Latest / The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson / Corporate Media Defends Cohen, Can Dems get Onboard w IVF & Blinken on Arming Israel Contrary to WH Week In Review

Transcript

Corporate Media Defends Cohen, Can Dems get Onboard w IVF & Blinken on Arming Israel Contrary to WH Week In Review · The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to Verdict with Ted Cruz. We can review Ben
0:03
Speaker 1: Ferguson with you. And these are the big stories that
0:06
Speaker 1: you might have missed that we talked about this week.
0:08
Speaker 1: Number one, the corporate media covering and trying to tell
0:13
Speaker 1: you because Michael Cohen lies so much, maybe that means
0:16
Speaker 1: he's actually being honest during the Trump trial. So will
0:19
Speaker 1: this Jedi mind trick work on the jurors? We're going
0:22
Speaker 1: to talk about it. Also, can Democrats actually put politics
0:26
Speaker 1: aside for a moment and get on board with protecting
0:29
Speaker 1: IVF with a federal bill center Cruz talks about the
0:32
Speaker 1: important legislation that he has proposed. And finally Anthony Blincoln
0:37
Speaker 1: lying saying we have not withheld arms from Israel. Well,
0:42
Speaker 1: guess who says he's lying? The White House saying yes,
0:45
Speaker 1: we did pause the shipments. We'll have all of that.
0:49
Speaker 1: It's the weekend review and it starts right now.
0:53
Speaker 2: The prosecution's argument is Michael Cohen is a liar, but
0:58
Speaker 2: he's a thief too. Like that. That's kind of a problem.
1:02
Speaker 2: But you know what, the corporate media is so corrupt
1:05
Speaker 2: they're trying to defend him. Listen to Lawrence O'Donnell from
1:09
Speaker 2: MSNBC trying to explain that the fact that that Cohen
1:13
Speaker 2: was stealing from Trump, it's really not a problem.
1:16
Speaker 3: It's okay.
1:17
Speaker 4: Inside the core room, even there, almost every day you
1:21
Speaker 4: have the strength of.
1:25
Speaker 5: Beyond mortal men.
1:26
Speaker 3: What was worth it to you today? What did you see?
1:29
Speaker 4: What did you hear?
1:33
Speaker 5: Well, you know, the courtroom is where I began as
1:35
Speaker 5: a writer and a reporter a long time ago. So
1:37
Speaker 5: this is a homecoming for me in terms of a workplace.
1:42
Speaker 5: The shocking thing at the end of that cross examination,
1:45
Speaker 5: and I just can't tell you how just how stunning
1:49
Speaker 5: it was, because it's the thing that I was waiting for.
1:51
Speaker 5: I saw everything, Todd Blanche. I've seen every minute of
1:53
Speaker 5: cross examination. I've seen every single question he's asked. And
1:57
Speaker 5: he sat down and ended his cross examination without asking
2:03
Speaker 5: a single question about the one hundred and thirty thousand
2:08
Speaker 5: dollars that appears on the Alan Weiselberg notes about how
2:14
Speaker 5: they were structuring the payment to Michael Cohen. He asked
2:18
Speaker 5: about the fifty thousand dollars that's irrelevant to the one
2:22
Speaker 5: hundred thirty thousand dollars, and that's where he very effectively
2:25
Speaker 5: got Michael Cohen to say to agree that, yes, he
2:29
Speaker 5: stole thirty thousand dollars. Later, when Cohen was asked about
2:33
Speaker 5: that on redirect by the prosecution, it didn't really sound
2:37
Speaker 5: like stealing thirty thousand dollars. It sounded a lot like
2:39
Speaker 5: Michael Cohen doing the little that he could within that
2:43
Speaker 5: calculation to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserves, and
2:49
Speaker 5: it still came out as less than the bonus he
2:52
Speaker 5: thought he deserved and the bonus you've gotten the year before.
2:56
Speaker 1: I mean, I love how he's like justifying the stealing
3:00
Speaker 1: because he thought he.
3:00
Speaker 2: Was trying to rebalance the bonus. You know, if you
3:04
Speaker 2: steal from your employer, you're just trying to rebalance what
3:07
Speaker 2: they're paying you because you know you're worth more, so
3:10
Speaker 2: steal away. That is MSNBC's defense.
3:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's not a big deal to pay people
3:17
Speaker 1: in brown paper bags for work, right. That's also very
3:20
Speaker 1: normal apparently in the minds of MSNBC as well, So
3:24
Speaker 1: we'll completely overlook that as well. Final question on this,
3:29
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, You're right not going to take the stand
3:32
Speaker 1: that I think is obviously a smart decision as you
3:34
Speaker 1: described it. I think it was in the last podcast
3:36
Speaker 1: the one before that he's not going.
