September 8, 2023 • 42 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.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is a verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
with you. And the big breaking news is obviously about
the indictment obsession over Hunter Biden. Now, Senator this one
actually makes me angry. You've talked about this and really
predicted it on this show long time ago that the
(00:22):
whole reason why they were doing that plea agreement on
the gun crime is that insulated the president. And it
was the perfect crime to charge Hunter Biden with in
that sweetheart plea deal because it insulated and you couldn't
connect any dots to the presidency or the Biden crime
family with all the money going in and out of
accounts and the suspicious active reports. Sure enough, the same
(00:46):
guy that gave him the sweetheart deal, who's now the
special prosecutor who's indicting him, is going after the first thing,
the gun crime. I mean, you can't write the script
any more ridiculous than this, and yet here we are
well badly.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
That is correct.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
The Special Council, David Weiss, We've talked about that when
Merrick Garland appointed him. It was illegal under the DOJ rules,
a special council has to be outside the DOJ. But
the reason that I believe that David Weiss was appointed
Special counsel is because he had already demonstrated he would
give a sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. He'd already demonstrated
(01:22):
that he was willing to be complicit in the obstruction
of justice at DOJ to number one, prevent investigation into
the more serious crimes from Hunter Biden, and more importantly,
to block any investigation into the big guy, into Joe Biden,
and that that is the most important objective in the
heavily politicized Biden DOJ. Now, on Wednesday, David Weiss, the
(01:47):
Special Council, filed a pleading in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, stating that he intends
to indict Hunter Biden. But what he intends to indict
Hunter Biden out is a gun crime. Now, at this point,
as we're discussing it, we don't know the details of
exactly what that indictment will hold. But what we know
(02:10):
is the gun crime is a crime that is uniquely
limited to Hunter. There's no connection to Joe. There's no
connection to Joe's corruption, there's no connection to bribery from Joe,
there's no correction, connection to Ukrainian oligarchs paying Hunter for
access to Joe. There's no connection to Ukrainian oligarchs or
(02:30):
Russian oligarchs or Chinese communist officials paying Hunter for specific
official favors from Joe Biden. Instead, the gun crime is
a personal crime, and the talking point of the Democrats,
the talking point of the media is listen, Hunter Boyd
Biden is a troubled soul with substance abuse problems and
(02:56):
and and he's struggling. I got to say, looking at this,
the gun crime is not the reason the public cares
about Hunter Biden. The reason this is a matter of
public concern is the official corruption of the then vice
president of the United States and today the President of
(03:16):
the United States and trying to trumpet look how tough
we are. We're going against Hunter for the gun crime,
especially given that David Weiss already negotiated the sweetheart deal.
And by the way, his initial proposal is Hunter Biden
doesn't plead guilty to anything of significance. His second proposal
was Hunter Biden pleads guilty to criminal offenses, but serves
(03:40):
not a day in jail. So this third iteration, I
don't know maybe it has some mild jail time, but
it is designed consistent with the pattern to protect Joe Biden,
and that is the overarching objective, I believe of the
incredibly politicized Biden DOJ.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
You look at the DOJ and we've also mentioned in
this before, but I want to take a moment to
remind people if you're a lawyer, and put your lawyer
hat on for a second for us and explain this.
If you're sitting in a room and you see all
of the all these crimes that they could investigate, and
you see all the the things that could tie you
(04:17):
to the White House, could tie you to the Presidency,
could tie you to two different whistle blowers, the I
r S, the FBI, everything that's come out, and then
you said, okay, we got to give them something, so
you pick. If you're again, I'm saying this from like
the standpoint of a Hunter Biden lawyer. You know, we
sit in a room and we picked the charges we
want against our guy. Would you have picked this charge
(04:40):
as well? Because it has none of those things that
you're really worried about in it.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Sure, it is uniquely focused on Hunter personally, there's no
arguable connection with Joe Biden. It insulates Joe Biden. So,
for example, there's no indictment. There appears to be no
even meaningful investigation over Hunter Biden's text message on the
(05:07):
on the WhatsApp app to a senior Chinese Communist official,
where he says, 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 that I
would like to resolve this now before it gets out
of hand, and now means tonight. I will make certain
(05:28):
that between the man sitting next to me, in other words,
Joe Biden and every person he knows, and my ability
to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not
following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the
call with my father. Now that is direct evidence of
Hunter Biden shaking down a Chinese Communist official for millions
(05:52):
of dollars and threatening retaliation from Joe Biden, then the
sitting vice president of the United States. If they brought
an indictment for that, that would be a serious legal, political,
and even existential peril for Joe Biden. So, of course,
David Weiss, operating as the political protector in the Biden
(06:14):
doj is not going to bring that. In stead, he's
going to bring a gun crime, which is specific to Hunter.
And remember the question to ask in each of these
instances is are they focused on Hunter or are they
willing to address Joe, which is the real matter of
public concern.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I want to tell you real quick about our friends
and in viro Quins, you should choose an air purifier
like your life depends on it, because it just might.
More than thirty five thousand wildfires have devastated the US
this year. The toxins and particles in wildfire smoke can
penetrate our lungs and threaten our health. And that's why
in viro Quinn's develop military grade air purification for your home,
(06:59):
and they just announced their biggest sale of the year.
You can save a massive thirty percent off during their
Labor Day sale that's been extended. And Viralquins is specifically
designed to wipe out airborne chemicals and viruses known to
cause illness, allergies, and difficulty breathing. Even toxic gases and
(07:20):
particles found in wildfire smoke are no match for enviro clins.
That's why the USA be selected in Viroquins to protect
and purify the air in their facilities, and in Viralquins
comes with a free professional air quality monitor, so you
know your family's breathing purified air. So now is the
time to save thirty percent off your air purification unit.
(07:43):
I have one in my bedroom and it works. I
have ASTHMA. I can tell you it's amazing. Get this
free air quality monitor and fast free shipping. That's a
two hundred and fifty dollars savings alone. Visit ekpure dot com.
That's Ekpurer dot org. Use promo code verdict, that's Ekpure
dot com, Use code verdict, Ekpure dot com centaer. You
(08:08):
mentioned that weiss filed this paperwork, and that's when everybody,
of course lost their mind. Oh, finally, Hunter Biden's going
to get indicted. I rolled my eyes at it. You
basically did as well. What does this say moving forward?
And is there any hope that he might actually charge
Hunter with other crimes or if this is what he's
leading with, is this kind of probably going to be
(08:29):
most of what we're going to get out of.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Him in all likelihood?
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Yes, Look, we've covered it in this podcast. How initially
David Weiss and the Biden Department of Justice wanted to
cut a deal with Hunter. Biden where he doesn't plead
guilty to any serious crimes, where he gets off scot
free on everything. And when there began to be some
attention on this, in particular, what happened when the I R.
(08:55):
S whistleblowers came forward. They realized, oh crap, we can't
be that transparently political. So they reached agreement number two,
the sweetheart agreement, where Hunter would plead guilty to a
couple of misdemeanor charges and the gun charge, which was
the more serious charge, would be placed in deferred adjudication,
(09:17):
and he would serve zero jail time, not get a
felony conviction, and he would have complete exoneration for any
and all conduct. That includes corruption and bribery concerning Barisma
and Ukraine, that includes corruption and bribery concerning Russia, that
includes corruption and bribery concerning Communist China. Those are the
serious charges, and the Biden Department of Justice entered a
(09:39):
sweetheart deal where they said, we'll give you a pass
on everything. Well, what happened is they filed that sweetheart deal.
They expected it to be Rubbert stamped by the judge.
