September 6, 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 its Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
Hope you had a great Labor Day weekend with your
family and friends and center. We've got a lot to
talk about, including some shocking new news that deals with
a Comer subpoena of majorcis the Secret Service over a
tip off of the twenty twenty Hunter Biden tax probe interview.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Now, I want you to remind.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
People about this because this is something we've gone in
depth with Comber on on this show. We did that
two part series with him. James Comer talked about how
interesting this was that there was a tip off that
you would actually let people know in advance of what
you were trying to gain from them when it comes
to an investigation.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Well, this is something we've discussed at length on Verdict,
which is the allegations from two separate whistleblowers senior career
IRS employees, that the Biden Justice Department the Biden administration
were in effect obstructing justice, that they were blocking for
Hunter Biden, they were preventing any investigation of Joe Biden.
(01:09):
One of the aspects of it is when the investigators
wanted to go and interview Hunter Biden. Now that's a
typical part of an investigation. You go and try and
interview the target of the investigation and see if, frankly,
they'll say something dumb. Well, in this instance, unfortunately, in
the Biden administration, the political higher ups at the Department
(01:29):
of Justice, allegedly according the whistleblowers, gave a heads up
to the Secret Service and said, hey, these guys want
to investigate Hunter and enabled him to prepare. They also
gave heads up to Hunter's lawyers when they wanted to
execute a search warrant on finding documents and evidence of
criminal activity. And so what has happened this week is
(01:51):
is that James Comber and the Housesentatives has subpoena the
Department of Homeland Security and they're seeking documents. They're also
seeking depositions. So there were totally six subpoenas sent on Tuesday,
one directed at Secretary of Mayorcus for documents and the
remaining five for depositions, two to Secret Service officials and
(02:12):
three to DHS officials. So right now, these subpoenas are
not seeking to question Mayorcus directly, but rather people that
report to Mayorcus. But the entire focus of it is
to what extent is the Biden administration blocking using government
resources to protect Hunter Biden. And remember, the critical question
(02:32):
is to protect Joe Biden from investigation. And this is
yet another example of the only source of this investigation
going forward being the Republican House of Representatives because the
Democrat Senate has zero interest in finding out what happened
and whether or not Joe Biden has taken bribes from
foreign nationals, and most of the corporate media likewise has
(02:55):
no interest. So it is the House or Representatives that's
driving this forward, and they're doing it even more so
this week.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I wanted to pew it here.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
This is how this news broke and it's not shocking,
but it certainly is going to be significant.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
So breaking news to.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Tell you about here.
Speaker 5 (03:11):
Foxnews dot Com has just discovered that the Chairman of
the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, has subpoena the DHS
Secretary Alhandra Majorcas and several other DHS and Secret Service
officials wanting testimony related to the Secret services alleged tip
off of the Biden transition team regarding a planned one
(03:31):
Hunter Biden tax probe interview back in twenty twenty, also
accusing the agencies of obstruction of the congressional investigation. Six
subpoenas in total were sent out, one directed to Mayorcis
for documents and five for depositions due to Secret Service officials,
and three to DHS officials. Comer told Fox News Digital quote,
(03:54):
the Department of Justice initiated the Biden family cover up,
and now DHS, under the leadership of Secretary may Orcus
is complicit in it.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
He went on to say investigators.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
Were never able to interview Hunter Biden during the criminal
investigation because Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team
were tipped off about the planned interview.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
We'll keep following this. I love how they broke this story.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
So my next question is if you were getting to
ask the question centers, what would you want to know
and what would you ask if you're on the House
side and these people are able to be brought in,
and what would you hope those answers would be from
them if they are actually truthful.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Well, look, the central question here is to what extent
did the Biden administration engage in obstruction of justice? To
what extent did they block the criminal investigation into the
misconduct of Hunter Biden and more importantly Joe Biden. We've
got multiple whistleblowers that allege they did so considerably. Here's
(04:53):
what I think is going to play out.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
Ben.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I think we're going to see the House of Representatives
in peach Alejandro Mayorcus. That's something, as you know, I've
been calling for for almost the entirety of the Biden administration.
I think Mayorcus has presided over the worst disaster at
our southern border in our nation's history. I think he
is responsible very directly for implementing Joe Biden and Kamala
Harris's directives that have produced body bag after body bag
(05:19):
that have produced chaos and misery and suffering and death,
and that has been utterly lawless. I think that will happen.
Number one. Number two, I think what should happen, But
frankly I'm less confident that it will happen. Is I
think the House ought to pursue the impeachment of Merrick Garland.
That I think the serious, credible allegations of obstruction of
(05:39):
justice and of lying under oath under Merrick Garland, they
merit a special council being appointed in the Department of Justice.
They also merit the House of Representatives opening an impeachment
inquiry to Merrick Garland that I'm less confident that they
will go forward with than I am about Alejandro Majorcas.
I think the pressure on going after Mayorcus is greater
(05:59):
on fortunately, than the pressure on going after Merrick Garland.
The third thing that I think the House will do
is formally open an impeachment inquiry on Joe Biden. At
this point, the evidence that Joe Biden personally solicited and
received bribes from foreign nationals, whether it is Ukrainian ola garks,
(06:21):
or Russian oligarchs or senior Chinese communist officials, that evidence
is considerable. It's not proven conclusively, but at this point
the weight of the evidence is such that I think
the only responsible thing for the House to do is
open an impeachment inquiry. To do so, we'll take a
full vote on the floor of the House. I think
we'll get that vote, and I think the Speaker of
(06:42):
the House, Kevin McCarthy, wants that inquiry to open up. Now,
I'll tell you one of the real consequences if and
when the House opens an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden.
It is going to increase dramatically the likelihood that we
will get access to this some five four hundred emails
(07:03):
that Joe Biden sent using fake email addresses, using pseudonyms,
and those include emails sent to his son, Hunter Biden,
who is not and was not a federal government employee.
That those include emails that allegedly concern Ukraine, while Hunter
Biden was getting paid millions of dollars from corrupt Ukrainian
oligarchs in order to try to secure favors from his father.
(07:29):
And the reason that opening an impeachment inquiry into Joe
Biden is so important is right now, the House is
seeking access to those five four hundred emails from the
National Archives, and the National Archives is following a statute
called the Presidential Records Act, and so in order to
hand those emails over, the National Archives needs the permission
(07:53):
of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Now I'm going to
quantify right now the precise statistical likelihood that Barack Obama
and Joe Biden will give permission to hand over those emails.
That exact likelihood is zero point zero zero percent. They're
not going to do so. Actually, Biden gets asked twice.
He gets asked both as the former vice president and
(08:15):
as the current president, so he can say no twice. Now,
why does an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden matter? It
matters because, under the terms of the Presidential Records Act,
special access to presidential records is allowed to Congress quote
to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any
(08:37):
committee if such records contain information that is needed for
the conduct of its business that is not otherwise available. So,
in other words, if and when the House formally votes
to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, it suddenly
has explicit statutory authorization to get access to all five
(08:59):
thousand and four hundred of those emails from Joe Biden's
fake email addresses. And again, as we've discussed on this
podcast many times, there is no legitimate reason for Joe
Biden to have fake email addresses. There's no legitimate reason
for him to have burner phones, with which he allegedly
also had, And so I think the odds are quite good.
(09:20):
Number one that we see impeachment of Alejandro mayorcis, but
number two that we see the House formally open an
impeachment inquiry into Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
I want to tell you about a friends a Gusta
Precious Medals. You know where interest rates are right now,
they're at a twenty one year high on Holmes, we've
seen what's been happening in the Biden economy. As much
as they say biden Omics is working, you know it's not.
And the question is how do you protect your hard
earned assets? Well, that is exactly why I want you
to know about Augusta Precious Medals. Augusta Precious Metals can
(09:53):
help you protect your heart earned hours within IRA or
a four to oh one K that actually has gold.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yes, that's exactly what can happen.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
It's shocking if you look at what happened last year
on average iras and four one K balances felled twenty
percent last year according to Fidelity. Now many people didn't
expect that. But here's something that could have helped you
protect your hard earned dollars and that is physical gold
in your IRA. The World Gold Council says even central
banks are buying tons of gold. So what does that
(10:24):
tell you? Well, if you want to know why I
invest in gold and why so many others are and
protecting their assets. Call Augusta Precious Medals. Not only will
they send you their free investors guide on gold, but
they'll do a one on one web conference to answer
all of your questions and tell you if gold isn't
right for you. The number eight seven seven four Gold IRA.