3:39
Speaker 2: To which is what we predicted on this podcast before
3:43
Speaker 2: that decision was made. I said on this podcast the
3:46
Speaker 2: chances that Donald Trump will go on the stand or
3:48
Speaker 2: zero point zero zero percent.
3:50
Speaker 3: Well that was proven right.
3:52
Speaker 2: He's not going on the stand because his lawyers are
3:54
Speaker 2: not incompetent in committing malpractice.
3:58
Speaker 1: So when you're looking at this now, now, what do
4:01
Speaker 1: you think is going to happen? What's your gut?
4:04
Speaker 3: I don't know.
4:04
Speaker 2: I remain worried. Listen on the merits. This case is frivolous,
4:08
Speaker 2: and I will point out also that the judge one
4:10
Speaker 2: of the things he did is he blocked the Trump
4:13
Speaker 2: campaign from putting on the witness stand the former chairman
4:17
Speaker 2: of the FEC Brat Smith. Bratt Smith is a law professor,
4:21
Speaker 2: is one of the most well respected campaign finance experts
4:25
Speaker 2: in the country. Campaign finance law is famously complicated, and
4:31
Speaker 2: Bratt Smith was prepared to testify that paying hush money
4:36
Speaker 2: does not constitute a campaign expense. If that's correct, the
4:41
Speaker 2: entire case goes out the window. And it's interesting. So
4:44
Speaker 2: after the judge blocked him from testifying, Smith did an
4:51
Speaker 2: interview did an interview with the Washington Examiner, where he
4:54
Speaker 2: described what he would have testified to and Smith said,
5:01
Speaker 2: here's what Smith said. Quote judges instruct the juries on
5:04
Speaker 2: the law, and they don't want a battle of competing
5:06
Speaker 2: experts saying here's what the law is. They feel it's
5:09
Speaker 2: their province to make that determination. The problem, of course,
5:13
Speaker 2: is that campaign finance law is extremely complex, and just
5:15
Speaker 2: reading the statute to people isn't really going to help
5:18
Speaker 2: them very much. The goal of his testimony, Smith said
5:23
Speaker 2: was quote to lay out the ways the laws has
5:25
Speaker 2: been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious. As
5:28
Speaker 2: an example, Smith cited the phrase quote for the purpose
5:32
Speaker 2: of influencing an election, which has been heard during much
5:35
Speaker 2: analysis of the trial. Quote you read the law and
5:39
Speaker 2: it says that anything intended for the purpose of influencing
5:41
Speaker 2: an election is a contribution or an expenditure, Smith explained.
5:47
Speaker 2: But that's not, in fact the entirety of the law.
5:51
Speaker 2: There is the obscure and separate from the definitional part
5:54
Speaker 2: idea personal use, which is a separate part of the
5:57
Speaker 2: law that says you can't divert campaign funds to personally
5:59
Speaker 2: unth use. That has a number of specific prohibitions like
6:03
Speaker 2: you can't buy a country club membership, you can't normally
6:06
Speaker 2: pay yourself a salary or living expenses, you can't go
6:09
Speaker 2: on vacation, all those kinds of things. And then it
6:12
Speaker 2: includes a broader general prohibition that says you can't divert
6:16
Speaker 2: campaign funds to any obligation that would exist even if
6:19
Speaker 2: you were not running for office. What's the point of
6:23
Speaker 2: that quote? We would have liked to flag that exception
6:27
Speaker 2: for the jury and to talk a little bit about
6:29
Speaker 2: what it means. And also we would have talked about
6:32
Speaker 2: quote for the purpose of influence in an election is
6:35
Speaker 2: not a subjective test like what was my intention? It's
6:39
Speaker 2: an objective test. So hiring campaign staff is for the
6:43
Speaker 2: purpose of influencing an election, Renting space for your campaign office,
6:47
Speaker 2: buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing up bumper stickers, travel
6:51
Speaker 2: to campaign rallies, renting venues for campaign rallies. All those
6:54
Speaker 2: things exist only because you're running for office. But under
6:58
Speaker 2: the personal use rules, a lot of things candidates do
7:01
Speaker 2: running for office are not considered campaign expenditures. Things like
7:06
Speaker 2: paying for a weight loss program or a gym membership,
7:09
Speaker 2: nicer clothes, teeth whitening, or all that sort of thing.
7:12
Speaker 2: It may be true that you do those things in
7:14
Speaker 2: part to help get yourself elected, and you might not
7:18
Speaker 2: do them otherwise because but they are not obligations that
7:22
Speaker 2: exist simply because you're running for office. Lots of people
7:26
Speaker 2: do those things. And what he argued is that in
7:31
Speaker 2: this instance, I can tell you it is my personal
7:36
Speaker 2: belief is that clearly paying hush money or paying for
7:41
Speaker 2: a non disclosure agreement does not constitute a campaign expense.
