Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Do Female Prisoners Have the Right to Not Have a 6'2" Man who is a Serial Rapist as a Cellmate? plus Michael Cohen ADMITS He's a THIEF

Transcript

Do Female Prisoners Have the Right to Not Have a 6'2" Man who is a Serial Rapist as a Cellmate? plus Michael Cohen ADMITS He's a THIEF · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:01
Speaker 1: Welcome.
0:01
Speaker 2: It is verdict with Senater Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with
0:04
Speaker 2: you and Senator it is a rock star week. I
0:07
Speaker 2: gotta say for you on Capitol Hill. You got feisty
0:11
Speaker 2: during some hearings and it's gone viral. What just happened
0:14
Speaker 2: with one of the radical nominees put up by the
0:17
Speaker 2: Biden administration.
0:19
Speaker 3: Well, that's exactly right. Joe Biden has nominated a lot
0:22
Speaker 3: of extreme radicals to the bench. This week, we had
0:24
Speaker 3: a hearing with a district court nominee who sent a
0:28
Speaker 3: serial child rapist who is a man who decided that
0:32
Speaker 3: he was a woman, sent him into a woman's prison,
0:36
Speaker 3: disregarded the rights of the women. It is outrageous. I
0:40
Speaker 3: cross examined this nominee. We're going to get into that.
0:42
Speaker 3: We're also going to get into what happened at the
0:44
Speaker 3: Trump trial this week. We're going to get into, in particular,
0:47
Speaker 3: the bombshell news that Michael Cohen testified about a crime.
0:51
Speaker 3: We finally found a crime at the Trump trial. It
0:53
Speaker 3: just happened to be Michael Cohen was the criminal. He
0:55
Speaker 3: testified and admitted that he stole tens of thousands of
0:59
Speaker 3: dollars from the Trump organization that might well be relevant
1:02
Speaker 3: for charging him, but it doesn't prove any crime on
1:06
Speaker 3: the part of Donald Trump.
1:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, very important there, and it's shocking to find out
1:10
Speaker 2: those details will have for you in a moment.
1:12
Speaker 1: Let me ask you a question real quick.
1:14
Speaker 2: If you knew that you were giving money to a
1:16
Speaker 2: company that was supporting hardcore lefties running for office, if
1:20
Speaker 2: you knew you were giving money to a company that
1:23
Speaker 2: was supporting planned parenthood, if you knew that you were
1:26
Speaker 2: giving money to a company that was giving money to
1:28
Speaker 2: take away your First and Second Amendment rights, would you
1:31
Speaker 2: keep doing it and do it every single month? Well,
1:33
Speaker 2: if you're with Big Mobile, that's exactly what is happening.
1:37
Speaker 2: You may not realize it, but now you know. Big
1:39
Speaker 2: Mobile supports big leftist causes, including planned parenthood. And that's
1:44
Speaker 2: why I want you to make the switch to Patriot Mobile.
1:48
Speaker 2: For more than a decade, Patriot Mobile has been America's
1:51
Speaker 2: only Christian conservative wireless provider and the number one reason
1:56
Speaker 2: why people don't switch cell phone providers.
1:58
Speaker 1: They think it takes forever, and it used to.
2:00
Speaker 2: You used to have to go into a store, you
2:01
Speaker 2: had to sit there, you had to port your number
2:03
Speaker 2: over it was exhausting, and so people are like, forget it,
2:05
Speaker 2: I'll just stick with what I've got. It doesn't work
2:08
Speaker 2: that way anymore. In fact, you can switch right now
2:11
Speaker 2: to Patriot Mobile over the phone. It is incredibly easy
2:15
Speaker 2: because of technology now and you get to keep your
2:18
Speaker 2: same cell phone number you have, and you can keep
2:20
Speaker 2: the same cell phone you have in your hand right now,
2:22
Speaker 2: or you can upgrade to a new one. Now here's
2:24
Speaker 2: the best part. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, they
2:27
Speaker 2: actually take about five percent of your bill every month
2:30
Speaker 2: at no extra cost to you, and they fight for
2:33
Speaker 2: the values that we believe in. That's right, your bill
2:36
Speaker 2: every month goes to support free speech, religious freedom, the
2:40
Speaker 2: sanctity of life, as well as supporting our Second Amendment.
2:43
Speaker 2: And then they do something else.
2:45
Speaker 1: It's amazing.
2:46
Speaker 2: They stand with our military veterans, our wounded warriors, and
2:49
Speaker 2: our first responder heroes. So in essence, when you make
2:52
Speaker 2: a phone call, when you pay your bill every month,
2:55
Speaker 2: you're standing up for what you believe in. Just go
2:58
Speaker 2: to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriotmobile dot com
3:02
Speaker 2: slash verdict, or call them at nine seven to two
3:05
Speaker 2: Patriot that's nine seven to two Patriot And here's the
3:08
Speaker 2: other thing. You'll get free activation when you use the
3:10
Speaker 2: offer code Verdict Patriotmobile dot com slash Verdict or nine.
3:15
Speaker 1: Seven to two Patriot Center.
3:17
Speaker 2: Before we get in to you and this incredible cross
3:22
Speaker 2: examination of this radical judicial nominee.
3:25
Speaker 1: I got a bone to pick with you.
3:27
Speaker 2: For four years you've been abstaining from going on CNN,
3:31
Speaker 2: And in the last four years, CNN's ratings have gone
3:34
Speaker 2: to hell in a handbasket, so bad that they drew
3:38
Speaker 2: just eighty three thousand viewers ages twenty five to fifty
3:42
Speaker 2: four during the week of May the thirteenth to the nineteenth.
3:45
Speaker 2: That is the lowest rating they've had since nineteen ninety one,
3:50
Speaker 2: according to the Nielsen ratings. And then all of a sudden,
3:53
Speaker 2: you showed up on CNN yesterday for an interview. Are
3:56
Speaker 2: you trying to save the network, sir? Because it's going
4:00
Speaker 2: Are you going to help them?
4:01
Speaker 3: Well, look, once Ben Ferguson left CNN, they were in
4:05
Speaker 3: a downward spiral.
4:06
Speaker 2: And I'm glad you remember that. That was about four
4:08
Speaker 2: years ago as well, thank you, And.
4:11
Speaker 3: The company's been hurting ever since. So you know, I
4:13
Speaker 3: want to do what I can for a poor, struggling, drowning,
4:18
Speaker 3: fake journalistic network.
4:21
Speaker 2: In all fairness, you actually went on there to talk
4:24
Speaker 2: about the important piece of legislation that you've been pushing
4:27
Speaker 2: that deals with IVF, and they gave you a platform
4:30
Speaker 2: to talk about that for a moment before they didn't
4:32
Speaker 2: try to come after you.
4:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And Kaitlyn, Kaitlyn Collins, we
4:37
Speaker 3: actually had the first segment. It's kind of funny. My
4:39
Speaker 3: team said this. I was going to be on for
4:40
Speaker 3: two segments. My team said, the first segment, they'll play nice,
4:43
Speaker 3: they'll actually let you talk about what you're here to
4:44
Speaker 3: talk about, and you'll have a reasonable conversation. And the
4:47
Speaker 3: second segment, she'll get all nasty and she'll perform for
4:50
Speaker 3: all of their left wing stakeholders. And that's exactly what
4:53
Speaker 3: she did. And she was snarky and interrupted me and
4:55
Speaker 3: didn't want me to answer, and you know, played the
4:58
Speaker 3: same gotcha game that we're seeing the media do. Their
5:01
Speaker 3: favorite thing right now to do to Republicans is say
5:05
Speaker 3: will you swear on a stack of Bibles? Actually, they
5:08
Speaker 3: don't say a stack of bibles because lefties don't believe
5:11
Speaker 3: in bibles. But if they did. They would say, will
5:13
Speaker 3: you swear on a stack of Bibles that, no matter what,
5:16
Speaker 3: you will fully accept the election results in twenty twenty four,
5:20
Speaker 3: And you know I laugh and say, well, no, who
5:23
Speaker 3: on earth would do that. Of course I will accept
5:25
Speaker 3: them if they're legitimate. But we have in every state
5:27
Speaker 3: we have laws in place to challenge voter fraud when
5:30
Speaker 3: they are regularities. We have elections that are challenged all
5:33
Speaker 3: the time, and the courts overturn election results when they're fraud.
5:36
Speaker 3: Like what imbecile would say, even if something's illegitimate, I'll
5:39
Speaker 3: accept it anyway. I'll accept it if it's fair, if
5:44
Speaker 3: it follows the law, absolutely, but I'm going to fight
5:48
Speaker 3: to uphold the law. And they don't accept that answer,
5:50
Speaker 3: and so so Caitlin Collins had kind of a meltdown
5:54
Speaker 3: when I gave that answer.
5:55
Speaker 2: Over under, you're going to be back in the next
5:57
Speaker 2: four years. That's what I really want to know.
5:59
Speaker 3: Oh well probably, you know, if nothing else. I sort
6:01
Speaker 3: of enjoy going round a round, you know, it gets
6:04
Speaker 3: the blood flowing.
6:05
Speaker 2: There you go, it's hey, something to do on a
6:07
Speaker 2: random Thursday, right, you gotta love it all. Right, let's
6:09
Speaker 2: get to the bigger issue here, and that comes up
6:12
Speaker 2: with the Biden nominee. You had one heck of a
6:16
Speaker 2: time with this Biden radical nominee, Sarah Netbourne. I want
6:21
Speaker 2: you to set the stage for this nominee that was
6:23
Speaker 2: coming before you guys in the Senate. It's a nominee
6:27
Speaker 2: for the judge for the Southern District of New York.
6:29
Speaker 2: Obviously that's gonna be someone that's pretty liberal, but this
6:32
Speaker 2: went off the charts radical and is now putting women's
6:36
Speaker 2: lives at risk in prison because of decisions that this
6:39
Speaker 2: judge is made in the past.
6:41
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's exactly right. So we had a hearing this
6:44
Speaker 3: week with a total of five Biden District Court nominees,
6:48
Speaker 3: and all five of them were quite left wing. And
6:51
Speaker 3: in fact, what Dick Durbin, who's the chairman of the
6:53
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee, did is he stacked them all together because
6:57
Speaker 3: this one, in particular was so egregious that I think
7:01
Speaker 3: Durbin knew that she would draw all the fire and
7:03
Speaker 3: the other four would would basically skate by because you
7:06
Speaker 3: only have a limited number time to cross examine, and
7:08
Speaker 3: so this one's record was so bad that the others
7:11
Speaker 3: got very little scrutiny. But this particular judicial nominee is
7:16
Speaker 3: a woman named Sarah Netburn, and she is a She's
7:20
Speaker 3: a magistrate judge in New York. That Biden's nominated to
7:24
Speaker 3: be a federal district judge in New York, And that
7:26
Speaker 3: means she's the pick of Chuck Schumer. And I got
7:29
Speaker 3: to say, even for Biden nominees, and Biden nominees have
7:33
Speaker 3: been hard left, they've been much more radical than Obama
7:37
Speaker 3: nominees ever were. Even for Biden nominees, this nominee was
7:42
Speaker 3: wildly outside the mainstream. And well, look, rather than relive it,
7:47
Speaker 3: we should just just just play the cross examination.
7:50
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's gone viral on social media. More than thirty
7:53
Speaker 2: eight million have watched this on act so far.
7:57
Speaker 1: Take a listen, Well, Judge that Burn.
7:59
Speaker 3: I'm gonna can tinue on this line of questioning in
8:03
Speaker 3: your court, what matters more the rights of individuals or
8:07
Speaker 3: your political ideology?
8:10
Speaker 4: I apply the law to the facts.
8:12
Speaker 3: I asked a question which matters more.
8:15
Speaker 4: Well, my political ideology doesn't matter at all.
8:17
Speaker 3: Okay, So I don't believe you, and I think this
8:20
Speaker 3: case demonstrates that you are willing to subjugate the rights
8:25
Speaker 3: of individuals to satisfy your political ideology. This case involves
8:32
Speaker 3: a male defendant who raped a nine year old boy?
8:37
Speaker 3: Was he guilty of that?
8:39
Speaker 4: Yes, the petitioner pled guilty to that.
8:40
Speaker 3: Okay, So he raped a nine year old boy. He
8:42
Speaker 3: also raped a seventeen year old girl. Was he guilty
8:45
Speaker 3: of that?
8:46
Speaker 4: He pled guilty. The petitioner pled guilty of that crime
8:48
Speaker 4: as well.
8:49
Speaker 3: So was he guilty?
8:51
Speaker 4: I hope so because she pled guilty to it?
8:54
Speaker 3: He was a he when he did this, that's correct,
8:57
Speaker 3: and also criminal deviant conduct, which the record doesn't disclose
9:02
Speaker 3: what that it was exactly. Then, after serving in prison,
9:06
Speaker 3: mister mclan was released for parole, but then violated the
9:10
Speaker 3: terms of parole by having Internet and was sent back
9:12
Speaker 3: to prison. One year after being released again, he was
9:15
Speaker 3: convicted of having child pornography. Is that correct?
9:18
Speaker 4: I'm unclear on exactly the timeframe that you're at, but
9:21
Speaker 4: the petitioner was convicted of distributing child pornography.
9:24
Speaker 3: Child pornography that was images of adults violently raping children.
9:29
Speaker 4: Abhorrent conduct, okay, for which there are real victims.
9:33
Speaker 3: And this individual six foot two biologically a man A
9:38
Speaker 3: minute ago, you said that when this man decided that
9:43
Speaker 3: he was a she, you said, this individual was quote
9:46
Speaker 3: I wrote it down, sober and entirely a female. That
9:51
Speaker 3: phrase struck me as remarkable. Did this individual have male genitalia?
9:56
Speaker 4: I think what I said, or at least.
9:58
Speaker 3: That is a verbatim quote entirely a female?
10:00
Speaker 4: Sorry, what I meant to say was hormonally a female.
