Verdict with Ted Cruz - March 17, 2023


Bombshell Evidence： Up to FOUR Biden Family Members Together Getting Over $1 MILLION from Communist China


Episode Stats


Length

42 minutes

Words per minute

159.94223

Word count

6,829

Sentence count

385

Harmful content

Misogyny

3

sentences flagged

Toxicity

5

sentences flagged

Hate speech

5

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Ted Cruz reacts to a new revelation from the House Oversight Committee about the Biden family receiving money from a Chinese company and the number of Biden family members receiving this money has grown substantially since the committee released its initial report on the matter.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:00:02.460 Guaranteed human.
00:00:05.100 Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you.
00:00:09.260 And Senator, the House Oversight Committee revealed that in 2017,
00:00:14.520 China's state energy, HK Limited, sent $3 million to a company controlled by family associate Robert Walker,
00:00:24.080 who in turn distributed funds to members of the Biden family.
00:00:28.400 And we now know that the number of Bidens that are getting money from these transactions has expanded.
00:00:36.200 How shocked are you by this revelation?
00:00:39.900 Well, I'm sorry to say I'm not shocked at all.
00:00:42.260 We keep seeing every day, every week, more and more evidence of Biden family corruption,
00:00:47.980 and in particular, evidence of the Biden family being in business with the Chinese Communist government.
00:00:54.040 If you look at what the House Oversight Committee has released and what the records show, according to that committee,
00:01:01.460 it starts with the fact that on March 1st, 2017, which is less than two months after Biden leaves public office,
00:01:11.320 Robinson Walker LLC, and this fellow Rob Walker is a close associate of Biden,
00:01:16.880 receives a $3 million wire from State Energy HK Limited, which is a Chinese company.
00:01:23.860 Now, what does Robinson Walker LLC do?
00:01:27.280 It then wires $1,065,000 to a company that is associated with James Gillier, who is James Gillier.
00:01:36.440 James Gillier was a business partner of Hunter Biden and was involved in foreign transactions with the Biden family.
00:01:43.960 And what happened after that? After that, Biden family members and their companies began receiving incremental payments over a period of approximately three months.
00:01:54.260 How much were those payments?
00:01:55.940 $1,065,692.
00:02:00.100 So to underscore that, the amount that's transferred to James Gillier is $1,065,000.
00:02:06.540 The amount that then goes to Biden family members is $1,065,000 and an additional $692.
00:02:14.380 I don't know what the $692 is.
00:02:16.240 So that fact is there, that about a third of the money that apparently came from China went to the Biden family.
00:02:22.620 But fact number two, the Oversight Committee mentions, is the number of people receiving this cash has grown.
00:02:29.780 So according to the Oversight Committee, James Biden, which is Joe Biden's brother, received some of the money.
00:02:36.980 Hunter Biden, who we all know, received some of the money.
00:02:40.540 And then a new person of interest, Hallie Biden.
00:02:43.540 Now, Hallie Biden was the widow of Joe Biden's son, Beau Biden.
00:02:49.040 She received some of the money.
00:02:50.400 And then there's a fourth bank account that is identified as an unknown Biden who also received some of the money.
00:03:00.200 And it's not clear from what the House has released.
00:03:02.800 And I don't think they know yet whether this fourth Biden is one of the three already listed, James, Hunter, or Hallie, or whether it's someone else entirely.
00:03:12.960 But what we now know is the number of Bidens receiving cash and cash that appears to be funneled directly from the Chinese communist government has grown substantially in the last 24 hours.
00:03:26.700 The question that I think so many Americans want to know right now is, OK, at what point do we just call this straight up bribery and corruption?
00:03:36.480 And the reason why is there's no indication that James Biden and Hallie Biden did business together.
00:03:45.000 And we're talking about legitimate business or the new person of interest with Hunter Biden and with the president.
00:03:51.320 And at some point you ask, OK, are these people doing legitimate businesses or could they even claim, Senator, that they were doing legitimate business when clearly their resumes are completely different?
00:04:04.840 And you put Hallie in there. And the question becomes, at what point do we just say this is a this is a money laundering scheme, in essence, to give it to all the family members?
00:04:16.240 Well, it certainly looks like it on the face.
00:04:18.980 I'm not aware of any facts justifying work that that Hallie Biden might have done for the Chinese communist government or for this Chinese company.
00:04:27.960 You know, you know, Hunter Biden led the effort to to try to get this money from China and he received the lion's share of it.
00:04:37.080 His experience with China seems quite limited, other than the fact that daddy was vice president and China, I believe, thought it was profitable to send money to to the Biden family,
00:04:49.760 including, as Hunter Biden's laptop famously says, 10 percent for the big guy, that obviously being Joe Biden.
00:04:58.540 And we now have multiple witnesses who have testified that the big guy was was Joe Biden.
00:05:04.820 Look, this is similar, but but to an even greater degree, the inference that was raised by Hunter Biden's working for Burisma and getting over a million dollars for Burisma.
