Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Hunter Biden Could Take a Plea Deal With Jail Time to Protect His Father!

Transcript

Hunter Biden Could Take a Plea Deal With Jail Time to Protect His Father! · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: The headlines are changing in a big way when it
0:03
Speaker 1: comes to the story with Hunter Biden. Just over the
0:06
Speaker 1: last twenty four hours. I'm going to read you some
0:09
Speaker 1: of the different headlines from major publications. We'll start with
0:13
Speaker 1: a New York Post. Their headline, the White House can't
0:15
Speaker 1: just wash away the stink of Hunter Biden's laptop. The
0:20
Speaker 1: New York Times has a new opinion piece out that
0:22
Speaker 1: says it's never a good time for the Hunter Biden story.
0:26
Speaker 1: Houston Chronicle opinion Deniers of the Hunter Biden laptop story
0:30
Speaker 1: live in a bubble of lies? Yahoo Finance, Just how
0:35
Speaker 1: much money is Hunter Biden hiding? What is his net worth?
0:40
Speaker 1: Newsweek Hunter Biden laptop scandal is the ultimate American information operation,
0:46
Speaker 1: not misinformation but information operation. Fox News headline. If Hunter
0:51
Speaker 1: is indicted, it could open a whole can of worms
0:54
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden. Wall Street Journal, Hunter Biden's Laptop and
0:59
Speaker 1: America's crisis of accountability. Now a quick reminder, if you're
1:04
Speaker 1: listening to this podcast, please make sure you hit the
1:07
Speaker 1: subscriber auto download button and tell your friends about this podcast,
1:11
Speaker 1: Share this on social media, and if you would write
1:13
Speaker 1: us a five star review to help us as Democrats
1:16
Speaker 1: have been attacking our podcasts recently with bad reviews. Now
1:20
Speaker 1: all of the headlines that I just gave you over
1:23
Speaker 1: the last twenty four hours, you notice that the headlines
1:26
Speaker 1: are changing and the mainstream media, years later, are starting
1:32
Speaker 1: to report on this story. Why it's a great question.
1:38
Speaker 1: Number One, we have these new emails that have been
1:40
Speaker 1: leaked from inside the government that show the money flowing
1:44
Speaker 1: between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. This was not even
1:47
Speaker 1: from the laptop. The New York Times trying to do
1:50
Speaker 1: defense for the White House getting the story out there
1:52
Speaker 1: a little bit last week admitting that the laptop is
1:55
Speaker 1: in fact authentic. Two years late. Peter Schweitzer, also in
2:00
Speaker 1: his book, was talking about red handed about the money
2:03
Speaker 1: flowing between Joe Biden Hunter Biden, and he said this
2:07
Speaker 1: week in a conversation this which really helped blow this open,
2:11
Speaker 1: and not in a good way for the White House.
2:13
Speaker 1: Here you talk about these millions of dollars with the
2:16
Speaker 1: Biden family. There are allegations that some of that actually
2:19
Speaker 1: went to Joe Biden. Can you prove that any of
2:21
Speaker 1: it did? Yeah, if you look at the Hunter Biden laptop,
2:25
Speaker 1: there's a couple of things that stand out. Number one,
2:28
Speaker 1: that Hunter Biden is paying some of his father's monthly
2:31
Speaker 1: bills while he's Vice president of the United States. That's
2:34
Speaker 1: explicitly laid out in the emails. And number two, that
2:38
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was paying for things like renovation on his
2:42
Speaker 1: father's home in Delaware while Joe Biden was Vice President
2:45
Speaker 1: of the United States. Add to the fact that Hunter
2:48
Speaker 1: Biden is complaining to family members about how he's having
2:52
Speaker 1: to give half his income to Pop, which would be
2:55
Speaker 1: his father, It's very clear that the President and his son,
3:00
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden had intermingled finances. Their money was flowing between
3:04
Speaker 1: the two, and I think what the Biden family has
3:07
Speaker 1: to be very worried about with this grand jury looking
3:11
Speaker 1: into tax evasion charges for Hunter Biden, is there could
3:14
Speaker 1: very well be something that embroils the President himself because
3:19
Speaker 1: nobody was paying taxes on the money that Hunter Biden
3:22
Speaker 1: is using to pay for his father's bills. You think
3:27
Speaker 1: about this, and now this is a real concern for
3:29
Speaker 1: the White House. I want to go back to that headline.
3:32
Speaker 1: If Hunter is and dieted, it couldn't open a whole
3:35
Speaker 1: can of worms for Joe Biden. Absolutely right that is
3:40
Speaker 1: where they are now concerned the most at the White
3:43
Speaker 1: House over that aspect of the story, because Biden was
3:47
Speaker 1: in fact me deep and Hunter's finances. That is the
3:51
Speaker 1: core of this and it's something that Peter Schweitzer also
3:56
Speaker 1: said when he was on another show this week. Again,
3:59
Speaker 1: he's the author of the best selling book Red Handed,
4:02
Speaker 1: which deals with all of the finances of Hunter and
4:06
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, and when he was on this other show
4:08
Speaker 1: he was asked that question, like, how bad could this get? Right?
4:11
Speaker 1: How bad is the money? He reiterated it by saying
4:14
Speaker 1: it this way. So, Peter, you think Hunter is about
4:17
Speaker 1: to be charged with a crime? I do, And Jesse,
4:22
Speaker 1: I think the best evidence is the New York Times
4:25
Speaker 1: ran this piece where they admitted the laptop was real.
4:28
Speaker 1: That was in paragraph seventeen or eighteen. But the story
4:32
Speaker 1: was basically about the grand jury looking to Hunter Biden,
4:36
Speaker 1: and the New York Times got a lot of cooperation
4:38
Speaker 1: from Team Biden, and they were clearly trying to position
4:42
Speaker 1: themselves on the assumption that Hunter Biden is in fact
4:46
Speaker 1: going to be indicted. That's why I think they cooperated,
4:49
Speaker 1: and I think the challenge and the problem they have
4:51
Speaker 1: Jesse is that if Hunter Biden is indicted, that opens
4:55
Speaker 1: up the whole can of worms in terms of Joe
4:57
Speaker 1: Biden's financial connections that you talked about earlier, So is
5:02
Speaker 1: he going to be indicted. You just heard that if
5:05
Speaker 1: Hunter is indicted could open up a whole can of worms.
5:07
Speaker 1: So now what is the White House's decision going to
5:10
Speaker 1: be on this? We know the money was flowing, they
5:13
Speaker 1: lied about it for two years, So now what happens.
