Welcome.
It is a Verdict with Ted Cruz Week in Review live from Austin. Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the stories that you may have missed that we talked about this week. First up, Catherine Heritage was let go from NBC News and the most shocking part is apparently her notes were seized by the network.
What was behind that shocking decision.
Also, what's going on in Russia and will there be reaccountability for Vladimir Putin for killing his top political opponent.
We're going to break that down for you. And finally, the media turning on.
Joe Biden this week in the headlines that we never thought they would ever write. So will this continue or is just just gonna be a bad week for Biden? That will go back to the media praising him. It's the Week in Review and it starts right now. There's also another shocking story, and I want to make sure we spend some time on this. Many people may know the name Katherine Herrid. She is a phenomenal reporter. She was at Fox for a long time. She then moved
to CBS News. She did incredible reporting on tough issues and stories, including what's been happening with the Biden crime family. She was let go, slash fired, whatever you want to call it, laid off with some other people as CBS
is having financial issues and downsizing. But it was shocking that she was let go in that because she's basically that one of their best and only tough investigative reporters, certainly in Washington, d C. Now we have found out that CBS News went full communists after quote seizing her journalistic files. That is not what's supposed to happen in America in journalism. And yet now we're finding out and only they get rid of her. But the question is what was she what did she have? What was she
about to report on? I would say this enter, I know you love her reporting. I think we should try to get her on Verdict because I would love to hear what she has to say about everything she uncovered that maybe she hasn't been able to tell us yet.
So I agree with you that we should have Catherine Herridge as a guest on Verdict. We're going to try to make that happen. And I will say, look, in many ways, Catherine Herridge is a unicorn because the corporate media is so utterly corrupt, that they do not report on news that is inconvenient to the regime. And Catherine Harridge was a rebel in that she actually reported on things the Biden White House didn't like. And so CBS was engaged in layoffs. And I get, Look, the media
are a bunch of dishonest, lying hacks. I understand that they're firing people because people don't want to purchase their goods anymore, because it is useless. They're no longer journalists, they're liars. That being said, if you're laying off people, and some corporate suit in a corner office made a decision, who do we want to lay off. Let's lay off the person who actually is criticizing the White House, and so Catherine herriage they laid off. That was shocking in
and of itself because she is such a unicorn. But then the news broke this week that then not only do they layer off, but CBS officials took the unusual step of seizing her files, her computers, her records, including her information on privileged sources.
And and that I've got to say, so explain people privileged sources, so people understand why that's such a shocking, in my opinion, abuse of power by CBS.
Well, listen, reporters have sources that give information and under promises of confidentiality, and those promises are that their name be held secret, they will not be outed.
And that's that.
That is right at the heart the essence of journalism, of free press. Well, CBS, the corporate suits have said, we want to know who your sources are. And the problem is that nobody rational with their head not inserted in a bodily orifice, believes that the corporate suits want that for any reason other than bad purposes. Look, I'm going to read from an article in The Hill. So in the Hill, this is something written by Jonathan Turley, who has been really terrific on a lot of these issues.
But here's what he But he wrote quote, I've spoken confidentially with current and former CBS employees who have stated that they could not recall the company ever taking such a step before. One former CBS journalist said that many employees quote are confused why Herridge was laid off. As one of the correspondents who broke news regularly and did a lot of original reporting. This has led to concerns
about the source of the pressure. He added that he has never seen a seizure of records from a departing journalist and that the move has sent a chilling signal to the ranks of CBS and that is deeply, deeply disturbing.
By the way, there have been reports that when Catherine Herridge published stories that were critical of the Biden White House, that CBS executives pushed back, including someone CBS News president Ingrid Cyprianne Matthews, who I don't know, but good god, her name sounds like something out of a science fiction movie about some overlord in the star chamber who wants to silence all dissent Ingrid Cyprian Matthews, let's fire the
reporter that dares report anything of substance because we are propagandists. And I got to say, there was a time when CBS actually had a reputation as being real journalists. How many Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave at what has happened to CBS today.