10:03
Speaker 3: Okay, but that's not entirely. Did this individual have male genitalia?
10:08
Speaker 4: Yes?
10:09
Speaker 3: So you took a six foot two serial rapist, serial
10:15
Speaker 3: child rapist with male genitalia, and he said, you know,
10:21
Speaker 3: I'd like to be in a women's prison, and your
10:23
Speaker 3: answer was that sounds great to me. Let me ask
10:26
Speaker 3: you something. The other women in that prison? Do they
10:28
Speaker 3: have any rights?
10:30
Speaker 4: Is that a question?
10:30
Speaker 3: Yes? The other women in that prison? Do they have
10:32
Speaker 3: any rights?
10:33
Speaker 4: Of course?
10:34
Speaker 3: Do they have the right not to have a six
10:36
Speaker 3: foot two man who is a repeat serial rapist put
10:40
Speaker 3: in as their cellmate?
10:42
Speaker 4: Senator Cruz, I considered the facts presented to me, and
10:45
Speaker 4: I reached a decision.
10:47
Speaker 3: I asked you a question a lot. I asked you
10:48
Speaker 3: a question. Do they have a right not to have
10:51
Speaker 3: a six foot two man who is a serial rapist
10:55
Speaker 3: put in as their cellmate. Do those women have a
10:57
Speaker 3: right to that.
10:58
Speaker 4: Every person who's incarcerated has the right to be safe
11:01
Speaker 4: in their space.
11:02
Speaker 3: But you didn't think so. You didn't think so. And
11:06
Speaker 3: in fact, I'm gonna give some quotes from your order
11:08
Speaker 3: because Senator Kennedy is right. This is not a judge's order.
11:12
Speaker 3: This is a political activist. By the way, the beginning
11:15
Speaker 3: of your order says, at birth, people are typically assigned agender.
11:22
Speaker 3: I gotta say that would astonish a lot of Americans.
11:24
Speaker 3: A lot of Americans think, you go to the hospital,
11:26
Speaker 3: baby is born, and congratulations, you have a little boy,
11:29
Speaker 3: a little girl the assigned agender. I know you went
11:32
Speaker 3: to Brown, but it sounds like it's in a college
11:35
Speaker 3: faculty lounge with no bearing on reality. The Bureau of
11:39
Speaker 3: Prison argued what I'm saying right now, that if you
11:43
Speaker 3: put this person in a female prison, there will be
11:45
Speaker 3: a risk of sexual assault to the women. And you
11:47
Speaker 3: know what you did. You said you didn't care about
11:50
Speaker 3: the women. I'm gonna quote what you wrote. You wrote
11:52
Speaker 3: quote the Bureau of Prisons claim penological interest in protecting
11:56
Speaker 3: female prisoners from sexual violence and trauma. This interest is legitimate.
12:00
Speaker 3: That's kind of you to say, But there are no
12:03
Speaker 3: signs that petitioner is at risk of reoffending. The record
12:06
Speaker 3: is devoid of evidence of incidents of violence or assault
12:09
Speaker 3: during petitioners incarceration when she was the perpetrator. Only the victim.
12:13
Speaker 3: A theoretical risk of sexual assault by the prisoner without
12:16
Speaker 3: more cannot support the BOP's position. No evidence theoretical have
12:22
Speaker 3: you dealt in what universe is someone who is a serial,
12:26
Speaker 3: repeat child rapist not at a risk of reoffending?
12:31
Speaker 4: Senator? As I do in every case?
12:33
Speaker 3: Okay, I know you've been told to repeat the line,
12:35
Speaker 3: I follow the law. I asked a question, in what
12:38
Speaker 3: universe is someone who is a serial, repeat child rapist
12:44
Speaker 3: not at risk of reoffending?
12:46
Speaker 5: Sir?
12:46
Speaker 4: I looked at the facts that were before me in
12:49
Speaker 4: this case, all of the evidence, including the statements of
12:53
Speaker 4: every warden who had supervised this petition.
12:55
Speaker 3: You also wrote, the BOP also posits the permitting petitioner
12:59
Speaker 3: to live among women will be traumatizing and possibly dangerous
13:02
Speaker 3: to them. This concern is overblown. I have to say,
13:07
Speaker 3: if I were the father of one of those women,
13:10
Speaker 3: and you decided that my daughter's cellmate was going to
13:15
Speaker 3: be a six foot two man who over and over
13:17
Speaker 3: and over again committed violent sexual assault. I would say
13:22
Speaker 3: the entire justice system is absurd, and it is clear
13:26
Speaker 3: on your record your political ideology matters a heck of
13:29
Speaker 3: a lot more than the rights of those women that
13:32
Speaker 3: you endangered. I think you're a radical, and I think
13:35
Speaker 3: you have no business being a judge.
13:38
Speaker 1: Senator.
13:38
Speaker 2: I want to take a moment and explain to people
13:42
Speaker 2: the strategy when there is a judge that is nominated
13:47
Speaker 2: in this scenario. One of the first questions that the
13:51
Speaker 2: team that is supposed to be helping here right on
13:53
Speaker 2: the Biden side would say, is okay, hey, let's look
13:56
Speaker 2: at a record. Are there any liabilities out there? Are
13:59
Speaker 2: there any cases that you can't explain? Are there going
14:02
Speaker 2: to be things they're gonna embarrass us or hold us up?
14:05
Speaker 2: Is that now like completely gone for the nomination process
14:09
Speaker 2: if you're on the on the on the left, on
14:10
Speaker 2: the Democratic side, where hey, it doesn't matter how radical
14:13
Speaker 2: you are, if we like you and we think you're
14:15
Speaker 2: one of us, we'll just nominate you no matter what
14:17
Speaker 2: you've done in your past.
14:19
Speaker 3: So Ben, I'll say, it's worse than that the more
14:21
Speaker 3: radical you are, the more of a plus it is.
14:23
Speaker 3: They're deliberately looking for people who do things like this.
14:27
Speaker 3: The fact that this woman is a left wing radical
14:29
Speaker 3: who sees this, this transgender six foot two men who
14:33
Speaker 3: claims he's a woman and wants to be in a
14:35
Speaker 3: women's prison and says great, puts ideology above the law.
14:40
Speaker 3: Puts ideology above the rights of women. By the way,
14:43
Speaker 3: today's radical leftist that that there's a hierarchy of whose
14:48
Speaker 3: rights matters, and and and to the left, transgender people
14:52
Speaker 3: rights matter more than women's rights, and so the women's
14:55
Speaker 3: rights just don't matter at all. And you know, it's
14:57
Speaker 3: very easy for a privileged life just to say this
15:00
Speaker 3: because you know what, this judge, she didn't have a
15:03
Speaker 3: cell mate who was a serial rapist. She was just
15:06
Speaker 3: subjecting other people to that, and so it made her
15:08
Speaker 3: ideology feel very good.
15:11
Speaker 1: But qualified her is what you're saying. This is what
15:14
Speaker 1: qualities might.
15:15
Speaker 3: Seek out people like this. This is who they're looking for.