7:46
Speaker 2: That's what the former FEC chairman would have testified to quote.
7:49
Speaker 2: To use an example I've often used, it's not a
7:52
Speaker 2: campaign expense. If a business person is running for office
7:55
Speaker 2: and his businesses are getting sued, and he goes to
7:58
Speaker 2: his company's lawyers and say, I wish to settle these
8:00
Speaker 2: lawsuits against us. We've got some wage employment lawsuits and
8:04
Speaker 2: a woman is alleging sexual harassment. We've got thirty six
8:07
Speaker 2: thousand employees. But we've got to make these three complaints
8:10
Speaker 2: and the press will make a big deal about them.
8:12
Speaker 2: So I want you to settle these. And the company
8:15
Speaker 2: lawyers say, no, these are great cases, we should win,
8:17
Speaker 2: we shouldn't settle them. He says, I don't care. I'm
8:20
Speaker 2: running for office. I don't want press stories on it.
8:22
Speaker 2: I want them you to settle them quietly. Well, he
8:25
Speaker 2: cannot use campaign funds to pay that settlement, even though
8:28
Speaker 2: he's clearly doing it for the purpose of influencing his campaign.
8:33
Speaker 2: It's kind of similar to what went on here. Smith
8:36
Speaker 2: continued quote, So my personal belief is that this clearly
8:41
Speaker 2: would not have been a campaign expenditure, never had to
8:44
Speaker 2: be reported, and therefore was not misreported. And you know
8:48
Speaker 2: what the judge said, The jury can't hear a word
8:51
Speaker 2: of that because it demonstrates he didn't say this part,
8:54
Speaker 2: but because it demonstrates that the prosecutor's case is utter,
8:58
Speaker 2: incomplete garbage.
9:00
Speaker 1: Lastly, on this issue center, the war on truth is really,
9:05
Speaker 1: I think incredible. You can see it. And you mentioned
9:08
Speaker 1: this earlier. In the media's coverage of the Trump case.
9:11
Speaker 1: You had MSNBC. You and I were texting back and
9:14
Speaker 1: forth on this because it was it was a headline
9:16
Speaker 1: that was so laughable, and the headline was how Michael
9:19
Speaker 1: Cohen's pass lies make him a more credible witness. And
9:25
Speaker 1: they weren't the only ones to try to pull this,
9:27
Speaker 1: you know, Jedi mind trick on people. The new York
9:30
Speaker 1: Times had a headline it says, when Michael Cohen's lies
9:33
Speaker 1: helped the case against Trump, what world are we living
9:37
Speaker 1: in where this is what the media comes up with afterwards?
9:40
Speaker 2: A spinnet Well, listen number one, The media unfortunately regularly lies.
9:45
Speaker 2: They engage in lies. They view their role as propagandas
9:48
Speaker 2: it's not. They're not interested in the truth. They're not
9:51
Speaker 2: interested in reporting both sides. They're not interested in facts.
9:54
Speaker 2: They frame their mission as saving democracy, which means pushing
9:58
Speaker 2: this country to the left. This is concerns Donald Trump.
10:01
Speaker 2: It means doing everything you can to destroy Trump and
10:04
Speaker 2: make sure, no matter what, that he's not re elected
10:06
Speaker 2: president of the United States. The spins are rather pitiful,
10:09
Speaker 2: the idea that, well, you know what, Cohen lies so
10:14
Speaker 2: much that he's really a believable witness, Like that's just weird.
10:19
Speaker 2: And I got to say, the media's lies about Cohen's
10:23
Speaker 2: lies making him more credible are so absurd. It just
10:26
Speaker 2: shows they're really bad liars.
10:28
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
10:31
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
10:33
Speaker 1: from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. I'm
10:38
Speaker 1: thankful that you're doing this. I'm thankful that you're teaming up.
10:41
Speaker 1: I hope that Democrats will say this is a non
10:44
Speaker 1: political issue and we should push for this because everybody
10:47
Speaker 1: needs to be able to have this and that right
10:49
Speaker 1: and be protected. Have you heard from Democrats? Are they
10:52
Speaker 1: going to get on board? Because this doesn't seem political
10:54
Speaker 1: to me. I know so many people that have voted
10:57
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden have done IBF of course, voted for
10:59
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. It's not political.
11:01
Speaker 3: It's onting to have a family.
11:03
Speaker 2: So we filed the legislation today. Today, Katie Britta and
11:06
Speaker 2: I have an op ed in the Wall Street Journal,
11:08
Speaker 2: So you should go and read the op ed we
11:09
Speaker 2: wrote in the Wall Street Journal. It's in today's journal today.