(10:47):
That's eight seven seven, the number four gold IR. Or
visit them online to Gusta Precious Metals dot com. That's
a Gusta Precious Metals dot com eight seven seven the
number four gold IRA or Augusta Precious Metals dot com.
Center Democrats, I do believe, are now starting to worry
(11:08):
about the idea of impeachment. The reason why you can
see it is on the Sunday morning shows. Congressman Conna wrote,
Kona had this to say when he was talking with
one of those guys that hates, obviously, Donald Trump, Jim Acosta,
on CNN about the evidence to go after impeachment.
Speaker 6 (11:27):
Listen, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says Republicans could soon
vote on a formal impeachment query and to President Biden
something obviously the former president has pressed Republicans to do
on truth social What do you make of this is
this a serious threat. We're going to be talking about
impeachment here in the coming months.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
What's going on.
Speaker 7 (11:46):
Unfortunately, I think it is a serious threat from the extremes.
But this is not what the American people want. This
is not what Republicans or Democrats and my constituency are
asking for, and there is no evidence to justify it.
So I think what people want is to solve their issues, childcare,
the fact that the rents cost too much, the fact
(12:07):
that wages haven't kept up with the cost of living.
That's what they want us to do in Congress, and
I think it would be a political mistake for the
speaker to go down that road.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I mean, you hear that saying there's no evidence justify
by an impeachment. This is actually when I know that
there's a good chance the Democrats are fearful of what
we could find out through impeachment.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Well, one of the things that's striking Jim Acosta is
such a propaganda puppet joke. You notice his question. His
question does not discuss any facts, It doesn't discuss any evidence.
He says, my god, do you think Democrats will dare
do this?
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
My goodness, of rather Republicans, Will they dare come after us? Like,
that's not a journalist? And what does he do? He
lets the Democrat congressman say, well, there's no evidence. Really,
What as a text from Hunter Biden to a senior
communist Chinese official saying I'm sitting next to my father,
pay me millions of dollars or my father will retaliate
(13:10):
against you. You know what that is? That is called evidence.
So the statement there is no evidence is blatantly false.
But if Jim Acosta were a reporter, he would point
that out. What about the evidence of not one, but
two career IRS employees, senior supervisory officials at the IRS,
(13:31):
who came forward, and they're not Republicans, they're probably Democrats
who came forward and said, we've seen obstruction of justice
and lying under oath. This administration is covering up investigation
of Joe Biden's criminality. Is that not evidence? What about
a confidential human source coming forward saying Joe Biden and
Hunter Biden solicited and received five million dollars a peach
(13:52):
a piece from a foreign oligarch. Now none of those
perhaps conclusively prove bribery, but it is absurd to say
they are no evidence on their face their evidence, And
if CNN had even a tiny sentilla of journalistic integrity,
(14:15):
number one, they'd fired Jim Acosta because he's a clown.
But number two, they would actually talk about facts rather
than clutching their pearls and say, how dare anyone inquire
into dear leader Sata?
Speaker 1 (14:27):
This goes perfectly by the way to your point that
you just made. And for many that may not have
seen this. The Washington Post Philip Bomp, who's a raging liberal,
walked out on an interview when he was asked a
tough question and it's supposed to be a journalist asked
a tough question about Joe Biden and the Biden crime family.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Take a listen, may what.
Speaker 8 (14:49):
Do you take from the text message to his adult
daughter hundred techiz, I had to give fifty percent of
my income to pop.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
I have no idea what that means. I don't. I
have no idea what that means.
Speaker 9 (14:58):
It's I know, it's circumstantial evidence, and you prefer that
what what could?
Speaker 4 (15:02):
I have no idea? But doesn't it don't know? Well,
I appreciate your has anybody has anybody asked her? I
don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 8 (15:09):
Don't you think somebody should ask her?
Speaker 4 (15:10):
Okay, like I'm not.
Speaker 9 (15:12):
I just said I don't know, and I don't know
what to make of it, so I have nothing say
about it.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
Yeah, but it doesn't want to say.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Yeah, but you say there's no evident evidence.
Speaker 8 (15:17):
But then there's a text message where he says, I
give pop fifty cent of my money.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
That's that's evidence.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Okay, well, okay, fine, fine, so evidence. I appreciate your
having me on.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
It doesn't that something like that?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Who do you think me more?
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I lived at that.
Speaker 9 (15:31):
I'm saying you can figure. I don't I feel you
want me to leave? Like just walk out in the
middle of this. You can that way you can?
Speaker 8 (15:37):
You can go?
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Is this a standard?
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Really?
Speaker 8 (15:38):
This is the way the Washington Post handles people who disagree.
Speaker 9 (15:42):
With one I agree to be on for forty five minutes,
and then they get on for an hour and fifteen.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Yet that after a while I go go, thanks, man?
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Is't it amazing the timing there?
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Oh? I gotta go, gotta go right now, right can't
answer that question. You're trying to get me to just
look like I'm walking off the set. No, he's trying
to give him to answer a question.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
So, all right, number one, the person questioning him is
a guy named Nome Dwarman, who it's he's on a
podcast and he's not a conservative. H No, Dorman is
actually a liberal. He's the owner of comedy Seller. And
so I'm sure Philip Bump figured, Okay, Philip Bump is
(16:19):
this left wing hack for the Washington Post. I'm sure
he thought, Okay, I'm going to be in a little
love fest. No one's gonna ask me anything hard. And
Philip Bump used his entire job as being the apologist
for the regime. So when when Dwarman asks him about
the text message of Hunter expressing frustration that he has
to give half of what he makes to Pop, notice,
(16:42):
but Bumps, I don't know what it means. I don't
know what it means. And then okay, you don't know
what it means. That's not complicated, it's not subtle, it's
not difficult to figure out. And then he says, it's
circumstantial evidence. Mister Bump, you are using words you do
not know what they mean. What does the word circumstantial means? No, Actually,
it is direct evidence. It is direct evidence. It is
the statement from Hunter saying he gave fifty percent of
(17:04):
his money to Pop. That is direct evidence. Circumstantial is
he has twice as much money one day and then
he goes to see his dad and the next day
he has half as much. That would be circumstantial evidence
that he gave Pop half the money. When he says
I had to give Pop half the money, that is
direct evidence. It may not be true, could be telling
something that is false, but it is not, in fact,
(17:26):
circumstantial evidence. And if you actually listen to more of
that interview. In fact, let me read from the transcript
of this interview. So Bump gets very upset when he's
being pressed, and he says, quote, I just I'm gonna
lose my mind. I'm gonna lose my mind. And Dorman
presses him and asks, quote, is there nothing we can
(17:49):
talk about half the country believes this stuff. Bump comes
back with quote, I know because half the country doesn't
actually dig into the issues. Dwarman then press says, well,
here's your chance to disabuse people they don't read the
Washington Post. And Bump comes back and says, there's just
(18:10):
no point because all you want to do is have me,
here is the putative expert. So you can present me
with things that have been debunked multiple times that I've
written about. Dorman asks a very reasonable question, what's been debunked, Bump,
these claims I've written about this, this argument about his
(18:31):
dad calling him, I've written about this. Did you read
what I wrote? Dorman says, it's not debunked. Neither of
us were there.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
Bump, Well, I've debunked it.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
In the standpoint that I've already addressed this and presented
the counter arguments to it. I want you to pause
for a second and think, in the view of the
Washington Post, debunked means he's addressed it and presented the
counter arguments to it. In other words, if he repeats
(19:03):
the talking points of the Biden regime, it's been debunked.
The fact that there are counter arguments doesn't mean it's debunked.
It means he's simply arguing the other side. And then
Bump goes on, and here's what he says. He says well,
Dowrman says, quote, I have two issues here. One is
(19:26):
Joe Biden's behavior, and one is the issue of the press.
The press actually bothers me more than Joe Biden. Mind you,
this is a Democrat saying this. And here's Bump's response, quote,
because you don't listen to the press. I'm sitting here
and I'm telling you you're wrong about these things, and
you don't listen, and you continue to insist upon things
that are you know, parsing of language. It's just it's
(19:50):
it's this. This is why I keep saying it's silly.