00:05:17.700 Burisma is the Ukrainian natural gas company.
00:05:21.080 Hunter Biden does not speak Ukrainian to the best of my knowledge.
00:05:24.200 There's no evidence that he does. 0.71
00:05:25.820 Hunter Biden did not know a damn thing about oil and gas.
00:05:29.140 And so it raised an obvious question.
00:05:31.500 Why would a Ukrainian company pay someone who knew nothing about what they did over a million bucks?
00:05:36.760 Generally, companies don't do that.
00:05:38.320 If you pay someone a million bucks, you think you're getting something for it.
00:05:41.980 That raises the inference at the payment.
00:05:44.260 The only thing Hunter Biden added to the equation was daddy.
00:05:51.480 That now is made even more likely by the escalating number of Biden family members who, for the Chinese Communist government,
00:06:00.740 presumably were doing even less than Hunter Biden was doing for Burisma.
00:06:05.580 All of which gets back to something we've discussed on this podcast before, which is the Department of Justice has appointed a special counsel that is investigating, number one, the classified documents that Joe Biden had littered around seemingly every home he owns.
00:06:23.740 And we've talked about in this podcast before that special counsel's investigation and also the DOJ's investigation into Hunter Biden that they have leaked vigorously to the press.
00:06:36.460 Both of those, we will know whether DOJ is shilling for the White House by answering one question.
00:06:45.860 Do those investigations examine directly corruption by Joe Biden, the big guy, the president?
00:06:54.080 Or do they do everything they can to shield off the big guy and stay focused on potential crimes committed only by downriver Biden family members?
00:07:07.860 If DOJ turns a blind eye to the big guy, that means the Biden Department of Justice is an active participant in the cover up.
00:07:16.200 And we're going to know that sooner rather than later.
00:07:19.220 There's another aspect of this, and that is it's not even clear with this wire transfer, with this three million dollars and over a million go in the Biden family, what goods or services.
00:07:31.540 And I say this, everybody listen to this, if any, were provided in exchange for these payments.
00:07:39.820 Before we go through that, I want to tell people about Patriot Mobile real quick.
00:07:42.820 Patriot Mobile is the only Christian conservative cell phone company in the U.S.
00:07:47.420 And if you're sick and tired of woke companies that you pay money to every month and then they actually go against your values, you've got an option now in the cell phone industry.
00:07:57.680 You can actually switch to Patriot Mobile, and it's easy.
00:08:00.520 You can keep your same cell phone number.
00:08:02.480 You can keep your same cell phone or switch to a new phone.
00:08:05.260 Maybe you want to upgrade.
00:08:06.160 You can do that.
00:08:07.260 The other great thing about Patriot Mobile is when you pay your bill.
00:08:10.180 Every month they take a portion of that bill and they give it back to conservative causes and organizations that actually stand for what we believe in.
00:08:20.480 We're talking about First and Second Amendment right organizations standing up for the rights of unborn children and even helping people with adoptions.
00:08:27.520 If you're ready to have a company stand with you and what you believe in, you're going to have a cell phone anyway.
00:08:33.580 You might as well support what you believe in when you pay your bill.
00:08:36.680 Call them.
00:08:37.420 878-PATRIOT.
00:08:38.740 That's 878-PATRIOT.
00:08:41.540 878-PATRIOT.
00:08:42.940 Use the promo code VERDICT.
00:08:44.160 You'll get the best deals of the day.
00:08:46.260 PatriotMobile.com slash VERDICT.
00:08:48.100 Now, Senator, when this hit, it obviously spooked Hunter Biden's team because they usually don't put out much.
00:08:54.000 And Hunter Biden's legal team issued a statement claiming that he had engaged in a, quote,
00:08:58.980 legitimate private business venture with a Chinese company.
00:09:02.060 As part of that joint venture, Hunter received his portion of Good Faith Seed funds, which he shared with his uncle James and Hallie Biden,
00:09:14.620 with whom he was involved with at a time and sharing expenses, quote, unquote.
00:09:22.520 They're not even saying what the company would have done.
00:09:26.300 You would assume, and again, you're a lawyer.
00:09:29.940 You would know this.
00:09:31.500 This is a statement that I think opens them up to even more problems because they can't tell you what they actually did.
00:09:37.720 Well, I think that's right.
00:09:39.000 And you would think that they would want to put their best story forward.
00:09:41.980 They would want to explain something.
00:09:43.500 And look, I just asked folks to ask yourself at home.
00:09:47.300 Have you ever had anyone pay you a million bucks?
00:09:51.200 And if so, and there's some people who have, did you have to do something for it?
00:09:55.960 I mean, in your experience, do people usually get paid a million bucks for doing nothing?
00:10:02.060 Now, let me ask a second question.
00:10:04.460 When was the last time you got paid a million bucks from the Chinese communist government or a company owned and controlled by the Chinese communist government?
00:10:12.880 Does that raise a different set of questions?
00:10:16.280 And on top of that, if you happen to be, maybe we've got a podcast lister who has received a million bucks from the Chinese communist government, although I doubt it.
00:10:25.260 But if they have, it's worth asking, was your father at the time or had he recently been the vice president of the United States and making public policy decisions directly impacting China?