5:18
Speaker 1: There's a very good chance that he could actually take
5:20
Speaker 1: a plea deal. Biden was knee deep in Hunter's finances.
5:24
Speaker 1: And if Hunter Biden takes a plea deal with jail time,
5:28
Speaker 1: it may be because he's forced to protect his father. Right,
5:32
Speaker 1: This is all about protecting his father at this point,
5:37
Speaker 1: because you want to be in a situation where you
5:40
Speaker 1: cannot protect your father. Listen to what Peter had to
5:43
Speaker 1: say about that. So take us through those connections. We
5:47
Speaker 1: know about credit cards, joint bank accounts. We know Hunter's
5:52
Speaker 1: boys were doing Joe's taxes at one point. If dirty
5:56
Speaker 1: money was coming in from overseas, untacked some money and
6:00
Speaker 1: was funneling its way into Joe's pockets, what does that
6:04
Speaker 1: mean in terms of his criminal exposure. Well, it means
6:08
Speaker 1: a couple of things. First, you've got the whole national
6:11
Speaker 1: security component of this, because remember the money that's coming
6:14
Speaker 1: in from Beijing is coming from four businessmen who funnel
6:18
Speaker 1: at least thirty one million dollars to the Bidens that's
6:21
Speaker 1: in the laptop. And when you look at those four businessmen,
6:24
Speaker 1: each and every one of them Jesse has ties to
6:27
Speaker 1: the highest levels of Chinese intelligence. So this is not
6:30
Speaker 1: some random walk around Shanghai. I'm going to secure a
6:34
Speaker 1: couple of deals. This was orchestrated. But in terms of
6:37
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's legal problems, he was getting subsidized by his
6:42
Speaker 1: son paying the monthly bills paying for renovations on his
6:45
Speaker 1: home up in Delaware. That's not allowed. A federal law
6:49
Speaker 1: does not allow politicians to be subsidized by family members.
6:54
Speaker 1: But you have the other issue of who's paying the taxes.
6:57
Speaker 1: If you give money to some buddy above fifteen thousand
7:01
Speaker 1: dollars a year, somebody's got to pay the gift tax
7:04
Speaker 1: on that. Did Joe Biden pay that money? Did he
7:07
Speaker 1: claim that money on his income? No? If you look
7:10
Speaker 1: at the tax returns his financial disclosures, he did not.
7:13
Speaker 1: So this gets messy real fast, and the question Jesse becomes,
7:17
Speaker 1: does Hunter Biden become the sacrificial lamb? Does he end
7:20
Speaker 1: up taking a plea deal that might even mean jail
7:24
Speaker 1: time in order to protect his father? I would respond
7:30
Speaker 1: with yes. If this is how deep this goes, if
7:33
Speaker 1: this is how bad it gets, and the White House
7:37
Speaker 1: clearly thinks he's going to be indicted, then if you're
7:40
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden, you take a plea deal to protect your
7:42
Speaker 1: father from the embarrassment or further investigation. Do you become
7:47
Speaker 1: the sacrificial lamb? Or you stay fine, I'll go to
7:50
Speaker 1: jail for a little bit. You know, he'll get great treatment,
7:52
Speaker 1: they'll protect him, he'll get a nice place in jail,
7:56
Speaker 1: they'll make sure that it's not hard time, and they'll
7:59
Speaker 1: probably let him out for good behavior. Do you take
8:05
Speaker 1: that deal to make sure that your father doesn't get
8:07
Speaker 1: insignificant trouble to just make this finally go away. I
8:11
Speaker 1: think the answer is more than obvious. If you were
8:14
Speaker 1: the president of Knights Its America, that's what you're going
8:17
Speaker 1: to be advocating for, which is exactly why the media
8:19
Speaker 1: is writing these stories with all these headlines. The way
8:22
Speaker 1: that they are writing them. Look at Newsweek. Newsweek not conservative, Okay,
8:27
Speaker 1: pretty liberal? Hunter Biden's laptop scandal is the ultimate American
8:34
Speaker 1: information operation. How did Hunter Biden's deprived behavior and his
8:38
Speaker 1: and his family members dubious dealings with adversaries and oligarchs
8:43
Speaker 1: from Russia compromise and corrupt Joe Biden? What did Joe
8:47
Speaker 1: know and when did he know it? And did he
8:49
Speaker 1: did he directly or indirectly profit to what extent would
8:53
Speaker 1: and today does the Biden family conduct conduct loom over
8:58
Speaker 1: vital issues of American foreign policy and national security? Newsweek
9:05
Speaker 1: is now asking, quote, we were deprived of the answers
9:09
Speaker 1: to these critical questions during the twenty twenty election, deprived
9:13
Speaker 1: of hearing the questions, ask themselves because of one of
9:17
Speaker 1: the gravest American information operations in history, masquerading as a
9:23
Speaker 1: defense against a Russian information operation. Now are ruling class
9:29
Speaker 1: Chief organs Organ has admitted it. It took seventeen months
9:35
Speaker 1: and twenty four paragraphs into an article at first glance
9:40
Speaker 1: unrelated but buried in a New York Times report on
9:44
Speaker 1: the apparently sprawling federal investigation into Hunter Biden. The quote
9:50
Speaker 1: paper of record reveal the truth we've known long known.
9:56
Speaker 1: Hunter's Laptop from Hell is in fact real. We knew
10:01
Speaker 1: this before Joe Biden was elected, but millions of Americans
10:05
Speaker 1: didn't because the corporate media, the deep State for which
10:09
Speaker 1: it serves as a conduit, and the big tech that
10:13
Speaker 1: propagates their official narratives conspired all together to suppress the
10:19
Speaker 1: true story while amplifying the politically beneficial one. Now, you've
10:26
Speaker 1: got to understand something about this story right now, and
10:28
Speaker 1: why the New York Times and why Newsweek and others
10:31
Speaker 1: are actually writing about it. There's three things playing to
10:34
Speaker 1: their advantage right now. Number One, it's spring break for
10:36
Speaker 1: still a ton of Americans, so people are distracted from
10:39
Speaker 1: reading the news. Number Two, you have a huge astraction
10:42
Speaker 1: with a overseas foreign trip by Joe Biden right now.