But then the irs whistleblowers went and testified before the
United States Congress, testified before the House. Then one of
the whistleblowers went on national te levision on CBS, and
(10:01):
people looked at this and said, Holy crap, this stuff
is serious. Is this is real corruption, This is corruption
that implicates the President of the United States. And I
think what happened is the Biden DOJ realized this slap
on the wrist, we can't give Hunter a get out
of jail free pass for any and all criminal conduct
(10:23):
in exchange for zero criminal time in jail. And they
still showed up in federal court hoping to push the
plea agreement through. But when the judge asked them, is
there a chance you might still indict Hunter for something else?
They were forced to say yes, not in fact, because
(10:44):
they were investigating Hunter. I don't believe they are investigating Hunter.
I don't believe they want to know what else Hunter did. Instead,
I think they said yes because given the hearings and
the House representatives, given the whistleblowers, they knew that saying no,
we're not even investigating, we don't even care if the
President of the United States is shaking down foreign nationals
(11:04):
for bribes. That was untenable. That was the sweetheart plea
deal that ultimately got thrown out of court. And now
I think the Special counsel is going back and trying
to enter some variant. We'll see the details of it,
and as I said, it may involve some nominal jail time.
But this critical question, and we've discussed this for months
(11:27):
and months and months on this pod. If the prosecution
involves purely personal conduct by Hunter, if it involves drug possession,
if it involves the gun crime, if it involves things
that Hunter did on his own that only implicate a
poor substance abusing an addicted child of the president, then
(11:50):
it is a political smokescreen. Because the reason you've got
the US Department of Justice focused on this is because
this fact pattern seriously implicates official corruption by the President
of the United States, and any prosecution, any indictment that
ignores the evidence of corruption by the President of the
(12:14):
United States, is I believe designed to protect the President
of the United States.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Yeah, don't be bamboozled over this, And that's the main
point here. If they're gonna do it this way, do
not celebrate this. And I promise you that media is
going to try to hoodwink you on this. They're gonna
say they're gonna do big breaking news coverage.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
This is shock.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Oh my gosh, he's been indicted and they're hoping that
will suffice and they can say, see you held accountable.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
That's the that's the game.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Pling And by the way, by the way, remember this
is also designed for parody. See we indicted to Biden.
Now we can indict Trump four times and go after
him and try to ban him from the ballot and
in the presidential elections because we indicted Hunter for a
slap on the wrist for a personal crime.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yeah, and again, be ready for this because it's going
to come and it's going to be absurd the way
they do it, but this is how they're going to
do it. I want to move to something else. Center
that we really led the way on this issue getting
out and then the listeners did an amazing job of sharing.
It was one of the biggest podcasts I think we've
(13:19):
ever done together, and it dealt with the issue of
nine to eleven. You issued a statement afterwards and that
also went viral, and you have a new statement and
update I want you to tell you about tonight. This
goes back to that letter that the DOJ or I
should say, the d sent out to families victims of
(13:40):
nine to eleven, and they were letting them know and
a heads up that we were probably going to do
a plea deal with Khalid Shaik Muhammad and I think
it was three or four other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay,
Khalead shake Mohammad. We went through the history of who
he is the mastermind of nine to eleven but also
killed many other people and many other attacks around the world,
innocent children, women, et cetera. And they were going to
(14:01):
do a deal to spare him the death penalty so
we could get him out of GITMO and then close
down Getmo. That's the ultimate goal for the d D
and the Biden administration. We now have an update because
of the outrage of so many listeners of this show
and others and that story going viral, it looks like
they're not going to get away with it.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
That's exactly right, and I wouldn't take a minute to
thank the listeners a verdict because because I actually think
you guys made a real difference in something that matters
enormously in this country, which is, as we discussed on
this podcast, the Biden administration sent out letters to the
families of the victims who were murdered on September eleventh
(14:45):
and said, hey, we're contemplating a plea deal where Khlead
Shiek Muhammad and other conspirators behind the mass murder on
September eleventh would be spared the death penalty. They'd give
it life in prison. They would be exempted from capital
punishment despite the fact that they committed an active war,
despite the fact that they killed nearly three thousand people,
(15:07):
We'd spare them. And you know, when they sent this letter,
it was initially getting almost no press coverage. No one
was covering it, no one was discussing it. ABC didn't
discuss it at the six o'clock news, NBC didn't discuss it,
CBS didn't discuss at CNN didn't discuss at MSNBC didn't
discuss it. The entire corporate media ignored it. You and
(15:30):
I were so outraged by it that we sat down
to do our pod and we actually had three topics.
This was topic number one. We had two other topics,
and we ended up deciding you know what. The entire
podcast is going to focus on this issue on September eleventh,
on the horrific terrorist attack that came after America, on
what it meant, and on the outrage listen the Biden
(15:53):
administration and we talked about in that podcast. And by
the way, you got to go back and listen to
that podcast. You can go back and find we did
a full podcast on this September eleventh effort of the
Biden administration. To spare the mastermind of September eleventh, but
I believe this is part and parcel of the Biden
Administration's effort to essentially abolish the federal death penalty. And
(16:15):
before Joe Biden leaves the White House, I think he
is going to pardon or commute the sentences of every
single federal death penalty prisoner, including the racist lunatic who
murdered nine African Americans at the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston,
South Carolina, including multiple vicious terrorist and murderers. But as
(16:43):
a result of this podcast, we focused the entire thirty
minutes of the pod on the facts behind it, and
we asked you, We said, if you're outraged, pick up
the phone call your house member, call your senator, call
the White House, and say do not spare this September eleventh, mastermind, Well,
we were about the only people shining a light on this,
(17:05):
and it ended up people got worked up, which is good.
They should have been worked up. We were worked up.
It was wrong, it was outrageous, it was astonishing what
they're doing. Well, I got to say. On Wednesday, the
administration came out and announce that it was not going
to accept the Plea deal. And and here's what prosecutors
said in a filing quote. The administration declined to declines
(17:27):
to accept the terms of the proposed joint policy principles
offered by the accused of the Military Commission's case, United
States versus Mohammed at all. And so I think that
is a real victory verdict listeners ought to feel proud of.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Now.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
To be clear, the Biden administration gave themselves some wiggle
rooms so they may go back and take the deal,
but they at least filed a court pleading saying they're
rejecting the deal. That's a major victory. It was only
the political pressure that came, and that political pressure was
generated in very significant respect by the listeners of this podcast.
(18:06):
But my view is the bastards that attacked America, that
murdered nearly three thousand Americans, they ought to be prosecuted,
They ought to be sentenced to death, and they ought
to be executed because I think it's a matter of
justice that people that committed horrific terrorist attacks on America
they should face the ultimate punishment. But the only way
(18:27):
we'll be sure that happens is if the American people
hold this administration to account and if they're too embarrassed
and ashamed to let these guys off.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
My next question for you is this, is this just
a pause and delay strategy, Senator, and do we have
to keep monitoring them or does this put this to bed,
especially for the victims and the families that were affected
by nine to eleven. They got these these you know,
I would say, horrific letters from the Department of Defense
(19:00):
and saying that they may spare these guys' lives after
these men trained and did all that they did to
kill their family members.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Well, we don't know entirely. What we know is that
the prisoners not only wanted to be spared the death penalty,
but they wanted the Department of Defense to accept a
guarantee that they would not serve their sentences in solitary
confinement and that would allow them to eat and pray
with other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They also wanted a
(19:29):
civilian run program to treat brain disorders, to treat sleep disorders,
and to treat gastro intestinal damage that they say the
CIA caused during investigations. That's the demand the Biden administration
turned down. There is a tiny bit of wiggle room
that they could come back and say, Okay, we're not
(19:51):
going to give you those concessions, but we are going
to take the death penalty off the table. And one
of the key reasons I think, I think there are
two things going on in the Biden administration. One, these
left wing radicals or ideologically opposed the death penalty. They
don't want anyone executed. Ever, they want to essentially repeal
(20:13):
the federal death penalty.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
They don't want to go through the constitutional process of
supporting legislation and Congress trying to get the votes and
repealing it as a matter of law. They just want
to say, we the executive branch are going to refuse
to enforce the death penalty and in fact, are going
to commute or pardon anyone convicted of the most egregious
offenses in the country. I think a second objective, and
(20:38):
again we talked about this at length on the prior
pod on this topic, is they want to close Guantanamo
and listen. When it comes to foreign policy, the Biden
administration is a press release administration. In other words, they
don't follow coherent foreign policy objectives. They don't have a
strategic vision for defending this nation. Instead, they want a
(21:02):
simple press release that lets them trumpet their moral virtue.