Dowarman says, well, it's a shame because this is a
good conversation, and Bump says, it's not a good comp
because you refuse to listen to what I'm saying to you.
You asked me on to present evidence, I keep telling you.
Dorman then comes back and says, well, what about what
(20:10):
independent journalist Matt Tabee has reported? And Bump says what, no, No,
Tybee has an agenda, And Dorman asked, well, do you
have an agenda? And Bump admits, and listen to this,
listen to his explanation. Bump says, quote, I do have
an agenda. My agenda is to do my best to
try and present accurate information to the public, and I
(20:32):
have an institution behind me to hold me to account
when I don't do that, which I think is an
important consideration. It really is stunning that number one, when
confronted with facts, a supposed journalist doesn't actually address those facts.
When confronted with evidence, he doesn't address the evidence. In fact,
he denies the evidence exists. And he claims that because
(20:56):
he has parroted the talking points of the White House,
even when contradicts or even when contrary to objective facts.
That means claims have been debunked. This is why journalism
is corrupted. You know, it's striking. The Washington Post its
motto is democracy dies in darkness. I gotta say today
(21:16):
the Washington Post that motto has become a mission statement.
It seems like their objective is to kill democracy by
ensuring on darkness in every circumstance.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
One other thing that I do have to laugh about
it when he acts like he has an institution behind him.
That's like, you know, checking on him as he described
it right with like you know, I've held a higher standard.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
This is the same Washington Post.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
To be clear, that still has not at least to
my knowledge, is of a week or two ago when
we were talking about this has still not updated and
in fact checked their own reporting on Russia collusion with
Donald Jerry Trump, which they now know is a lie.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Well, not only that one of the leading Russia Russia
Russia cheerleaders was Philip Bump. He was eager to say
over and over and over again things that now have
been debunked, that are now completely false. He was completely
taken in by the so called p tape that we
know was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary
Clinton campaign and is false. But you know what, the
(22:13):
Washington Post won a pulletzer for their false reporting, and
I have to say, given that that reporting played a
pivotal role in the election results of twenty twenty, you know,
it is admirable how they engage in election interference and
then do not admit when they're wrong. They don't issue
a correction, and then in the case of Philip Bump,
(22:34):
they get angry when anyone points out just how wrong
they were and when anyone actually points to real facts
or real evidence.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Let me tell you about our friends at Chalk.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
If you're a guy and you feel like you've lost
that strength and vitality used to have, the complacency and
weakness have been setting in you want to work out,
but you just can't find the energy. You want to
get off the couch and be active, but you just
can't find the energy. Be more active like you used
to be, but you cannot find that energy. Well, you're
(23:04):
not alone to STOSTRM levels have dropped off a cliff historically.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
And that's where Chalk.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
My friends 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 (23:19):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
I've been taking the Chalk Male Vitality Stack. You need
to check it out right now at chalkcchoq dot com.
And when you go there you can use my promo
code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five percent off and
that Male Vitality Stack can help you boost your testosterrum
levels up to twenty percent over ninety days, Yes, over
ninety days. They're manufactured right here in the US of A.
(23:42):
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
changing effects on your energy, your focus, and your mood.
So if you're sick and tired of weakness and complacency
winning and you're ready to get back to that strength
and vitality.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Go to chalk cho dot.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Com us a promo code Ben for thirty five percent
off any Chuck subscription for life at choq dot com.
Check out that mail Vitality Stack promo code Ben. Senator,
I also want to deal with COVID. We were talking
about the lies and they seem to be coming back.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Now.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Why now is now letting everybody know that Joe Biden
is going to start wearing a mask indoors. This after
Joe Biden has come down with COVID. Even though Joe
Biden has tested negative for COVID yesterday and the day
before the day before that.
Speaker 10 (24:33):
President Biden tested negative last night for COVID nineteen and
tested negative again today. He's not experiencing any symptoms. As
far as the steps he's taking, since the President was
with the First Lady yesterday, he will be masking while
indoors and around people in alignment with CDC guidance, and
as as has been the practice in the past, the
(24:56):
President will remove his mask when sufficiently distanced from other
indoors and while outside as well.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Now the funny part is Cenator. This is said from
the podium at the White House. Moments later, the President
is on stage and ceremony, he's not the appropriate distance
of the White House is appropriate from other people.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
And then he takes his mask off.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
That they just said to everybody, who's gonna be wearing
if he's in closed quarters with a lot of different people.
And you add that in with a DC area elementary school,
Montgomery County, Maryland is now reinstating a mass mandate. And
the mass man isn't just for those little masks, No, No,
n ninety five masks for all their third graders. Because
(25:37):
a few kids tested positive for COVID. They send out
a letter telling parents that these, these masks, these in
ninety five masks are going to be mandated in class.
These masks, they say, have been distributed and students and
staff and identified classes and or activities will be required
to mask while in school for at least the next
(25:58):
ten days, except of course, while eating and drinking, and
the mask will become optional, they claim. After the quote
outbreak has dissipated, here it is mask mandates coming back.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Look, this is utterly absurd. Mask mandates are wrong, and
for the Left, this has become a it's a combination
of a number of things. Number one, it's an article
of faith. Number two, it's a virtue signal. It shows
just how self righteous they think they are. You know,
as I was walking down the halls of the Capitol today,
one very prominent Democrat senator was walking along with his
(26:34):
N ninety five mask and behind him was his staffer
wearing his N ninety five mask. And it shows virtue.
But number three, it's about control. And this is all
about controlling people, whether it's mask mandates, whether it's vaccine mandates,
whether it's having the four hundred and thirty seventh booster.
Enough is enough is enough? This is crap and no,
(26:57):
look I recognize. And by the way, a year for
now we are going to see the most deadly COVID
variant ever seen, the election variant. And before the election,
it's they're going to need to shut everything down because
they want to have mail in balloting for everyone because
they think it helps elect Democrats. Enough is enough is enough.
If you want to wear a damn mask, fine, but
(27:18):
don't be a hypocrite and don't try to force other
people to And all right, listen, So many of the
people who listen to this podcast are conservatives, but some
are not, some are open minded. Someone to hear both sides.
So maybe you think, all right, I'm not going to
trust crews. I'm not going to trust Ferguson on this,
all right. If you don't trust me, listen to CNN
(27:41):
Left Wing CNN confronting doctor Fauci this past weekend about
his false claims about masks. Give a listen.
Speaker 11 (27:50):
There is a perception out there by many how many
I don't know, that they don't work, and that the
data concludes that they didn't work in the first go round.
Respond to that on masks, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Well that's not so.
Speaker 12 (28:04):
I mean, when you're talking about at the population level,
that the data are less strong than knowing that. If
you look on a situation as an individual protecting themselves
or protecting them from spreading it, there's no doubt that
masks work. Different studies give different percentages of advantage of
wearing it, but there's no doubt that the weight of
(28:25):
the studies, and there have been many studies indicate the
benefit of wearing masks.
Speaker 11 (28:32):
I'm going to refer to one of them. You've heard
about it before. I heard about it from a number
of radio callers. Brett Stevens in The Times talked about
Cochrane put that on the screen. The most rigorous and
comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of
masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness including COVID
nineteen was published last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson,
(28:54):
the Oxford epidemiologist who is the lead author, were unambiguous.
There is just no evidence that say masks make any difference,
he told the journalist Mayen Demasi.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Full stop.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
But wait, hold on, what about the N ninety.
Speaker 11 (29:07):
Five masks as opposed to the lower quality surgical or
cloth masks. Makes no difference, none of it, He said, Well,
what about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose
mask mandates. They were convinced by non randomized studies, flawed
observational studies. How do we get beyond that finding of
that particular review.
Speaker 12 (29:29):
Yeah, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at
an individual level, for individual, when you're talking about the
effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole,
the data are less strong. But when you talk about
as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting
themselves from spreading it to others. There's no doubt that
(29:51):
there are many studies that show that there is an
advantage when you took at the broad population level, like
the Cockman study, the data are less firm with regard
to the effect on the overall pandemic. But we're not
talking about that.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
We're talking about.
Speaker 12 (30:06):
An individual's effect on their own safety. That's a bit
different than the broad population love.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
I mean, you hear him there, and even he's being
questioned Fauci by a guy who's not conservative at CNN,
and it's for ConA. She's like, well, hold on, I'll
read for you what they say. And yet Fauci is
still sitting their center saying, no, no, these things work.