15:18
Speaker 3: And i'll tell you for a district judge, in all likelihood,
15:22
Speaker 3: this person was selected by Chuck Schumer. The way it
15:25
Speaker 3: works for district judges is the home state senators have
15:30
Speaker 3: enormous ways. So to give you a sense, for the
15:32
Speaker 3: past twelve years that I've been in the Senate, practically
15:37
Speaker 3: every district court nominee from the state of Texas, John
15:40
Speaker 3: Cornyn and I have submitted to the White House one
15:43
Speaker 3: name for each vacancy. And that's been true under Democrat
15:46
Speaker 3: and Republican presidents. As a practical matter, the Senators typically
15:52
Speaker 3: pick the district judges.
15:54
Speaker 2: So they look at her or she looks at these
15:57
Speaker 2: cases and says, hey, I want to move up the ranks.
16:01
Speaker 2: I got to do something that signals to them that
16:03
Speaker 2: I'm an activist, I'm an extremist, and that gets me
16:08
Speaker 2: to the front of the line. Because if you're normal,
16:09
Speaker 2: insane and you would say, of course, I'm not going
16:12
Speaker 2: to put a serial rapist in a women's prison who's
16:15
Speaker 2: a six foot two dude, then you may get passed
16:18
Speaker 2: up by the entire Democratic administration.
16:21
Speaker 3: Look, it's one of the striking things under Biden. The
16:24
Speaker 3: judicial nominees under Biden have been much, much, much more
16:28
Speaker 3: radical than they were under Obama. Listen, I was not
16:31
Speaker 3: a fan of Obama's nominees. To put it mildly, they
16:33
Speaker 3: were all quite left wing, but Biden has made them
16:37
Speaker 3: look positively middle of the road. They are seeking out radicals,
16:41
Speaker 3: They're seeking out people who are extreme. We had one another,
16:45
Speaker 3: actually New York District Court nominee, who described himself in
16:49
Speaker 3: his own words as a quote wild eyed liberal who
16:53
Speaker 3: said every morning he wakes up motivated by hatred for conservatives. Well,
16:59
Speaker 3: apparently that's how you get selected by Chuck Schumer. He
17:01
Speaker 3: got nominated, and I and others made the point, Look,
17:05
Speaker 3: there are actually some Republicans, some conservatives in the state
17:08
Speaker 3: of New York. If God forbid, you find yourself in
17:11
Speaker 3: this judge's court, how are you supposed to believe you
17:13
Speaker 3: can get a fair treatment and equal justice under the
17:16
Speaker 3: law from a judge who told you he woke up
17:19
Speaker 3: that morning motivated by his hatred for you. Well it
17:22
Speaker 3: didn't matter. The Democrats all voted party line. They got
17:25
Speaker 3: behind him. He's now a judge in New York. He
17:27
Speaker 3: was confirmed by this Democrat Senate. There was another judge
17:32
Speaker 3: nominated in Connecticut, so the Connecticut senators decided they wanted
17:35
Speaker 3: this judge. She was a law professor. She signed a
17:39
Speaker 3: letter to the Governor of Connecticut arguing during COVID that
17:43
Speaker 3: he should release every single prisoner from pre trial to
17:47
Speaker 3: atention with no qualification. So that included murderers, that included rapists,
17:51
Speaker 3: that included child molesters, all of them should be released
17:55
Speaker 3: from prison because of COVID.
17:57
Speaker 1: That's just nuts that.
17:58
Speaker 3: There was another judiciale from the Central District of California who,
18:04
Speaker 3: again in a law review article, argued that the laws
18:07
Speaker 3: restricting where sexual predators can live should be struck down
18:13
Speaker 3: and and pedophiles should be able to live next to
18:17
Speaker 3: daycare centers and kindergartens. Listen, I urged the Democrats and
18:22
Speaker 3: the Judiciary Committee. I said, I get that it's a
18:26
Speaker 3: Democrat president. You're Democrats. You're going to confirm most of
18:30
Speaker 3: the nominees. You know, when Trump was president, we confirm
18:33
Speaker 3: most of the nominees. But you know what we did
18:35
Speaker 3: when Trump was president. We rejected several of them because
18:38
Speaker 3: the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility to to to
18:42
Speaker 3: advise and consent, and there were some of the nominees
18:45
Speaker 3: the Trump White House missed on and even though he
18:48
Speaker 3: was a Republican, we said, no, this is not going
18:50
Speaker 3: to do and they withdrew those nominees.
18:53
Speaker 1: The Senate, you'ee right, Yes.
18:56
Speaker 3: We got much better nominees that that's actually the constitutional
18:59
Speaker 3: process that's doing our job. The Democrats are just like
19:03
Speaker 3: the polit girl. And on this judge that said that
19:09
Speaker 3: you should not restrict where sexual predators live, I said,
19:13
Speaker 3: I don't care how blue a state you live in,
19:15
Speaker 3: whether New York or Connecticut or New Jersey or WII
19:17
Speaker 3: or Vermont, whatever state you're in. I promise you gather
19:21
Speaker 3: fifty one hundred year constituents, get them together and ask them, hey,
19:24
Speaker 3: do you think pedophiles should live next to a kindergarten.
19:27
Speaker 3: They're all going to say no. No, normal rational person
19:31
Speaker 3: answers yes to that. But in this Biden White House,
19:35
Speaker 3: with this Chuck Schumer Democrat Senate, those are the kind
19:39
Speaker 3: of radicals they want to be federal judges.
19:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great point, and it's sad that these
19:44
Speaker 2: are the people getting these jobs and then they get
19:46
Speaker 2: sit there for years on end, affecting people's lives in
19:49
Speaker 2: a major way. And we're going to talk about the
19:50
Speaker 2: Trump trial in a minute. It's a perfect example of that.
19:53
Speaker 2: Want to talk to you real quick about something we
19:55
Speaker 2: started talking about about a year ago. I told you
19:59
Speaker 2: about a year ago about chalk. Now, if you're a
20:02
Speaker 2: guy and you're like me, and you've gotten a little
20:05
Speaker 2: bit older, and you feel like that you've lost that edge,
20:08
Speaker 2: you feel like you've lost some of your energy, your focus,
20:12
Speaker 2: and you're not able to get up and work out
20:15
Speaker 2: and play sports and be active the way you used to,
20:19
Speaker 2: and you want to go back to that, then you
20:21
Speaker 2: need to check out what chalk can do for you.
20:25
Speaker 2: Low testostrum levels are now incredibly bad. In fact, they're
20:30
Speaker 2: off a cliff historically at an all time low.
20:32
Speaker 1: And that is where chalk comes in. Chalk Choq.
