't know why you killed him, you eat.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I'm not sure it was I'm sure it was God.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
But we should at the end of the year just
come up with all the possible crimes and as examples
that I have committed in my and the last year
on verdict and just turn it into a best steff,
keep going.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
So if you're caught on film driving out on.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
A bridge now and flinging the gun.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Over the bridge, over the bridge into the water, now, look,
that doesn't prove if the gun has never recovered that
it's the murder weapon.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
But if it's the night of the murder, yeah.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
And you're doing it really urgently, it's pretty strong circumstantial
evidence that you are hiding evidence that that that demonstrates
your guilt, and in fact, you will see in a
court of law. If a defendant destroys evidence h a
court can instruct the jury to draw a negative inference
(22:53):
that that evidence would would have demonstrated would.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Have been bad for them.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
In this instance, we know that Joe Biden had multiple
burner phones. We know that he had multiple fake emails,
up to five thy four hundred of them in the
National Archives. We know that he emailed Hunter Biden. We
know that he emailed Hunter Biden about Ukraine. And we
know also that two senior IRS career employees have come
(23:23):
forward as whistleblowers and have said the Biden administration engage
number one in line to Congress under oath of felony
YEP and number two in multiple instances of obstruction of justice.
And in particular it's worth focusing on what was the
obstruction of justice. Let's go back to the WhatsApp, to
the message that Hunter said. The IRS whistleblowers said they
(23:44):
wanted to examine GPS data to determine well, when Hunter
sent that text, was Daddy sitting next to him? There's
an answer, it's either yes or no. If it's yes,
that is not direct evidence that Hunter was telling the truth,
but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence, and according to the
(24:06):
IRS whistleblowers, the Biden DOJ said no, no, no, no, no,
you cannot examine the GPS locations. They likewise said no,
you cannot ask anything about Joe. The fact that the
Biden Department of Justice is willing to commit felonies allegedly,
according to the whistleblowers, yeah, in order to prevent investigation
(24:28):
into Joe's involvement is powerful evidence of Joe's.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Significant involvement.
Speaker 2 (24:38):
Because just like throwing the gun off the bridge, you
don't do it if you didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
All right, let me ask you this question about this
impeachment compared to the Trump impeachment, the first impeachment, and
if you were the lawyer for Trump, then it was
more about defending yourself. A friend of mine, Jay Seque,
as you know, helped with that first impeachment, defended the president.
It was more about a vigorous defense of the absurdity
of what they were charging Donald Trump with. This is
(25:06):
obviously completely different than that. This is a one point
eighty from that. We knew that Russian collusion was crap.
They knew it was crap, they knew how to defend it.
And they defended him. I think pretty well this impeachment,
if you were defending Joe Biden from a legal standpoint,
what are your biggest concerns if you're having to meet
with Joe Biden, and what are your biggest concerns for
(25:28):
his presidency if you're meeting with Joe Biden from a
legal standpoint that could come out in this impeachment that
maybe has never been you know, has come out either
a before you haven't had to at least answer questions for.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Your biggest concern is all the evidence against you, uh,
the direct evidence, the evidence that you basically admitted to
one of the elements of bribery, the evidence the text
message that your son has been caught shaking down Chinese
communists for millions of dollars and explicitly threatening that you're
(26:04):
the one who would engage in retaliation. That has tied
you into it. That direct evidence is certainly troubling, but
all the circumstantial evidence which would trouble you as well.
And look, here's what the Biden White House is going
to do. They're going to count on the corporate media
to ignore that. They're going to count on the corporate
(26:24):
media to echo their talking points.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
And not cover it like they did the Trump impeachment.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
It's to completely ignore it and refuse to address the facts.
And every day you will see a night and day difference,
not just between the Joe Biden impeachment and the Trump impeachments,
but between the Joe Biden impeachment and the ridiculous Trump indictments.
There is a world of difference. And we've discussed at
(26:49):
great length on this podcast the Trump indictments, which are
political and partisan. In this instance, the evidence of actual
bribery by the President of the United States is serious
and severe, and there's not a single Democrat who is
willing to address the merits. They're counting on the press
(27:10):
just to take their blanket dismissals.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
Let me tell you about our friends of her Chalk.
If you're a guy and you feel like you are
losing your edge, maybe fatigue is sitting in and you're
just sick and tired of feeling tired, and you want
to get back to that strength of vitality used to have, well,
then you need to check out chalk choq dot com.
Now the problem is men says stostorm levels are off
(27:34):
a cliff. Historically, now at all time low. Thankfully, the
patriots at Chalk are here to help real men just
like you take back and proudly maximize your masculinity by
boosting testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days.
If you're sick and tired of feeling weak and complacent,
you're tired of sitting on the couch and feeling like
(27:56):
you're just not who you are, you need to check
out Chalks voq dot com. Now check out the Male
Vitality Stack. It will help you boost your disastrom levels
up to twenty percent over ninety days. It's manufactured right
here in the USFA. I've been taking it for months.