00:10:36.080 At some point, if the Chinese communist government is essentially dropping off paper bags filled with rolls of fresh hundred dollar bills to every Biden family member they can find, if that doesn't start to look like bribery, I don't know what does.
00:10:57.100 But I am glad that the House Oversight Committee is examining this.
00:11:01.380 I'm glad they're putting out the facts.
00:11:02.920 I assume the corporate media will utterly ignore it because the corporate media no longer engages in journalism.
00:11:08.980 They no longer report on facts.
00:11:10.520 If you want to learn facts, you have to listen to sources like this podcast that just lays out the facts.
00:11:16.380 You can also watch Fox News or Newsmax to get some of these facts.
00:11:20.160 But I'm going to hold my breath for CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC to cover these facts because it's inconvenient to their political narrative.
00:11:31.240 You know, I pulled this clip up, Senator, because as you were speaking, it made me remember something that Joe Biden said in an Axios on HBO interview back in 2019 when he was asked a question about Hunter Biden.
00:11:47.060 This goes back to Burisma. 0.75
00:11:48.560 This goes back to him on the board.
00:11:49.940 And the president said this.
00:11:52.260 We now know that his statement here is not accurate and or correct.
00:11:57.500 Another way of putting is he lied.
00:11:59.320 Listen, I don't know what he was doing.
00:12:01.920 I know he was on the board.
00:12:03.220 I found out he was on the board after he was on the board and that was it.
00:12:07.240 And there's nobody.
00:12:08.100 Well, you had a lot of time.
00:12:09.260 Isn't this something you want to get to the bottom of?
00:12:11.080 No, because I trust my son.
00:12:12.920 I trust my son, Senator.
00:12:14.360 That's his statement.
00:12:15.240 He said he didn't even know that he was on the board of Burisma until after he was on the board of Burisma.
00:12:19.980 We know from the emails, the laptop, that's not true.
00:12:22.860 And he basically says, I trust my son.
00:12:24.800 So everybody else in America should trust us as well.
00:12:27.300 Well, now with the Biden family money expanding to these other people with the last name Biden, how does the president still stand by that statement?
00:12:34.980 And how damning could that be if we look at the actual issue of impeachment?
00:12:39.380 Look, it could be very damning, and I want to be clear.
00:12:43.760 There's more than one way that the Chinese communist government or Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company, can funnel cash to Joe Biden.
00:12:53.620 One way to funnel cash is with cash going directly to the big guy, directly to Biden.
00:12:59.280 But another way is just sending cash to various family members.
00:13:02.520 You know, imagine for a second, you know, you've got little kids, but imagine you had an adult son who had serious substance abuse problems, who had been a serious financial drain on your bank account because you were supporting him.
00:13:16.360 You were having to provide for him.
00:13:17.620 He was a troubled son.
00:13:18.560 And suddenly a foreign government begins sending him millions of dollars and taking the burden off you.
00:13:25.100 Even if you never deposit a penny in your own bank account, removing a burden that you previously had of providing for your troubled son, that is money is fungible.
00:13:36.340 That is, in effect, giving money directly to Joe Biden, and it certainly would have been received as that.
00:13:43.560 And I'll say that was a point that was made to me by someone who was a former, very senior official in Washington who had served in very senior positions in previous White Houses.
00:13:55.740 And I think it's a point that is exactly true. 0.63
00:13:59.180 Canadian women are looking for more, more out of themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world around them. 0.98
00:14:05.440 And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast.
00:14:09.160 I'm Jennifer Stewart.
00:14:10.300 And I'm Catherine Clark.
00:14:11.320 And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women, entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey.
00:14:21.100 So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us.
00:14:24.340 Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on iHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
00:14:30.280 One of the things we know about China, and we know this from our own, you know, internal reporting from the deep state when they've talked about this,
00:14:38.980 China has a clear desire to compromise and to have influence over American policy.
00:14:46.340 We've seen this at the universities.
00:14:47.800 That's been, that's come up with the Biden Center, for example.
00:14:51.180 We've seen this with the money that they've given the Clinton Foundation, others, but they want influence.
00:14:55.660 And China having this desire to have influence, you couldn't have hit a bigger grand slam than this amount of influence over the most prominent family in American politics right now in real time.
00:15:08.540 And that is the other thing.
00:15:10.740 If Joe Biden is compromised, can you impeach somebody, Senator, going backwards?
00:15:17.580 And I'm sure the Democrats say, well, this stuff happened when he left the vice presidency.
00:15:21.360 The payments came in after he left.
00:15:24.540 So there's there's there's you can't go back and look at what he did in the past.