10:45
Speaker 1: You have a huge astraction in Russia and Ukraine right
10:48
Speaker 1: now as well. And you have another domestic distraction here
10:51
Speaker 1: right now, which is the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Jackson,
10:56
Speaker 1: which has gotten extremely heated and is sucking up all
10:58
Speaker 1: the oxygen in the room. This is why Newsweek is
11:03
Speaker 1: now writing the articles like they're writing them now. I
11:05
Speaker 1: want to get back to this article one poll shows
11:09
Speaker 1: this operation part impartial of a coordinated effort by our
11:14
Speaker 1: ruling class to use every level of power to undermine
11:19
Speaker 1: present Trump while protecting Joe Biden alone, may have swung
11:22
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. Newsweek is now writing this The
11:27
Speaker 1: people who ported to defend quote our democracy, in other words,
11:31
Speaker 1: thwarted the republic by concealing from the public the kind
11:37
Speaker 1: of crucial information on which war and peace hinges. The
11:42
Speaker 1: many layers of this scandal are worth recounting because they
11:47
Speaker 1: so vividly reveal a pervasive rot at the core of
11:51
Speaker 1: our country that has poised to fester absence of a
11:54
Speaker 1: massive reckoning. There's the fact the corporate media dismissed the
11:59
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden lap top story out of hand, refused to
12:03
Speaker 1: pursue it, and even ran interference for then candidate Joe
12:08
Speaker 1: Biden when directly questioned on it by then President Donald
12:13
Speaker 1: Trump in debates. You know what the media did. We
12:18
Speaker 1: played it for you on this show a couple of
12:21
Speaker 1: days ago. There's the fact quote that corporate media unquestionably
12:27
Speaker 1: ran with a narrative that the story was again quote
12:30
Speaker 1: unquote Russian disinformation, when they knew that was a lie.
12:35
Speaker 1: To justify their dismissal of the story despite lacking concrete
12:42
Speaker 1: evidence to substantiate that ridiculous and dubious claim. There's the
12:49
Speaker 1: fact that dozens of senior then x intelligence community officials,
12:55
Speaker 1: forty of them in fact, whose profession was supposed to
12:59
Speaker 1: be and all of this, decided that they would sign
13:03
Speaker 1: their name to a letter saying it was probably misinformation
13:07
Speaker 1: that fed the corporate media that narrative that they could
13:11
Speaker 1: then say, yep, we're in on this too. Overall, you
13:15
Speaker 1: had more than fifty prominent members of the intelligence community.
13:22
Speaker 1: We're talking about former CIA directors. They use their names
13:28
Speaker 1: and their reputations to baselessly speculate that the laptop contents
13:34
Speaker 1: and circumstances around their release had all the quote classic
13:39
Speaker 1: hallmarks of a Russian misinformation operation. Naturally, they did this
13:48
Speaker 1: so that you would ignore what was actually going on.
13:52
Speaker 1: Trump administration officials actually in command of the intelligence apparatus
13:56
Speaker 1: at the time vigorously deny that charge. Didn't matter because
14:01
Speaker 1: the media had the political cover they needed by quoting
14:04
Speaker 1: former CIA directors and FBI people and people on down
14:09
Speaker 1: from there who all signed their name that said that
14:11
Speaker 1: this had the hallmarks of a Russian information operation. Trump's
14:18
Speaker 1: people that were actually in charge of the time said
14:21
Speaker 1: this is absurd, it's not true. Didn't matter. Media had
14:25
Speaker 1: the story they needed. Corporate media said, let's roll with it.
14:31
Speaker 1: There was not one ounce of evidence to justify by
14:35
Speaker 1: the way the claims that the media or these fifty
14:38
Speaker 1: prominent intelligence community members had for what they said, much
14:43
Speaker 1: less the letter that they all signed. Why do they
14:47
Speaker 1: do it? It's simple Newsweek rights. They hedged their bets.
14:51
Speaker 1: They hedge admitting that we want to emphasize that we
14:55
Speaker 1: do not know if the emails quote are genuine or not,
14:58
Speaker 1: and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.
15:01
Speaker 1: But they knew, as part of the deep state that
15:05
Speaker 1: if they gave the cover needed, that there's a good
15:07
Speaker 1: chance to could save Joe Biden, he would become present
15:10
Speaker 1: and they would retain their power. They knew well by
15:14
Speaker 1: the way that Politico and others would run with headlines
15:16
Speaker 1: like hunter Biden's story is Russian desc info, Dozens of
15:20
Speaker 1: former Intel officials say, And that's exactly what Politico's headline
15:24
Speaker 1: literally was, quote hunter Biden's story is Russian desc info.
15:27
Speaker 1: Dozens of former Intel officials say, how contrived. Was this
15:33
Speaker 1: operation by the deep state by the left. Consider that
15:37
Speaker 1: it was a former top aide to the former CIA
15:40
Speaker 1: director John Brennan, perhaps the most Trump derange and notoriously
15:45
Speaker 1: dishonest of the overwhelmingly Democrat serving officials endorsing the letter,
15:51
Speaker 1: who actually arranged for the letters distribution to Politico. He
15:57
Speaker 1: delivered it to one of the Trump loathing Deep states
16:01
Speaker 1: friendliest of reporters, perhaps most well known in fact, for
16:06
Speaker 1: promoting the new story is Steel dossier at the heart
16:10
Speaker 1: of the Russian hoax, surely knowing this would set the
16:14
Speaker 1: narrative in motion. So you find the reporter who promoted
16:18
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier, who made it come to life, and
16:22
Speaker 1: you go handing this letter with all of these deep
16:25
Speaker 1: state people, all of them lefties, who said this is
16:28
Speaker 1: something that they believe is Russian DESMFO, And moments later
16:33
Speaker 1: Politico runs the headline, and every other news organization ran
16:37
Speaker 1: with it. Afterwards, quote Hunter Biden's story is Russian DESMFO.
16:40
Speaker 1: Dozens of former Intel officials say that's not what they said.
16:44
Speaker 1: By the way, it didn't matter. You got the headline
16:47
Speaker 1: you needed. Almost universally after that, the signatories show no
16:53
Speaker 1: remote Morse, by the way, for the con that they pulled.
16:57
Speaker 1: They all went on TV and they all did their
16:59
Speaker 1: interviews and they all said, yep, this is Russian dis info.