So in Afghanistan, you know, you ask yourself, why was
the surrender to the Taliban, the withdrawal from Afghanistan so
utterly incompetent, such a disaster. A big part of the
reason is the Biden White House viewed it as, Hey,
we want to be out of there by September eleventh,
(21:24):
because then we can show how virtuous we are that
we withdrew from the war by September eleventh. The problem
is when the military said, okay, if we leave that early,
we need sufficient troops to maintain Bogram Air Force Base
and also maintain Kabbal Airport, and the Biden White House
said nope, nope, we don't care pull them out abandoned
Bogram Air Force Base. We don't need a secure airfield.
(21:46):
We haven't evacuated anyone. We haven't evacuated Americans, we haven't
evacuated the Afghans who assisted us. But we have a
press release to issue, So ignore the national security imperatives.
Let's issue our press release. I think in the case
of GITMO, their objective is the same. They want to
press release saying we are closing Gittmo. In order to
do that, they've got to remove the most dangerous terrorists
(22:08):
from GITTMO. In order to do that, they have to
send them to prisons in the continental United States. And
in order to do that, they either have to get
a conviction or get a plea deal. And so I
think part of the reason they want the plea deal
is to shut Gitmo because they get a good press
release from it. But I think the listeners of verdicts
and millions of Americans stood up and said no and hell.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
No, yeah, it's especially this close to nine to eleven,
it's so vitally important that we have this victory, and
especially for those family members that are victims. All over
again when they got this letter, and like you said,
thank you to all you that listened for picking up
that phone and standing up and saying no and calling
you elected official, because without you, I don't think this
would have happened. Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile.
(22:54):
For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
That's a decade now.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
You may not have heard of them because they were
a smaller company that have grown over the last decade.
And now it's time for you to make the switch
if you've never done it before. Why Because Patriot Mobile
gets rid of the woke agenda by the big Tech
has Big Mobile has, and they offer you dependable nationwide coverage.
They give you the ability to access all three major networks,
(23:22):
which means you get the same coverage that you've been
accustomed to without funding the left's agenda. Did you know
the Big Mobile actually supports planned parenthood and it has
been for decades. Well, if you don't want your money
going there, then switch to Patriot Mobile. And when you do,
you're not just sitting a message that you support free speech,
religious freedom, the sancty of life, the Second Amendment, and
(23:43):
our military, our veterans and first responders. But your money
that you pay is actually going to help those causes. Yes,
every time you pay your bill at next charged to you,
you're helping those causes. They have one hundred percent US
based customer service team that makes switching easy. You can
keep your same cell phone number you have right now,
keep your phone that you have right now, and you
(24:04):
can upgrade your phone if you want to. When you
make the switch, call Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriot.
That's eight seven eight Patriot. Use the promo code of
Verdict to get free activation. When you use that promo
code Verdict eight seven eight Patriot or patriotmobile dot.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Com slash Verdict.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Senator, I also want to ask you about another issue,
and that deals with the issue of climate. Climate change
has become obviously an election year issue, at least for
the Democrats. You can see it over the last couple
of weeks. They're kind of testing things, they're really pushing
things here. But now we're finding out how academia deceives
people about climate change. And this is something that I
(24:47):
think is not just disingenuous, but it's really disgusting. They
put out a new report that has actually come out
and they say that there's there's a new prediction that
one bill billion deaths will happen from climate change this century,
so you better get on board. Researchers from Canada Australia
(25:08):
have published this new study predicting one billion deaths from
climate change over the next hundred years, citing a scientific
quote consensus.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
The author's analyze.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
They say, one hundred and eighty studies on climate change
immortality covering on a one thousand ton rules. So this
is a new theory which means for every thousand tons
of fossil fuels burn, a person dies. Now this article
is published and it contends that a future person, a
future person is killed every time humanity burns to a
(25:39):
thousand tons of fossil carbon. They say, based on that
calculation that burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will
cause two degrees celsius of global warming are ag W,
which in turn they say will cause roughly a billion
future premature death spread over a period of very roughly
(25:59):
one cent I wish they use this type of logic
when they were talking about unborn children that are killed,
but of course they'll never do that. But this might
be the most ridiculous, fear mongering article, and they say
it's a scientific consensus.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Now, well, look, there is an enormous problem with the
politicization of science, and particularly what it concerns climate change,
the dishonesty of science. I'm going to make a radical
claim right now. I predict with absolute certainty that seven
billion people alive today will die in the next hundred
(26:36):
years of climate change. Now, mind you, there are a
little over seven billion people alive today, and it is
a virtual certainty that all of us will die in
the next one hundred years. And whether there was climate
change or not, that assertion is unquestionably true.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
It just is.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
Utterly disingenuous to claim it's climate change that will cause it.
Let me focus on There was an article that came
out on September fifth from guy named Patrick Brown. Now
Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and he is
the co director of the Climate and Energy Team at
(27:17):
the Breakthrough Institute, and he wrote an article in the
Free Press that I think is really consequential. I want
to just read from you the beginning of the article. Quote,
if you've been reading any news about wildfires this summer
from Canada to Europe to Maui, you will surely get
the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.
(27:39):
Here's the AP quote, climate change keeps making wild fires
and smoke worse. Scientists call it the new abnormal. From
PBS News Hour quote Wildfires driven by climate change are
on the rise. Spain must do more to prepare, experts say,
And from the New York Times, how climate changed turn
(28:01):
lush Hawaii into a tinderbox? And from Bloomberg quote, Maui
fires show climate change's ugly reach. Now here's doctor Brown
continuing from this quote. I am a climate scientist, and
while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over
(28:22):
many parts of the world, it isn't close to the
only factor that deserves our sole focus.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
So why does the.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause?
Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an
academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world's
most prestigious journals. It fits a simple storyline that rewards
the person telling it. The paper I just published, climate
(28:53):
Warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California, focuses
exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior.
I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other
than climate change in my research because it would dilute
(29:13):
the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival
Science want to tell. This matters because it is critically
important for scientists to be published in high profile journals.
In many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success
in academia, and the editors of these journals have made
it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what
(29:37):
they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain
pre approved narratives, even when those narratives come at the
expense of broader knowledge for society. To put it bluntly,
climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of
the world and more about serving as a cast kind
(30:00):
of Cassandra urgently warning the public about the dangers of
climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts
a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public,
and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
(30:24):
This is a stunning indictment of the machinery and apparatus
around quote unquote science today. The journals publish quote unquote
research that echoes the pre approved political orthodoxy they want published,
(30:46):
and if you don't echo that, they don't publish you.
And it is one of the many really corrupt aspects
of how science and climate change reporting and academic work
is really doing a disservice to the American people.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
When you look at not only the fact that this
is how you get the money. And I do think
it's an issue of follow the money as you just
describe it. Certainly it's an indoctrination on college campuses and
among researchers, and the cash flow is if you believe
in this, we will fund you. But when you make
these atletis claims and then you treat them as fact,
there's nothing you can do to debate this with them.