00:15:28.400 But if it is influencing his what he's doing now and what he's saying now, and he's still doing favors for these countries now, is that an impeachable offense?
00:15:39.340 Well, I think that is an open question.
00:15:41.320 But the Constitution itself is silent on it.
00:15:43.760 Here's what the Constitution says.
00:15:45.020 Article two, section four of the Constitution reads as follows, quote, the president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for.
00:15:57.360 And conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
00:16:05.040 Now, notably in that constitutional text, there's no provision that that is treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors that must have been committed while in federal office.
00:16:16.560 And ultimately, the interpretation of of whether the crimes had to be while in federal office would be an interpretation that would fall to the House and Senate.
00:16:26.120 Now, the way impeachment works, it's the House of Representatives that brings impeachment.
00:16:30.420 Impeachment is not removing a president from office.
00:16:33.720 Impeachment is this effectively the same thing as an indictment.
00:16:38.140 An indictment is when a grand jury returns an indictment.
00:16:40.720 It is bringing charges against you.
00:16:43.280 So if a majority of the House votes to impeach the president, then the president is impeached.
00:16:48.840 We've seen in modern times Bill Clinton be impeached and we've seen Donald Trump be impeached twice.
00:16:55.040 Both of them were impeached because a majority of the House voted to impeach them.
00:16:59.140 When that happens, it then goes to the Senate and the Senate conducts a trial for the president of the United States.
00:17:05.200 The trial is presided over by the chief justice of the United States.
00:17:09.240 And in order to convict, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict.
00:17:14.940 And with the case of Bill Clinton and in both instances Donald Trump, of course, there were not the two-thirds to convict.
00:17:20.840 It is only upon conviction that a president can be removed from office.
00:17:24.700 Now, the interpretation of what the scope of the impeachment clause is, is left to the House and Senate.
00:17:32.460 The House in determining whether to impeach.
00:17:34.640 The Senate in determining whether to convict.
00:17:36.980 In the most recent presidential impeachments, it's been a major issue of contention whether the particular misconduct at issue qualified as high crimes or misdemeanors.
00:17:48.920 This podcast launched on the very first day of the first Trump impeachment, that night.
00:17:55.100 And we've discussed at great length the meaning of the phrase high crimes or misdemeanors.
00:18:00.000 We did not discuss the question of whether the conduct could precede the time as president.
00:18:05.380 But I can tell you it's come up a couple of times.
00:18:08.940 So, number one, John C. Calhoun.
00:18:10.820 So, John C. Calhoun was vice president in 1826.
00:18:14.760 And at the time, John C. Calhoun requested that the House conduct an impeachment inquiry regarding allegations that he had profited from a contract during his tenure as United States Secretary of War.
00:18:29.280 So, it was for conduct that preceded his service as vice president.
00:18:33.560 But he asked, and his request was granted, a House select committee conducted an impeachment inquiry and after several weeks found that Calhoun was innocent of wrongdoing.
00:18:46.200 And so, you might argue, and I suspect if an impeachment were proceeding, people would use the Calhoun case to argue on both sides.
00:18:54.420 Some might say, well, the fact that he was not impeached shows that perhaps you can't impeach for conduct prior to being in office.
00:19:03.280 Others might argue, well, no, that just showed that he was innocent of the conduct.
00:19:06.560 A second example is in 1973, Spiro Agnew.
00:19:13.720 So, Spiro Agnew was Richard Nixon's vice president.
00:19:17.680 And on September 26, 1973, Spiro Agnew asked the House again to launch an impeachment inquiry into him.
00:19:28.720 And that request was denied by the Speaker of the House, Carl Albert.
00:19:33.640 Now, at the time, the reason Agnew wanted the impeachment inquiry was there were charges that he had received bribes from construction companies during his time as a Baltimore County executive and his time as governor of Maryland.
00:19:50.700 And actually, Andrew cited the John C. Calhoun precedent as a basis for the impeachment inquiry, and he hoped that the impeachment inquiry would serve as an alternative to the grand jury investigation that was ongoing.
00:20:07.200 What ultimately happened was the grand jury investigation moved forward, and on October 10, 1973, as part of a plea bargain relating to charges of tax evasion, Vice President Agnew resigned.
00:20:24.140 So there, now I will say some of the allegations of corruption concerning Agnew also extended to his time as vice president.
00:20:31.840 So, again, I would expect the House and Senate to argue that precedent on both sides.
00:20:37.560 But the short answer is the House of Representatives is given the authority under the Constitution to impeach under whatever circumstances the House determines meets the standards of high crimes or misdemeanors.
00:20:51.640 And nothing in the Constitution, the text of it, limits it to only crimes committed while in federal office.
00:20:58.160 Last question on this, and so many people have thrown around this word, and I want to be cautious when talking about it,
00:21:03.940 but I think you can explain what it actually means and what it's supposed to mean is the word treason.
00:21:11.040 If a president, any president, is acting on behalf of another nation.
