← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
NINE Biden Family Members Got Millions Of Dollars from Communist China! Plus Dems Go Wild, Attacking Dianne Feinstein
00:53:38
Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Welcome. It is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you. Senator. It's a headline and I'm going to read it verbatim. Prostitution rings and a lot of money. That is what Representative Nancy Mace described the bank reports on the Biden family business dealings. She got to see these reports, these suspicious activity reports. She made it very clear how shocked she was when she left the treasury and this is what she said, just.
- [00:29]
Senator Ted Cruz
Left the treasury to review over a hundred suspicious activity reports on the Biden family. And I have to tell you, there are more Bidens involved than. Than we knew previously. And every time you unturn, overturn, or look under a stone, there's so much more you have to investigate because it's while the number of family members involved and it's even the amount of money that we're talking about in these suspicious activity reports, astronomical. And the accusations there in the source of the funding, where the, where the money's going, the shell companies, prostitution rings, etc. It's insanity to me that it's not been investigated in the way that it should be.
- [01:17]
Ben Ferguson
Senator, you hear that? And that's not even the full headline. The other headline is six additional Biden family members may have been benefiting from Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, James Biden's business dealings. That's a lot your reaction.
- [01:33]
Senator Ted Cruz
Look, I think this is astonishing. Ask yourself at home, in what universe would you say that six or more members of your family are profiting from communist China, are making millions of dollars from communist China? I want you to pause and think how unusual this is. Maybe. Look, you have one cousin who has, I don't know, a car repair business. That's a little shady. I'm just trying to hypothesize here, but six family members on the take from the communist Chinese government to the tunes of millions of dollars. Do you know anyone for whom that's the case? I don't. Look, I serve in the United States Senate. I think it would be weird if any of my colleagues had six family members making millions of dollars from communist China. There are a hundred senators, to the best of my knowledge. Zero of them are in that business. The fact that the Bidens by all appearances, had a family business and the family business, everyone, for six family members. I don't know, Uncle Fester. I don't even know who's who the six are. They haven't released the six, but apparently the entire collective family business is, you know, put Aunt Bertha on the take, you know, the Chinese will pay her $100,000. Like, like it, it's, at this point, it's getting ridiculous. And I gotta say, so Nancy Mace, Congresswoman from South Carolina, that's who you just played a second ago. She had just left the Treasury Department. She was reading suspicious activity reports. I gotta say the words that are most remarkable that you just played. She says, prostitution rings, etc. What? Like, like, like, okay, like the, etc. What's in the et cetera. Like, I'm sorry, do you know anyone who is in the business of running prostitution rings or profiting from prostitution rings? Like, I don't know what the evidence is, but holy crap, if she's saying that Joe Biden's family is personally profiting from prostitution rings. Now, to be clear, I have not seen this evidence. So I am commenting on what Congresswoman May said publicly. But if there is evidence that the President's family is personally profiting from, from prostitution rings, and I don't know if those prostitution rings are connected to China or not, but you want to talk about Bombshell, and you know what's not happening tonight? It's not going to be on the 6:00 news, ABC. I'm going to, I'm going to wager you $100 right now, Ben, ABC will not run this. NBC will not run the, CBS will not run that. Will you take the bet? A hundred bucks?
- [04:31]
Ben Ferguson
No, I'm not. I don't take stupid bets because you and I both know there's no way that they would ever report on six additional Biden family members on the take. And there is another part of this.
- [04:41]
Senator Ted Cruz
But wait a second. Abc, NBC and CBS all reported on the Steele dossier. That was one drunk guy in Europe that claimed that prostitutes like to urinate on Donald Trump. So that story, with no basis, no evidence, and now thoroughly discredited, every network reported on. But here, if I'm understanding what Congresswoman Mesa saying correctly, there are reports in the U.S. department of treasury that indicate that the Biden family is directly profiting from prostitution rings, presumably connected to China in some way. And no one will report on that. Like what?
- [05:22]
Ben Ferguson
This is the, this is the media that we now have. They deliberately are working, I would say, for the Democratic Communist Party. And, and, and there's another question here, Senator, that I, I think you and I need to help people connect these dots before we found out about these six additional Biden family members, names Hunter Biden. And just, and we don't know the six. We don't know the six.
- [05:46]
Senator Ted Cruz
We knew three. So, so James Comer, the chairman of The.
- [05:50]
Ben Ferguson
Well, this is nine now, right? Total of nine. I want to make sure we understand that for everybody listening. This is nine official Biden family members that are now connected with suspicious activity reports of the Treasury Department.