20:36
Speaker 2: They're helping real American men just like you, take back
20:40
Speaker 2: your right to proudly maximize your masculinity by boosting testostrum
20:44
Speaker 2: levels up to twenty percent over ninety days. Now in
20:48
Speaker 2: the last year I have lost about fifty six or
20:52
Speaker 2: seven pounds so far. I got to tell you, taking
20:55
Speaker 2: chalk is at a huge difference on my ability to
20:58
Speaker 2: work out and to cant Can you working out without
21:01
Speaker 2: that fatigue setting in? So if you are sick and
21:04
Speaker 2: tired of feeling sick and tired of just not feeling
21:08
Speaker 2: like yourself, you need to check out chalk. I've been
21:11
Speaker 2: taking the Chalk Male Vitality Stack, like I said, for
21:14
Speaker 2: over a year now, and that is what it's done
21:17
Speaker 2: for me. It's manufactured right here in the US of A.
21:19
Speaker 2: Chalk's natural Aurble supplements are clinically proven to have game
21:22
Speaker 2: changing effects on your energy, your focus, your mood. And
21:26
Speaker 2: you can maximize your masculinity today by boosting your testosterum
21:30
Speaker 2: levels up to twenty percent of ninety days by going
21:32
Speaker 2: to Chalkchoq dot com. Use the promo code Ben for
21:36
Speaker 2: a massive discount on any subscription for life. Choq dot
21:41
Speaker 2: com promo code Ben for lifetime savings on any subscription.
21:45
Speaker 2: Limited time offer and subscriptions are cancible at any time.
21:51
Speaker 2: Choq dot com promo code Ben Center. I want to
21:55
Speaker 2: move into the Trump trial now because I think it's
21:58
Speaker 2: a perfect example of the radicals that get on these
22:01
Speaker 2: courts and what can happen. We know that the federal
22:05
Speaker 2: government seven eight years ago said no to even taking
22:09
Speaker 2: this case on.
22:09
Speaker 1: They thought it was ridiculous.
22:11
Speaker 2: They chose not to move forward with it because they
22:13
Speaker 2: didn't think there was anything there. And then you've got
22:16
Speaker 2: an activist judge or activist da and Alvin Bragg who says, hey, hey,
22:20
Speaker 2: vote for me and I'll go after Trump. And then
22:22
Speaker 2: he finds the perfect judge, the perfect place in Manhattan
22:26
Speaker 2: where ninety percent of the people vote against Donald Trump.
22:28
Speaker 2: Last time, you go to trial and all of a
22:32
Speaker 2: sudden we find a crime that's been committed. Now, but
22:34
Speaker 2: it wasn't Donald Trump that committed that crime. It's the
22:37
Speaker 2: key witness for the government who had to admit in
22:41
Speaker 2: court that he took money, stole money from the Trump organization.
22:45
Speaker 2: How is this trial not at that point just immediately canceled, saying, hey,
22:49
Speaker 2: we're gonna have it, miss trial, it's over.
22:51
Speaker 3: Well, listen, this has been a partisan circus from day one.
22:54
Speaker 3: As you noted, the district attorney is a hard left
22:57
Speaker 3: wing Democrat partisan. He was elected with money from George Soros.
23:02
Speaker 3: He came in with an agenda, an agenda to get
23:05
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, and it didn't matter what the charge was,
23:08
Speaker 3: he was going to try to take Trump down. So
23:11
Speaker 3: that they got particularly creative in this case to create
23:15
Speaker 3: a prosecution where there was no crime. Now, we all
23:18
Speaker 3: know about the alleged affair with Stormy Daniels and the
23:22
Speaker 3: hush money, and that is salacious, but it's not in
23:26
Speaker 3: fact criminal. So here's their argument, and it's it's a
23:30
Speaker 3: bootstrap on top of a bootstrap. They argue, first of all,
23:34
Speaker 3: that paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet and not tell
23:38
Speaker 3: her story that constituted a illegal campaign contribution under federal
23:45
Speaker 3: campaign finance laws. Now, if that were the case, it's
23:49
Speaker 3: not the Manhattan DA that prosecutes violations of federal campaign
23:54
Speaker 3: finance laws, it's the federal government. The federal government looked
23:57
Speaker 3: at this and concluded, Nope, we're not going to bring
23:59
Speaker 3: a case here. So that's a problem. Their predicate crime
24:04
Speaker 3: they don't have the jurisdiction to prosecute. So they then
24:07
Speaker 3: have a different New York statue that makes it a
24:09
Speaker 3: crime to keep fake fraudulent books. And the problem is
24:14
Speaker 3: that that crime is ordinarily a misdemeanor, but in this
24:18
Speaker 3: case they elevated to being a felony howe by saying, well,
24:22
Speaker 3: the fraudulent books are in furtherance of a crime in
24:26
Speaker 3: this case, the federal crime that the federal government declined
24:29
Speaker 3: to bring. And so it is literally a non crime
24:33
Speaker 3: on top of a non crime. Because the payment to
24:37
Speaker 3: the lawyers that allegedly went out to Stormy Daniels were
24:41
Speaker 3: labeled as legal expenses, and that's what they're claiming is
24:45
Speaker 3: the crime of covering up the non crime of the
24:48
Speaker 3: campaign finance offense. Now their star witness is Michael Cohen.
24:52
Speaker 3: This is a lawyer who has lied over and over
24:56
Speaker 3: and over again. He lied during the trial. He got
24:58
Speaker 3: caught lying during the trial. He's someone who has a
25:01
Speaker 3: long history of lying. But even with that long history
25:05
Speaker 3: of lying, I really didn't think he would sit on
25:08
Speaker 3: the stand and admit himself to being a felon, to
25:13
Speaker 3: having stolen from Trump. And I'll tell you what to
25:18
Speaker 3: listen to what CNN's legal expert Eli Hannig said on this.
25:24
Speaker 6: I think the revelation though this morning about the theft
25:27
Speaker 6: of thirty thousand dollars, which was doubled because they covered
25:30
Speaker 6: his taxes, so sixty thousand dollars, it came out in
25:33
Speaker 6: a glancing, unclear way on direct It came out like
25:36
Speaker 6: a bomb earlier today. I don't know how much they
25:40
Speaker 6: can do to fix that. It just at a certain point,
25:42
Speaker 6: it is the fact Michael Cohen did steal this money.
25:45
Speaker 6: And what makes that really so important, Wolf is it's
25:47
Speaker 6: not as if Michael Cohen was just stealing on the side,
25:50
Speaker 6: that'd be bad enough. The problem is he was stealing
25:53
Speaker 6: from the exact reimbursement at issue in this case. So
25:56
Speaker 6: the prosecution's core argument is Donald Trump knew what that
25:59
Speaker 6: four hundred and twenty five dollars was all about. He
26:01
Speaker 6: was totally read in on.
26:02
Speaker 1: It turns out.
26:03
Speaker 6: Michael Cohen was stealing from him within that four hundred
26:06
Speaker 6: twenty thousand.
26:06
Speaker 7: Does Michael Cohen's acknowledgment admission that he stole tens of
26:10
Speaker 7: thousands of dollars from the Trump organization potentially opening him
26:13
Speaker 7: up opened him up to further criminal criminal process.
26:17
Speaker 1: It's a great question.
26:17
Speaker 6: The answer is not anymore because the statutal limitations has
26:21
Speaker 6: run out. But it's a very fair question to ask
26:24
Speaker 6: j folks of the jury. They gave him a free pass.