00:21:16.600 Before I get your thoughts on that, though, I want to tell you about chalk.
00:21:19.240 If you're a real American man and you want to maximize your masculinity by boosting testosterone levels up to 20% over 90 days,
00:21:28.820 you can actually do it with the chalk male vitality stack.
00:21:32.760 Now, if you're a guy and you just feel like you've lost a little bit of that edge,
00:21:36.240 you're getting a little bit older and you don't feel like yourself anymore,
00:21:39.200 you can fight back against that war on masculinity and you can do it with chalk.
00:21:44.540 Chalk, C-H-O-Q, they are here to help real men just like you and I maximize our testosterone levels 0.94
00:21:51.460 by boosting them up to 20% over 90 days.
00:21:54.520 If you are ready to get that feeling back, then you need to check out chalk.
00:21:59.260 Go online to choq.com.
00:22:02.160 Use the promo code BEN for 35% off any chalk subscription for life.
00:22:07.320 Plus, you can cancel any time.
00:22:08.920 C-H-O-Q dot com promo code BEN for 35% off.
00:22:14.700 Now, because they have been bribed because of these business deals,
00:22:20.000 is that a treasonous offense?
00:22:22.360 Because we see that as a word now that I think is overused way too much.
00:22:26.460 But would that be, would that fall under that category?
00:22:30.760 Well, that question is interesting.
00:22:34.100 Uh, treason is actually the only crime that is defined not just by statute,
00:22:40.060 but in the text of the Constitution.
00:22:42.900 Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution provides, quote,
00:22:47.020 Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them
00:22:54.100 or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
00:23:00.060 No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act
00:23:08.280 or on confession in open court.
00:23:11.820 And so, it's the only crime the Constitution specifically defines.
00:23:18.360 Levying war against them, let's take the first part of that. 0.96
00:23:21.560 I think it would be very difficult to argue that Joe Biden has levied war against the United States.
00:23:27.580 I think that part clearly would not apply.
00:23:30.060 Um, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
00:23:36.120 Uh, one could make that argument.
00:23:38.400 I think it would be a high standard.
00:23:40.880 Uh, the long and short of it is, as a, as a criminal matter,
00:23:44.980 I think you would be far more likely to get a conviction for bribery, uh, or official corruption
00:23:53.080 than for treason.
00:23:54.220 The standard for treason, uh, is, is really, really high.
00:23:59.720 But you don't have to prove treason for impeachment.
00:24:03.140 Uh, and bribery is another ground explicitly laid out in the Constitution for impeachment.
00:24:11.180 So, so I would say the, the more relevant inquiry here is, is, is simply the inquiry.
00:24:16.760 Was Joe Biden corruptly, uh, benefiting, in effect, being bribed by the Chinese Communist government?
00:24:25.480 And these facts, as you have more and more Biden family members getting paid substantial sums of money,
00:24:31.520 uh, it, it, it raises the inference more and more strongly.
00:24:36.780 Final question on this, because it is such a, a, an important topic when it comes to law, uh, and, and not overstepping.
00:24:45.040 We've also had a lot of people say impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, and we've seen that
00:24:49.220 and abused with, when, when Donald Trump was the president.
00:24:52.840 With that being said, is there enough here, do you believe, for the House with a good conscience
00:24:59.500 to say, we need to go through impeachment?
00:25:02.640 Or do you think they still need to wait and see more intel and more information come out
00:25:08.420 of these suspicious activity reports, et cetera?
00:25:10.820 Well, I, I think they need more evidence to successfully impeach the president.
00:25:16.420 I'm glad the oversight committee is engaging in this investigation.
00:25:19.820 I have every confidence they will continue engaging in this investigation.
00:25:23.780 Look, one thing to remember, there's only a four vote majority in the House.
00:25:29.000 Unfortunately, the chances that Democrats would vote to impeach President Biden are, are very close to zero.
00:25:35.920 They've demonstrated that they will be hard partisans.
00:25:38.820 And, and holding the entirety of the House, I believe the first place impeachment should start
00:25:44.720 is impeaching Alejandro Mayorkas, uh, for the Secretary of Homeland Security, for his utter dereliction
00:25:51.520 of duty, for his, his refusing to follow the law, for his allowing into the country 5.5 million 0.99
00:25:59.360 illegal immigrants.
00:26:00.460 I think that should be the first impeachment.
00:26:02.660 I will point out, it's not even clear the House can get a majority to impeach him.
00:26:07.380 There, there are Republicans in the House who are publicly saying they would be hesitant to do that.
00:26:13.160 And so that should be the first starting point.
00:26:15.280 I think the second starting point should be impeaching Merrick Garland, the attorney general.
00:26:20.040 We've talked at great length about how Garland has been the most political attorney general in our
00:26:25.260 nation's history.
00:26:26.040 And in fact, if we see DOJ refusing to investigate, uh, the mounting evidence of official corruption,
00:26:33.380 uh, against the White House, that becomes yet another grounds for impeachment of Garland.
00:26:39.740 Uh, if the evidence continues to build, I think the House should very seriously consider impeachment
00:26:45.580 of the president.