- [06:01]
Senator Ted Cruz
So what James Comer said is the panel has identified six additional members of Joe Biden's family who may have benefited from the Biden family's businesses that we are investigating, bringing the total number of those involved or benefiting to nine. Like, nine. Like, is the dog Fluffy on the take? Like, how do you find nine family members and have them all cashing a check from Communist China? That's astonishing.
- [06:30]
Ben Ferguson
Well, and this goes back to the question that Hunter Biden and his direct associates, okay, visit the Obama White House. And this isn't, you know, where the vice president lived. This isn't in Delaware. This is just the actual White house. We know of 80 plus times and hold on.
- [06:47]
Senator Ted Cruz
This is not the White House when Joe Biden was president. This is the White House when Joe Biden was vice president. So he lived at the Naval Observatory, which is a different residence. It's about 20 minutes away from the White House. And yet apparently all of Hunter's business partners were going in and out and in and out of the Obama White House meeting with senior officials. And the Biden White House won't tell us who they met with. They won't tell us how many times Joe Biden met with him personally. They won't tell him how many times Joe Biden's staff met with them personally. But listen, if it's all of Hunter's business partners, there's no reason to think they're just coming to visit the social secretary because they want to help arrange the flowers for the French state dinner. They're there to do business. When you get five. I'm sorry, not five. Nine family members being paid by Communist China. They're getting paid for something.
- [07:45]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, well, and my question is, when you add these new names in, Senator, if 80 meetings at the. Were what were connected to Hunter Biden and. Or. And the vice president at the White House meeting at the White House, what does that number now go to? If you have another six family members that apparently, from what we understand, probably had the same exact access to bringing in their business associates into the White House.
- [08:09]
Senator Ted Cruz
All right, I'm going to make an official call right now. The U.S. department of treasury needs to release every single suspicious activity report on the Biden family. Janet Yellen, you have a choice. You are either actively covering up potential evidence of corruption or release every one of them to the American people. If of the nine Biden family members profiting off communist China, let the American people decide if this is benign. Release the reports. When we've got members of Congress seeing these reports who are horrified, who are appalled, they're going holy cow, how is there so much money flowing from China? Janet Yellen has a choice right now. She is not innocent in this. Now there's no evidence that Janet Yellen was part and parcel of the Biden family business profiting off communist China. But if she doesn't release those reports, she is complicit in the COVID up. So Secretary Yellen release every single suspicious activity report on the Biden family. There's no national security reason to keep them private. There's no reason whatsoever other than if you want to be part of a political cover up.
- [09:24]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it's a great point. I want to ask you about the Treasury Department and is it, is it supposed to be a non political. Because it's clear, I think to many of the American people it is acting politically right now. Before I get to that I want to tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile. If you are sick and tired of spending your money with companies that do not align with your values then you need to check out Patriot Mobile. You've got a cell phone, you're paying a bill. How would you like to pay that bill to a company that actually stands up and believes in the same values that you believe in that actually gives back when you pay your bill? That is exactly what Patriot Mobile does. They're America's only Christian conservative wireless provider offering dependable nationwide coverage on all three major networks so you get the best possible service in your area without the woke propaganda pushed by leftists working hard to destroy this country. When you switch to Patriot Mobile you support free speech and religious freedom, the sanctity of Life, the Second Amendment and our military veterans and first responders are heroes. They're 100% US based customer service team. Makes the switch easy. So make a difference. Stand up for what you believe in with every phone call and with every bill you pay. And many times you're actually going to save money over what you're paying right now. Get free activation today with the offer code Verdict go online patriot mobile.com verdict patriot mobile.com verdict or 878-patriot that's 878 patriot or patriot mobile.com verdict Senator, let's talk about treasury for a second here because I think the history now of how this has played out is extremely important. The Treasury Department used to allow any of you in Congress to see suspicious activity reports based on the reporting. Then when Democrats had control of the House and Senate, the treasury changed the rule and said, well, you got to have a Democrat that wants to go with you to see them, and then we'll release them. That's how they protect the Biden crime family. And, and now only after Republicans were able to regain control of the House were we able to see these reports, which we should have been able to see two years ago or more.