11:14
Speaker 2: I'm in New York on Monday, I'm going to be
11:16
Speaker 2: in New York City with Katie. We're gonna do a
11:18
Speaker 2: number of media interviews starting early in the morning talking
11:21
Speaker 2: about this legislation. I think it is really important legislation.
11:25
Speaker 2: This should be legislation that passes the Senate one hundred
11:28
Speaker 2: and nothing. Every Senator agrees with the substate policy. Katie
11:34
Speaker 2: and I are going to try to pass it, and
11:35
Speaker 2: we're going to go to the Senate floor and seek
11:37
Speaker 2: to pass it. And what I do not know is
11:40
Speaker 2: if the Democrats will block it. And if they block it,
11:44
Speaker 2: it would be, even for today's Democrat party, an incredibly
11:48
Speaker 2: cynical move, because what it would be is the Democrats saying,
11:52
Speaker 2: you know what, we want to have the issue. We
11:55
Speaker 2: want to accuse Republicans of trying to ban IVF, and
11:59
Speaker 2: so we're going to prevent you from protecting.
12:01
Speaker 1: IVF so we can say you want to ban it, so.
12:03
Speaker 2: Then we can falsely claim you want to ban it.
12:06
Speaker 2: That would be the only conceivable reason the Democrats could
12:09
Speaker 2: object is if they do not want to protect IVF. Now,
12:13
Speaker 2: the Democrats have their own bill that they claim is
12:15
Speaker 2: about IVF, but it actually is an abortion bill focused
12:18
Speaker 2: on their broader abortion agenda, and they know that this
12:21
Speaker 2: is a very narrow bill that puts in clear, ironclad
12:25
Speaker 2: protections for IVF. As I said, every Senator, Republican and
12:29
Speaker 2: Democrat agrees with that policy. So the only question is
12:34
Speaker 2: will the Democrats play politics so much that they will
12:38
Speaker 2: oppose a policy that they agree with because they don't
12:41
Speaker 2: want to give up on the issue.
12:42
Speaker 3: I don't know.
12:43
Speaker 2: I hope not but we'll see, we'll see what the
12:45
Speaker 2: Democrat reaction to it is.
12:47
Speaker 1: Is this one of those moments where vertical listeners, people
12:50
Speaker 1: that share this show on social media should definitely reach
12:53
Speaker 1: out to their centers and say, hey, this is a nonpartisan,
12:56
Speaker 1: non political issue, we're asking to support it, and call
13:00
Speaker 1: with that spirit in mind of their senator, no matter
13:02
Speaker 1: where they live.
13:02
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yes, Look, this is something IVF has support. Nearly
13:06
Speaker 2: ninety percent of American support IVF. IVF is profoundly profamily.
13:11
Speaker 3: It is.
13:12
Speaker 2: It is a miracle. Look for most of human history,
13:16
Speaker 2: if parents are not able to conceive that they're just
13:19
Speaker 2: left childless and in sorrow, and it is through the
13:23
Speaker 2: miracles of science that that parents who struggle with infertility
13:27
Speaker 2: are able to be moms and dads and raise raise
13:32
Speaker 2: babies and children. That that is a wonderful, beautiful thing.
13:37
Speaker 2: And I hope we see some bipartisan unity the next
13:41
Speaker 2: week or two.
13:42
Speaker 3: We'll find out, Senator.
13:44
Speaker 1: I hope you have great success on this built We're
13:45
Speaker 1: going to keep everybody updated on it as it moves forward. Finally,
13:49
Speaker 1: I do have to call out the media. This week
13:52
Speaker 1: was one heck of a week in New York City.
13:54
Speaker 1: Where you're headed. And it made me laugh because the
13:57
Speaker 1: media now seems to be hedging their bets that Donald
14:00
Speaker 1: Trump may win in a New York court because of
14:04
Speaker 1: the disaster that's been this trial with brag at the
14:06
Speaker 1: end and with Cohen, to the point where even CNN
14:09
Speaker 1: said this, take a look.
14:11
Speaker 4: If I'm enjuring. I've been warned that Michael Cohen lies.
14:14
Speaker 4: The prosecutors have said this, They've set it up. I'm
14:16
Speaker 4: prepared for that. I'm prepared for He's lied in the
14:19
Speaker 4: past repeatedly. I don't know if a jury is prepared
14:23
Speaker 4: for he lied to this jury two days ago, but
14:27
Speaker 4: now he's really telling the truth.
14:29
Speaker 6: If you have a cooperating witness that can't tell the truth,
14:31
Speaker 6: that a plea elocution, that means that that witness is
14:34
Speaker 6: basically worseless.