00:26:46.320 But I think they need to build more evidence before going forward because they're not going
00:26:50.660 to get the votes.
00:26:51.340 If they went forward today, uh, I don't think they would get the votes.
00:26:55.380 If the evidence continues to be laid out, uh, at some point in the future, they might
00:26:59.500 well.
00:27:00.400 I want to give people an update on another story that we talked about and really broke news
00:27:04.720 on here with, on verdict.
00:27:06.080 And that is, uh, you have now moved forward and we played that audio earlier of the judge,
00:27:12.660 a federal judge that went to go speak, uh, at Stanford and was ridiculed and heckled and mocked.
00:27:19.000 Uh, and it was pretty disgusting.
00:27:21.100 You've now asked Stanford to punish the students who heckled that federal judge.
00:27:26.440 And you've also now called for the Texas Bar Association to do something as well.
00:27:30.840 Give everybody an update on that.
00:27:32.800 Well, sure.
00:27:33.700 Two follow-ups.
00:27:34.620 Uh, I've sent a letter to Stanford Law School, uh, asking what steps they intend to take.
00:27:40.120 Stanford, the president of Stanford, the dean of the law school, have publicly apologized.
00:27:44.760 So federal court of appeals judge Kyle Duncan was invited to speak at Stanford Law School
00:27:50.280 by the Federalist Society.
00:27:51.460 He came to speak and a group of left-wing activists, Stanford law students, uh, began
00:27:57.120 heckling him, began screaming at him, began cursing at him, began yelling obscene insults
00:28:02.340 and expletives at him and, and shut down his speech.
00:28:05.260 And, and, uh, the dean of DEI at Stanford Law School came and instead of enforcing Stanford's
00:28:12.180 free speech policy, she stood up and gave a six-minute condescending lecture to the judge, 1.00
00:28:18.760 essentially siding with the protesters and attacking the judge.
00:28:23.460 And Stanford has already admitted in its written apology that she, she was not implementing their
00:28:30.020 free speech policy.
00:28:30.940 She was violating that policy.
00:28:32.460 So I've written to Stanford saying, well, if you mean to protect free speech, then the
00:28:38.020 question is, what are the consequences?
00:28:39.740 How will you enforce it?
00:28:40.940 And I've asked Stanford two things.
00:28:42.980 Number one, um, what will the disciplinary consequences be for the students who engaged
00:28:49.920 in this conduct?
00:28:50.720 And mind you, this is all videotaped.
00:28:52.780 So you don't need to be, uh, a, a Sherlock Holmes to figure out who they were.
00:28:57.580 It's all on videotape.
00:28:58.680 They know who the students are.
00:29:00.360 Uh, and number two, uh, I've called on Stanford to fire this dean, this dean to have the school
00:29:07.700 official side with the violent, not violent, the, the angry, profane protesters, uh, who
00:29:16.680 were shouting down a central, sitting federal court of appeals judge in violation of, of
00:29:22.180 Stanford law school policy, I think is and should be a firing offense.
00:29:27.020 And, and, and if, if she gets off with a slap on the wrist, you can be sure this will happen
00:29:32.660 again.
00:29:33.060 This will not be the last time that left-wing activists feel free to shut down events, uh,
00:29:40.240 that, that look, there were other students there who wanted to hear what the judge had
00:29:44.180 to say.
00:29:44.640 Uh, and Stanford has yet to respond to my letter.
00:29:48.400 I expect that they will.
00:29:50.240 Uh, but I can tell you the dean of the law school has already had a bunch of left-wing
00:29:56.080 protesters show up outside of her class, uh, dressed in black, uh, dressed like Antifa 1.00
00:30:02.920 protesters, uh, protesting her.
00:30:06.180 Now they did not shout her down and silence her.
00:30:08.680 So they have a right to do that.
00:30:10.840 Uh, but they are already, I think, trying to intimidate the dean because she dared apologize
00:30:16.480 for what happened.
00:30:18.480 And in my view, if, if students believe they could engage in this conduct without consequence,
00:30:26.200 we will see more of it.
00:30:27.760 Now, I sent a second letter to the state bar of Texas and the letter that I sent to the state
00:30:34.480 bar of Texas asks the state bar to investigate, to take any students who are graduating from
00:30:43.440 Stanford law school in the years, 2023, 2024, 2025, and ask the students graduating in those
00:30:52.180 years to answer in writing a very simple question.
00:30:55.980 Did they participate in the shameful harassment of judge Duncan on March 9, 2023?
00:31:01.580 Now, I would assume the vast majority of Stanford graduates would answer truthfully, no, I did
00:31:07.340 not participate in that.
00:31:09.400 If they answer yes, here's what I said in my letter, I would leave it to the considered
00:31:13.840 judgment of the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Board of Bar Examiners what the proper
00:31:19.800 remedy should be, a remedial training course, a letter of apology, or the like, for those
00:31:24.780 that respond in the affirmative.
00:31:26.120 Now, some commentators online have said, well, calling for the students to be disciplined,
00:31:33.400 calling for the dean to be fired, that, that's censorship, that's cancel culture.
00:31:38.240 And let me talk for a minute about why it's not, because it's important to understand this.
00:31:42.660 Number one, a member of the bar, that, that is a unique responsibility.
00:31:48.260 It is something every state has a bar exam.
00:31:51.660 There, there's an extensive process to become an, an attorney is, is someone who is admitted