- [11:36]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, listen, there's a broader pattern of this, which is the Biden administration is trying to keep as much classified as possible, as much secret as possible, as much hidden as possible. There's an irony. Joe Biden campaigned promising to be the most transparent administration ever. We're now two years and three months into it, and this is the least transparent administration ever. Think about it for a second. We know that classified documents were discovered at Donald Trump's home, at Joe Biden's home, multiple homes, at Mike Pence's home. We know that Joe Biden was sticking it classified documents virtually everywhere, including in the garage next to his vintage Corvette. You know what I don't know right now? I have no idea what classified documents any of the three of them had. I don't know what Trump had. I don't know what Biden had. I don't know what Pence had. Now, there's a reason I don't know, which is the Biden administration won't tell members of Congress. Initially, they stonewalled. They said, nobody can know. We're not going to tell anybody. And their ridiculous explanation was, well, we might be bringing Department of Justice prosecutions. So we don't want to tell anyone in Congress anything about anything because we might be bringing DOJ prosecutions. Now, that's absurd. Congress has a very legitimate and important role to ensure that classified materials are protected. To understand what kind of classified materials were at Trump's home, Biden's home, Pence's home, were they? So, look, I've read a lot of classified materials in my 11 years in the Senate. There are some classified materials I've read that are so banal, that have so little insight, you could read them in a thoroughly mediocre op ed in the New York Times. There are others that are really serious. If you want an intelligence assessment on how many nuclear weapons we have in a particular location or the vulnerability of our troops to a particular kind of attack, or if you have materials that are based on covert sources, someone close in the orbit of Xi in China or Putin in Russia. And we have a spy that we flipped someone on their staff and they've given us internal information. That's the kind of classified information that's incredibly dangerous. That's the kind of classified information that, if made public, can endanger or even cost the lives of people who have decided to help the US Intelligence agencies. We don't know what category of classified materials were at Trump's Pences and Biden's homes. We ought to know. Initially, the Biden administration said, we will tell nobody. Hell no. Our answer is no. Actually, this is one of the few areas where Senate Democrats were quite strong. Mark Warner, who's the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Marco Rubio, who's the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, both of them said, this is ridiculous. We want to see the documents. Where are we? Now, the Biden administration said they will tell the Gang of Eight. Now, the Gang of Eight is the majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker and the minority leader of the House, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. That's eight people. They have made some of those documents available to that Gang of Eight. Not all of them, but some of them. They won't make them available to the rest of us. Now, I have to tell you, I talked today with Marco Rubio. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee is one of the Gang of Eight. He's seen them. He said that the documents are overwhelmingly, if not entirely, the kind of documents that every member of Congress has the security clearance to see. If that's true, why are they hiding them? They're hiding them for political reasons. Why are they hiding the suspicious activity reports on the Biden family for political reasons. This is not national security. It's not anything else. And, you know, you asked a minute ago, should the Treasury Department be nonpartisan? Look, not entirely. A president is entitled to a Secretary of treasury who shares his or her partisan ideological views. So if you're a big government Democrat, you're entitled to have a Treasury Secretary who wants to tax the hell out of the American people and crush them under the boot of the irs. It's not good for America, but it is democracy. And you're entitled to have a Treasury Secretary who reflects your policy views. Likewise, if you're a Republican who believes in lower taxes, who believes in limited government, you're entitled to have a Treasury Secretary who believes in, who advocates for lower taxes, simplifying the tax code, lessening the regulations that are destroying jobs. So all of those are legitimate. There is an aspect of Treasury Secretary that is policy, that is political, that is legitimately partisan. What is not legitimately partisan is there is an aspect of the Treasury Secretary's authority that is law enforcement. And law enforcement, like the intelligence community, is designed to be nonpartisan. It's designed to be apolitical. Suspicious activity reports are not meant to be oppo research that if your political opponent generates one, okay, this is great. Leak it to the press and let's go smear them. If your political ally generates one, cover it up and hide it. Because the objective is protect your political ally. That is what's not appropriate is the law enforcement component of treasury should be non political. And given that we now have multiple House members who reviewed these suspicious activity reports, who said they're damning. Who said, holy crap, Nine Biden family members making money ostensibly from Communist China. Some, at least according to Congresswoman Mace, profiting off of prostitution rings. Like, I'm sorry, every American has a right to see those reports and assess. And you know what's fascinating? The fact that the press doesn't give a damn. Maggie Hagerman, you're at the New York Times. You claim to be a real journalist. Go find these suspicious activity reports, write them on the front page of the New York Times. You don't want to because the New York Times views its job as being the political protectors for Joe Biden, not actually the paper of record reporting on news.