14:35
Speaker 4: He test right, He lied to the judge in this
14:39
Speaker 4: priority case.
14:39
Speaker 6: And then Todd blanches cross examination. So basically, whenever you
14:42
Speaker 6: get into a problem, it's always blamed somebody else. Blame
14:45
Speaker 6: President Trump, blame the judge. How many places do you
14:48
Speaker 6: have to go where this guy has lied many times
14:51
Speaker 6: under oath and it's always somebody else's fault. It's not
14:54
Speaker 6: his fault. And that's pretty powerful evidence to a jury
14:57
Speaker 6: to say you shouldn't believe anything this guy says it.
15:00
Speaker 6: And if you have to rely on his testimony in
15:01
Speaker 6: any fashion whatsoever in order to convict Donald Trump, i e.
15:05
Speaker 6: In order to fix Donald Trump's intent, you have a
15:08
Speaker 6: reasonable dobt. You can't have anything else but a reasonable doubt.
15:12
Speaker 1: Seven people are on that panel. Seven And this is
15:15
Speaker 1: how they've been covering the Trump trial the entire time.
15:17
Speaker 1: It's the center of the world for Democrats. They wanted
15:19
Speaker 1: to be guilty. They've gone all in with their most
15:22
Speaker 1: brilliant minds, and now at the very end they're like, Yeah,
15:24
Speaker 1: it's probably not gonna happen because this guy's a liar
15:26
Speaker 1: and the whole case is a joke.
15:28
Speaker 2: Look, they are obsessed with the Trump trial. CNN covers
15:32
Speaker 2: it from from dawn to dust, constantly, breathlessly. They get
15:36
Speaker 2: so excited when Stormy Daniels is on the stand and
15:39
Speaker 2: talking about sex with the president. Oh that makes their
15:43
Speaker 2: cold little hearts go pitter patents at CNN. But it
15:48
Speaker 2: says something when even CNNA is like, Wow, this case
15:51
Speaker 2: is weak and it only takes one They are getting
15:55
Speaker 2: very very nervous, and here play the second clip.
15:58
Speaker 7: Anderson, let me ask you, if I could put you
16:00
Speaker 7: in the jury box, having just witnessed that piece of
16:03
Speaker 7: cross examination, do you have doubts that that conversation happened
16:07
Speaker 7: the way Michael Cohen testified on his direct examination that.
16:10
Speaker 4: I think it's absolutely absolutely, I think it's devastating. I
16:16
Speaker 4: mean for Michael Cones's credibility on this, I mean, in
16:18
Speaker 4: this one particular topic, whether it's you know, he just didn't,
16:22
Speaker 4: I mean, it's it's hard to I don't know. Yes,
16:26
Speaker 4: I think if I was a juror in this case
16:29
Speaker 4: watching that, I would think this guy's making this up
16:32
Speaker 4: as he's going along, right, or he's making this particular
16:35
Speaker 4: story up. You know, Todd Blas is pointing out you
16:39
Speaker 4: were testifying just on Tuesday in this court, you know,
16:43
Speaker 4: and all morning along he's been pointing out, you know,
16:47
Speaker 4: inconsistencies in Michael Cones's testimony, or at least questionable aspects
16:52
Speaker 4: of Michael Cones's testimony, but nothing that you would necessarily
16:56
Speaker 4: as a juror think, Okay, that's clearly a lie. Maybe
16:59
Speaker 4: that's just a miss he was misunderstanding, or you know,
17:03
Speaker 4: he was dragging or whatever this one. Todd Blam's clearly
17:08
Speaker 4: saved this to write before the lunch break.
17:11
Speaker 3: I'm assuming because it was.
17:14
Speaker 4: Just so well crafted and just point by point walking
17:18
Speaker 4: through this story which at first seemed you know, why
17:20
Speaker 4: why this seems like a ridiculous story. It's some'm fourteen
17:23
Speaker 4: year old at sending him, you know, nasty text messages
17:26
Speaker 4: and he's going to call it Keith Schiller about it.
17:28
Speaker 4: And then you realize you look at the he showed
17:30
Speaker 4: the phone logs that the prosecutor had shown, and it's
17:33
Speaker 4: the phone call that that that that that Michael Cohen
17:36
Speaker 4: had previously talked about. I think it is severely damaging
17:39
Speaker 4: to Michael Cone's testimony.
17:41
Speaker 1: I mean, this has got to be like their worst
17:43
Speaker 1: day ever at CNN went to watch this and they're
17:45
Speaker 1: saying there, going, look, Mike Cohen's a liar.
17:47
Speaker 3: The whole case is a shame. Look.