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
(28:17):
changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. So
get off the couch and get back to feeling like
you used to. Go to chalkchoq dot com. Use the
promo code Ben for thirty five percent off any Chalk
subscription for Life Choq dot com Use promo code Ben
for thirty five percent off. Sinta, I want to ask
(28:39):
you also in impeachment real quick about witnesses. Are there
people that can now be called that may have to
answer for their involvement, whether it's those the DOJ, whether
it's Hunter Biden, whether it's other Biden family members. Walk
us through how impeachment works when it comes to witnesses.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Well.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Merrick Garland is expected to testify before the House Judiciary
Committee in the coming days, and he will certainly face
significant questions about the allegations that he personally lied under
oath and committed a felony. Now, I assume he'll dodge
all of them and defiantly and arrogantly refuse to engage
in the substance. I also assume he will get questions
(29:18):
about the allegations of obstruction of justice, and I expect
Merrick Garland to not be remotely forthcoming. I think at
some point you will see David Weiss called before Congress
to testify. David Weiss has been directly implicated in the
obstruction of justice, which is I believe why Merrick Garland
named him the quote special counsel. Because Garland and the
(29:39):
Biden DOJ knew they could count on Weiss to protect
the big guy, and that's their most important objective. We've
talked about how Schwerin, who was the kind of money
guy and fixer for Biden is a very likely witness
and could be a very damning witness, and I would
anticipate seeing him come. And then we may well assume
(30:00):
Hunter Biden, if he's called to testify, will stonewall at
this point the legal.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
What does that look like when you say stonewall? Is
it a tactic or are you saying he just won't
answer questions?
Speaker 3 (30:12):
My assumption is will plead the fifth.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Okay, So he just come in say I plead the
fifth and that's the end of it.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
I assume that's the case, given the multiple felonies and
the fact that he even Dad's White House seems to
be running away from him. I would be shocked if
Hunter Biden said anything else other than on the advice
of counsel, I plead the fifth. I will say one
other thing, which is this Biden impeachment is demonstrating the
(30:41):
utter and complete hypocrisy of congressional Democrats. Let me read
what Chuck Schumer said this week, right after the House
announced it's impeachment. Schumer said, quote, I think the impeachment
inquiry is absurd. The American people want us to do
something that will make their lives better not go off
on these chases witch hunts. So Schumer is literally using
(31:08):
Trump's language about witch hunts and just repeating word for
word what the defense was. Now, look, I think the
Biden impeachments of Trump were witch hunts. Ironically, this is not.
This is serious evidence that Congress would be derelict if
it didn't investigate. Here, by the way, is a quote
from from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
Quote.
Speaker 2 (31:31):
This is what banana dictatorships do is arrest political opponents
without any evidence. Now that's screamingly funny. Yeah, given that
the Democrats have arrested their political opponent like a banana republic.
Speaker 3 (31:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:49):
But part of the reasons Democrats can be such total
hypocrites is they know the corporate media will never call
them out on it. That the corporate media will nod
say yes, yes, but at a republic terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible,
no direct evidence, no direct evidence. And if you take
nothing else from this podcast today, remember every time they
(32:10):
say the words no direct evidence, they're.
Speaker 1 (32:13):
Lying one other thing about this. And this is where
people say, Okay, we have this thing, it happens. Let's
say it is a big deal. Let's say there are
some some some you know minds that the Democrats step on,
the White House steps on, we still don't have the
votes and the Senate to do anything about it. Right,
That's what they're gonna That's what people that are cynical
(32:34):
and frustrated are gonna say about this. So how should
we be looking at this impeachment?
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Is this?
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Should? Should?
Speaker 3 (32:41):
Should?
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Should? People that are listening to look at it from
a standpoint of, Hey, we're getting the truth out there
in a very big way about Joe Biden before he's
running for reelection and that can be extremely powerful and
and in other words, judgment day may be election day.
Or should we look at it and be frustrated and
cynical because like, well, even if we nail this thing
in the House, it ain't going to pass the Senate.
So he's not going to be impeached and lose his
(33:02):
job over this? What mindset? What hatch to listeners put on?
Speaker 2 (33:06):
So a little bit of both, listen, The cynicism is
not misplaced. Senate Democrats and House Democrats do not care
what evidence there is of Joe Biden being corruptive, is
soliciting and receiving bribes from falling foreign oligarchs. They don't care.
Partisan politics trumps everything. To use my hypothetical, if the
dead guy had scrawled in blood Ferguson did it.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
With Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
Yeah, and Joe Biden walked out covered in his blood,
Democrats would be like nothing to see here.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Remind people what the makeup of the Senate right now.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Makeup of the Senate is fifty one Democrats, forty nine
republic All.
Speaker 1 (33:45):
Right, we've heard about some of you maybe becoming independent.
We've heard, you know, wishy washy things about Joe Manchin
for example. Is there any scenario where the evidence could
be so damning on the House side that you could
you could flip two different people's people in the Senate?
Speaker 2 (33:59):
It wouldn't matter if you flip two, because you need
two thirds, you need sixty seven.