- [18:39]
Ben Ferguson
It is shocking to see how much they will just completely refuse to do their job, even when this is maybe one of the biggest stories we've ever seen in political history. To hit a White House with six additional Biden family members that apparently were benefiting from business dealings, nine total benefiting from the business dealings of selling out, basically access to the United States government and favors that may be needed. And now the question is, Senator, and this is my last question before we move on to some other news. How confident are you now in Joe Biden's ability to be the President when it comes to just being compromised by money that came in from Russian oligarchs and from the Chinese and other countries around the world? I am terrified that he has compromised. And I ask you that because it, it was. It was a very different moment today that connects back to this. The former Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, someone, a friend of yours and mine, says that there is overwhelming evidence that Covid was created in the Wuhan lab. And yet this president refuses to confront that issue with the Chinese, and. And it may be because he and his family are so compromised by the Chinese. Listen to John Ratcliffe's thoughts today.
- [20:01]
John Ratcliffe
Every day that passes makes it less likely that there's anything that will ever tie this to nature. Whereas on the other side of the ledger, it's overwhelming when you look at China's actions and the circumstances surrounding what was going on from a biosafety standpoint at Wuhan, the massive number of coronaviruses, the massive numbers of bats carrying coronaviruses that were brought into Wuhan, all of that weighs heavily into making assessments at some confidence level that a lab leak was the origin for this pandemic.
- [20:37]
Ben Ferguson
I mean, Senator, you hear that? And it's pretty clear that Radcliffe is saying we have overwhelming evidence. And there's one reason why we're not bringing this up, and that's because of the Biden administration.
- [20:51]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, listen, longtime listeners of Verdict will know that this podcast laid out the evidence that the coronavirus came from a Chinese government lab leak. We laid this out in March and in April of 2021. Now, more than two years ago, the evidence was overwhelming then, actually, frankly, everything John Ratcliffe said. And by the way, John Ratcliffe was the head of dni. He was the Director of National Intelligence. He was the head of all of the intelligence community under Donald Trump. He was a U.S. attorney. Prior to that, he was a congressman. In between, John Ratcliffe is a serious guy. That evidence is overwhelming. Let's review what this podcast told its listeners two years ago. Number one, the Wuhan Institute for Virology was studying not just viruses, but coronaviruses. Not just coronaviruses, but coronaviruses derived from bats. The bats in question. And remember early on when Covid broke, everyone said, oh, this came from bats at the wet market. The bats in question are not found naturally anywhere around Wuhan. So there aren't. The bats just don't occur. What's the closest the bats naturally occur? The answer is 900 miles away in China. In caves in China. 900 miles away, you can find the bats. What's the one exception to that? Well, there's one place in all of Wuhan you can find the bats that are normally 900 miles away. And those bats are in the Wuhan Institute for Virology. Why? Because they're studying coronaviruses derived from bats. Now, where exactly is the Wuhan Institute for Virology located geographically? It's not 10 miles away from where the outbreak occurred. It's not five miles away. It's not a Mile away, the Wuhan Institute for virology is literally 400 yards away from the wet market where allegedly this outbreak began. Not only that, we now know that three employees at the Wuhan Institute for Virology were medically treated and hospitalized in November of 2020 for serious flu like symptoms that in hindsight, sure look an awful lot like COVID 19. We also know that in December of 2020, when Chinese doctors and whistleblowers began trying to shine the light on this virus, that the Chinese government disappeared them, hid them, silenced them, did everything they could to cover it up. We also know that months earlier, the Chinese government was stockpiling protective medical equipment, things like masks and gloves to limit the spread of a virus like COVID 19. At this point, and frankly two years ago, I think the overwhelming weight of the evidence, 80, 90%, is that this virus escaped from a Chinese government lab. Now, I'll go further than what John Radcliffe testified today. I think the odds are significant. I think that it is a preponderance of the evidence supports the hypothesis that COVID 19 didn't just escape from a Chinese government lab, but that it was genetically engineered and essentially created in a Chinese government lab. They took a virus that occurs in nature with bats and they modified it to make it more lethal and more transmissible. And that particular proposition I don't think is proven to the same level of confidence that the proposition is that it escaped from a Chinese government lab. But I think it's, oh, I don't know, if I were to pick a number, 60, 65, maybe 75% likely. I think it is more likely than not that it was genetically modified by the Chinese government to make it more lethal. We know, and this is 100% fact, that the Chinese government covered it up, hid it, did everything they could to avoid accountability. And we also know that the Biden administration and the Biden White House refuses to hold the Chinese government accountable. Now, why, I don't know, is it that nine members of the Biden family were getting cash from the Chinese Communist government or proxies thereof? I don't know. But it sure seems to me the American people ought to be concerned. And if we had a media that gave a damn about anything, they ought to be concerned.