26:27
Speaker 6: He committed larceny. It's a higher degree of felony than
26:30
Speaker 6: what Donald Trump is charged with. Yet they gave Michael
26:33
Speaker 6: Cohen a free pass, even though he's now admitted that
26:36
Speaker 6: he stole what amounts to sixty thousand dollars. It goes
26:38
Speaker 6: to his credibility, it goes to his relationship with the DA.
26:41
Speaker 2: You look at his quote and it's it's just obviously
26:45
Speaker 2: he knows he's got to get out a jail free
26:47
Speaker 2: card because it was a simple question. So you stole
26:50
Speaker 2: from the Trump organization, question Mark Cohen, Yes, sir.
26:54
Speaker 1: It's almost like he's proud of it.
26:56
Speaker 2: He's like, yeah, I was stealing from the guy. And
26:58
Speaker 2: by the way, this is the one he admits, we
27:00
Speaker 2: have no idea what else you may have done that
27:01
Speaker 2: we don't know about.
27:02
Speaker 3: Yeah, but look, the DA has an objective here, and
27:05
Speaker 3: it's not actually to prosecute crimes. It's not actually to
27:07
Speaker 3: enforce the law. It's to get Donald Trump. So the
27:10
Speaker 3: DA is quite happy with he stole from Donald Trump
27:13
Speaker 3: because they're objective. The radical left has decided Donald Trump
27:16
Speaker 3: is the devil and they will do anything, anything, anything
27:19
Speaker 3: possible to get him. And by the way, the media
27:22
Speaker 3: is in terror. We at a prior pod covered Anderson
27:26
Speaker 3: Cooper freaking out how badly the trial's going. Take a
27:29
Speaker 3: listen to what Jake Tapper and Laura Coach said about
27:32
Speaker 3: about this, this Michael Cohen testimony.
27:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's fascinating stuff.
27:37
Speaker 8: And I have to say I'm still kind of reeling
27:39
Speaker 8: from the revelation that Michael Cohen stole money from the
27:44
Speaker 8: Trump organization, and that wasn't, at least to my knowledge,
27:48
Speaker 8: that the prosecution didn't get that get that out earlier,
27:51
Speaker 8: because it's not as though the prosecution is going to
27:55
Speaker 8: be helped by further evidence that Michael Cohen is a
27:59
Speaker 8: shady carearacter. I mean, let's I'll get to the newest
28:03
Speaker 8: stuff in a second, but like, I mean, what's just
28:06
Speaker 8: what's your reaction to that news?
28:07
Speaker 3: Because that was just kind of stunning.
28:09
Speaker 9: I'm shocked that we are hearing it for the first
28:11
Speaker 9: time on day three of cross examination of Michael Cohen,
28:13
Speaker 9: that the prosecution did not take the sting out, did
28:16
Speaker 9: not front it, because it goes to the heart of
28:18
Speaker 9: the actual case. It's not just about establishing him as
28:21
Speaker 9: a liar. They've done that. The prosecution fronted that. We
28:23
Speaker 9: knew that he has convictions, but going to the heart
28:26
Speaker 9: of what you were telling your employer about what money
28:30
Speaker 9: you were owed and the extent of it. We're talking
28:32
Speaker 9: about four hundred and twenty thousand dollars. We've already seen
28:34
Speaker 9: the paper. This is like a fifteen bucks, not afteen bucks,
28:37
Speaker 9: and we I mean, if you think are the tablet,
28:39
Speaker 9: you can break down what was already known. We've known
28:41
Speaker 9: about what the breakdown of the money is. One hundred
28:44
Speaker 9: and thirty thousand dollars to Daniels and her attorney. You
28:47
Speaker 9: got fifty thousand dollars. That's Redfinch.
28:49
Speaker 1: This is important here.
28:50
Speaker 9: This was mentioned today that he only gave Redfinch twenty
28:54
Speaker 9: thousand dollars and handed them.
28:56
Speaker 1: In a brown paper bag.
28:57
Speaker 9: By the way, just thinking about how that is.
29:00
Speaker 1: One quick note.
29:01
Speaker 8: Redfinch is this political organization that apparently, according to Michael Cohen,
29:06
Speaker 8: helped them goose these bogus internet polls about which candidate
29:11
Speaker 8: is in the lead, et cetera, et cetera, and also,
29:13
Speaker 8: according to Lanny Davis, provided adoring fans for Trump's announcement
29:20
Speaker 8: of his candidacy in June twenty fifteenth.
29:22
Speaker 9: Sorry, really important point to add. Why this is they
29:25
Speaker 9: only got twenty thousand of it though the bill was
29:27
Speaker 9: for fifty thousand dollars, and you have one hundred and
29:29
Speaker 9: eighty thousand dollars, which is again the double of these
29:31
Speaker 9: two combinations. And then a bonus for Cohen. Remember all
29:35
Speaker 9: that we have so far to link Donald Trump to
29:38
Speaker 9: these payments, in part is the statement that quote unquote
29:41
Speaker 9: he approved it.
29:42
Speaker 1: We also know we have.
29:44
Speaker 9: Information about where the checks were, how it was signed.
29:47
Speaker 9: But remember mcconnie, that was one of the comptrollers of
29:50
Speaker 9: the Trump organization taking notes from Alan Weiselberg about the
29:54
Speaker 9: money payment. So this is part of what we're talking about.
29:57
Speaker 9: Why this is so important here is because the heart
30:00
Speaker 9: of the matter is that Donald Trump was complicit, caused
30:05
Speaker 9: to have this happen and knew about the money that
30:07
Speaker 9: was going and why if they can establish Michael Cowen
30:10
Speaker 9: as somebody who is not to be trusted about the
30:12
Speaker 9: amount of money as well, then they might be able
30:14
Speaker 9: to suggest that Donald Trump had no idea what he
30:16
Speaker 9: was trying.
30:17
Speaker 2: So, by the way, I think it's pretty clear Donald
30:20
Speaker 2: Trump had no idea what was paying. Otherwise, why would
30:22
Speaker 2: you be giving this money to a guy that is
30:24
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, a bunch of the money's disappearing,
30:27
Speaker 2: like blows the case.
30:29
Speaker 1: Out of the water.
30:30
Speaker 3: The prosecution's argument is Michael Cohen is a liar, but
30:35
Speaker 3: he's a thief too. Like that that's kind of a problem.
30:38
Speaker 3: But you know what, the corporate media is so corrupt
30:42
Speaker 3: they're trying to defend him. Listen to Laurence o'donald from
30:46
Speaker 3: MSNBC trying to explain that the fact that that Cohen
30:50
Speaker 3: was stealing from Trump, it's really not a problem.
30:53
Speaker 4: It's okay inside the core room, even there, almost every
30:56
Speaker 4: day you have the strength of of.
31:01
Speaker 1: Beyond mortal men. But what was worth it to you today?
31:05
Speaker 1: What did you see?
31:06
Speaker 4: What did you hear?