00:31:57.520 to the bar at, in the United States, at a state, at one of the states in the United States.
00:32:01.940 So I'm a member of the Texas bar, I'm a member of the District of Columbia bar.
00:32:05.420 To be admitted to the bar, you got to take the bar exam.
00:32:07.940 In Texas, it's a three-day exam.
00:32:09.460 So I sat and took that three-day exam.
00:32:11.940 You have to have graduated from an accredited law school.
00:32:14.440 I did that as well, but they also engage in an examination of character and fitness.
00:32:20.700 So generally speaking, if you, for example, have a felony conviction, generally speaking,
00:32:26.600 you can't be admitted to the bar.
00:32:29.100 Remember, an attorney is someone who handles client money, who represents the interest of
00:32:36.580 a client, and if you're a litigator, an attorney's job is to appear in court and represent your
00:32:42.900 clients.
00:32:43.460 And so every state bar handles bar admissions looking to character and fitness. 0.99
00:32:51.200 And I got to say, listen, if you're just a jerk, if you're an obnoxious protester, and let's say 0.99
00:32:55.660 you come and scream at a random lawyer like the Yale law students did when Kirsten Wagoner, 0.99
00:33:02.820 who had just won a major religious liberty case, spoke at the law school.
00:33:07.020 If you're doing that, that's obnoxious, it's uncouth, it's problematic, and it was contrary
00:33:11.460 to Yale's free speech policy.
00:33:13.780 But it is qualitatively different.
00:33:17.380 If you scream at a public official, if you come scream at me, and I've had many protesters
00:33:22.660 scream and curse at me, you know what?
00:33:24.380 That's part of being in public life.
00:33:26.280 It is qualitatively different if you're screaming and cursing and hurling expletives at a federal
00:33:34.080 judge, an attorney owes a duty to the court.
00:33:39.660 And whether you like the judge or not, if you engage in that conduct at a courtroom, you
00:33:45.860 will be held in contempt, and they will put handcuffs on you and send you to jail.
00:33:50.720 There are judges with whom I disagree strongly.
00:33:54.200 There are justices on the Supreme Court with whom I disagree strongly.
00:33:58.080 I have to say, prior to what happened at Stanford, I have never once seen a federal judge treated
00:34:06.860 like that, like these law students did.
00:34:10.460 And so I think it is an important inquiry for Stanford Law School, if its policy means
00:34:16.400 anything, to implement its policy.
00:34:20.000 And I think it's an important inquiry for the state bar, I hope not just of Texas, but of
00:34:24.580 other states.
00:34:25.820 And let me finally mention another thing, that the Supreme Court has long said with respect
00:34:30.140 to free speech, that you don't have a heckler's veto, which is it was entirely within the rights
00:34:38.720 of the students at Stanford to protest Judge Duncan or anyone else.
00:34:42.660 And actually, if they had stood outside the event like they stood outside the Stanford dean's
00:34:48.580 con law class and silently protested his speech, that would have been consistent with Stanford's
00:34:57.560 free speech policy.
00:34:58.940 But they didn't do that.
00:35:00.260 They tried to aggressively disrupt the speech.
00:35:03.500 They succeeded.
00:35:04.760 He was not able to give the speech he had planned to give.
00:35:07.860 And the heckler's veto is someone saying, I'm going to prevent you, Ben Ferguson, maybe
00:35:13.860 you attended this speech and you want to hear what the speaker has to say.
00:35:17.080 Somebody else doesn't have the right to shut down an event and as a heckler say, I'm vetoing
00:35:24.900 this person's right to speak and this person's right to hear.
00:35:28.840 That is not protected free speech.
00:35:31.540 That is disruptive conduct, which is qualitatively different, which is why Stanford Law School
00:35:38.380 has a policy that says you cannot disrupt a speech.
00:35:43.360 And look, the question I asked on the pod a couple of days ago is very simple.
00:35:49.360 If the identical thing had happened, but instead of a conservative court of appeals judge, it
00:35:57.200 had been Sonia Sotomayor or it had been Steve Breyer or it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg when
00:36:02.360 she was still alive.
00:36:03.300 Do you think if law students had shouted and cursed and yelled profane expletives at any
00:36:11.980 of those justices?
00:36:14.580 Do you doubt for a minute that the students would have faced immediate disciplinary reaction
00:36:20.920 and for that matter that any dean who sided with the students engaging in that conduct would
00:36:27.720 have been terminated?
00:36:28.420 I think the odds are 100 percent and now Stanford can demonstrate whether it actually means what
00:36:34.420 its policy says or whether it in effect condones this rather astonishing conduct.
00:36:43.800 It's going to be very interesting to see how they respond or if they respond at all directly
00:36:48.160 to your letter.
00:36:48.680 We'll obviously keep verdict listeners up to date on that.
00:36:50.900 Finally, Senator, three years ago today, everything changed.
00:36:56.400 Fifteen days to stop the spread, right?
00:36:59.160 Well, we're now at the three year anniversary of that.
00:37:02.600 Before we go through that, I want to tell people about Augusta Precious Metals.
00:37:05.760 They're different because they even tell you if a gold IRA isn't your answer.
00:37:11.240 There's no pressure with Augusta Precious Metals, just the facts about how it could work for
00:37:15.660 you and your retirement.
00:37:17.540 Now, if you have an IRA or a 401k and you've saved more than $100,000 and you know how crazy