You're somehow still wrong.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Well, look two things. Number one, Fauci himself knows what
he's saying is wrong. And if you go back to
the beginning of COVID February fifth, twenty twenty, Sylvia Burwell,
who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services for
three years under Barack Obama, emailed Fauci and asks ask
if she should wear a mask. And by the way,
(30:50):
his whole defense was well individually, it makes sense, just
not for society. Here's what Fauci wrote on February fifth,
of twenty twenty. Quote Masks are not are really for
infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people
who are not infected, rather than protecting uninfected people from
acquiring infection. Fauci continues, the typical mask you behind the
(31:11):
drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus,
which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however,
provide some slight benefit to keep out gross droplets if
someone costs or sneezes on you. And he added quote,
I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly
since you are going to a very low risk location.
(31:34):
That's what he said in twenty twenty. Then he decided
that it was politically beneficial to mandate that everyone had
to wear a mask. And yet now look the second
point I'd make, the fact that CNN is turning on
this in the height of the pandemic. The words that
you just played from CNN, they would not utter. There
(31:55):
was no brooking descent from whatever Saint Fauci said. Whatever
the mandate was, masks today, not Mass tomorrow, Mass the
next day, you couldn't disagree. The fact that even CNN
is turning, I think is significant. I think if the
Biden administration tries another round of shutdowns and mask mandates,
(32:15):
I think a lot of the country is going to
say no, and hell no. I'll tell you the state
of Texas has zero interest in shutting down.
Speaker 12 (32:22):
And I.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Think you're going to see resistance, not just in Texas
but all over the country.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Yeah. I think you're right.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
And the other thing that worries many people is this
the president and this idea that we could go back
into some sort of government shutdown. There was that awkward
interview that he did with Kamala Harris, far away from
the social distancing back in the early days of COVID
in his administration, sitting next to you know, far away
from David Muiror's interviewing them in a weird triangle, and
he said he would have no problem if the scientist
(32:53):
told him to shut down our entire economy.
Speaker 13 (32:56):
I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to
save lives, because we can not get the country moving
until we control the virus. That is the fundamental flaw
of this administration's thinking to begin with. In order to
keep the country running and moving and the economy growing
and people employed.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
You have to fix the virus. You have to deal
with the virus.
Speaker 4 (33:18):
So if the scientists say shut it down.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I would shut it down.
Speaker 13 (33:22):
I would listen to the scientist.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
I mean, that's apparently still on the table. And if
they bring the mass back where I mean, how far
away are we from having another fall where they start
shutting things down?
Speaker 2 (33:34):
And what should the American people do.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
Look, the Democrats want to shut it down, they want
to impose mandates, and I got to say one of
the biggest lies of that exchange is I would listen
to the scientists. The only scientists that he listens to
are the ones who say what he wants to hear.
You know, the very last podcast we did, we did
a two part episode with an interview with doctor Phil
and one of the interesting things. Look, doctor Phil has
(33:59):
been the number one daytime TV host for a decade,
and he talked about how the data are that the
school shutdowns from COVID cost many, many more lives than
the virus would have cost. In other words, listened to
the scientists. The Democrats aren't listening to the scientists because
if they did, they'd look at the harm from the shutdowns.
(34:20):
They look at the harm for businesses shut down. They'd
look at the harm from churches shutdown. They'd look at
the harm from school shut down, the kids who face
learning loss for the rest of their life. They look
at the mental health numbers that have gone up. They'd
look at the kids who didn't go to school and
didn't have physical wellness checks, didn't have mental health checks,
didn't have daily food because for low income kids, for
(34:42):
many of them, their principal source of food is at school.
They didn't have the counselors who could observe whether kids
are subject to physical abuse or sexual abuse because when
they shut down schools, they sent them at home. And
the data what doctor Phil told us that if you
didn't listen to those two podcasts, you got to go
back and listen to them. But what Phil said on
this podcast was that the data show that many, many
(35:04):
more lives were lost because of the shutdowns. But the
Democrats don't want to listen to the scientists. They have
a political agenda, so they'll cherry pick whatever scientists repeat
the politically favored outcome that support the result they want.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
Anyway I want to ask you want to ask question
about states and what states seem to do to prepare
for this. But first let me tell you about Patriot Mobile.
For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider. And when I say only trust me,
there's only one. The team at Patriot Mobile are incredible
because not only do they support shows just like this,
(35:43):
but they are proud to partner with conservatives. Patriot Mobile
offers you dependable 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.
And when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending a
clear message that you support free speech, religious freedom, the
(36:03):
sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, and our military veterans
and first responder heroes. They have one hundred percent US
base customer service team which makes switching easy. You get
to keep your phone number if you want to, You
get to keep your phone or upgrade, and the team
will help you find the best plan for your needs
and many times I can save you big money. But
when you make calls, you're supporting the values you believe
(36:26):
instead of giving your might to woke corporations. So just
go to patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's patriotmobile dot
com slash verdict. Or call them to make the switch
eight seven eight Patriot. You're gonna get free activation eight
seven eight Patriot when you use the promo code verdict.
(36:46):
Join me and make the switch today Patriot mobile dot
com slash verdict or eight seven eight Patriot use a
promo code verdict center. Last question for you, what do
you think states should be doing? Because Texas has banned
the mass Manneday sins, COVID restrictions are being imposed in
other states. It was a Newsweek headline this as a
ban on COVID nineteen restrictions and imposed a mandate to
(37:07):
wear a face mask in public spaces. When to affect
in Texas after a number of institutions across the US
reinstaid the policy do to a rise in new infections
fueled by the emergence of two.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
New variants of the virus.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Now that's the GISTs of this, but Texas is saying, hey,
we're going to stand up to this type of insanity.
Do other people need to be calling their legislators and
asking for the same thing.
Speaker 3 (37:31):
Look absolutely yes, listen. States need to embrace common sense.
States need to defend liberty. States need to defend individual choice.
If someone wants to wear a mask, knock yourself out.
You can still you know, I flew from Texas to
DC today, there were still a handful of people in
the airport that choose to wear a mask. Okay, if
you want to wear a mask, that's fine. You got
(37:52):
an individual choice. You can wear a ski mask if
you want.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
That's your choice.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
But government shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask.
Airlines shouldn't be forcing people to make wear a mask.
Airport shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask. Restaurants
shouldn't be at forcing people to wear a mask. Nobody
should be forcing anyone to wear a mask. And even
more so, governors and states need to say not just no,
but hell no to the shutdowns. We will look back
(38:21):
in the future. Years in the future, we will look
back and say, what in the hell did America do?
Shutting much of the country down for a year or more,
many parts of the country, almost all Democrat parts of
the country, shut businesses down, shut churches down, shut schools down.
Many schools tens of millions of kids were out of
(38:42):
school for over a year, and the consequence was cataclysmic.
It is, without exaggeration, the most catastrophic public policy decision
of our lifetimes. And so states need to say we're
not going down that road again. No, we're not going
to do it. Look, you know the school shutdowns were bad.
(39:03):
When Randy Weinngarten, the head of one of the big
teachers unions, is now suddenly claiming I wasn't for school shutdowns,
despite the fact that she fought relentlessly for school shutdowns
and caused Democratic politicians to jump on a string when
she demanded it. Now even she's running away from it,
States need to stand up and say we're not shutting
anything down. Look, if there's another public health crisis, and
(39:26):
at some point there will be, protect people who are vulnerable,
work to provide treatment options, give people advice on how
to keep safe, but respect their individual liberty, and don't
engage in arbitrary shutdowns and mandates. The mandates are wrong.
Say no to the mandates.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
Yeah, great point. The Center is always going to be
back with you after the holiday. Don't forget if you
missed her two part series with doctor Phil makes you
go back and listen to that, and also, as you know,
hit that subscribe auto download button. We do this show Monday,
Wednesday and Fridays, and in between those days make sure
you download my podcast, Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I will keep
(40:04):
you updated on my podcast and those in between days
as well, So download the Ben Ferguson Podcasts as well.
We'll see you back here in a couple of days.