(31:26):
When you look at what they said here, they said
this is a scientific consensus, and the authors say they
analyze one hundred and eighty studies, all of them, I'm
sure were studies that were funded by radical lefties and
global warming activists, right, those that raise money, etc. But
when they come out and say that, you know, we're
going to lose a billion people, you make it sound
(31:49):
that bad. Is there any way to overcome that with
anything else? But this propaganda, and I think that's why
they make these atlantis claims.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Well, it's why we need people, people in colleges and
universities and think tanks, in the academic world and in
the scientific world, to reject politicized science. Let me read
a little more from doctor Brown. Doctor Brown says quote.
So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with
seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate
(32:21):
change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake that influence
is very real. But there are also other factors that
can be just as or more important, such as poor
forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires,
either accidentally or purposely. A startling fact, over eighty percent
(32:47):
of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. I
want to repeat that sentence because the corporate media will
never say it. A startling fact. Over eighty percent of
wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. Now here's
what doctor Brown continues to say. In my paper. We
didn't bother to study the influence of these other obviously
(33:10):
relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make
for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did, But
I also knew that it would detract from the clean
narratives centered on the negative impact of climate change, and
thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster
with Natures editors and reviewers. This type of framing with
(33:32):
the influence of climate change unrealistically considered n isolation is
the norm for high profile research papers. For example, in
another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two
largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to
extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never
(33:56):
mentioned that climate change is not the dominant driver for
either one of these impacts. Heat related deaths have been
declining and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite
climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world
(34:16):
has succeeded in some areas despite climate change, which the
thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions. This
is a narrative of so called scientific inquiry scientific journals
academic journals that have abandoned the mission of science. Science
(34:38):
is about examining evidence following the scientific method, beginning with
the hypothesis, looking to evidence to disprove that hypothesis, and
determining what's happening today. An enormous amount of science is
simply politics covered in scientific garb, and in no places
(35:00):
that more profound than in the world of climate change,
where there are billions of dollars connected to so called
scientists telling the preferred political narrative. Facts be damned.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Yeah, it is no longer about facts, certainly in academya
where it's supposed to be about that. Now it's about
propaganda and indoctrinating people to this while they all find
their private jets to climate change events, which I still
laugh at the hypocrisy of that.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Let me tell you about Chalk real quick.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
If you're a guy and you feel like you're losing
your edge, you feel like you've just got fatigue that
is set in. You want to be more active, but
weakness and complacency win.
Speaker 1 (35:41):
You're not alone.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
There is a massive amount of men right now dealing
with low testos from levels. In fact, they're off a
cliff historically to an all time low. Thankfully, the patriots
at Chalk are here to help real American men take
back their right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boos
using testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days now.
(36:04):
I've been taking the mal Vitality Stack now for months.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
It works.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
And if you want to boost your testostrom levels up
to twenty percent over ninety days and get back your
strength and vitality, you need to go to Chalk choq
dot com manufactured right here in the US of eight.
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
changing effects on your energy, focus, your mood. So stop
(36:30):
sitting on the couch, stop waiting to do active things
in your life. Go to chalk choq dot com and
use the promo code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five
percent off any Chalk subscription for life. That's Chalk choq
dot com. Use promo code Been for thirty five percent
off Senator. Lastly, while we were doing the show, there's
some new audio that's come out and I want you
(36:51):
to get your reaction to it. Bill Maher went on
MSNBC and he said this, calling out the media are
refusing to cover the Hunter Biden Joe Biden Biden crime
family scandal.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
It's shocking to even have a working democracy.
Speaker 4 (37:09):
But it's so funny. I mean, after I was on
Joe Rogan the other day. And yes, I don't understand
how they can equate this equivalency between Trump and Biden.
And in a lot of cases, I guess Joe's now
for Trump, you know pretty much out there saying it.
(37:31):
Do I love everything about Biden? No, But you know,
I just don't understand how they can look at what
Trump did. Now. Does the Hunter Biden scandal stink? It
really does stinks to the high heavens. I mean, that's
real corruption there that a lot of the left wing
media will not cover. But it's nothing like what Trump did.
(37:56):
There's just no equivalency to be you can say what
about for anything? But like I said to him, you
just can't tell unlike things apart if you see that
the same way. But you know, they also shouldn't cover
up what by I mean, if if John Junior sure
(38:16):
had done the things that Hunter Biden did.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
It would be every day. Yeah, I hear you on that.
I got one that.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
Cocaine in the White House. Who couldn't be who does
cocaine around? And we can't figure it out?
Speaker 1 (38:30):
I mean, you hear that. And yeah, he said some
things about Trump.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
But this is Bill Maher calling out MSNBC on MSNBC saying,
you guys won't cover this, and you would be covering
every day if it was anything with the Trump team,
and basically, you guys are full of it and wisses.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
Look.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
I don't personally know Bill Maher. I've never met him,
and he's someone who is a doctrinaire liberal. He is
a man of the left, but he represents in many
ways just how radical the Democrat Party has been. Because,
to Bill Maher's credit, he's remained a consistent doctorate air liberal.
(39:08):
So he actually believes in principles like free speech, he
believes in principles like religious liberty. He's willing to speak
out against the asinine radicalization of the Democrat Party. So
he's spoken out against the extreme transgender ideology. He's pointed
(39:31):
out that that that's saying that suddenly massive percentages of
our children are transgender and should be sterilized and and
and and have medical operations to to try to change
their physical appearance of sexuality. That that is an extreme
(39:51):
and dramatic shift in our society. And what he's saying here, listen,
you and I disagree with his assessment of the relative
mayor of Trump's conduct versus Biden's conduct. But I'm going
to give him credit for acknowledging Biden's conduct because MSNBC
doesn't do that. That's the outlet he was on. CNN
(40:12):
doesn't do that, ABC doesn't do that, NBC doesn't do that,
CBS barely does that. It does that a little bit.