17:01
Speaker 1: And then it gave the cover needed for Facebook and
17:04
Speaker 1: others and Twitter to ban you even putting the story
17:07
Speaker 1: out there on the internet. Right. You would get your
17:08
Speaker 1: accounts suspended. You couldn't even share the article from the
17:12
Speaker 1: year posts about the laptop from Hell. It was all
17:17
Speaker 1: worth it for them to replace Trump with someone who
17:19
Speaker 1: spent fifty years getting every major foreign policy issue wrong
17:24
Speaker 1: and who has kept the imperfect streak alive since he's
17:27
Speaker 1: been in office. There's also the big fact that big
17:31
Speaker 1: tech also engaged in the rubicon crossing censorship, not only
17:37
Speaker 1: preventing people from sharing this story story publicly, but also
17:40
Speaker 1: in private messages. You may have forgotten. You couldn't even
17:44
Speaker 1: send the link and a private message to a family member,
17:48
Speaker 1: and if you didn't play by the rules, they would
17:51
Speaker 1: deplatform you. Twitter, by the way, admitted as much months
17:55
Speaker 1: after the election, when the damage had already been done,
17:58
Speaker 1: to set the present for the ever more widespread, almost
18:03
Speaker 1: decentralizing wrong think censorship that we see today. Donald Trump,
18:09
Speaker 1: who was the president Night States of America at the
18:12
Speaker 1: time was banned on Twitter, and the likes of Vladimir
18:16
Speaker 1: Putin are free to tweet at their leisure. Chinese coronavirus
18:22
Speaker 1: disinformation that got people banned six months ago is now
18:24
Speaker 1: the official CDC narrative that's actually promoted on social media.
18:29
Speaker 1: But if you got banned, then you're still gone forever.
18:32
Speaker 1: And the hunter by laptop story looms over it all,
18:37
Speaker 1: And where was the aforementioned media on the censorship at
18:41
Speaker 1: the very best silent? Those who benefited most from the
18:46
Speaker 1: First Amendment have too often become the most outspoken proponents
18:51
Speaker 1: of censorship, particularly when it serves their political agenda. Newsweek
18:56
Speaker 1: Rights today. These conspirators cared nothing for combating disinformation. Far
19:04
Speaker 1: from it, they are some of the most prolific purveyors
19:09
Speaker 1: of it. These conspirators cared nothing about protecting democracy. Rather
19:14
Speaker 1: than grapple with the New York Post reporting on the
19:17
Speaker 1: laptop and the corroborating investigations from people at Fox News,
19:21
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson and elsewhere, they decided, Nope, we're going to
19:25
Speaker 1: serve the candidate that we want to be the president
19:28
Speaker 1: Nited States of America. We don't care if it brings
19:32
Speaker 1: disaster for America liberty, justice, and free speech. They did
19:36
Speaker 1: so because the imperative to unseen a president whose agenda
19:39
Speaker 1: was far more aligned with the rules of the Constitution
19:44
Speaker 1: than those who are trying to destroy it. That is,
19:48
Speaker 1: they did so out of perceived self interest, which they
19:52
Speaker 1: may believe coincided with the national interest, but which is
19:55
Speaker 1: practice has proven to do anything. But so, why did
20:01
Speaker 1: this actually happen? It's simple Trump present. Trump threatened their power,
20:07
Speaker 1: their privilege, their prerogatives. He had rebuilt our military, fostered
20:12
Speaker 1: alliances and partnerships to deter enemies, while reducing America's direct
20:17
Speaker 1: obligations abroad. Trump confronted and kept our worst adversaries at bay,
20:23
Speaker 1: led by the greatest adversary of all communists, China, Trump
20:28
Speaker 1: kept America out of wars instead of getting them in wars.
20:31
Speaker 1: Trump was neither the craze cowboy with the nuclear codes
20:34
Speaker 1: nor the isolated Russian stooge his adversaries attacked him about,
20:40
Speaker 1: depending on which week it was and which story worked
20:42
Speaker 1: best for their narrative. He was a piece through strength nationalists,
20:48
Speaker 1: and his record proved it was this. His great sin
20:51
Speaker 1: in the ruling class eyes. Yeah, there's still more intrigue
20:57
Speaker 1: to the story. Why did The New York Times feel
20:58
Speaker 1: compelled to admit it only now after reporters for mainstream
21:03
Speaker 1: publications like the aforementioned Politico had confirmed the authenticity contents
21:09
Speaker 1: months ago. It is simple because the case against Hunter
21:13
Speaker 1: Biden build is a tax matter, but which the Times
21:16
Speaker 1: reported had quote evolved into one centering on money laundering
21:21
Speaker 1: and potential for an agent Registration Act charges, is built
21:26
Speaker 1: so heavily on the substance of the laptop it made
21:29
Speaker 1: it impossible to report on the case while outright ignoring it.
21:34
Speaker 1: Or is there something bigger at play concerning the president
21:37
Speaker 1: and his troubled son Regardless, Newsweek says that Times almost
21:43
Speaker 1: inadvertent emission perfectly reflects the entire contrived effort. A ruling
21:49
Speaker 1: class over the top obsession with Russian information and influence
21:53
Speaker 1: has served as a diversion from the information operations it
21:58
Speaker 1: has been running against the domestic political foes, even in
22:02
Speaker 1: league with foreign actors like the Ukrainians. Trump Russia collusion
22:08
Speaker 1: was an American information operation. Hunter Biden's laptop being Russian
22:13
Speaker 1: disinformation was actually an American information operation as well. Phony stories,
22:19
Speaker 1: particularly those leaked out by our national security apparatus, like
22:23
Speaker 1: those of Russian bounties in Afghanistan. Are Trump called dead
22:27
Speaker 1: American soldiers losers are in fact American information operations. These
22:32
Speaker 1: operations rates further questions Newsweek Rights, what other such gambits
22:38
Speaker 1: have they executed that we don't know about? What else
22:42
Speaker 1: could they do and will they do? To a Trump?
22:44
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, another candidate perceived to be a
22:48
Speaker 1: threat going forward to their power. The American mind and
22:52
Speaker 1: therefore the body of politics, is not imperiled by some
22:57
Speaker 1: Russian troll farm. No, outside of the schools which cultivates suicidal,
23:03
Speaker 1: anti American, self loving and wokem wokedom. Excuse me. The
23:07
Speaker 1: greatest threat in informations fear derived from a weaponized, hyper
23:10
Speaker 1: political national security apparatus, un mourned from the people that
23:15
Speaker 1: exist to defend a progressive press it does its bidding,
23:19
Speaker 1: and a like minded big tech behemoth that works hand
23:22
Speaker 1: in hand with them to censor and control narratives. It
23:26
Speaker 1: is infinitely more insidious when the institutions we rely upon
23:30
Speaker 1: to keep us safe, to inform us, and to enable
23:32
Speaker 1: free and open discourts actually conspire against those countrymen with
23:37
Speaker 1: whom they disagree, when then foreign adversaries themselves have a
23:43
Speaker 1: better opportunity to meddle quote, we expect adversaries to attack us.