Welcome its Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
Hope you had a great Labor Day weekend with your
family and friends and center. We've got a lot to
talk about, including some shocking new news that deals with
a Comer subpoena of majorcis the Secret Service over a
tip off of the twenty twenty Hunter Biden tax probe interview.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Now, I want you to remind.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
People about this because this is something we've gone in
depth with Comber on on this show. We did that
two part series with him. James Comer talked about how
interesting this was that there was a tip off that
you would actually let people know in advance of what
you were trying to gain from them when it comes
to an investigation.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Well, this is something we've discussed at length on Verdict,
which is the allegations from two separate whistleblowers senior career
IRS employees, that the Biden Justice Department the Biden administration
were in effect obstructing justice, that they were blocking for
Hunter Biden, they were preventing any investigation of Joe Biden.
(01:09):
One of the aspects of it is when the investigators
wanted to go and interview Hunter Biden. Now that's a
typical part of an investigation. You go and try and
interview the target of the investigation and see if, frankly,
they'll say something dumb. Well, in this instance, unfortunately, in
the Biden administration, the political higher ups at the Department
(01:29):
of Justice, allegedly according the whistleblowers, gave a heads up
to the Secret Service and said, hey, these guys want
to investigate Hunter and enabled him to prepare. They also
gave heads up to Hunter's lawyers when they wanted to
execute a search warrant on finding documents and evidence of
criminal activity. And so what has happened this week is
(01:51):
is that James Comber and the Housesentatives has subpoena the
Department of Homeland Security and they're seeking documents. They're also
seeking depositions. So there were totally six subpoenas sent on Tuesday,
one directed at Secretary of Mayorcus for documents and the
remaining five for depositions, two to Secret Service officials and
(02:12):
three to DHS officials. So right now, these subpoenas are
not seeking to question Mayorcus directly, but rather people that
report to Mayorcus. But the entire focus of it is
to what extent is the Biden administration blocking using government
resources to protect Hunter Biden. And remember, the critical question
(02:32):
is to protect Joe Biden from investigation. And this is
yet another example of the only source of this investigation
going forward being the Republican House of Representatives because the
Democrat Senate has zero interest in finding out what happened
and whether or not Joe Biden has taken bribes from
foreign nationals, and most of the corporate media likewise has
(02:55):
no interest. So it is the House or Representatives that's
driving this forward, and they're doing it even more so
this week.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I wanted to pew it here.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
This is how this news broke and it's not shocking,
but it certainly is going to be significant.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
So breaking news to.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Tell you about here.
Speaker 5 (03:11):
Foxnews dot Com has just discovered that the Chairman of
the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, has subpoena the DHS
Secretary Alhandra Majorcas and several other DHS and Secret Service
officials wanting testimony related to the Secret services alleged tip
off of the Biden transition team regarding a planned one
(03:31):
Hunter Biden tax probe interview back in twenty twenty, also
accusing the agencies of obstruction of the congressional investigation. Six
subpoenas in total were sent out, one directed to Mayorcis
for documents and five for depositions due to Secret Service officials,
and three to DHS officials. Comer told Fox News Digital quote,
(03:54):
the Department of Justice initiated the Biden family cover up,
and now DHS, under the leadership of Secretary may Orcus
is complicit in it.
Speaker 4 (04:03):
He went on to say investigators.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
Were never able to interview Hunter Biden during the criminal
investigation because Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team
were tipped off about the planned interview.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
We'll keep following this. I love how they broke this story.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
So my next question is if you were getting to
ask the question centers, what would you want to know
and what would you ask if you're on the House
side and these people are able to be brought in,
and what would you hope those answers would be from
them if they are actually truthful.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
Well, look, the central question here is to what extent
did the Biden administration engage in obstruction of justice? To
what extent did they block the criminal investigation into the
misconduct of Hunter Biden and more importantly Joe Biden. We've
got multiple whistleblowers that allege they did so considerably. Here's
(04:53):
what I think is going to play out.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
Ben.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I think we're going to see the House of Representatives
in peach Alejandro Mayorcus. That's something, as you know, I've
been calling for for almost the entirety of the Biden administration.
I think Mayorcus has presided over the worst disaster at
our southern border in our nation's history. I think he
is responsible very directly for implementing Joe Biden and Kamala
Harris's directives that have produced body bag after body bag
(05:19):
that have produced chaos and misery and suffering and death,
and that has been utterly lawless. I think that will happen.
Number one. Number two, I think what should happen, But
frankly I'm less confident that it will happen. Is I
think the House ought to pursue the impeachment of Merrick Garland.
That I think the serious, credible allegations of obstruction of
(05:39):
justice and of lying under oath under Merrick Garland, they
merit a special council being appointed in the Department of Justice.
They also merit the House of Representatives opening an impeachment
inquiry to Merrick Garland that I'm less confident that they
will go forward with than I am about Alejandro Majorcas.
I think the pressure on going after Mayorcus is greater
(05:59):
on fortunately, than the pressure on going after Merrick Garland.
The third thing that I think the House will do
is formally open an impeachment inquiry on Joe Biden. At
this point, the evidence that Joe Biden personally solicited and
received bribes from foreign nationals, whether it is Ukrainian ola garks,
(06:21):
or Russian oligarchs or senior Chinese communist officials, that evidence
is considerable. It's not proven conclusively, but at this point
the weight of the evidence is such that I think
the only responsible thing for the House to do is
open an impeachment inquiry. To do so, we'll take a
full vote on the floor of the House. I think
we'll get that vote, and I think the Speaker of
(06:42):
the House, Kevin McCarthy, wants that inquiry to open up. Now,
I'll tell you one of the real consequences if and
when the House opens an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden.
It is going to increase dramatically the likelihood that we
will get access to this some five four hundred emails
(07:03):
that Joe Biden sent using fake email addresses, using pseudonyms,
and those include emails sent to his son, Hunter Biden,
who is not and was not a federal government employee.
That those include emails that allegedly concern Ukraine, while Hunter
Biden was getting paid millions of dollars from corrupt Ukrainian
oligarchs in order to try to secure favors from his father.
(07:29):
And the reason that opening an impeachment inquiry into Joe
Biden is so important is right now, the House is
seeking access to those five four hundred emails from the
National Archives, and the National Archives is following a statute
called the Presidential Records Act, and so in order to
hand those emails over, the National Archives needs the permission
(07:53):
of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Now I'm going to
quantify right now the precise statistical likelihood that Barack Obama
and Joe Biden will give permission to hand over those emails.
That exact likelihood is zero point zero zero percent. They're
not going to do so. Actually, Biden gets asked twice.
He gets asked both as the former vice president and
(08:15):
as the current president, so he can say no twice. Now,
why does an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden matter? It
matters because, under the terms of the Presidential Records Act,
special access to presidential records is allowed to Congress quote
to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any
(08:37):
committee if such records contain information that is needed for
the conduct of its business that is not otherwise available. So,
in other words, if and when the House formally votes
to open an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, it suddenly
has explicit statutory authorization to get access to all five
(08:59):
thousand and four hundred of those emails from Joe Biden's
fake email addresses. And again, as we've discussed on this
podcast many times, there is no legitimate reason for Joe
Biden to have fake email addresses. There's no legitimate reason
for him to have burner phones, with which he allegedly
also had, And so I think the odds are quite good.
(09:20):
Number one that we see impeachment of Alejandro mayorcis, but
number two that we see the House formally open an
impeachment inquiry into Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
I want to tell you about a friends a Gusta
Precious Medals. You know where interest rates are right now,
they're at a twenty one year high on Holmes, we've
seen what's been happening in the Biden economy. As much
as they say biden Omics is working, you know it's not.
And the question is how do you protect your hard
earned assets? Well, that is exactly why I want you
to know about Augusta Precious Medals. Augusta Precious Metals can
(09:53):
help you protect your heart earned hours within IRA or
a four to oh one K that actually has gold.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Yes, that's exactly what can happen.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
It's shocking if you look at what happened last year
on average iras and four one K balances felled twenty
percent last year according to Fidelity. Now many people didn't
expect that. But here's something that could have helped you
protect your hard earned dollars and that is physical gold
in your IRA. The World Gold Council says even central
banks are buying tons of gold. So what does that
(10:24):
tell you? Well, if you want to know why I
invest in gold and why so many others are and
protecting their assets. Call Augusta Precious Medals. Not only will
they send you their free investors guide on gold, but
they'll do a one on one web conference to answer
all of your questions and tell you if gold isn't
right for you. The number eight seven seven four Gold IRA.