- [25:46]
Ben Ferguson
I want to get to another issue that you guys are dealing with in Washington, D.C. right now. It's an important one with the Senate committee replacement procedures that deal with Diane Feinstein. This is very significant in the way that the Democrats are trying to deal with this and what it means for every American listening. Before we get into that though, I want to tell you about our friends at Augusta Precious Metals. If you've been stressed out because of what's been going on in the economy, with inflation, stock market, bank failures, and you're close to retirement or in retirement, you need to talk to my friends at Augusta Precious Metals. They help you buy gold and to use it to protect yourself with a gold ira to protect your hard earned assets, protecting your retirement savings. This is why people invest in gold and silver. It is a hedge against inflation. And if you've been saving for retirement, Augusta Precious Metals will actually pay you in pure gold. That's right. To learn how gold IRAs can protect you, that's a big deal. If you've saved a hundred thousand dollars or more for retirement, they are going to give you a pure gold coin for free. All you got to do is reach out to Augusta Precious Metals today and get started with gold. Don't let the bank failures get you down. Get this free gold and get some peace of mind. Call them 8774-GOLD IRA 877, the number 4 Gold IRA to learn how to protect your retirement and get your free gold coin. Yeah, a free gold coin. That's Augusta Precious Metals. 877-the-number4 Gold IRA or Augusta precious metals.com Senator, for three years, Dems have been trying to boot Dianne Feinstein off the Judiciary Committee. Now Dems are redoubling their efforts because they want to confirm more radical nominees. This is unprecedented. Completely cynical and deeply political is one of the ways that you could describe this entire fiasco. So where are we now with this and what's going to take place when it comes to Dianne Feinstein basically being absent from work?
- [28:01]
Senator Ted Cruz
The Democrat Party is doing everything they can to drive Dianne Feinstein out of the United States Senate and to understand why. Look, Dianne Feinstein has been in the Senate for decades. She is 89 years old. She's much older than you are, much older than I am. She's been in the Senate since you and I were in short shorts. This really started in earnest three years ago with the Senate confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Now, you recall that was at the end of the Trump administration and the Judiciary Committee took up the nomination quickly. Justice Barrett was incredibly well qualified and she was confirmed. The Democrats voted party line against her because that is their approach to judicial nominations. At this point, at the end of the hearing, when all was said and done, Dianne Feinstein was the ranking member. She was the senior Democrat on The Judiciary Committee. Lindsey Graham was the chairman. At the end of the hearing, Dianne Feinstein very briefly hugged Lindsey Graham. Now, she did it because she and Lindsey have served on the committee for decades together. And she was trying to be gracious. But the radical left wing of the Democrat Party lost their mind. They. They truly went into two fits of rage that she would dare hug Lindsey Graham. Now, Dianne Feinstein was slated to be the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee if the Democrats took the majority because the radical left wing was so angry. Within days, Chuck Schumer announced, Feinstein is no longer in line to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Basically, he took Feinstein to a back alley and effectively shot her. And it was giving in to the most extreme left wing voices in the Democrat Party. Instead, what he did is Dick Durbin was on the committee. He was the next most senior member. But Dick Durbin is also the number two person in the Democrat Party. He is the majority whip. Under Senate rules, typically the majority leader, the minority leader, the majority whip. The minority whip can't be a committee chairman. Also, that there's a basic principle that if you have one leadership position, you can't have another one. Well, the Democrats decided, screw that. We're going to make Dick Durbin both majority whip and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Why? Because the radical left is so pissed at Dianne Feinstein. All right, fast forward to now. So Diane, who's getting older, which all of us are, has shingles. Shingles, by all accounts, is a horribly painful disease. I'm grateful I haven't had it, but everything I've heard about it, it sounds terrible. Shingles is also curable. It's not a permanent affliction, but it is very painful while you have it. So Diane has been out for a couple of months with shingles. She's been at home recuperating. The radical left is pissed because while Diane is gone, the Democrats no longer have a majority on the Judiciary Committee. Because they don't have a majority, it means they can't ram through their most radical and extreme judicial nominees. Now, most of their judicial nominees, they can pass. Why? Because on almost every Joe Biden nominee, Lindsey Graham votes for them. He has a view that the opposing party should vote for the nominees of the other party, even if you disagree with their