And you know, I will credit him for saying, listen
the evidence. Now, if you're a regular Verdict listener, you
know the evidence. You know the evidence that Joe Biden
personally solicited and received millions of dollars of bribes from
(40:35):
foign oligarchs and enemies of America. That is a big
damn deal. But the fact that Bill Maher I have
multiple times retweeted, pushed out Bill Maher's monologues and excerpts
on his show. At some point, I'll go on a show,
I haven't. We actually invited Bill to be on this podcast,
(40:55):
and he was willing to do it, and we just
couldn't make the scheduling work. So I hope at some
point we have Bill Maher as a guest on this pod,
and we've talked about I'm willing to go on a show,
and we haven't been able to make that scheduling work either,
But I hope at some point I'd like to have
a conversation with him. I've never spoken to the man,
but I respect that as an old school liberal, he's
actually holding the line of an old school liberal and
(41:18):
looking around at the Democrat Party going, you people are crazy,
and looking around at the media going when you don't
cover serious evidence of corruption by the President of the
United States, that undermines the integrity of what you claim
to be, which is journalism. And that's it's yet an
under other indication of just how radicalized the Democrats have become.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
Yeah, it was a nice break there, certainly from the
reality of what you see every day on MSNBC. And
the shock on the face of the of the MSNBC
host when he was saying this was maybe the best
part of all because it was like, I cannot believe
he's saying this. I cannot believe he's saying this. I
absolutely loved it for that reason. If nothing else, don't
forget me do this show three days a week. Make
sure if you're listening on Apple you hit that subscribe
(42:03):
button right now or auto download button if you're living
somewhere else, or or listening somewhere else or the follow button,
and I do a podcast in the in between days,
so if you want to listen to something else, download
the Ben Ferguson podcasts as well, and I'll see you
there on the days when you're not listening to Verdict,
and we'll see you back here in a couple of
(42:23):
days
Welcome.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
It is a verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson
with you. And the big breaking news is obviously about
the indictment obsession over Hunter Biden. Now, Senator this one
actually makes me angry. You've talked about this and really
predicted it on this show long time ago that the
(00:22):
whole reason why they were doing that plea agreement on
the gun crime is that insulated the president. And it
was the perfect crime to charge Hunter Biden with in
that sweetheart plea deal because it insulated and you couldn't
connect any dots to the presidency or the Biden crime
family with all the money going in and out of
accounts and the suspicious active reports. Sure enough, the same
(00:46):
guy that gave him the sweetheart deal, who's now the
special prosecutor who's indicting him, is going after the first thing,
the gun crime. I mean, you can't write the script
any more ridiculous than this, and yet here we are
well badly.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
That is correct.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
The Special Council, David Weiss, We've talked about that when
Merrick Garland appointed him. It was illegal under the DOJ rules,
a special council has to be outside the DOJ. But
the reason that I believe that David Weiss was appointed
Special counsel is because he had already demonstrated he would
give a sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. He'd already demonstrated
(01:22):
that he was willing to be complicit in the obstruction
of justice at DOJ to number one, prevent investigation into
the more serious crimes from Hunter Biden, and more importantly,
to block any investigation into the big guy, into Joe Biden,
and that that is the most important objective in the
heavily politicized Biden DOJ. Now, on Wednesday, David Weiss, the
(01:47):
Special Council, filed a pleading in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, stating that he intends
to indict Hunter Biden. But what he intends to indict
Hunter Biden out is a gun crime. Now, at this point,
as we're discussing it, we don't know the details of
exactly what that indictment will hold. But what we know
(02:10):
is the gun crime is a crime that is uniquely
limited to Hunter. There's no connection to Joe. There's no
connection to Joe's corruption, there's no connection to bribery from Joe,
there's no correction, connection to Ukrainian oligarchs paying Hunter for
access to Joe. There's no connection to Ukrainian oligarchs or
(02:30):
Russian oligarchs or Chinese communist officials paying Hunter for specific
official favors from Joe Biden. Instead, the gun crime is
a personal crime, and the talking point of the Democrats,
the talking point of the media is listen, Hunter Boyd
Biden is a troubled soul with substance abuse problems and
(02:56):
and and he's struggling. I got to say, looking at this,
the gun crime is not the reason the public cares
about Hunter Biden. The reason this is a matter of
public concern is the official corruption of the then vice
president of the United States and today the President of
(03:16):
the United States and trying to trumpet look how tough
we are. We're going against Hunter for the gun crime,
especially given that David Weiss already negotiated the sweetheart deal.
And by the way, his initial proposal is Hunter Biden
doesn't plead guilty to anything of significance. His second proposal
was Hunter Biden pleads guilty to criminal offenses, but serves
(03:40):
not a day in jail. So this third iteration, I
don't know maybe it has some mild jail time, but
it is designed consistent with the pattern to protect Joe Biden,
and that is the overarching objective, I believe of the
incredibly politicized Biden DOJ.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
You look at the DOJ and we've also mentioned in
this before, but I want to take a moment to
remind people if you're a lawyer, and put your lawyer
hat on for a second for us and explain this.
If you're sitting in a room and you see all
of the all these crimes that they could investigate, and
you see all the the things that could tie you
(04:17):
to the White House, could tie you to the Presidency,
could tie you to two different whistle blowers, the I
r S, the FBI, everything that's come out, and then
you said, okay, we got to give them something, so
you pick. If you're again, I'm saying this from like
the standpoint of a Hunter Biden lawyer. You know, we
sit in a room and we picked the charges we
want against our guy. Would you have picked this charge
(04:40):
as well? Because it has none of those things that
you're really worried about in it.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Sure, it is uniquely focused on Hunter personally, there's no
arguable connection with Joe Biden. It insulates Joe Biden. So,
for example, there's no indictment. There appears to be no
even meaningful investigation over Hunter Biden's text message on the
(05:07):
on the WhatsApp app to a senior Chinese Communist official,
where he says, 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 that I
would like to resolve this now before it gets out
of hand, and now means tonight. I will make certain
(05:28):
that between the man sitting next to me, in other words,
Joe Biden and every person he knows, and my ability
to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not
following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the
call with my father. Now that is direct evidence of
Hunter Biden shaking down a Chinese Communist official for millions
(05:52):
of dollars and threatening retaliation from Joe Biden, then the
sitting vice president of the United States. If they brought
an indictment for that, that would be a serious legal, political,
and even existential peril for Joe Biden. So, of course,
David Weiss, operating as the political protector in the Biden
(06:14):
doj is not going to bring that. In stead, he's
going to bring a gun crime, which is specific to Hunter.
And remember the question to ask in each of these
instances is are they focused on Hunter or are they
willing to address Joe, which is the real matter of
public concern.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I want to tell you real quick about our friends
and in viro Quins, you should choose an air purifier
like your life depends on it, because it just might.
More than thirty five thousand wildfires have devastated the US
this year. The toxins and particles in wildfire smoke can
penetrate our lungs and threaten our health. And that's why
in viro Quinn's develop military grade air purification for your home,
(06:59):
and they just announced their biggest sale of the year.
You can save a massive thirty percent off during their
Labor Day sale that's been extended. And Viralquins is specifically
designed to wipe out airborne chemicals and viruses known to
cause illness, allergies, and difficulty breathing. Even toxic gases and
(07:20):
particles found in wildfire smoke are no match for enviro clins.
That's why the USA be selected in Viroquins to protect
and purify the air in their facilities, and in Viralquins
comes with a free professional air quality monitor, so you
know your family's breathing purified air. So now is the
time to save thirty percent off your air purification unit.
(07:43):
I have one in my bedroom and it works. I
have ASTHMA. I can tell you it's amazing. Get this
free air quality monitor and fast free shipping. That's a
two hundred and fifty dollars savings alone. Visit ekpure dot com.
That's Ekpurer dot org. Use promo code verdict, that's Ekpure
dot com, Use code verdict, Ekpure dot com centaer. You
(08:08):
mentioned that weiss filed this paperwork, and that's when everybody,
of course lost their mind. Oh, finally, Hunter Biden's going
to get indicted. I rolled my eyes at it. You
basically did as well. What does this say moving forward?
And is there any hope that he might actually charge
Hunter with other crimes or if this is what he's
leading with, is this kind of probably going to be
(08:29):
most of what we're going to get out of.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Him in all likelihood?
Speaker 3 (08:33):
Yes, Look, we've covered it in this podcast. How initially
David Weiss and the Biden Department of Justice wanted to
cut a deal with Hunter. Biden where he doesn't plead
guilty to any serious crimes, where he gets off scot
free on everything. And when there began to be some
attention on this, in particular, what happened when the I R.
(08:55):
S whistleblowers came forward. They realized, oh crap, we can't
be that transparently political. So they reached agreement number two,
the sweetheart agreement, where Hunter would plead guilty to a
couple of misdemeanor charges and the gun charge, which was
the more serious charge, would be placed in deferred adjudication,
(09:17):
and he would serve zero jail time, not get a
felony conviction, and he would have complete exoneration for any
and all conduct. That includes corruption and bribery concerning Barisma
and Ukraine, that includes corruption and bribery concerning Russia, that
includes corruption and bribery concerning Communist China. Those are the
serious charges, and the Biden Department of Justice entered a
(09:39):
sweetheart deal where they said, we'll give you a pass
on everything. Well, what happened is they filed that sweetheart deal.
They expected it to be Rubbert stamped by the judge.
But then the irs whistleblowers went and testified before the
United States Congress, testified before the House. Then one of
the whistleblowers went on national te levision on CBS, and
(10:01):
people looked at this and said, Holy crap, this stuff
is serious. Is this is real corruption, This is corruption
that implicates the President of the United States. And I
think what happened is the Biden DOJ realized this slap
on the wrist, we can't give Hunter a get out
of jail free pass for any and all criminal conduct
(10:23):
in exchange for zero criminal time in jail. And they
still showed up in federal court hoping to push the
plea agreement through. But when the judge asked them, is
there a chance you might still indict Hunter for something else?