(10:47):
That's eight seven seven, the number four gold IR. Or
visit them online to Gusta Precious Metals dot com. That's
a Gusta Precious Metals dot com eight seven seven the
number four gold IRA or Augusta Precious Metals dot com.
Center Democrats, I do believe, are now starting to worry
(11:08):
about the idea of impeachment. The reason why you can
see it is on the Sunday morning shows. Congressman Conna wrote,
Kona had this to say when he was talking with
one of those guys that hates, obviously, Donald Trump, Jim Acosta,
on CNN about the evidence to go after impeachment.
Speaker 6 (11:27):
Listen, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says Republicans could soon
vote on a formal impeachment query and to President Biden
something obviously the former president has pressed Republicans to do
on truth social What do you make of this is
this a serious threat. We're going to be talking about
impeachment here in the coming months.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
What's going on.
Speaker 7 (11:46):
Unfortunately, I think it is a serious threat from the extremes.
But this is not what the American people want. This
is not what Republicans or Democrats and my constituency are
asking for, and there is no evidence to justify it.
So I think what people want is to solve their issues, childcare,
the fact that the rents cost too much, the fact
(12:07):
that wages haven't kept up with the cost of living.
That's what they want us to do in Congress, and
I think it would be a political mistake for the
speaker to go down that road.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
I mean, you hear that saying there's no evidence justify
by an impeachment. This is actually when I know that
there's a good chance the Democrats are fearful of what
we could find out through impeachment.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Well, one of the things that's striking Jim Acosta is
such a propaganda puppet joke. You notice his question. His
question does not discuss any facts, It doesn't discuss any evidence.
He says, my god, do you think Democrats will dare
do this?
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
My goodness, of rather Republicans, Will they dare come after us? Like,
that's not a journalist? And what does he do? He
lets the Democrat congressman say, well, there's no evidence. Really,
What as a text from Hunter Biden to a senior
communist Chinese official saying I'm sitting next to my father,
pay me millions of dollars or my father will retaliate
(13:10):
against you. You know what that is? That is called evidence.
So the statement there is no evidence is blatantly false.
But if Jim Acosta were a reporter, he would point
that out. What about the evidence of not one, but
two career IRS employees, senior supervisory officials at the IRS,
(13:31):
who came forward, and they're not Republicans, they're probably Democrats
who came forward and said, we've seen obstruction of justice
and lying under oath. This administration is covering up investigation
of Joe Biden's criminality. Is that not evidence? What about
a confidential human source coming forward saying Joe Biden and
Hunter Biden solicited and received five million dollars a peach
(13:52):
a piece from a foreign oligarch. Now none of those
perhaps conclusively prove bribery, but it is absurd to say
they are no evidence on their face their evidence, And
if CNN had even a tiny sentilla of journalistic integrity,
(14:15):
number one, they'd fired Jim Acosta because he's a clown.
But number two, they would actually talk about facts rather
than clutching their pearls and say, how dare anyone inquire
into dear leader Sata?
Speaker 1 (14:27):
This goes perfectly by the way to your point that
you just made. And for many that may not have
seen this. The Washington Post Philip Bomp, who's a raging liberal,
walked out on an interview when he was asked a
tough question and it's supposed to be a journalist asked
a tough question about Joe Biden and the Biden crime family.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Take a listen, may what.
Speaker 8 (14:49):
Do you take from the text message to his adult
daughter hundred techiz, I had to give fifty percent of
my income to pop.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
I have no idea what that means. I don't. I
have no idea what that means.
Speaker 9 (14:58):
It's I know, it's circumstantial evidence, and you prefer that
what what could?
Speaker 4 (15:02):
I have no idea? But doesn't it don't know? Well,
I appreciate your has anybody has anybody asked her? I
don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 8 (15:09):
Don't you think somebody should ask her?
Speaker 4 (15:10):
Okay, like I'm not.
Speaker 9 (15:12):
I just said I don't know, and I don't know
what to make of it, so I have nothing say
about it.
Speaker 4 (15:15):
Yeah, but it doesn't want to say.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Yeah, but you say there's no evident evidence.
Speaker 8 (15:17):
But then there's a text message where he says, I
give pop fifty cent of my money.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
That's that's evidence.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Okay, well, okay, fine, fine, so evidence. I appreciate your
having me on.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
It doesn't that something like that?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Who do you think me more?
Speaker 3 (15:30):
I lived at that.
Speaker 9 (15:31):
I'm saying you can figure. I don't I feel you
want me to leave? Like just walk out in the
middle of this. You can that way you can?
Speaker 8 (15:37):
You can go?
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Is this a standard?
Speaker 5 (15:38):
Really?
Speaker 8 (15:38):
This is the way the Washington Post handles people who disagree.
Speaker 9 (15:42):
With one I agree to be on for forty five minutes,
and then they get on for an hour and fifteen.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Yet that after a while I go go, thanks, man?
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Is't it amazing the timing there?
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Oh? I gotta go, gotta go right now, right can't
answer that question. You're trying to get me to just
look like I'm walking off the set. No, he's trying
to give him to answer a question.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
So, all right, number one, the person questioning him is
a guy named Nome Dwarman, who it's he's on a
podcast and he's not a conservative. H No, Dorman is
actually a liberal. He's the owner of comedy Seller. And
so I'm sure Philip Bump figured, Okay, Philip Bump is
(16:19):
this left wing hack for the Washington Post. I'm sure
he thought, Okay, I'm going to be in a little
love fest. No one's gonna ask me anything hard. And
Philip Bump used his entire job as being the apologist
for the regime. So when when Dwarman asks him about
the text message of Hunter expressing frustration that he has
to give half of what he makes to Pop, notice,
(16:42):
but Bumps, I don't know what it means. I don't
know what it means. And then okay, you don't know
what it means. That's not complicated, it's not subtle, it's
not difficult to figure out. And then he says, it's
circumstantial evidence. Mister Bump, you are using words you do
not know what they mean. What does the word circumstantial means? No, Actually,
it is direct evidence. It is direct evidence. It is
the statement from Hunter saying he gave fifty percent of
(17:04):
his money to Pop. That is direct evidence. Circumstantial is
he has twice as much money one day and then
he goes to see his dad and the next day
he has half as much. That would be circumstantial evidence
that he gave Pop half the money. When he says
I had to give Pop half the money, that is
direct evidence. It may not be true, could be telling
something that is false, but it is not, in fact,
(17:26):
circumstantial evidence. And if you actually listen to more of
that interview. In fact, let me read from the transcript
of this interview. So Bump gets very upset when he's
being pressed, and he says, quote, I just I'm gonna
lose my mind. I'm gonna lose my mind. And Dorman
presses him and asks, quote, is there nothing we can
(17:49):
talk about half the country believes this stuff. Bump comes
back with quote, I know because half the country doesn't
actually dig into the issues. Dwarman then press says, well,
here's your chance to disabuse people they don't read the
Washington Post. And Bump comes back and says, there's just
(18:10):
no point because all you want to do is have me,
here is the putative expert. So you can present me
with things that have been debunked multiple times that I've
written about. Dorman asks a very reasonable question, what's been debunked, Bump,
these claims I've written about this, this argument about his
(18:31):
dad calling him, I've written about this. Did you read
what I wrote? Dorman says, it's not debunked. Neither of
us were there.
Speaker 4 (18:40):
Bump, Well, I've debunked it.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
In the standpoint that I've already addressed this and presented
the counter arguments to it. I want you to pause
for a second and think, in the view of the
Washington Post, debunked means he's addressed it and presented the
counter arguments to it. In other words, if he repeats
(19:03):
the talking points of the Biden regime, it's been debunked.
The fact that there are counter arguments doesn't mean it's debunked.
It means he's simply arguing the other side. And then
Bump goes on, and here's what he says. He says well,
Dowrman says, quote, I have two issues here. One is
(19:26):
Joe Biden's behavior, and one is the issue of the press.
The press actually bothers me more than Joe Biden. Mind you,
this is a Democrat saying this. And here's Bump's response, quote,
because you don't listen to the press. I'm sitting here
and I'm telling you you're wrong about these things, and
you don't listen, and you continue to insist upon things
that are you know, parsing of language. It's just it's
(19:50):
it's this. This is why I keep saying it's silly.
Dowarman says, well, it's a shame because this is a
good conversation, and Bump says, it's not a good comp
because you refuse to listen to what I'm saying to you.