23:48
Speaker 1: To attack Americans like adversaries is to make America like
23:52
Speaker 1: its adversaries. This is an existential threat to our republic,
23:58
Speaker 1: and if none of these actors are ever held account,
24:00
Speaker 1: it guarantees infinitely worse to come. Again. What I just
24:06
Speaker 1: read from you actually was in newsweek. Wow, all right,
24:12
Speaker 1: I want to pivot to other important news, and that's
24:14
Speaker 1: exactly what's going on right now is a lot of
24:17
Speaker 1: misinformation when it comes to the Supreme Court nominee, Judge Jackson.
24:23
Speaker 1: Democrats are starting to feel like they may be losing
24:26
Speaker 1: control of her nomination process, and we're also going to
24:31
Speaker 1: deal with that's happening in Russia and Ukraine. Joining me
24:32
Speaker 1: now to talk about this is US Senator from Tennessee,
24:35
Speaker 1: Bill Haggarty Center. This is maybe for me, the most
24:39
Speaker 1: shocking moment of all is the fact that we have
24:43
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court nominee that did pro bono work for
24:48
Speaker 1: terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay. When you heard that,
24:52
Speaker 1: what did you think? Then? I thought it was consistent
24:55
Speaker 1: with this entire administration's posture to be soft on I mean,
25:00
Speaker 1: they're going to be much softer on criminals than they
25:03
Speaker 1: are on victims. As Senator Cotton just extracted, no work
25:07
Speaker 1: for victims, no concern for victims. Their concern is to
25:10
Speaker 1: go easy on crime. And what we've seen around the
25:12
Speaker 1: United States, particularly in Democrat run cities, is just a
25:16
Speaker 1: massive increase in crime here in America. This has been
25:19
Speaker 1: prompted by Democrat leadership. And I'm not surprised at all
25:22
Speaker 1: to see their nominee to the Supreme Court again being
25:25
Speaker 1: soft on crime and not being not being attentive to
25:29
Speaker 1: the needs the victims of these crimes. There's another shocking
25:32
Speaker 1: part about Judge Jackson's history as she has been working
25:38
Speaker 1: in the legal field, and I think the most shocking
25:40
Speaker 1: part is she consistently has gone easy when it comes
25:46
Speaker 1: to one crime and the person who's committed child pornography sentencing.
25:51
Speaker 1: She has documents, court case after court case of her
25:57
Speaker 1: giving criminals convicted of child pornography charges lighter sentences than
26:03
Speaker 1: what is recommended by federal guidelines. When you see that,
26:07
Speaker 1: it's not just it's not like a one off things.
26:10
Speaker 1: It's consistent. I think it's very clear now that she
26:18
Speaker 1: doesn't believe that there should be tough sentencing for those
26:22
Speaker 1: that are involved in child pornography. She even defended the
26:27
Speaker 1: fact that she said, well, look, you can get yourself
26:29
Speaker 1: in trouble real quick with the Internet, and a few
26:33
Speaker 1: clicks can get you all of a sudden a bunch
26:35
Speaker 1: of child porn. So we shouldn't put you in jail
26:37
Speaker 1: for a long time if you're on the internet looking, downloading,
26:42
Speaker 1: sending child pornography. But if you send in the mail,
26:46
Speaker 1: then there's different guidelines for that because that shows a
26:48
Speaker 1: real intent. I couldn't believe the words coming out of
26:51
Speaker 1: her mouth when I heard this, But this is literally
26:53
Speaker 1: her defense, and you've got to have to vote on this.
26:56
Speaker 1: What did you think it was very disturbing to hear this? Then,
27:02
Speaker 1: if you think about it this I was talking with
27:05
Speaker 1: Senator Cruz who attended law school with her. It seems
27:08
Speaker 1: this pattern goes all the way back, perhaps to her
27:10
Speaker 1: academic time, but looking at every one of her sentencing
27:14
Speaker 1: experiences when it had to do with this crime, she
27:17
Speaker 1: was at either the very low end of the required
27:20
Speaker 1: sentence or even below even below with the prosecutor recommended. So,
27:25
Speaker 1: as you rightly mentioned, she's been consistently, consistently off on this,
27:30
Speaker 1: consistently in favor of those who perpetrate crimes of this
27:34
Speaker 1: terrific nature. And it's inexplicable to me. You look at
27:38
Speaker 1: the facts here, and for everyone that's listening, I hope
27:40
Speaker 1: that you'll understand just I would say, how clear it
27:45
Speaker 1: is her thought process on this. They found ten cases
27:49
Speaker 1: where she weighed in on child pornography. Eight of those
27:53
Speaker 1: ten cases she was below the minimum sentence, and this
27:56
Speaker 1: range anywhere from fourteen percent to eighty eight percent. So
28:01
Speaker 1: it's it's obvious that Jackson believes that child pornography, you know,
28:06
Speaker 1: convicts get lighter sentences, and that's a part of her
28:10
Speaker 1: legal mindset. Not only that, she also seems to like
28:14
Speaker 1: to defend terrorists people at guantanamobey and this is who
28:18
Speaker 1: we want to put on the Supreme Court, while she
28:20
Speaker 1: also has said that she won't say that packing the
28:23
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is a bad thing. You add all this up,
28:26
Speaker 1: how in the world have we gotten to this point
28:29
Speaker 1: now where this woman still had still with all of this,
28:32
Speaker 1: Senator has a legitimate chance of being a very legitimate
28:35
Speaker 1: chance of actually sitting on the Supreme Court of the the
28:38
Speaker 1: United States of America. Well, it's shocking that someone that
28:41
Speaker 1: puts puts the rights of terrorists, if there should be
28:44
Speaker 1: any at all, puts the rights of horrific criminals. You know,
28:48
Speaker 1: ahead of those are the victims here. That's exactly what
28:51
Speaker 1: we've seen in her record. This question that was asked
28:54
Speaker 1: by Leader McConnell about her position on packing the court,
28:58
Speaker 1: she can't answer. It's a political question. And what's I
29:02
Speaker 1: think what's being uncovered through the course of these days
29:04
Speaker 1: of interviews is the fact that we actually have a
29:07
Speaker 1: political activist that's posing as a jurist. What we need
29:10
Speaker 1: to have are people that interpret the Constitution is written.
29:13
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I intend to probe when I meet
29:15
Speaker 1: with her next week. Is she going to interpret the
29:17
Speaker 1: Constitution as it's written or is she going to be
29:19
Speaker 1: an activist that wants to view this as quote, a
29:22
Speaker 1: living document. She's not been able to answer that question.