17:48
Speaker 2: I'm actually wondering if CNN, like like if the hosts
17:51
Speaker 2: had become day drinkers now, like like if they're they're
17:53
Speaker 2: slamming back to Kila shops, the sadness that they're saying
17:58
Speaker 2: it now.
17:58
Speaker 3: Listen to be clear, Trump could still be convicted.
18:02
Speaker 2: Sure, this is a wildly left wing prosecutor, this is
18:04
Speaker 2: a wildly left wing judge, and this is a jury
18:07
Speaker 2: drawn from a New York jury pool, so presumably it
18:10
Speaker 2: is an overwhelmingly democrat jury. I don't believe any conviction
18:14
Speaker 2: if there is one, will stand up on appeal. But look,
18:18
Speaker 2: given how bad things went, we could see an acquittal.
18:22
Speaker 1: Last question on this, will Trump be on the stand
18:24
Speaker 1: before the end of this trial?
18:26
Speaker 3: Absolutely not? Zero points zero zero, zero percent chance.
18:30
Speaker 4: Why?
18:32
Speaker 2: Number one, the criminal defendant has no burden a proof.
18:35
Speaker 2: It is the prosecution that has the burden of proof.
18:37
Speaker 2: The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
18:42
Speaker 2: the defendant committed the crime. Number two, Any defendant has
18:45
Speaker 2: a Fifth Amendment right protected in the Constitution not to
18:48
Speaker 2: testify at his own trial, and most defendants choose not to.
18:53
Speaker 2: But number three, for any lawyer to put Donald J.
18:56
Speaker 2: Trump on the stand under oath and to open a
19:00
Speaker 2: up to cross examination, and by the way, cross examination
19:03
Speaker 2: about damn near anything, particularly with a left wing judge
19:06
Speaker 2: who's a partisan, who is not going to corral in
19:08
Speaker 2: the cross examination, you are inviting disaster. To be clear,
19:13
Speaker 2: there is no chance Donald Trump would be put on
19:15
Speaker 2: the stand, it would be lunacy to do so. I
19:19
Speaker 2: don't know if the Trump team will have other witnesses
19:22
Speaker 2: they put on or not. They might, they might not,
19:24
Speaker 2: but it is an absolute certainty Trump will not be
19:27
Speaker 2: one of them. And hopefully this circus will be over soon.
19:34
Speaker 3: As before.
19:35
Speaker 1: If you want to hear the rest of this conversation
19:37
Speaker 1: on this topic, you can go back and dow the
19:39
Speaker 1: podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing.
19:43
Speaker 1: I want to get back to the big story number
19:45
Speaker 1: three of the week you may have missed. He's absolutely right,
19:50
Speaker 1: and it's sad that Anthony Blagan can sit there and
19:54
Speaker 1: straight up lie. And one of the lies that he told,
19:57
Speaker 1: and I want to get your reaction to it, is
19:59
Speaker 1: he said that we we haven't withheld any weapons. Well,
20:02
Speaker 1: the White House says he's a liar. Here's Jean Pierre
20:04
Speaker 1: on the fifteenth.
20:06
Speaker 8: And we have said that it is one pause, one
20:08
Speaker 8: pause on these bombs, one package, one shipment, and that
20:13
Speaker 8: is obviously connected to RAFA and the potential of what
20:17
Speaker 8: could happen in Rauffa, and we've been very clear about that.
20:20
Speaker 1: So who's lying? Senator the White House or blinking or
20:23
Speaker 1: is the White House calling Blinking out for his lie?
20:26
Speaker 3: Well, listen, Blinking is spinning like crazy.
20:29
Speaker 2: And understand when Joe Biden went on TV and threatened
20:31
Speaker 2: to cut off the weapons, that surprised the administration. They
20:34
Speaker 2: didn't know that he was going to freelance like that.
20:35
Speaker 2: And so they're trying to do clean up on that.
20:37
Speaker 2: But they're still holding the damn weapons. They're not sending them,
20:40
Speaker 2: so they're trying to spend that they're sending. Now, we
20:44
Speaker 2: sent other weapons that it's just the current shipment that
20:47
Speaker 2: we're threatening.
20:48
Speaker 3: I got to say, so, look, the first part of
20:50
Speaker 3: that cross.