Speaker 3 (34:03):
There you go, and right now we have zero.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Right now we have zero Democrats who, to the best
of my knowledge, I'm not aware of a single Democrat
who's even asked a skeptical question, who has even said, well,
you know, if Biden did, in fact solicit and receive
bribes from foreign nationals, that would be a problem. No,
Democrat has even said that. And you contrast this to
Richard Nixon. Listen, the reason Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace
(34:27):
is Republicans turned on him. They turned on him when
the evidence got over. And I don't believe Democrats would ever, ever,
ever turn on Biden because partisanship matters more than anything.
But be that as it may, that does not mean
that impeachment is a waste of time, because it is
the only way to put these facts before the American people.
(34:50):
In a sane and normal world, the Department of Justice
would investigate and prosecute him. We'd get a special counsel
who was independent, who was consistent with the DOJ rules,
was not an employee of DJ, and actually would investigate
in conveni grand jury and potentially prosecute these crimes. The
Biden DOJ won't do that because it's the most partisan
(35:12):
and political DJ we've ever seen. But putting these facts
before the American people is valuable, nonetheless. But to be clear,
a critical part of that is what we're doing right
now on Verdict, which which is the million people who
listen to Verdict. All of y'all now have the information
when you go and you're talking to your brother in law,
(35:33):
you're talking to your coworker, you're talking to your classmate,
and they say, well, you know there's no direct evidence
because that's the talking point they've heard. You now know
how to refute that, and that is powerful. That has
a multiplier effect, and it's how I believe, ultimately you
force accountability.
Speaker 1 (35:53):
Want to tell you about our friends of the Gust
of Precious Metals. You've been seeing what's going on in
the economy. You've seen some of these bank failures. You've
seen interest rates, for example, on loans hit a twenty
one year high for home loans right now, and a
lot of people are wanting to protect their wealth, especially
if you're in retirement or close to retirement. Well, let
me tell you about Augusta Precious Medals. They do things
differently when it comes to your IRA or your four
(36:15):
oh one K and using a portion of it in
gold to make sure that you are protecting your hard
earned dollars. Now, when you call Augusta Precious Metals, they
actually do more than just send you an investor's god
on gold that gives you background and understanding historical context
to what gold has done over periods of time. They
actually do a one on one web conference with each
(36:36):
and every one of you to make sure that you
understand how it could affect your retirement and how it
can help you preserve your wealth. Check out Augusta Precious Medals,
go online to Augusta Precious Metals dot com. You can
also call them and find out and get the investors
got on Gold. Now you'll get to do the web
conference that doesn't cost you a dime. It's free to
(36:59):
see if Gold can help you with your retirement planning.
Eight seven seven the number four Gold IRA. That's eight
seven seven, the number four Gold IRA or online Augusta
Precious Metals dot com. That's Augusta Precious Metals dot com.
Last question on this and that is the politics of
(37:19):
overplaying your hand. I said on my podcast today, I
always worry because you've noticed this in the polls. Biden
poll numbers right now are not good, and the media
seems to be telling more the truth about how bad
the poll numbers are. And the majority of Americans now
say they do believe that Joe Biden was corrupt in
some manner with his son in the business dealings. That's
(37:40):
that's that's significant. CNN even came out PBS on Sunday.
They even had one of their commentators and said, I
underestimated Joe Biden's involvement with Hunter Biden and the Biden
family businesses. Is there a concern that if the Republicans
play this too strong and don't take their time toly
at the evidence, this could backfire in the same way.
(38:02):
And again I'm asking from a political standpoint that every
time the Democrats indict Donald Trump, what happens, Republicans stand
behind Donald Trump even more, they say, send him money,
they support him, His poll numbers go up. Is there
a concern that if Republicans don't nail this the right way,
that this actually galvanizes people that maybe are wherehy washy
(38:23):
on Biden and then it actually helps him stand up
better than he is right now, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Look that that is conceivable. And there's no doubt that
the multiple indictments against Trump have added a lot of points,
at least ten points to his numbers in the primary
because Republicans have understandably gotten pissed off that it's obviously
a political persecution. So that counsels that the Republicans, the
Republicans in the House need to proceed carefully. They need
(38:48):
to be facts based, they need to be evidence based.
They need to not have it appear political. Now in
today's world, there will be people who naturally assume it's political.
But but that that that is certainly a vulnerability to
be aware of. Another vulnerability is at some point the
Democrats and or the media might decide that Joe Biden
(39:08):
is two wounded and jettison him and try to parachute
someone else in I think that remains a very real risk.
We're going to talk about that a lot more on
the podcast, but not on this one.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Yeah, there was an interesting article this week that mentioned
five other names that came out all of a sudden,
off Joe Biden, don't run. Who's is gonna be? This
is how this podcast started. You want to talk about
full circle, but now it's times three. Senator. We're going
to keep you updated on this. I can promise you
don't forget to hit that follow or subscribe or auto
download button, depending on which platform you're listening right now
(39:41):
and the days in between, make sure you listen to
my podcast, The Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I'll keep you updated
on the breaking news. On in between days, and also
our Saturday Potter Weekend review of things you may have
missed later in each podcast. We put that together for Saturdays,
so it makes you start checking that podcast out as well.
And we'll see you back here in a couple of days, yes,
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.