You asked me on to present evidence, I keep telling you.
Dorman then comes back and says, well, what about what
(20:10):
independent journalist Matt Tabee has reported? And Bump says what, no, No,
Tybee has an agenda, And Dorman asked, well, do you
have an agenda? And Bump admits, and listen to this,
listen to his explanation. Bump says, quote, I do have
an agenda. My agenda is to do my best to
try and present accurate information to the public, and I
(20:32):
have an institution behind me to hold me to account
when I don't do that, which I think is an
important consideration. It really is stunning that number one, when
confronted with facts, a supposed journalist doesn't actually address those facts.
When confronted with evidence, he doesn't address the evidence. In fact,
he denies the evidence exists. And he claims that because
(20:56):
he has parroted the talking points of the White House,
even when contradicts or even when contrary to objective facts.
That means claims have been debunked. This is why journalism
is corrupted. You know, it's striking. The Washington Post its
motto is democracy dies in darkness. I gotta say today
(21:16):
the Washington Post that motto has become a mission statement.
It seems like their objective is to kill democracy by
ensuring on darkness in every circumstance.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
One other thing that I do have to laugh about
it when he acts like he has an institution behind him.
That's like, you know, checking on him as he described
it right with like you know, I've held a higher standard.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
This is the same Washington Post.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
To be clear, that still has not at least to
my knowledge, is of a week or two ago when
we were talking about this has still not updated and
in fact checked their own reporting on Russia collusion with
Donald Jerry Trump, which they now know is a lie.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Well, not only that one of the leading Russia Russia
Russia cheerleaders was Philip Bump. He was eager to say
over and over and over again things that now have
been debunked, that are now completely false. He was completely
taken in by the so called p tape that we
know was paid for by the DNC and the Hillary
Clinton campaign and is false. But you know what, the
(22:13):
Washington Post won a pulletzer for their false reporting, and
I have to say, given that that reporting played a
pivotal role in the election results of twenty twenty, you know,
it is admirable how they engage in election interference and
then do not admit when they're wrong. They don't issue
a correction, and then in the case of Philip Bump,
(22:34):
they get angry when anyone points out just how wrong
they were and when anyone actually points to real facts
or real evidence.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Let me tell you about our friends at Chalk.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
If you're a guy and you feel like you've lost
that strength and vitality used to have, the complacency and
weakness have been setting in you want to work out,
but you just can't find the energy. You want to
get off the couch and be active, but you just
can't find the energy. Be more active like you used
to be, but you cannot find that energy. Well, you're
(23:04):
not alone to STOSTRM levels have dropped off a cliff historically.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
And that's where Chalk.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
My friends 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 (23:19):
Now.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
I've been taking the Chalk Male Vitality Stack. You need
to check it out right now at chalkcchoq dot com.
And when you go there you can use my promo
code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five percent off and
that Male Vitality Stack can help you boost your testosterrum
levels up to twenty percent over ninety days, Yes, over
ninety days. They're manufactured right here in the US of A.
(23:42):
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
changing effects on your energy, your focus, and your mood.
So if you're sick and tired of weakness and complacency
winning and you're ready to get back to that strength
and vitality.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Go to chalk cho dot.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Com us a promo code Ben for thirty five percent
off any Chuck subscription for life at choq dot com.
Check out that mail Vitality Stack promo code Ben. Senator,
I also want to deal with COVID. We were talking
about the lies and they seem to be coming back.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
Now.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Why now is now letting everybody know that Joe Biden
is going to start wearing a mask indoors. This after
Joe Biden has come down with COVID. Even though Joe
Biden has tested negative for COVID yesterday and the day
before the day before that.
Speaker 10 (24:33):
President Biden tested negative last night for COVID nineteen and
tested negative again today. He's not experiencing any symptoms. As
far as the steps he's taking, since the President was
with the First Lady yesterday, he will be masking while
indoors and around people in alignment with CDC guidance, and
as as has been the practice in the past, the
(24:56):
President will remove his mask when sufficiently distanced from other
indoors and while outside as well.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Now the funny part is Cenator. This is said from
the podium at the White House. Moments later, the President
is on stage and ceremony, he's not the appropriate distance
of the White House is appropriate from other people.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
And then he takes his mask off.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
That they just said to everybody, who's gonna be wearing
if he's in closed quarters with a lot of different people.
And you add that in with a DC area elementary school,
Montgomery County, Maryland is now reinstating a mass mandate. And
the mass man isn't just for those little masks, No, No,
n ninety five masks for all their third graders. Because
(25:37):
a few kids tested positive for COVID. They send out
a letter telling parents that these, these masks, these in
ninety five masks are going to be mandated in class.
These masks, they say, have been distributed and students and
staff and identified classes and or activities will be required
to mask while in school for at least the next
(25:58):
ten days, except of course, while eating and drinking, and
the mask will become optional, they claim. After the quote
outbreak has dissipated, here it is mask mandates coming back.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
Look, this is utterly absurd. Mask mandates are wrong, and
for the Left, this has become a it's a combination
of a number of things. Number one, it's an article
of faith. Number two, it's a virtue signal. It shows
just how self righteous they think they are. You know,
as I was walking down the halls of the Capitol today,
one very prominent Democrat senator was walking along with his
(26:34):
N ninety five mask and behind him was his staffer
wearing his N ninety five mask. And it shows virtue.
But number three, it's about control. And this is all
about controlling people, whether it's mask mandates, whether it's vaccine mandates,
whether it's having the four hundred and thirty seventh booster.
Enough is enough is enough? This is crap and no,
(26:57):
look I recognize. And by the way, a year for
now we are going to see the most deadly COVID
variant ever seen, the election variant. And before the election,
it's they're going to need to shut everything down because
they want to have mail in balloting for everyone because
they think it helps elect Democrats. Enough is enough is enough.
If you want to wear a damn mask, fine, but
(27:18):
don't be a hypocrite and don't try to force other
people to And all right, listen, So many of the
people who listen to this podcast are conservatives, but some
are not, some are open minded. Someone to hear both sides.
So maybe you think, all right, I'm not going to
trust crews. I'm not going to trust Ferguson on this,
all right. If you don't trust me, listen to CNN
(27:41):
Left Wing CNN confronting doctor Fauci this past weekend about
his false claims about masks. Give a listen.
Speaker 11 (27:50):
There is a perception out there by many how many
I don't know, that they don't work, and that the
data concludes that they didn't work in the first go round.
Respond to that on masks, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Well that's not so.
Speaker 12 (28:04):
I mean, when you're talking about at the population level,
that the data are less strong than knowing that. If
you look on a situation as an individual protecting themselves
or protecting them from spreading it, there's no doubt that
masks work. Different studies give different percentages of advantage of
wearing it, but there's no doubt that the weight of
(28:25):
the studies, and there have been many studies indicate the
benefit of wearing masks.
Speaker 11 (28:32):
I'm going to refer to one of them. You've heard
about it before. I heard about it from a number
of radio callers. Brett Stevens in The Times talked about
Cochrane put that on the screen. The most rigorous and
comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of
masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness including COVID
nineteen was published last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson,
(28:54):
the Oxford epidemiologist who is the lead author, were unambiguous.
There is just no evidence that say masks make any difference,
he told the journalist Mayen Demasi.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
Full stop.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
But wait, hold on, what about the N ninety.
Speaker 11 (29:07):
Five masks as opposed to the lower quality surgical or
cloth masks. Makes no difference, none of it, He said, Well,
what about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose
mask mandates. They were convinced by non randomized studies, flawed
observational studies. How do we get beyond that finding of
that particular review.
Speaker 12 (29:29):
Yeah, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at
an individual level, for individual, when you're talking about the
effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole,
the data are less strong. But when you talk about
as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting
themselves from spreading it to others. There's no doubt that
(29:51):
there are many studies that show that there is an
advantage when you took at the broad population level, like
the Cockman study, the data are less firm with regard
to the effect on the overall pandemic. But we're not
talking about that.
Speaker 4 (30:05):
We're talking about.
Speaker 12 (30:06):
An individual's effect on their own safety. That's a bit
different than the broad population love.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
I mean, you hear him there, and even he's being
questioned Fauci by a guy who's not conservative at CNN,
and it's for ConA. She's like, well, hold on, I'll
read for you what they say. And yet Fauci is
still sitting their center saying, no, no, these things work.