They were forced to say yes, not in fact, because
(10:44):
they were investigating Hunter. I don't believe they are investigating Hunter.
I don't believe they want to know what else Hunter did. Instead,
I think they said yes because given the hearings and
the House representatives, given the whistleblowers, they knew that saying no,
we're not even investigating, we don't even care if the
President of the United States is shaking down foreign nationals
(11:04):
for bribes. That was untenable. That was the sweetheart plea
deal that ultimately got thrown out of court. And now
I think the Special counsel is going back and trying
to enter some variant. We'll see the details of it,
and as I said, it may involve some nominal jail time.
But this critical question, and we've discussed this for months
(11:27):
and months and months on this pod. If the prosecution
involves purely personal conduct by Hunter, if it involves drug possession,
if it involves the gun crime, if it involves things
that Hunter did on his own that only implicate a
poor substance abusing an addicted child of the president, then
(11:50):
it is a political smokescreen. Because the reason you've got
the US Department of Justice focused on this is because
this fact pattern seriously implicates official corruption by the President
of the United States, and any prosecution, any indictment that
ignores the evidence of corruption by the President of the
(12:14):
United States, is I believe designed to protect the President
of the United States.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Yeah, don't be bamboozled over this, And that's the main
point here. If they're gonna do it this way, do
not celebrate this. And I promise you that media is
going to try to hoodwink you on this. They're gonna
say they're gonna do big breaking news coverage.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
This is shock.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Oh my gosh, he's been indicted and they're hoping that
will suffice and they can say, see you held accountable.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
That's the that's the game.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Pling And by the way, by the way, remember this
is also designed for parody. See we indicted to Biden.
Now we can indict Trump four times and go after
him and try to ban him from the ballot and
in the presidential elections because we indicted Hunter for a
slap on the wrist for a personal crime.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yeah, and again, be ready for this because it's going
to come and it's going to be absurd the way
they do it, but this is how they're going to
do it. I want to move to something else. Center
that we really led the way on this issue getting
out and then the listeners did an amazing job of sharing.
It was one of the biggest podcasts I think we've
(13:19):
ever done together, and it dealt with the issue of
nine to eleven. You issued a statement afterwards and that
also went viral, and you have a new statement and
update I want you to tell you about tonight. This
goes back to that letter that the DOJ or I
should say, the d sent out to families victims of
(13:40):
nine to eleven, and they were letting them know and
a heads up that we were probably going to do
a plea deal with Khalid Shaik Muhammad and I think
it was three or four other terrorists at Guantanamo Bay,
Khalead shake Mohammad. We went through the history of who
he is the mastermind of nine to eleven but also
killed many other people and many other attacks around the world,
innocent children, women, et cetera. And they were going to
(14:01):
do a deal to spare him the death penalty so
we could get him out of GITMO and then close
down Getmo. That's the ultimate goal for the d D
and the Biden administration. We now have an update because
of the outrage of so many listeners of this show
and others and that story going viral, it looks like
they're not going to get away with it.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
That's exactly right, and I wouldn't take a minute to
thank the listeners a verdict because because I actually think
you guys made a real difference in something that matters
enormously in this country, which is, as we discussed on
this podcast, the Biden administration sent out letters to the
families of the victims who were murdered on September eleventh
(14:45):
and said, hey, we're contemplating a plea deal where Khlead
Shiek Muhammad and other conspirators behind the mass murder on
September eleventh would be spared the death penalty. They'd give
it life in prison. They would be exempted from capital
punishment despite the fact that they committed an active war,
despite the fact that they killed nearly three thousand people,
(15:07):
We'd spare them. And you know, when they sent this letter,
it was initially getting almost no press coverage. No one
was covering it, no one was discussing it. ABC didn't
discuss it at the six o'clock news, NBC didn't discuss it,
CBS didn't discuss at CNN didn't discuss at MSNBC didn't
discuss it. The entire corporate media ignored it. You and
(15:30):
I were so outraged by it that we sat down
to do our pod and we actually had three topics.
This was topic number one. We had two other topics,
and we ended up deciding you know what. The entire
podcast is going to focus on this issue on September eleventh,
on the horrific terrorist attack that came after America, on
what it meant, and on the outrage listen the Biden
(15:53):
administration and we talked about in that podcast. And by
the way, you got to go back and listen to
that podcast. You can go back and find we did
a full podcast on this September eleventh effort of the
Biden administration. To spare the mastermind of September eleventh, but
I believe this is part and parcel of the Biden
Administration's effort to essentially abolish the federal death penalty. And
(16:15):
before Joe Biden leaves the White House, I think he
is going to pardon or commute the sentences of every
single federal death penalty prisoner, including the racist lunatic who
murdered nine African Americans at the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston,
South Carolina, including multiple vicious terrorist and murderers. But as
(16:43):
a result of this podcast, we focused the entire thirty
minutes of the pod on the facts behind it, and
we asked you, We said, if you're outraged, pick up
the phone call your house member, call your senator, call
the White House, and say do not spare this September eleventh, mastermind, Well,
we were about the only people shining a light on this,
(17:05):
and it ended up people got worked up, which is good.
They should have been worked up. We were worked up.
It was wrong, it was outrageous, it was astonishing what
they're doing. Well, I got to say. On Wednesday, the
administration came out and announce that it was not going
to accept the Plea deal. And and here's what prosecutors
said in a filing quote. The administration declined to declines
(17:27):
to accept the terms of the proposed joint policy principles
offered by the accused of the Military Commission's case, United
States versus Mohammed at all. And so I think that
is a real victory verdict listeners ought to feel proud of.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Now.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
To be clear, the Biden administration gave themselves some wiggle
rooms so they may go back and take the deal,
but they at least filed a court pleading saying they're
rejecting the deal. That's a major victory. It was only
the political pressure that came, and that political pressure was
generated in very significant respect by the listeners of this podcast.
(18:06):
But my view is the bastards that attacked America, that
murdered nearly three thousand Americans, they ought to be prosecuted,
They ought to be sentenced to death, and they ought
to be executed because I think it's a matter of
justice that people that committed horrific terrorist attacks on America
they should face the ultimate punishment. But the only way
(18:27):
we'll be sure that happens is if the American people
hold this administration to account and if they're too embarrassed
and ashamed to let these guys off.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
My next question for you is this, is this just
a pause and delay strategy, Senator, and do we have
to keep monitoring them or does this put this to bed,
especially for the victims and the families that were affected
by nine to eleven. They got these these you know,
I would say, horrific letters from the Department of Defense
(19:00):
and saying that they may spare these guys' lives after
these men trained and did all that they did to
kill their family members.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
Well, we don't know entirely. What we know is that
the prisoners not only wanted to be spared the death penalty,
but they wanted the Department of Defense to accept a
guarantee that they would not serve their sentences in solitary
confinement and that would allow them to eat and pray
with other prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They also wanted a
(19:29):
civilian run program to treat brain disorders, to treat sleep disorders,
and to treat gastro intestinal damage that they say the
CIA caused during investigations. That's the demand the Biden administration
turned down. There is a tiny bit of wiggle room
that they could come back and say, Okay, we're not
(19:51):
going to give you those concessions, but we are going
to take the death penalty off the table. And one
of the key reasons I think, I think there are
two things going on in the Biden administration. One, these
left wing radicals or ideologically opposed the death penalty. They
don't want anyone executed. Ever, they want to essentially repeal
(20:13):
the federal death penalty.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Now.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
They don't want to go through the constitutional process of
supporting legislation and Congress trying to get the votes and
repealing it as a matter of law. They just want
to say, we the executive branch are going to refuse
to enforce the death penalty and in fact, are going
to commute or pardon anyone convicted of the most egregious
offenses in the country. I think a second objective, and
(20:38):
again we talked about this at length on the prior
pod on this topic, is they want to close Guantanamo
and listen. When it comes to foreign policy, the Biden
administration is a press release administration. In other words, they
don't follow coherent foreign policy objectives. They don't have a
strategic vision for defending this nation. Instead, they want a
(21:02):
simple press release that lets them trumpet their moral virtue.