00:37:24.220 the economy is and you know how important it is to protect your assets, especially if
00:37:29.080 you're close to retirement, because there is no time to make up losses, call Augusta Precious
00:37:34.900 Metals.
00:37:35.280 Not only will you get their free guide, but you will also get a web conference.
00:37:40.560 Now, the web conference is amazing.
00:37:42.260 I've done it.
00:37:43.240 And you'll sit down and chat with someone one on one about your goals.
00:37:46.960 Call them, 877-4, the number 4, gold IRA, 877, the number 4, gold IRA, or online at
00:37:56.100 AugustaPreciousMetals.com.
00:37:57.760 Use my name, Ben, and you will actually get fees for up to 10 years for free, AugustaPreciousMetals.com.
00:38:05.580 Now, Fauci.
00:38:06.780 Dr. Fauci and Birx, what they had to say three years ago.
00:38:11.300 Take a listen.
00:38:11.860 Oh, yes.
00:38:14.380 Go ahead, Tony.
00:38:16.040 He was my mentor, so I'm going to have to let him speak.
00:38:19.740 The small print here.
00:38:21.560 It's really small print.
00:38:23.500 In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other
00:38:29.720 indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.
00:38:34.120 Should be closed.
00:38:37.180 There it is.
00:38:37.960 Three years ago.
00:38:39.040 Senator, where, I mean, I got to get your reaction to how joyful they see the other day.
00:38:43.920 My mentor is here.
00:38:44.960 We've got all this power.
00:38:46.200 It's amazing.
00:38:47.200 And we're going to shut down everything in this country.
00:38:49.460 And they basically were able to do that successfully.
00:38:53.180 Yeah, look, that's exactly right.
00:38:54.500 That was Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci.
00:38:57.040 That was at a White House press conference.
00:38:58.760 And the sort of smug gleefulness in which they're laughing, in which they're casually, you know,
00:39:07.140 he's reading, just shut them all down.
00:39:09.000 Shut down your businesses. 0.97
00:39:10.300 Destroy your businesses.
00:39:11.900 Not my concern.
00:39:15.120 I've said before, and I believe Anthony Fauci is the most destructive bureaucrat in the history
00:39:21.700 of this country, that the damage he did to millions of lives, the damage he did to millions of children
00:39:31.440 who had their schools shut down in many instances for more than a year, and who will face serious
00:39:36.760 learning gaps for the rest of their lives.
00:39:38.920 And by the way, that disproportionately impacts low-income kids, African-American kids, and Hispanic
00:39:44.760 kids who bore the brunt of the callous disregard that he implemented, the jobs, those restaurants
00:39:54.500 and bars that he's referring to, those stores, all of the jobs, families, small businesses
00:40:01.300 that were destroyed, many of which never opened again.
00:40:04.800 And he casually flicked them away.
00:40:07.320 And not to mention the restrictions that were put in place.
00:40:11.220 You know, I think of all of the people who, all of the seniors who died alone because
00:40:18.040 policies were put in place that their loved ones couldn't be with them and comfort them.
00:40:23.140 You know, I mean, it's just, those are heartbreaking tragedies.
00:40:27.900 And we now know that Anthony Fauci was repeatedly lying to Congress and the American people.
00:40:35.820 He was repeatedly lying about COVID having its origins in a Chinese lab.
00:40:41.560 We now have two Biden agencies that have concluded it is likely that COVID's origins
00:40:46.820 escape from a Chinese lab.
00:40:48.700 This podcast laid out the evidence for that three years ago.
00:40:51.980 In fact, almost exactly the time Fauci and Birx were doing this press conference,
00:40:57.740 verdict was laying out the evidence that COVID likely came from a Chinese government lab.
00:41:02.720 Fauci was more than happy to mislead the American people about that.
00:41:06.860 He was more than happy to ask big tech to censor information about that.
00:41:11.320 He was more than happy to lie to Congress and insist that the federal government had not
00:41:15.300 funded gain-of-function research.
00:41:17.260 And he also repeatedly was all over the place on policy issues such as whether or not a mask
00:41:23.940 is effective in stopping the spread of the virus.
00:41:26.760 He had said previously that it wasn't.
00:41:28.920 And then under political pressure, he flipped his position.
00:41:31.820 And he was quite willing to lie to the American people as the politics dictated.
00:41:37.160 And I'll point out, when it came to school closures, Fauci was also very willing to respond
00:41:44.380 to political pressure from the Biden White House and from the teachers unions to keep schools
00:41:50.340 closed and to urge that schools be closed.
00:41:52.840 And to urge also that even young children be given the vaccine to give arguments that were
00:42:00.180 used in support of oppressive and morally wrong COVID vaccine mandates three years ago today
00:42:07.760 is when they started this high-handed, wrong-headed policies.
00:42:14.460 And the country will never be the same because of them.
00:42:17.920 No doubt about it.
00:42:18.720 And we're also going to make sure that we keep all of you updated on the latest breaking news
00:42:23.180 with this Hunter Biden and these suspicious activity reports as well.
00:42:27.040 So make sure you hit that subscribe or auto-download button wherever you're listening to this podcast.
00:42:32.920 You do not miss an episode.
00:42:34.560 And we will see you back here in a couple of days.
00:42:37.100 This is an iHeart Podcast.
00:42:40.720 Guaranteed Human.