29:25
Speaker 1: Either is the constitutional living document or is it to
29:29
Speaker 1: be interpreted as it was written by our founder? Certainly
29:31
Speaker 1: the latter is the correct answer. Let's see what she
29:33
Speaker 1: has to say. Well, you obviously have colleagues and her Democrats,
29:37
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to ask you to name names,
29:38
Speaker 1: but I do want to get your take on the
29:41
Speaker 1: feel of the Democratic Party. Do they feel like her
29:44
Speaker 1: nomination is now at risk at all? Or is this
29:47
Speaker 1: just such an activist decision from the very beginning and
29:52
Speaker 1: a campaign payoff for I remind people that Joe Biden
29:55
Speaker 1: made it very clear that he was going to discriminate
29:58
Speaker 1: against all races and all sexes that were not women
30:04
Speaker 1: or African American with his first Supreme Court nominee. That
30:06
Speaker 1: means he basically segregated and discradinated against about eighty five
30:13
Speaker 1: percent eighty four percent, if we want to be exact
30:15
Speaker 1: of the American population. No one was allowed to get
30:19
Speaker 1: this job unless you filled the quota of being a
30:22
Speaker 1: woman and being African American. And I worry that this
30:26
Speaker 1: is just so much about that quota that campaign promise
30:29
Speaker 1: that she can we can find out even and I
30:32
Speaker 1: don't know what's worse than you know, giving light sense
30:34
Speaker 1: as a child pornographer's child sex offenders and defending people
30:38
Speaker 1: at guantanam A Bay, and also, by the way, not
30:39
Speaker 1: even being able to define what a woman is when
30:42
Speaker 1: it is what got you the eligible for this job, right,
30:45
Speaker 1: you had to be defined as a woman to get
30:46
Speaker 1: this job. She couldn't even define what a woman was
30:49
Speaker 1: dealing obviously with the NCAA and what's happening with men
30:52
Speaker 1: playing with women. But are there Democrats are starting to
30:56
Speaker 1: think maybe this is not the right person or they
30:58
Speaker 1: just going to put their head down and vote. Well,
31:02
Speaker 1: I think I know the Democrats are talking about it,
31:04
Speaker 1: and I know that you're being light not name names,
31:06
Speaker 1: but I will Senator Joe Mansion, who I think has
31:09
Speaker 1: stood up against the headwinds of his own party. He's
31:12
Speaker 1: taking decisions that were right for the people of West Virginia.
31:15
Speaker 1: I frankly can't imagine that people of West Virginia want
31:17
Speaker 1: to see a judicial activist like this sitting on the bench.
31:20
Speaker 1: Somebody's going to try to reinterpret the Constitution and push
31:23
Speaker 1: us further to the left. But those are questions that
31:27
Speaker 1: the Senator from West Virginia will have to answer on
31:29
Speaker 1: his own. I will say this, though the left knows
31:31
Speaker 1: no bounds. We saw what happened in Justice Kavanaugh was hearing.
31:36
Speaker 1: We saw what happened when they tried to intimidate Senators
31:40
Speaker 1: Cinema and Senator Mansion. When they don't get their way,
31:44
Speaker 1: they know no bounds. So I think it could be
31:46
Speaker 1: extremely difficult on any Democrat that tries to buck this,
31:50
Speaker 1: that doesn't go along with you the preordained view that
31:53
Speaker 1: we're going to put an activist in place. It's going
31:55
Speaker 1: to be very hard for Democrat to vote know against this,
31:58
Speaker 1: And as you know, the way it works for a
32:00
Speaker 1: Supreme Court nominee, it takes fifty votes. The Democrats have
32:03
Speaker 1: fifty plus the Vice President of the United States, which
32:06
Speaker 1: regretfully Kamal Harris sits in that position right now. So
32:08
Speaker 1: with fifty plus one they can do this. I'm sure
32:10
Speaker 1: there's a tremendous amount of pressure in their party to
32:14
Speaker 1: hold the line on whatever nominee they put forward, which
32:17
Speaker 1: means it's more and more incumbent on center and blackburn
32:19
Speaker 1: of myself to point out the issues that are associated
32:22
Speaker 1: with the candidate like this. You know, I always look
32:25
Speaker 1: at the hard left media to see what they're feeling,
32:29
Speaker 1: and you could see it changing. Senator last night joy
32:33
Speaker 1: Reid was on MSNBC and she said, quote, I was
32:38
Speaker 1: getting texts all day and have been for the last
32:40
Speaker 1: three days from people who, similarly to what Joyce is saying,
32:44
Speaker 1: would normally not sit there and watch all day at
32:46
Speaker 1: confirmation hearing as I would because I'm a nerd. The
32:49
Speaker 1: outrage is real, he went A lot of it is
32:52
Speaker 1: quote blatant disrespect. They're immediately going for the race card here.
32:56
Speaker 1: I tweeted that they were treating her like a black shopper,
33:00
Speaker 1: that they were following through the store. Just the ultimate
33:03
Speaker 1: disrespect for her as a human being, as a judge,
33:05
Speaker 1: the fact that her family was there all because, in
33:07
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham's view, apparently this whole hearing was payback for Cavanaugh,
33:13
Speaker 1: who nobody told him to sexually violate his high school
33:16
Speaker 1: friends or those girls in college and get accused of
33:19
Speaker 1: it credibly. That is not the fault of Judge Jackson. Apparently,
33:23
Speaker 1: according to Lindsay Graham, she needs to pay for that.
33:25
Speaker 1: They're still accusing Brett Cavanaugh of having rape parties, which
33:29
Speaker 1: we all know is absurd and never happened and wasn't
33:32
Speaker 1: true and not credible, and yet they're going back to this,
33:35
Speaker 1: which makes me think maybe they really are worried that
33:38
Speaker 1: her nomination is in real trouble. Well, they should be
33:41
Speaker 1: worried because what's being revealed to the American public again
33:44
Speaker 1: is more far left policy again coming through now the
33:48
Speaker 1: judiciary branch. They can't get it done in the legislative field,
33:51
Speaker 1: they can't get it done at the ballot box, so
33:53
Speaker 1: they want to install judges and justices that will push
33:56
Speaker 1: for their far left policies. Again not accountable to the people.
33:59
Speaker 1: But this is another avenue away that the Democrats hope
34:02
Speaker 1: to end run the system and get their policies through.
34:05
Speaker 1: And when you see, you know, when you see media
34:08
Speaker 1: talking heads like this, uh, you know, going into pivot
34:11
Speaker 1: and full spin mode, I think it does indicate that
34:14
Speaker 1: they perceive themselves in trouble. It's also just terrible to
34:18
Speaker 1: think back about what's been done, going back to to
34:20
Speaker 1: you know, Judge Bord, Judge Thomas, the horrific process that
34:25
Speaker 1: they put kavan On through, and then to try to
34:28
Speaker 1: compare you know, questioning on the judicial record of a nominee,
34:31
Speaker 1: try to compare it to that again, they'll they'll seek
34:33
Speaker 1: the lowest of lows and go there as quick as possible.