So in Afghanistan, you know, you ask yourself, why was
the surrender to the Taliban, the withdrawal from Afghanistan so
utterly incompetent, such a disaster. A big part of the
reason is the Biden White House viewed it as, Hey,
we want to be out of there by September eleventh,
(21:24):
because then we can show how virtuous we are that
we withdrew from the war by September eleventh. The problem
is when the military said, okay, if we leave that early,
we need sufficient troops to maintain Bogram Air Force Base
and also maintain Kabbal Airport, and the Biden White House
said nope, nope, we don't care pull them out abandoned
Bogram Air Force Base. We don't need a secure airfield.
(21:46):
We haven't evacuated anyone. We haven't evacuated Americans, we haven't
evacuated the Afghans who assisted us. But we have a
press release to issue, So ignore the national security imperatives.
Let's issue our press release. I think in the case
of GITMO, their objective is the same. They want to
press release saying we are closing Gittmo. In order to
do that, they've got to remove the most dangerous terrorists
(22:08):
from GITTMO. In order to do that, they have to
send them to prisons in the continental United States. And
in order to do that, they either have to get
a conviction or get a plea deal. And so I
think part of the reason they want the plea deal
is to shut Gitmo because they get a good press
release from it. But I think the listeners of verdicts
and millions of Americans stood up and said no and hell.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
No, yeah, it's especially this close to nine to eleven,
it's so vitally important that we have this victory, and
especially for those family members that are victims. All over
again when they got this letter, and like you said,
thank you to all you that listened for picking up
that phone and standing up and saying no and calling
you elected official, because without you, I don't think this
would have happened. Let me tell you about Patriot Mobile.
(22:54):
For ten years, Patriot Mobile has been America's only Christian
conservative wireless provider.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
That's a decade now.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
You may not have heard of them because they were
a smaller company that have grown over the last decade.
And now it's time for you to make the switch
if you've never done it before. Why Because Patriot Mobile
gets rid of the woke agenda by the big Tech
has Big Mobile has, and they offer you dependable nationwide coverage.
They give you the ability to access all three major networks,
(23:22):
which means you get the same coverage that you've been
accustomed to without funding the left's agenda. Did you know
the Big Mobile actually supports planned parenthood and it has
been for decades. Well, if you don't want your money
going there, then switch to Patriot Mobile. And when you do,
you're not just sitting a message that you support free speech,
religious freedom, the sancty of life, the Second Amendment, and
(23:43):
our military, our veterans and first responders. But your money
that you pay is actually going to help those causes. Yes,
every time you pay your bill at next charged to you,
you're helping those causes. They have one hundred percent US
based customer service team that makes switching easy. You can
keep your same cell phone number you have right now,
keep your phone that you have right now, and you
(24:04):
can upgrade your phone if you want to. When you
make the switch, call Patriot Mobile eight seven eight Patriot.
That's eight seven eight Patriot. Use the promo code of
Verdict to get free activation. When you use that promo
code Verdict eight seven eight Patriot or patriotmobile dot.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Com slash Verdict.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
Senator, I also want to ask you about another issue,
and that deals with the issue of climate. Climate change
has become obviously an election year issue, at least for
the Democrats. You can see it over the last couple
of weeks. They're kind of testing things, they're really pushing
things here. But now we're finding out how academia deceives
people about climate change. And this is something that I
(24:47):
think is not just disingenuous, but it's really disgusting. They
put out a new report that has actually come out
and they say that there's there's a new prediction that
one bill billion deaths will happen from climate change this century,
so you better get on board. Researchers from Canada Australia
(25:08):
have published this new study predicting one billion deaths from
climate change over the next hundred years, citing a scientific
quote consensus.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
The author's analyze.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
They say, one hundred and eighty studies on climate change
immortality covering on a one thousand ton rules. So this
is a new theory which means for every thousand tons
of fossil fuels burn, a person dies. Now this article
is published and it contends that a future person, a
future person is killed every time humanity burns to a
(25:39):
thousand tons of fossil carbon. They say, based on that
calculation that burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will
cause two degrees celsius of global warming are ag W,
which in turn they say will cause roughly a billion
future premature death spread over a period of very roughly
(25:59):
one cent I wish they use this type of logic
when they were talking about unborn children that are killed,
but of course they'll never do that. But this might
be the most ridiculous, fear mongering article, and they say
it's a scientific consensus.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
Now, well, look, there is an enormous problem with the
politicization of science, and particularly what it concerns climate change,
the dishonesty of science. I'm going to make a radical
claim right now. I predict with absolute certainty that seven
billion people alive today will die in the next hundred
(26:36):
years of climate change. Now, mind you, there are a
little over seven billion people alive today, and it is
a virtual certainty that all of us will die in
the next one hundred years. And whether there was climate
change or not, that assertion is unquestionably true.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
It just is.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
Utterly disingenuous to claim it's climate change that will cause it.
Let me focus on There was an article that came
out on September fifth from guy named Patrick Brown. Now
Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist and he is
the co director of the Climate and Energy Team at
(27:17):
the Breakthrough Institute, and he wrote an article in the
Free Press that I think is really consequential. I want
to just read from you the beginning of the article. Quote,
if you've been reading any news about wildfires this summer
from Canada to Europe to Maui, you will surely get
the impression that they are mostly the result of climate change.
(27:39):
Here's the AP quote, climate change keeps making wild fires
and smoke worse. Scientists call it the new abnormal. From
PBS News Hour quote Wildfires driven by climate change are
on the rise. Spain must do more to prepare, experts say,
And from the New York Times, how climate changed turn
(28:01):
lush Hawaii into a tinderbox? And from Bloomberg quote, Maui
fires show climate change's ugly reach. Now here's doctor Brown
continuing from this quote. I am a climate scientist, and
while climate change is an important factor affecting wildfires over
(28:22):
many parts of the world, it isn't close to the
only factor that deserves our sole focus.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
So why does the.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Press focus so intently on climate change as the root cause?
Perhaps for the same reasons I just did in an
academic paper about wildfires in Nature, one of the world's
most prestigious journals. It fits a simple storyline that rewards
the person telling it. The paper I just published, climate
(28:53):
Warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California, focuses
exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior.
I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other
than climate change in my research because it would dilute
(29:13):
the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival
Science want to tell. This matters because it is critically
important for scientists to be published in high profile journals.
In many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success
in academia, and the editors of these journals have made
it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what
(29:37):
they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain
pre approved narratives, even when those narratives come at the
expense of broader knowledge for society. To put it bluntly,
climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of
the world and more about serving as a cast kind
(30:00):
of Cassandra urgently warning the public about the dangers of
climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts
a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public,
and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
(30:24):
This is a stunning indictment of the machinery and apparatus
around quote unquote science today. The journals publish quote unquote
research that echoes the pre approved political orthodoxy they want published,
(30:46):
and if you don't echo that, they don't publish you.
And it is one of the many really corrupt aspects
of how science and climate change reporting and academic work
is really doing a disservice to the American people.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
When you look at not only the fact that this
is how you get the money. And I do think
it's an issue of follow the money as you just
describe it. Certainly it's an indoctrination on college campuses and
among researchers, and the cash flow is if you believe
in this, we will fund you. But when you make
these atletis claims and then you treat them as fact,
there's nothing you can do to debate this with them.