31:10
Speaker 5: Well, you know, the courtroom is where I began as
31:12
Speaker 5: a writer and a reporter a long time ago. So
31:14
Speaker 5: this is a homecoming for me in terms of a workplace.
31:19
Speaker 1: The shocking thing at the.
31:20
Speaker 5: End of that cross examination, and I just can't tell
31:23
Speaker 5: you how just how stunning it was, because it's the
31:26
Speaker 5: thing that I was waiting for. I saw everything Todd Blanche.
31:29
Speaker 5: I've seen every minute of cross examination. I've seen every
31:32
Speaker 5: single question he's asked. And he sat down and ended
31:37
Speaker 5: his cross examination without asking a single question about the
31:43
Speaker 5: one hundred and thirty thousand dollars that appears on the
31:47
Speaker 5: Alan Weiselberg notes about how they were structuring the payment
31:53
Speaker 5: to Michael Cohen. He asked about the fifty thousand dollars
31:57
Speaker 5: that's irrelevant to the one hundred and thirty thousand dollars,
32:00
Speaker 5: and that's where he very effectively got Michael Cohen to
32:03
Speaker 5: say to agree that yes, he stole thirty thousand dollars. Later,
32:09
Speaker 5: when Cohen was asked about that on redirect by the prosecution,
32:12
Speaker 5: it didn't really sound like stealing thirty thousand dollars. It
32:15
Speaker 5: sounded a lot like Michael Cohen doing the little that
32:19
Speaker 5: he could within that calculation to rebalance the bonus he
32:25
Speaker 5: thought he deserves, and it still came out as less
32:28
Speaker 5: than the bonus he thought he deserved and the bonus
32:30
Speaker 5: you've gotten the year before.
32:33
Speaker 2: I mean, I love how he's like justifying the stealing
32:36
Speaker 2: because he thought he'd.
32:37
Speaker 3: Deserved trying to rebalance the bonus. You know, if you
32:40
Speaker 3: steal from your employer, you're just trying to rebalance what
32:44
Speaker 3: they're paying you because you know you're worth more, so
32:47
Speaker 3: steal away. That is MSNBC's defense.
32:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's not a big deal to pay people
32:54
Speaker 2: in brown paper bags for work, right, That's also very
32:57
Speaker 2: normal apparently in the minds of him an NBC as well,
33:00
Speaker 2: So we'll completely overlook that as well. Final question on this,
33:06
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, You're right not going to take the stand
33:09
Speaker 2: that I think is obviously a smart decision.
33:11
Speaker 1: As you described it.
33:12
Speaker 2: I think it was in the last podcast the one
33:13
Speaker 2: before that he's not going to.
33:16
Speaker 3: Ye, which is what we predicted on this podcast before
33:20
Speaker 3: that decision was made. I said on this podcast the
33:23
Speaker 3: chances that Donald Trump will go on the stand or
33:25
Speaker 3: zero point zero zero percent. Well that was proven right.
33:28
Speaker 3: He's not going on the stand because his lawyers are
33:31
Speaker 3: not incompetent in committing malpractice.
33:34
Speaker 2: So when you're looking at this now, what do you
33:37
Speaker 2: think is going to happen?
33:38
Speaker 1: What's your gut?
33:41
Speaker 3: I don't know. I remain worried. Listen on the merits.
33:43
Speaker 3: This case is frivolous. And I will point out also
33:46
Speaker 3: that the judge one of the things he did is
33:48
Speaker 3: he blocked the Trump campaign from putting on the witness
33:52
Speaker 3: stand the former chairman of the FEC, Brad Smith. Brad
33:56
Speaker 3: Smith is a law professor, is one of the most
33:59
Speaker 3: well respet did campaign finance experts in the country. Campaign
34:02
Speaker 3: finance law is famously complicated, and Bratt Smith was prepared
34:09
Speaker 3: to testify that that paying hush money does not constitute
34:14
Speaker 3: a campaign expense. If that's correct, the entire case goes
34:18
Speaker 3: out the window. And it's interesting. So after the judge
34:22
Speaker 3: blocked him from testifying, Smith did an interview did an
34:28
Speaker 3: interview with The Washington Examiner where he described what he
34:32
Speaker 3: would have testified to and Smith said, here's what Smith said. Quote,
34:39
Speaker 3: judges instruct the juries on the law, and they don't
34:42
Speaker 3: want a battle of competing experts saying here's what the
34:44
Speaker 3: law is. They feel it's their province to make that determination.
34:48
Speaker 3: The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is
34:51
Speaker 3: extremely complex, and just reading the statute to people isn't
34:54
Speaker 3: really going to help them very much. The goal of
34:58
Speaker 3: his testimony, Smith said was quote to lay out the
35:01
Speaker 3: ways the laws has been interpreted in ways that might
35:04
Speaker 3: not be obvious. As an example, Smith cited the phrase
35:07
Speaker 3: quote for the purpose of influencing an election, which has
35:11
Speaker 3: been heard during much analysis of the trial. Quote you
35:15
Speaker 3: read the law and it says that anything intended for
35:17
Speaker 3: the purpose of influencing an election is a contribution or
35:20
Speaker 3: an expenditure, Smith explained. But that's not, in fact the
35:26
Speaker 3: entirety of the law. There is the obscure and separate
35:29
Speaker 3: from the definitional part idea personal use, which is a
35:33
Speaker 3: separate part of the law that says you can't divert
35:35
Speaker 3: campaign funds to personal use that has a number of
35:38
Speaker 3: specific prohibitions, like you can't buy a country club membership,
35:42
Speaker 3: you can't normally pay yourself a salary or living expenses,
35:45
Speaker 3: you can't go on vacation, all those kinds of things.
35:48
Speaker 3: And then it includes a broader general prohibition that says
35:52
Speaker 3: you can't divert campaign funds to any obligation that would
35:55
Speaker 3: exist even if you were not running for office. What's
35:59
Speaker 3: the point of that quote? We would have liked to
36:02
Speaker 3: flag that exception for the jury and to talk a
36:05
Speaker 3: little bit about what it means. And also we would
36:08
Speaker 3: have talked about quote for the purpose of influence in
36:11
Speaker 3: an election is not a subjective test like what was
36:14
Speaker 3: my intention? It's an objective test. So hiring campaign staff
36:20
Speaker 3: is for the purpose of influencing an election, Renting space
36:23
Speaker 3: for your campaign office, buying ads, maybe doing polling, printing
36:26
Speaker 3: up bumper stickers, travel to campaign rallies, renting venues for
36:29
Speaker 3: campaign rallies. All those things exist only because you're running
36:33
Speaker 3: for office. But under the personal use rules, a lot
36:37
Speaker 3: of things candidates do running for office are not considered
36:40
Speaker 3: campaign expenditures. Things like paying for a weight loss program
36:44
Speaker 3: or a gym membership, nicer clothes, teeth whitening, or all
36:48
Speaker 3: that sort of thing. It may be true that you
36:50
Speaker 3: do those things in part to help get yourself elected,
36:54
Speaker 3: and you might not do them otherwise because but they
36:57
Speaker 3: are not obligations that exist simply because you're running for office.