ideology. Now, I don't agree with Lindsey's view, but that is his longstanding view. He's voted to confirm numerous liberal Supreme Court justices. He votes to confirm most Biden judicial nominees. I vote against almost all Biden Judicial nominees. But given that Lindsey votes for practically all of them, the Democrats can move almost the entirety of of Biden's judicial slate. The ones they can't move are the most radical, are the most extreme are the nominees that are so extreme they can't get even a single bipartisan vote. And the reaction of the radical left wing, number one, their primary reaction is throw Dianne Feinstein out, force her to resign, shame her, throw her out of the Senate. Her response to this has been to send a letter to Chuck Schumer saying, please temporarily remove me from the Judiciary Committee until I come back. Now, as we sit here, I think the chances of that happening are exceptionally low. There are two ways that could happen. Number one, by unanimous consent. So the way Senators get on committees is at the beginning of a Congress, the Senate passes an organizing resolution. The organizing resolution names the chairman of every committee, names the ranking members of every committee, names the members of every committee, and that usually takes several weeks. It's negotiated between the majority leader and the minority leader, depending on the ratio of how many Republicans, how many Democrats, the balance of how many are on each committee is negotiated. Once the two parties reach an agreement. That organizing resolution is typically passed by unanimous consent. In other words, all hundred senators agree to it once the two sides have reached an agreement. Now, if Schumer wants to change it, he has two ways to do it. Number one, he could ask unanimous consent to remove Feinstein from Judiciary and plug some other Democrat in there. That would take all 100 senators agreeing. That will not happen. Multiple Republican senators have said they would object. I would object. Like, there's no chance Schumer is going to get unanimous consent to do that, because a bunch of us would object. I don't see any reason why we should be complicit in helping the Democrats confirm their most radical and extreme nominees. The second way he could do it is he could try to move it through regular order, which would take 60 votes, which would mean that he would need to get nine or 10 Republicans. I don't think he'll do that. We've seen in the past few days multiple Republicans come out and say, we're not going to help Schumer do this. I think right now, the chances that he gets enough Republicans to get 60 votes are really, really low. Given that the Democrats are in a fix. And what they're doing is they're just trying to put massive political pressure on Feinstein to get her to resign from the Senate. If she resigns from the Senate. Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California. Look, there is a vigorous primary going on to replace Dianne Feinstein. She's not running for reelection, so her seat will be up in 2024. Multiple Democrats are running. Adam Schiff is running. Katie Porter is running. Barbara Lee is running. Gavin Newsom has promised if there's a vacancy, he will appoint an African American woman. And he will only appoint an African American woman. So if you're white, you need not apply. If you're a man, you need not apply. If you're Hispanic, you need not apply. He is openly and explicitly racist and sexist in saying who he will appoint. Now, if you look at the primary contenders, there's only one of those candidates who's an African American woman. That being said, I suppose Adam Schiff could announce tomorrow that he identifies as an African American woman, but absent his doing that Barbara Lee is the only person who qualifies. The radical left would love for Feinstein to resign and Barbara Lee to be appointed to the race and give her a leg up over Schiff and Katie Porter. I don't think that will happen, although the press and the Democrats are trying to shame her into it. And I got to say, Ben, I've been in the Senate 11 years. Look, the Senate is a body with a crap ton of really old people. Like there are a bunch of people in their 70s and 80s. I've served with a bunch of colleagues who are way past their expiration date. It's striking to me that the only senator I've ever seen that a party has tried to drive out because of health is Dianne Feinstein. Listen, John McCain, who I served with for a long time. John McCain was hospitalized and was incapacitated for months. He was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. There was no effort to throw John McCain out of the Senate, nor should there have been. I would not have supported that. I didn't support that. It's really striking. By the way, right now, Joe Biden is profoundly mentally diminished. None of these left wing radicals calling for throwing Dianne Feinstein out or calling for throwing Joe Biden out. And by the way, to be clear, John Fetterman, the senator from Pennsylvania, has been medically unavailable and absent for most of this Congress. He's been been in the Senate only a few days since he was elected. And none of these radicals who are calling to throw Dianne Feinstein out are calling to throw Fetterman out. And so it raises an obvious question, why the double standard? Why is she the target of their ire?