34:37
Speaker 1: Gender I want to pivot real quick to what's happening
34:40
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, and there seems to be a lot of
34:43
Speaker 1: talk right now about maybe giving half of Ukraine to
34:46
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin for some sort of ceasefire agreement. We're also
34:51
Speaker 1: hearing now that Biden is going to announce that the
34:53
Speaker 1: US will take a hundred thousand Ukrainian refugees, and there's
34:57
Speaker 1: now many that are saying that they administration's policy is
35:01
Speaker 1: they do not believe that Ukraine can stand up to Russia.
35:05
Speaker 1: So they're basically saying, all right, give up part of
35:07
Speaker 1: the country behind the scenes, and then maybe that'll stop
35:10
Speaker 1: all this insanity. If this is our foreign policy, it
35:14
Speaker 1: is a disaster, because the foreign policy is solely based
35:16
Speaker 1: on the actions of a tyrant, not based on protecting
35:19
Speaker 1: people that live in free countries. I know that's a
35:23
Speaker 1: lot to throw at you, but I know you got
35:24
Speaker 1: a lot to say about it. So let's deal with
35:27
Speaker 1: the first part, which is this real idea apparently that's
35:30
Speaker 1: being floated or about at the White House about all right, well,
35:33
Speaker 1: maybe we say they take half the country and we'll
35:34
Speaker 1: get a ceasefire out of the deal. Your thoughts, Well,
35:37
Speaker 1: you use the word insanity then, and I think that's
35:40
Speaker 1: got to be sinful to the whole process that the
35:43
Speaker 1: Biden administration is working through right now. First they talk
35:47
Speaker 1: about options in public. They talk about what we're not
35:50
Speaker 1: going to do. We should leave this in a position
35:54
Speaker 1: as ambiguous as possible. At Vladimir Putin find out what
35:57
Speaker 1: we're going to do depending on his actions. Is that
35:59
Speaker 1: he said the policy we're negotiating against ourselves, and we're
36:03
Speaker 1: doing it in public. I just find this, you know,
36:05
Speaker 1: as a business person all my life, no one handles
36:07
Speaker 1: things like this in business. I was a diplomat, I
36:09
Speaker 1: was the US ambassadors to Japan at the time when
36:11
Speaker 1: things were as hot as they could do with North Korea.
36:14
Speaker 1: This is not how you negotiate. This is not how
36:15
Speaker 1: you look at the best interests of US national security
36:18
Speaker 1: nor that of your allies. So what I see as
36:21
Speaker 1: a very naive approach. They're fumbling around in the media
36:23
Speaker 1: trying to see how things, you know, various options may
36:26
Speaker 1: pull their flipping ideas so that the other allies like
36:30
Speaker 1: Germany can begin to take the lead. They're really defaulting
36:32
Speaker 1: back to the old Obama Biden policies of leading from
36:36
Speaker 1: behind them, and what they're doing is jeopardizing you know,
36:40
Speaker 1: in this point the Ukrainians, but they're also emboldening other
36:44
Speaker 1: countries like China, who has its design set on Taiwan
36:48
Speaker 1: and other areas of the world I think are very
36:50
Speaker 1: hot right now. This is this is very very dangerous
36:53
Speaker 1: what they're doing, and again making national security decisions by
36:57
Speaker 1: press release and by media discussions, not approach. You know,
37:01
Speaker 1: Putin is a just attack. The petro dollar system is
37:04
Speaker 1: now demanding quote, unfriendly nations purchase gas in rubles. This
37:09
Speaker 1: come as Russia's ally Belarus as granted, this is not
37:13
Speaker 1: a joke, it's a real headline January the six protesters
37:16
Speaker 1: asylum citing political persecution in this country, trying to dig
37:21
Speaker 1: and punch at anything they can to mess with America
37:25
Speaker 1: using January six, which just makes at this point you
37:28
Speaker 1: just got to laugh when you see them demanding you
37:31
Speaker 1: move your nations purchases of gas into rubles. And also
37:36
Speaker 1: there's still people now apparently saying that they believe that
37:38
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin should actually be attending the G twenty summit.
37:42
Speaker 1: That is coming up absurd. The whole thing is absurd,
37:46
Speaker 1: But it's not obvious that they've got an information war
37:48
Speaker 1: going on, and we need to realize recognize the fact
37:51
Speaker 1: that this is not just a kinetic war on the
37:54
Speaker 1: ground in Ukraine. There's a war of information and disinformation.
37:58
Speaker 1: There's something else we need to be prepared for in
37:59
Speaker 1: that the cyber attacks. You know, Russia is completely capable
38:03
Speaker 1: of doing this. We know that Russian hackers attacked the
38:05
Speaker 1: Colonial pipeline just last year. Again, we need to be
38:08
Speaker 1: reflecting strength. I reached out to Secretary Maachus, who runs
38:13
Speaker 1: some land security, to Secretary Austin at the Department Defense
38:15
Speaker 1: last week to ask them what we're doing to make
38:18
Speaker 1: all of our defenses available to private networks, to stay
38:22
Speaker 1: in local networks, to make certain that we're defending ourselves
38:25
Speaker 1: against the possibility of other means of aggression, in this
38:29
Speaker 1: case as a cyber attacks. So we need to be
38:31
Speaker 1: very careful about that. To your point on the G
38:33
Speaker 1: twenty under the Trump administration, when the G twenty was
38:37
Speaker 1: held in Osaka, Japan, I was the ambassadors and President
38:41
Speaker 1: Frump actually asked me to take a seat at the
38:43
Speaker 1: G twenty. For one of the four rounds, I sat
38:45
Speaker 1: next to Ladimir Putin. It's chilling to sit next to
38:49
Speaker 1: a killer like that, and I can't imagine that Putin
38:52
Speaker 1: could be welcome in that sort of environment moving forward.