20:50
Speaker 2: Examination, when I was focused on on the Washington Post story,
20:53
Speaker 2: and you and I covered this in a pod I
20:56
Speaker 2: don't know about a week or two ago. The most
21:00
Speaker 2: damning conclusion of that story that they were offering intelligence
21:04
Speaker 2: and where senior Hamas officials were and where AMAS territunnels
21:08
Speaker 2: were in exchange for not going into Rafa is the
21:11
Speaker 2: necessary implication that they had that information, they knew where
21:14
Speaker 2: the senior Hamas leaders were, and they were not telling Israel. Now,
21:17
Speaker 2: I will say Blincoln gave a categorical denial, and maybe
21:20
Speaker 2: maybe he's right, I do not know. I know that
21:24
Speaker 2: that story appeared in multiple media outlets simultaneously, so someone
21:27
Speaker 2: was deliberately and directly putting it forward. And if Blncoln
21:33
Speaker 2: was lying, then he perjured himself because he was under
21:36
Speaker 2: oath and he was unequivocal in what he said. He
21:39
Speaker 2: said they didn't offer Israel anything not to enter Rafa. Now,
21:43
Speaker 2: I think the chances that Blincoln is is is not
21:47
Speaker 2: telling the truth there are very very high. But you know,
21:51
Speaker 2: these issues have a way of over time, the truth
21:54
Speaker 2: comes out and tender.
21:56
Speaker 1: Look, there's the people that don't understand how leaks work
21:58
Speaker 1: in Washington. I think it's so you understand, there's sometimes
22:02
Speaker 1: are leaks that come out that is like one person
22:05
Speaker 1: that's genuinely leaking something. Then there's other strategic leaks that
22:09
Speaker 1: are done on purpose where you can't use their names.
22:12
Speaker 1: And look, I've been a part of that where they're like, hey,
22:15
Speaker 1: well you go to this reporter and this, and then
22:17
Speaker 1: three other people go to other reporters and then they say, hey,
22:20
Speaker 1: we want to get this message out there for in
22:22
Speaker 1: a few days from now. We want to let them
22:23
Speaker 1: know this is coming down the pipeline. When you have
22:26
Speaker 1: four people, it's organized. It's it's an administration's decision to
22:30
Speaker 1: send people out to give a heads up on something
22:33
Speaker 1: and to get it in the newspaper, to get it
22:35
Speaker 1: in print, which is exactly what you were quoting.
22:39
Speaker 2: No, that's exactly right. Anytime you have four people that
22:43
Speaker 2: are going to multiple outlets. It wasn't just the Washington Post.
22:46
Speaker 2: I quoted the Post, but but I think it was Reuters.
22:48
Speaker 2: It was several places. There's a decision, and someone has
22:51
Speaker 2: made a decision, we want to drive this story. And
22:54
Speaker 2: when four people are going, you're sending okay, you you, you,
22:57
Speaker 2: and you you guys go talk and push that story.
23:01
Speaker 2: So somebody pushed that story, and those four people who
23:03
Speaker 2: pushed it. By the way, the reporters know who those
23:06
Speaker 2: four people are, and they now know that one or
23:10
Speaker 2: the other is directly lying. Either the four people who
23:14
Speaker 2: talked to them were lying to them, or Tony Blincoln
23:17
Speaker 2: just committed perjury. One of the other has to be
23:20
Speaker 2: the case, so that in time there may be real
23:25
Speaker 2: consequences to Blinken's testimony on that. The rest of it, though, listen,
23:30
Speaker 2: I gotta say, when we got into for example, the
23:33
Speaker 2: Iranian oil. I found it stunning that the Secretary of
23:37
Speaker 2: State didn't know, didn't care how much oil are they selling?
23:41
Speaker 2: Or I don't know how much were they selling. I
23:43
Speaker 2: don't know how much are they now.
23:44
Speaker 3: I don't know how.
23:45
Speaker 2: Many ships were in the ghost fleece before. I don't
23:47
Speaker 2: know how many ships are there now.
23:49
Speaker 3: I don't know.
23:49
Speaker 2: It's because they don't give a damn. They don't care.
23:52
Speaker 1: When you looked at you and he goes you tell me,
23:54
Speaker 1: I'm like, you're the secretary of State. You're the one
23:56
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be up on all of this information
23:58
Speaker 1: on the sanctions.
23:59
Speaker 3: Should know more than you should know on this. Am
24:01
Speaker 3: I right?
24:03
Speaker 2: If he cared? He does not care. The overwhelming foreign
24:08
Speaker 2: policy objective of Joe Biden and this entire administration, and
24:12
Speaker 2: sadly most of the Democrats in Congress is continuing to
24:16
Speaker 2: appease Iran an inter renew Iran nuclear deal, even while
24:20
Speaker 2: Iran is trying to murder Mike Pompeo. The former US
24:23
Speaker 2: Secretary of State, Raisi, who Blincoln just put out a statement,
24:28
Speaker 2: you know, commemorating and commiserating his death. Rayisi was trying
24:33
Speaker 2: to murder Blincoln's predecessor and like was trying to murder
24:37
Speaker 2: him two days ago.