- [37:56]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, it is shocking to See the way that they're treating her and especially while she's dealing with, as you mentioned, a medical issue in shingles. Imagine you're trying to get over this and, and this is what you're hearing about every day, that the Democrats, while you're out trying to get better, are basically trying to force you from your office. I want to ask you about the human aspect of that and will this backfire? Do you believe on Democrats just looking like they have no compassion whatsoever for, for Dianne Feinstein in this, in this situation. Before I do that, I want to tell you about chalk. If you're a guy and you're dealing with the real aging issue of losing your strength and your vitality and you don't want to just say, all right, I'm willing to give in and be weak and complacent, that is where chalk comes in. Chalk is here to help real American men just like you take back your masculinity by boosting testosterone levels up to 20% over 90 days. Now I've been taking chalk for a couple months now. I've been taking the male vitality stack and I can tell you it works. It's manufactured right here in the US Of A. Chalk's natural herbal supplements are clinically proven to have game changing effects on your energy focus and your mood. So maximize your masculinity today. Go to chalk choq.com use the promo code BEN for 35 off any Chalk subscription for life. Chalk choq.com get your masculinity back up your testosterone levels by 20% up over 90 days. Use a promo code BEN for 35 off. Subscriptions are cancelable at any time. Chalk Choq. Is there a chance sender that this is going to backfire? And I'm talking about just the human side of this, that it seems so clear now what their goal is, how they're treating an older woman who has served clearly the people of California for decades on end, trying to force her out while she's actually trying to heal from shingles. Or is this just the Democratic Party in a nutshell and when they're done with you, they throw you away?
- [40:08]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well, look, I think it could backfire. I'll be honest. I don't think the odds of that are terribly high because I think the corporate media is so hypocritical they won't hold Democrats to account. I think their activists are so extreme they won't care. They're perfectly happy to throw Dianne Feinstein overboard. And so I don't think there's actually a whole lot of downside now from the Democrats perspective. And I do want to say something. Look, I like Diane. I've served with her 11 years. She and I get along fairly well. It's worth noting there's some irony of my speaking out in defense of Dianne Feinstein while most Democrats are eagerly sticking a knife in her, which is when I was a brand new baby senator and I'd been in the Senate just a few months, one of the very first things that happened was the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. And the Democrats, the Democrats, Barack Obama just been reelected. So I was elected in 2012. So Obama was starting a second term and Chuck Schumer was on the Sunday shows, just exultant, saying, we're going to pass gun control, we're in the sweet spot, we want to take away everyone's guns. And Dianne Feinstein was the point of the so called assault weapons ban in the Senate. She had advocated it for a long time. And so we're in the Judiciary Committee and I'm a brand new senator and we're at a hearing and I asked her, I said, in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment uses the words the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I pointed out, I said the right of the people when the framers wrote them into the Bill of Rights is a term of art. And it's a term of art that they used repeatedly. They used it in the First Amendment, the right of the people to peaceably assemble. They used it in the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Every time the framers used the phrase the right of the people, it referred to an individual right. And I asked her bill banning so called assault weapons specified about 2,000 different weapons that would be prohibited. And it specified them by name. And I said, given the Second Amendment uses the words the right of the people, as does the First Amendment, as does the Fourth Amendment. Would you be okay with legislation on another one of those amendments, let's say the First Amendment specifying 2,000 books that should be banned, that are no longer allowed, what gives Congress the right to ignore the right of the people in the Bill of Rights? Now the response, Diane got very upset and she said, I am not a sixth grader. She was really angry and she dressed me down. And I have to admit, and this thing went viral. It got a gazillion views online. I have to admit, I was astonished. I was brand new to the Senate And I was sitting there thinking, well, of course you're not a sixth grader. I would never ask a sixth grader a substantive question about the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You're a senator representing the largest state in the Union, California, and a longtime senator serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and you're proposing legislation that I think is contrary to the Constitution. So I'm asking you a constitutional law question like, it's obvious you're not a sixth grader. And actually, given that hot exchange. So I can tell you, in the months that followed it, Diana and I repeatedly, we'd be in an elevator in the Capitol, and she'd look at me and go. She'd look over me. She'd kind of purse her lips and go, hello, tough guy. And I would smile and I'd say, diane, I'm sweetness and light. I'm gentle as a kitty cat. And she would say, is that what your wife tells you? We had that conversation, I kid you not, three times, word for word in Senate elevators. All of which is to say there is some irony that I'm now defending Diane. And actually, for the sake of our podcast listeners, let's go back through the way back machine. This is in 2013. I'm a brand new baby senator. I'm 42 years old. Let's play right now the back and forth between Dianne Feinstein and me on guns. And you can hear her explain to me that she's not a sixth grader.
- [45:03]
E
To me, that all of us should begin as our foundational document with the Constitution and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, provides that the right of the people to keep and bear all arms shall not be infringed. The term the right of the people, when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of art. That same phrase, the right of the people, is found in the First Amendment. The right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances. It's also found in the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. And the question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is, would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the first or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights. Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
- [46:21]
F
Would Senator Yale, for a question, let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader, Senator. I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode in Sandy Hook. Youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I've been up. I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years, I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war. And the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I, you know, I mean, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time. I passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You use the word prohibit. It exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn't that enough for the people in the United States, Mr. Chairman? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don't think so. So I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views. Senator, I want to apologize to you. You sort of got my dander up. And that happens on occasion, but.