(31:26):
When you look at what they said here, they said
this is a scientific consensus, and the authors say they
analyze one hundred and eighty studies, all of them, I'm
sure were studies that were funded by radical lefties and
global warming activists, right, those that raise money, etc. But
when they come out and say that, you know, we're
going to lose a billion people, you make it sound
(31:49):
that bad. Is there any way to overcome that with
anything else? But this propaganda, and I think that's why
they make these atlantis claims.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Well, it's why we need people, people in colleges and
universities and think tanks, in the academic world and in
the scientific world, to reject politicized science. Let me read
a little more from doctor Brown. Doctor Brown says quote.
So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with
seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate
(32:21):
change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake that influence
is very real. But there are also other factors that
can be just as or more important, such as poor
forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires,
either accidentally or purposely. A startling fact, over eighty percent
(32:47):
of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. I
want to repeat that sentence because the corporate media will
never say it. A startling fact. Over eighty percent of
wildfires in the US are ignited by humans. Now here's
what doctor Brown continues to say. In my paper. We
didn't bother to study the influence of these other obviously
(33:10):
relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make
for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did, But
I also knew that it would detract from the clean
narratives centered on the negative impact of climate change, and
thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster
with Natures editors and reviewers. This type of framing with
(33:32):
the influence of climate change unrealistically considered n isolation is
the norm for high profile research papers. For example, in
another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two
largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to
extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never
(33:56):
mentioned that climate change is not the dominant driver for
either one of these impacts. Heat related deaths have been
declining and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite
climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world
(34:16):
has succeeded in some areas despite climate change, which the
thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions. This
is a narrative of so called scientific inquiry scientific journals
academic journals that have abandoned the mission of science. Science
(34:38):
is about examining evidence following the scientific method, beginning with
the hypothesis, looking to evidence to disprove that hypothesis, and
determining what's happening today. An enormous amount of science is
simply politics covered in scientific garb, and in no places
(35:00):
that more profound than in the world of climate change,
where there are billions of dollars connected to so called
scientists telling the preferred political narrative. Facts be damned.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Yeah, it is no longer about facts, certainly in academya
where it's supposed to be about that. Now it's about
propaganda and indoctrinating people to this while they all find
their private jets to climate change events, which I still
laugh at the hypocrisy of that.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Let me tell you about Chalk real quick.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
If you're a guy and you feel like you're losing
your edge, you feel like you've just got fatigue that
is set in. You want to be more active, but
weakness and complacency win.
Speaker 1 (35:41):
You're not alone.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
There is a massive amount of men right now dealing
with low testos from levels. In fact, they're off a
cliff historically to an all time low. Thankfully, the patriots
at Chalk are here to help real American men take
back their right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boos
using testostrum levels up to twenty percent over ninety days now.
(36:04):
I've been taking the mal Vitality Stack now for months.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
It works.
Speaker 2 (36:08):
And if you want to boost your testostrom levels up
to twenty percent over ninety days and get back your
strength and vitality, you need to go to Chalk choq
dot com manufactured right here in the US of eight.
Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game
changing effects on your energy, focus, your mood. So stop
(36:30):
sitting on the couch, stop waiting to do active things
in your life. Go to chalk choq dot com and
use the promo code Ben. You're gonna get thirty five
percent off any Chalk subscription for life. That's Chalk choq
dot com. Use promo code Been for thirty five percent
off Senator. Lastly, while we were doing the show, there's
some new audio that's come out and I want you
(36:51):
to get your reaction to it. Bill Maher went on
MSNBC and he said this, calling out the media are
refusing to cover the Hunter Biden Joe Biden Biden crime
family scandal.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
It's shocking to even have a working democracy.
Speaker 4 (37:09):
But it's so funny. I mean, after I was on
Joe Rogan the other day. And yes, I don't understand
how they can equate this equivalency between Trump and Biden.
And in a lot of cases, I guess Joe's now
for Trump, you know pretty much out there saying it.
(37:31):
Do I love everything about Biden? No, But you know,
I just don't understand how they can look at what
Trump did. Now. Does the Hunter Biden scandal stink? It
really does stinks to the high heavens. I mean, that's
real corruption there that a lot of the left wing
media will not cover. But it's nothing like what Trump did.
(37:56):
There's just no equivalency to be you can say what
about for anything? But like I said to him, you
just can't tell unlike things apart if you see that
the same way. But you know, they also shouldn't cover
up what by I mean, if if John Junior sure
(38:16):
had done the things that Hunter Biden did.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
It would be every day. Yeah, I hear you on that.
I got one that.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
Cocaine in the White House. Who couldn't be who does
cocaine around? And we can't figure it out?
Speaker 1 (38:30):
I mean, you hear that. And yeah, he said some
things about Trump.
Speaker 2 (38:33):
But this is Bill Maher calling out MSNBC on MSNBC saying,
you guys won't cover this, and you would be covering
every day if it was anything with the Trump team,
and basically, you guys are full of it and wisses.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
Look.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
I don't personally know Bill Maher. I've never met him,
and he's someone who is a doctrinaire liberal. He is
a man of the left, but he represents in many
ways just how radical the Democrat Party has been. Because,
to Bill Maher's credit, he's remained a consistent doctorate air liberal.
(39:08):
So he actually believes in principles like free speech, he
believes in principles like religious liberty. He's willing to speak
out against the asinine radicalization of the Democrat Party. So
he's spoken out against the extreme transgender ideology. He's pointed
(39:31):
out that that that's saying that suddenly massive percentages of
our children are transgender and should be sterilized and and
and and have medical operations to to try to change
their physical appearance of sexuality. That that is an extreme
(39:51):
and dramatic shift in our society. And what he's saying here, listen,
you and I disagree with his assessment of the relative
mayor of Trump's conduct versus Biden's conduct. But I'm going
to give him credit for acknowledging Biden's conduct because MSNBC
doesn't do that. That's the outlet he was on. CNN
(40:12):
doesn't do that, ABC doesn't do that, NBC doesn't do that,
CBS barely does that. It does that a little bit.
And you know, I will credit him for saying, listen
the evidence. Now, if you're a regular Verdict listener, you
know the evidence. You know the evidence that Joe Biden
personally solicited and received millions of dollars of bribes from
(40:35):
foign oligarchs and enemies of America. That is a big
damn deal. But the fact that Bill Maher I have
multiple times retweeted, pushed out Bill Maher's monologues and excerpts
on his show. At some point, I'll go on a show,
I haven't. We actually invited Bill to be on this podcast,
(40:55):
and he was willing to do it, and we just
couldn't make the scheduling work. So I hope at some
point we have Bill Maher as a guest on this pod,
and we've talked about I'm willing to go on a show,
and we haven't been able to make that scheduling work either,
But I hope at some point I'd like to have
a conversation with him. I've never spoken to the man,
but I respect that as an old school liberal, he's
actually holding the line of an old school liberal and
(41:18):
looking around at the Democrat Party going, you people are crazy,
and looking around at the media going when you don't
cover serious evidence of corruption by the President of the
United States, that undermines the integrity of what you claim
to be, which is journalism. And that's it's yet an
under other indication of just how radicalized the Democrats have become.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
Yeah, it was a nice break there, certainly from the
reality of what you see every day on MSNBC. And
the shock on the face of the of the MSNBC
host when he was saying this was maybe the best
part of all because it was like, I cannot believe
he's saying this. I cannot believe he's saying this. I
absolutely loved it for that reason. If nothing else, don't
forget me do this show three days a week. Make
sure if you're listening on Apple you hit that subscribe
(42:03):
button right now or auto download button if you're living
somewhere else, or or listening somewhere else or the follow button,
and I do a podcast in the in between days,
so if you want to listen to something else, download
the Ben Ferguson podcasts as well, and I'll see you
there on the days when you're not listening to Verdict,
and we'll see you back here in a couple of
(42:23):
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.