You're somehow still wrong.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
Well, look two things. Number one, Fauci himself knows what
he's saying is wrong. And if you go back to
the beginning of COVID February fifth, twenty twenty, Sylvia Burwell,
who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services for
three years under Barack Obama, emailed Fauci and asks ask
if she should wear a mask. And by the way,
(30:50):
his whole defense was well individually, it makes sense, just
not for society. Here's what Fauci wrote on February fifth,
of twenty twenty. Quote Masks are not are really for
infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people
who are not infected, rather than protecting uninfected people from
acquiring infection. Fauci continues, the typical mask you behind the
(31:11):
drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus,
which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however,
provide some slight benefit to keep out gross droplets if
someone costs or sneezes on you. And he added quote,
I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly
since you are going to a very low risk location.
(31:34):
That's what he said in twenty twenty. Then he decided
that it was politically beneficial to mandate that everyone had
to wear a mask. And yet now look the second
point I'd make, the fact that CNN is turning on
this in the height of the pandemic. The words that
you just played from CNN, they would not utter. There
(31:55):
was no brooking descent from whatever Saint Fauci said. Whatever
the mandate was, masks today, not Mass tomorrow, Mass the
next day, you couldn't disagree. The fact that even CNN
is turning, I think is significant. I think if the
Biden administration tries another round of shutdowns and mask mandates,
(32:15):
I think a lot of the country is going to
say no, and hell no. I'll tell you the state
of Texas has zero interest in shutting down.
Speaker 12 (32:22):
And I.
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Think you're going to see resistance, not just in Texas
but all over the country.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Yeah. I think you're right.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
And the other thing that worries many people is this
the president and this idea that we could go back
into some sort of government shutdown. There was that awkward
interview that he did with Kamala Harris, far away from
the social distancing back in the early days of COVID
in his administration, sitting next to you know, far away
from David Muiror's interviewing them in a weird triangle, and
he said he would have no problem if the scientist
(32:53):
told him to shut down our entire economy.
Speaker 13 (32:56):
I would be prepared to do whatever it takes to
save lives, because we can not get the country moving
until we control the virus. That is the fundamental flaw
of this administration's thinking to begin with. In order to
keep the country running and moving and the economy growing
and people employed.
Speaker 2 (33:15):
You have to fix the virus. You have to deal
with the virus.
Speaker 4 (33:18):
So if the scientists say shut it down.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
I would shut it down.
Speaker 13 (33:22):
I would listen to the scientist.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
I mean, that's apparently still on the table. And if
they bring the mass back where I mean, how far
away are we from having another fall where they start
shutting things down?
Speaker 2 (33:34):
And what should the American people do.
Speaker 3 (33:35):
Look, the Democrats want to shut it down, they want
to impose mandates, and I got to say one of
the biggest lies of that exchange is I would listen
to the scientists. The only scientists that he listens to
are the ones who say what he wants to hear.
You know, the very last podcast we did, we did
a two part episode with an interview with doctor Phil
and one of the interesting things. Look, doctor Phil has
(33:59):
been the number one daytime TV host for a decade,
and he talked about how the data are that the
school shutdowns from COVID cost many, many more lives than
the virus would have cost. In other words, listened to
the scientists. The Democrats aren't listening to the scientists because
if they did, they'd look at the harm from the shutdowns.
(34:20):
They look at the harm for businesses shut down. They'd
look at the harm from churches shutdown. They'd look at
the harm from school shut down, the kids who face
learning loss for the rest of their life. They look
at the mental health numbers that have gone up. They'd
look at the kids who didn't go to school and
didn't have physical wellness checks, didn't have mental health checks,
didn't have daily food because for low income kids, for
(34:42):
many of them, their principal source of food is at school.
They didn't have the counselors who could observe whether kids
are subject to physical abuse or sexual abuse because when
they shut down schools, they sent them at home. And
the data what doctor Phil told us that if you
didn't listen to those two podcasts, you got to go
back and listen to them. But what Phil said on
this podcast was that the data show that many, many
(35:04):
more lives were lost because of the shutdowns. But the
Democrats don't want to listen to the scientists. They have
a political agenda, so they'll cherry pick whatever scientists repeat
the politically favored outcome that support the result they want.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
Anyway I want to ask you want to ask question
about states and what states seem to do to prepare
for this. But first let me tell you about Patriot Mobile.
For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider. And when I say only trust me,
there's only one. The team at Patriot Mobile are incredible
because not only do they support shows just like this,
(35:43):
but they are proud to partner with conservatives. Patriot Mobile
offers you dependable 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.
And when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you're sending a
clear message that you support free speech, religious freedom, the
(36:03):
sanctity of life, the Second Amendment, and our military veterans
and first responder heroes. They have one hundred percent US
base customer service team which makes switching easy. You get
to keep your phone number if you want to, You
get to keep your phone or upgrade, and the team
will help you find the best plan for your needs
and many times I can save you big money. But
when you make calls, you're supporting the values you believe
(36:26):
instead of giving your might to woke corporations. So just
go to patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's patriotmobile dot
com slash verdict. Or call them to make the switch
eight seven eight Patriot. You're gonna get free activation eight
seven eight Patriot when you use the promo code verdict.
(36:46):
Join me and make the switch today Patriot mobile dot
com slash verdict or eight seven eight Patriot use a
promo code verdict center. Last question for you, what do
you think states should be doing? Because Texas has banned
the mass Manneday sins, COVID restrictions are being imposed in
other states. It was a Newsweek headline this as a
ban on COVID nineteen restrictions and imposed a mandate to
(37:07):
wear a face mask in public spaces. When to affect
in Texas after a number of institutions across the US
reinstaid the policy do to a rise in new infections
fueled by the emergence of two.
Speaker 2 (37:19):
New variants of the virus.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Now that's the GISTs of this, but Texas is saying, hey,
we're going to stand up to this type of insanity.
Do other people need to be calling their legislators and
asking for the same thing.
Speaker 3 (37:31):
Look absolutely yes, listen. States need to embrace common sense.
States need to defend liberty. States need to defend individual choice.
If someone wants to wear a mask, knock yourself out.
You can still you know, I flew from Texas to
DC today, there were still a handful of people in
the airport that choose to wear a mask. Okay, if
you want to wear a mask, that's fine. You got
(37:52):
an individual choice. You can wear a ski mask if
you want.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
That's your choice.
Speaker 3 (37:57):
But government shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask.
Airlines shouldn't be forcing people to make wear a mask.
Airport shouldn't be forcing people to wear a mask. Restaurants
shouldn't be at forcing people to wear a mask. Nobody
should be forcing anyone to wear a mask. And even
more so, governors and states need to say not just no,
but hell no to the shutdowns. We will look back
(38:21):
in the future. Years in the future, we will look
back and say, what in the hell did America do?
Shutting much of the country down for a year or more,
many parts of the country, almost all Democrat parts of
the country, shut businesses down, shut churches down, shut schools down.
Many schools tens of millions of kids were out of
(38:42):
school for over a year, and the consequence was cataclysmic.
It is, without exaggeration, the most catastrophic public policy decision
of our lifetimes. And so states need to say we're
not going down that road again. No, we're not going
to do it. Look, you know the school shutdowns were bad.
(39:03):
When Randy Weinngarten, the head of one of the big
teachers unions, is now suddenly claiming I wasn't for school shutdowns,
despite the fact that she fought relentlessly for school shutdowns
and caused Democratic politicians to jump on a string when
she demanded it. Now even she's running away from it,
States need to stand up and say we're not shutting
anything down. Look, if there's another public health crisis, and
(39:26):
at some point there will be, protect people who are vulnerable,
work to provide treatment options, give people advice on how
to keep safe, but respect their individual liberty, and don't
engage in arbitrary shutdowns and mandates. The mandates are wrong.
Say no to the mandates.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
Yeah, great point. The Center is always going to be
back with you after the holiday. Don't forget if you
missed her two part series with doctor Phil makes you
go back and listen to that, and also, as you know,
hit that subscribe auto download button. We do this show Monday,
Wednesday and Fridays, and in between those days make sure
you download my podcast, Ben Ferguson Podcasts. I will keep
(40:04):
you updated on my podcast and those in between days
as well, So download the Ben Ferguson Podcasts as well.
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.