- [48:07]
Senator Ted Cruz
First time ever.
- [48:09]
Mr. Chairman.
- [48:11]
Ben Ferguson
Senator, you can't make it up. Your recollection. Spot on on that one.
- [48:16]
Senator Ted Cruz
Well. And that was actually Pat Leahy who threw in the rye comment. First time ever. So, look, the point is, there's some irony that I'm now defending Dianne Feinstein, but it's because the radical left, she was more than eager to be the tip of the spear on gun control. They loved her then, but now their view is she has shingles. Get the hell out. Because we've got radical judges to confirm. And again, it's worth noting that the judges, the vast majority of Biden judicial nominees can move forward. It's only a handful of the nominees who are extreme. And let me tell you, some of the Ones that they really want to move forward. So there's a nominee named Michael Delaney. Michael Delaney's nominated the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He was representing a very elite private school in litigation against a sexual assault victim. And he argued in court that the sexual assault victim should not be allowed to use a pseudonym, but rather should be publicly outed as a victim. Now, that's a pretty extreme position. It's a position that frankly, none of the Democrats wanted to defend at his confirmation hearing. And the only way they're going to report him to the floor is if Feinstein is back and they have a straight party line vote because there are going to be no Republicans who vote for him. Lindsey Graham has said he would vote no. A second nominee is Charnel Becklegren, who's nominated the Eastern District of Washington. Now, Becklegren, astonishingly enough, John Kennedy asked her, and we've played this on the podcast, asked her what Article 5 of the Constitution was. She had no idea. Article 5 is the provision that lays out how you amend the Constitution. He then asked her, what is Article 2 of the Constitution? Now, I got to tell you, Ben, if you're not a lawyer, you might not know what Article 2 is. But if you are a first year law student and you're asked, what's Article 2? And your answer is, I don't know, you will flunk con law. Article 2 is the provision of the Constitution that creates the President and the executive branch. And the fact that she didn't know demonstrates she is manifestly unqualified to be a federal judge. And by the way, Dick Durbin, the chairman of the committee, his defense was, well, gosh, there are a bunch of members of this committee who don't know what Article 2 is. If there are any, they ought to get the hell off the Judiciary Committee. You really ought to know what Article 2 is. The Beckel Grant is nominated to be what is called an Article 3 judge. Article 3, which I suspect she has no idea what it is, is the provision that creates the Judiciary. The other two nominees are an individual named Cato Cruz, C R E W S so not, not spelled like me, a nominee to the District of Colorado who failed to describe the holding of Brady vs. Maryland, a foundational criminal law case, and said, and it deals with, with the production of exculpatory evidence, exculpatory evidence to defendants. And instead this, this nominee said, quote, I believe the Brady case involves something regarding the Second Amendment. I've not had occasion to address that. That's a level of absolute unfamiliarity. With criminal law that makes you unfit to be a judge. And then the fourth nominee is someone named Marion Gaston nominated the Southern District, California, who co authored a position paper arguing that sex offender restrictions are too tough. The paper argues, and this is a quote, difficult as it might be, laws that regulate where sex offenders may not live should be repealed or substantially modified in the interest of public safety. The paper also noted, quote, children are not safer because registered sex offenders are prohibited from residing near schools, parks, daycare centers, and other places where children tend to gather. I gotta say, Ben, for a radical leftist to argue we ought to be sending pedophiles to live next door to a school or a daycare is a holy crap moment. And so those are the four nominees that this fight's all about, because every other nominee Lindsey Graham's gonna vote for and they can move them to the floor. This is about those four. And the radical left is saying, give us our most extreme nominees because that's who we want. And we can't get that as long as Feinstein is home and ill. Yeah.
- [53:02]
Ben Ferguson
Great point, Senator, as always want to remind people we do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Make sure you hit subscribe. Hit that auto download button. You will keep you up to date on what's happening in Washington. We'll also keep you updated on the big news that is happening with the Biden crime family as well. So make sure that subscriber auto download button again show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. We have our video podcast that we also do audio and video one of those days a week as well. So watch for that on YouTube and Facebook. Follow the show, follow the center on Twitter, Facebook, all the good places where you're on social media. And we'll see you back here in a couple days.