24:40
Speaker 3: It is stunning.
24:43
Speaker 2: And so because they desperately want to deal with Iran,
24:46
Speaker 2: he doesn't care how much oiled it. By the way,
24:49
Speaker 2: this is the same administration that's doing everything they can
24:52
Speaker 2: to cut off oil and gas production and sales in
24:54
Speaker 2: the United States. This is the same Joe Biden that
24:56
Speaker 2: halted new permits to export LNG. So if it's a
24:59
Speaker 2: ma can selling oil and guests, they know who's doing it,
25:02
Speaker 2: they want to stop it. But if it's a homicidal
25:06
Speaker 2: religious theocrat who hates Israel, who hates America, who chants
25:11
Speaker 2: death to America, death to Israel, he can sell as
25:13
Speaker 2: much oil as he wants. What you know, what's one
25:16
Speaker 2: hundred billion dollars to a psychopath who wants to murder
25:19
Speaker 2: us all.
25:19
Speaker 1: Senator, one other question I do want to ask you about,
25:23
Speaker 1: and that involves some of Anthony Blincoln, but just a
25:27
Speaker 1: broader shock. The Biden administration issued condolences to Iran. You
25:34
Speaker 1: were just talking about the Iranian order oil and the
25:38
Speaker 1: Biden State Department sent official condolences for the Iranian president,
25:44
Speaker 1: who is known as the butcher of Tehran. And yet
25:49
Speaker 1: the US is offering official condolences and they say this
25:52
Speaker 1: is standard protocol since win.
25:56
Speaker 2: Well, look, as I asked on Twitter, only slightly tongue
26:00
Speaker 2: in cheek, I said, you know, you should have seen
26:02
Speaker 2: the condolence letter the State Department put out when Adolf
26:05
Speaker 2: Hitler died. But like, we don't mourn the loss of
26:11
Speaker 2: mass murderers. Understand, Rayisi was a mass murder by the
26:15
Speaker 2: way he murdered children in his own country. He was
26:17
Speaker 2: he was in charge of making the morals police in
26:20
Speaker 2: Iran even stricter. You know the groups that we see online,
26:24
Speaker 2: things like Queers for Palestine. Race is the guy in
26:27
Speaker 2: charge of murdering homosexuals. He's the one that takes you
26:29
Speaker 2: to the top of a tall building, or actually his
26:31
Speaker 2: goons are to be fair, it's it's probably not him personally,
26:34
Speaker 2: but his goons take you to the top of a
26:36
Speaker 2: tall building and throw you off. He's the one that
26:38
Speaker 2: that that that that that if a you know, woman
26:41
Speaker 2: removes her her head covering, and and and that that
26:44
Speaker 2: that is in charge of administering the beatings and whipping
26:48
Speaker 2: and capital punishment.
26:50
Speaker 3: He is a monster, by the way.
26:53
Speaker 2: He is also directly responsible for the murders of hundreds
26:57
Speaker 2: of US servicemen and women. He is directly respectible for
27:00
Speaker 2: October seventh, for the murder of twelve hundred Israelis. He
27:03
Speaker 2: is directly responsible for leading this viciously anti Semitic, hateful regime.
27:11
Speaker 2: The world should celebrate that Rayisi is dead, but this
27:16
Speaker 2: administration is not celebrating. And to be clear, the United
27:21
Speaker 2: Nations flew their flags at half staff. That's what you
27:24
Speaker 2: do when you commemorate the loss of a world leader.
27:27
Speaker 2: That's what you do when you commemorate the loss of
27:29
Speaker 2: someone who is to be revered, who is to be admired.
27:32
Speaker 2: And in this United Nations they are such vicious anti Semites.
27:37
Speaker 2: Rayisi fits the bill.
27:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I wonder if these guys were in
27:41
Speaker 1: charge when we killed Asam Bin Lauden, would they have
27:44
Speaker 1: then sent condolences to al Qaida?
27:46
Speaker 2: And notice Blincoln didn't condemn what the ued did? I mean,
27:49
Speaker 2: I gave him the opportunity. He's like, well, well, I
27:52
Speaker 2: need to know the context? What context? Flag poll halfway up? Okay,
27:56
Speaker 2: you got all the context? Good or bad? You agree?
27:59
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Look,
28:02
Speaker 2: I mean that's he doesn't want to condemn it. Why
28:05
Speaker 2: because he agrees with it.
28:07
Speaker 1: As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Sentner,
28:10
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to deal
28:13
Speaker 1: with my podcast and you can listen to my podcast
28:15
Speaker 1: every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each
28:17
Speaker 1: day when you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to
28:19
Speaker 1: have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson
28:22
Speaker 1: podcasts and we will see you back here on Monday morning.