37:02
Speaker 3: Lots of people do those things. And what he argued
37:07
Speaker 3: is that in this instance, I can tell you it
37:12
Speaker 3: is my personal belief is that clearly paying hush money
37:17
Speaker 3: or paying for a non disclosure agreement does not constitute
37:21
Speaker 3: a campaign expense. That's what the former FEC chairman would
37:24
Speaker 3: have testified to quote. To use an example I've often used,
37:28
Speaker 3: it's not a campaign expense. If a business person is
37:31
Speaker 3: running for office and his businesses are getting sued, and
37:34
Speaker 3: he goes to his company's lawyers and say, I wish
37:37
Speaker 3: to settle these lawsuits against us. We've got some wage
37:40
Speaker 3: employment lawsuits and a woman is alleging sexual harassment. We've
37:43
Speaker 3: got thirty six thousand employees. What we've got to make
37:45
Speaker 3: these three complaints and the press will make a big
37:48
Speaker 3: deal about them, So I want you to settle these.
37:51
Speaker 3: And the company lawyers say, no, these are great cases,
37:53
Speaker 3: we should win. We shouldn't settle them. He says, I
37:56
Speaker 3: don't care. I'm running for office. I don't want press
37:58
Speaker 3: stories on it. I want them you to settle them quietly. Well,
38:01
Speaker 3: he cannot use campaign funds to pay that settlement, even
38:05
Speaker 3: though he's clearly doing it for the purpose of influencing
38:08
Speaker 3: his campaign. It's kind of similar to what went on here.
38:12
Speaker 3: Smith continued quote. So my personal belief is that this
38:17
Speaker 3: clearly would not have been a campaign expenditure, never had
38:21
Speaker 3: to be reported, and therefore was not misreported. And you
38:25
Speaker 3: know what the judge said. The jury can't hear a
38:28
Speaker 3: word of that because it demonstrates he didn't say this part,
38:31
Speaker 3: but because it demonstrates that the prosecutor's case is utter, incomplete.
38:35
Speaker 2: Garbage, unbelievable bias in this case. And it's another example
38:40
Speaker 2: of that. I want to tell you real quick about
38:42
Speaker 2: an amazing organization that I want you to know about,
38:45
Speaker 2: and it is an organization called it preborn. When a
38:49
Speaker 2: mother with an unplanned pregnancy meets her baby on ultrasound
38:54
Speaker 2: and here's their heartbeat, it is a divine encounter that
38:57
Speaker 2: doubles a baby's chance at life by six weeks, eyes
39:03
Speaker 2: are forming with a baby by ten weeks, a baby
39:06
Speaker 2: is able to suck his or her own thumb, and
39:09
Speaker 2: for just twenty eight dollars, you could be the difference
39:13
Speaker 2: between the life or death of a child. That is
39:16
Speaker 2: what Preborn does. They give women the ability to hear
39:22
Speaker 2: their baby's heartbeat on ultrasound. It's just like putting your
39:26
Speaker 2: hand over your heart. Right now, you know that you're
39:29
Speaker 2: alive because you can feel that heartbeat. And the same
39:31
Speaker 2: is for a preborn baby. Their heart begins to form
39:35
Speaker 2: at conception and at just three weeks it's already beating
39:38
Speaker 2: and five weeks a baby's heartbeat can be heard on
39:40
Speaker 2: that ultrasound. And that's why we partnered with Preborn, because
39:44
Speaker 2: we need to help these precious babies. Every day Preborn's
39:48
Speaker 2: networks of clinics they rescue two hundred babies from abortion.
39:55
Speaker 2: That is why I want you to get involved. All
39:58
Speaker 2: gifts are tax seductible. You can donate by just dialing
40:02
Speaker 2: pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound
40:06
Speaker 2: two fifty, say the keyword baby. Or you can donate
40:09
Speaker 2: securely at preborn dot com slash verdict. That's preborn dot com,
40:15
Speaker 2: slash verdict. Get in the game, help fight back against
40:19
Speaker 2: what they're doing over it. Planned Parenthood. Help the people
40:23
Speaker 2: at Preborn who are giving mothers a chance to hear
40:26
Speaker 2: their baby's heartbeat for the very first time. Pound two
40:30
Speaker 2: fifty on your phone and then use the keyword baby
40:34
Speaker 2: or donate securely at preborn dot com slash verdict. Lastly,
40:40
Speaker 2: on this issue center, the war on truth is really,
40:44
Speaker 2: I think incredible. You can see it. And you mentioned
40:47
Speaker 2: this earlier. In the media's coverage of the Trump case,
40:50
Speaker 2: you had MSNBC. You and I were texting back and
40:53
Speaker 2: forth on this because it was it was a headline
40:55
Speaker 2: that was so laughable, and the headline was how Michael
40:58
Speaker 2: Cohen's pass lie make him a more credible witness. And
41:04
Speaker 2: they weren't the only ones to try to pull this,
41:06
Speaker 2: you know, Jedi mind trick on people. The New York
41:09
Speaker 2: Times had a headline it says, when Michael Cohen's lies
41:12
Speaker 2: help the case against Trump? What world are we living
41:16
Speaker 2: in where this is what the media comes up with afterwards?
41:19
Speaker 3: A spinnet Well listen. Number one, The media unfortunately regularly lies,
41:24
Speaker 3: They engage in lies. They view their role as propagandists.
41:27
Speaker 3: It's not they're not interested in the truth. They're not
41:30
Speaker 3: interested in reporting both sides. They're not interested in facts.
41:33
Speaker 3: They frame their mission as saving democracy, which means pushing
41:37
Speaker 3: this country to the left, and as it concerns Donald Trump,
41:40
Speaker 3: it means doing everything you can to destroy Trump and
41:43
Speaker 3: make sure, no matter what, that he's not re elected
41:45
Speaker 3: president of the United States. The spins are rather pitiful.
41:48
Speaker 3: The idea that, well, you know what, Cohen lies so
41:53
Speaker 3: much that he's really a believable witness, Like that's just weird.
41:58
Speaker 3: And I got to say, the media lies about Cohen's
42:02
Speaker 3: lies making them more credible are so absurd. It just
42:05
Speaker 3: shows they're really bad liars.
42:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're going to continue to do this to
42:09
Speaker 2: push this case. Like you said, there's still reason to
42:11
Speaker 2: be very concerned. We're going to keep covering it that
42:14
Speaker 2: we promise you don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday,
42:17
Speaker 2: and Friday. We have a week in review of things
42:19
Speaker 2: you may have missed during the week on Saturdays as well.
42:23
Speaker 2: Hit that subscribe or auto download button, and on those
42:25
Speaker 2: in between days make sure you grab my podcast.
42:29
Speaker 1: I'll keep you up to date. The Ben Ferguson Podcast.
42:32
Speaker 1: It is free.
42:33
Speaker 2: You can download it wherever you're listening to this show
42:35
Speaker 2: right now, and the Senator, I will see you back
42:38
Speaker 2: here for the weekend review on Saturday,