38:55
Speaker 1: The G twenty needs to take some action to address that,
38:58
Speaker 1: but the notion that Vladimir Putin could actually be entertained
39:01
Speaker 1: as a member of organization like that, given what he's done,
39:05
Speaker 1: he's an international pariah and we need to be leading
39:08
Speaker 1: from the front, not behind, and demanding that be paying
39:11
Speaker 1: the consequence at every level for the activities that he's
39:14
Speaker 1: undertaking right now. Lastly, I want to ask you about
39:18
Speaker 1: the big controversy which I don't believe should have been
39:20
Speaker 1: a controversy, and that was doing whatever we can to
39:25
Speaker 1: get the airplanes needed to the Ukrainian military. It's we've
39:29
Speaker 1: been dragging our feet. I think this administration has been
39:32
Speaker 1: very clear that that's been their Their idea is to
39:35
Speaker 1: drag their feet on Ukraine and just kind of see
39:39
Speaker 1: what happens when you see this being our foreign policy
39:44
Speaker 1: for people that are actually trying to fight for themselves.
39:46
Speaker 1: I'm not in favor of sending our men and women.
39:48
Speaker 1: I want to make that very clear to Ukraine. I
39:51
Speaker 1: don't want us to go and die over there, but
39:53
Speaker 1: the people that are living there are willing to fight
39:54
Speaker 1: and defend themselves we should give them everything a need,
39:57
Speaker 1: and this administration every time is like, well, I'm just
40:00
Speaker 1: concerned that I might provoke Russia. Should we have given
40:05
Speaker 1: them these planes? And should we have stopped playing, you know,
40:09
Speaker 1: chess while they're playing checkers and just wiping the board clean? Well,
40:13
Speaker 1: two points, ben, I was not one of the people
40:16
Speaker 1: that jumped on that letter to say that we should spend,
40:18
Speaker 1: that we should send the planes over. I was not
40:22
Speaker 1: on that letter, and there's a good reason for that.
40:25
Speaker 1: I'm trying to keep my own horizon. My first entrance
40:28
Speaker 1: is not to be emotional. I think Zelenski has done
40:30
Speaker 1: a great job of getting the people of Ukraine to
40:33
Speaker 1: support him. I think he's done a great job of
40:34
Speaker 1: getting the people of the world to support his cause.
40:37
Speaker 1: But we need to be delivered in what we do.
40:39
Speaker 1: We need to be focused on America's first. You know, again,
40:43
Speaker 1: Zilence's doing a great job of making certain that Ukraine's
40:46
Speaker 1: interest to place first. I have to be responsible for
40:48
Speaker 1: putting America's interst first and keep my eye on the
40:50
Speaker 1: horizon with respect of China It's designs on Taiwan, what's
40:53
Speaker 1: happening in Iran, what's happening in North Korea, and I
40:56
Speaker 1: don't want to see us get so bogged down in
40:59
Speaker 1: one situation that we can't address the others. The situation
41:02
Speaker 1: with the MiGs is something that I've had the opportunity
41:05
Speaker 1: now to have a classified briefing. I did not have
41:07
Speaker 1: that benefit at the time this letter was being circulated,
41:10
Speaker 1: and I would not sign it at that point. Right now,
41:13
Speaker 1: I'll just say this, we are and we have dedicated
41:17
Speaker 1: in the United States sent a tremendous amount of resource,
41:19
Speaker 1: both lethal resources and humanitarian resources to Ukraine. My focus
41:23
Speaker 1: right now is making certain that those resources get to
41:25
Speaker 1: where they need to be. The Ukrainian people have demonstrated
41:28
Speaker 1: their ability to stand up and fight. They're doing a
41:30
Speaker 1: remarkable job. They need the material to do that. Our
41:33
Speaker 1: job is to get that to them. Rather than escalate
41:35
Speaker 1: things to a point where we have our men and
41:37
Speaker 1: women in a no fly zone, as Vladimir Vladimir Zelenski
41:43
Speaker 1: is requested, I mean that puts us right at the
41:45
Speaker 1: doorstep of a direct encounter with Russia. I think we
41:48
Speaker 1: need to be focused on enabling Ukraine, but also making
41:51
Speaker 1: certain that America has the capability to handle challenges that
41:55
Speaker 1: are facing us. On multiple dimensions. Let me just I'm
41:58
Speaker 1: going to ask in a different way because I want
42:00
Speaker 1: to make sure I'm very clear, because I think the
42:01
Speaker 1: point you're making is interesting. You're afraid that if we
42:03
Speaker 1: give them those planes, even to their pilots, that this
42:07
Speaker 1: would then make or give Vladimir Putine reason to escalate
42:11
Speaker 1: things when it comes to chemical or even nuclear war,
42:14
Speaker 1: and that is the concern you. No, my concern is
42:18
Speaker 1: that we help Ukraine in the most effective way possible.
42:21
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced that those planes are the most effective
42:23
Speaker 1: way possible. Zelensi requested everything that he possibly could. I
42:27
Speaker 1: would if I were in this position too, I would
42:30
Speaker 1: request the skies to be closed as he requested, in
42:32
Speaker 1: every bit of equipment that he could get. What we're
42:35
Speaker 1: focused on is the most effective equipment that we can
42:38
Speaker 1: deliver to him. There are a lot of complications associated
42:41
Speaker 1: with the exact will beyond that, but the again, according
42:45
Speaker 1: to the Classify briefing that I've been able to get,
42:47
Speaker 1: I'm confident that we're focused in the right area right
42:49
Speaker 1: now in terms of our support. We should have been
42:51
Speaker 1: doing this a lot sooner. We should have imposed sanction
42:54
Speaker 1: as well before Putine ever invaded, so we would have
42:56
Speaker 1: had a deterrent effect. We should have been arming Ukraine
43:00
Speaker 1: with what we're trying to provide now, we could have
43:02
Speaker 1: provided ahead of time. Again, as I look at Taiwan,
43:04
Speaker 1: I'm thinking in the same direction there. But we've got
43:07
Speaker 1: to keep our eye on the rise and again making
43:10
Speaker 1: certain that we're looking out for America's interest first, Senator,
43:13
Speaker 1: I appreciate your perspective. That's why I want to ask
43:15
Speaker 1: you about it, and I think a lot of people
43:17
Speaker 1: want to understand the logic behind it, and I think
43:19
Speaker 1: you did a great job explain that. Thank you as
43:21
Speaker 1: always for coming on, and obviously we'll have you back
43:23
Speaker 1: again real soon. All right. Lastly, please make sure you
43:26
Speaker 1: hit that subscribe button or auto download button wherever you
43:31
Speaker 1: were listening to this podcast right now and take a
43:34
Speaker 1: moment to write us a five star review. Many on
43:37
Speaker 1: the left have been attacking our podcast, writing us bad
43:39
Speaker 1: reviews on purpose, so if you would help us fight
43:42
Speaker 1: back by writing us a good review, a five star review,
43:45
Speaker 1: and share this podcast with your family and friends on
43:48
Speaker 1: social media to help us grow. See you back here tomorrow.