There's I want to just talk about the quality of Catherine's reporting for a moment. There are reporters that you don't talk to. There's reporters that I don't talk to you see them, you roll their eyes. You deal with it a lot more than I do. There's certain reporters on Capitol Hill You're like, really, you again, give me a break because you know they're hacks. When you when you saw Katherine and now there's like there seemed to be mutual respect from both sides out because she wasn't partisan,
she just was a truth teller and investigative journalism. It's something that we've lost in this country and that's what ultimately I think made her lose her job at CBS.
Look sadly what Catherine Herridge does used to be the Norman journalism. Yeah, you would have journalists who would actually investigate stories, they would follow the facts, they would report on the substance. That used to be how the entire enterprise worked. Now and I really think this is post Trump. Trump broke the corporate media. They hate him so much that they've abandoned any effort at truth telling, any effort at reporting facts, any effort at being even handed, at
the effort reporting both sides. Instead, Look, if you go back a decade ago, if you go back to twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen, you would have people at CBS you'd have people at c and NMSNBC, even MSNBC that would claim
they're trying to be journalists and report both sides. What has changed is Trump convinced a lot of the so called journalists and all of the corporate brass that reporting fairly was no longer acceptable, that Trump was the devil, and because he was the devil, their mission was no longer present both sides. Their mission and this is the
way they framed it was to save democracy. And what they mean by save democracy is elect left wing Democrats in every election, no matter what, which means never ever ever pored on anything harmful to left wing Democrats and only be propagandists for the left wing of the party. Now listen, I don't like the New York Times. I think they're a bunch of freaking communists. I don't particularly like the Washington Post. I don't like much.
Of the media.
But bizarrely, Ben, I think they're valuable. How many years were you an employee of CNN?
Seven years? In hell is how long I was there fighting the good fight.
Okay, but compare CNN all right, you're a former employee. You were an employee there from win.
To win, gosh, it was.
I mean, go back what two years ago and then and then add seven on to there. So in the middle of it, right before Trump was elected, when it wasn't that bad. I was there for I guess about two years before the sixteen election when Trump was elected, and then the will came off.
So give your perspective, because you were a paid employee of CNN. Give your perspective of CNN before twenty sixteen, in the Trump election and after, because look, what I'm describing is real, but you experienced it from the inside.
Yeah, when I first got hired, it was funny.
When I got hired by CNN, the call came in and they said, look, we want real and genuine conservatives on the air. I got hired, I think it was on the same day with New Gingrich and they said, we want to have a robust debate and it was and that's exactly what it started out as. And even when they were covering Donald Trump in sixteen, remember CNN would go wall to wall with him campaign event after campaign event, and I remember, well, yeah, it was huge
for their ratings. You remember, you were running against him. It's like CNN was giving It was almost like the Trump News Network during the primary, and then once he got the nomination, and then once he actually looked like he might have a chance of winning, they started to
turn a little bit. It wasn't until the night and I was I was at CNA that night all night long on election night, and you could see the shock and the anger because everyone there from the highest up people they assumed till they assumed Hillary was going to win. So this was basically just great TV drama until he won.
And then when he won, they basically and once he started saying they were fake news, and he was in there going after them as the president and going after them in the in the White House Press briefing room and allowing Sara Huckabee, Sanders and others to fight back, they couldn't take it out on Trump enough, so they started taking it out on the commentators that were left. I was one of the last, I think, real concertives left at CNN. I actually begged them to not re
sign me at the end. They had a right to sign and right to match, and they did it anyway, And in my last year they signed me to silence me.
I don't think I've ever talked about this publicly.
Actually, in my last year, I asked them not to and they said, no, we're going to resign. I had other offer and they were gonna matchine and that was it. I can say this and you'll laugh. I will go down in history as being the highest paid CNN contributor in history if you count it per appearance, because in the last year of my contract, when they extended it, they signed me to bench me just to say they
had a pro Trump commentator on the payroll. And I did a total of two appearances in twelve months under contract.
Yes, one of appearances.
Yes, that's I've never really talked about this publicly. So they resigned me and I said, please don't and they did it anyway, and they didn't have me on for like three and a half four months.
All right, Ben, I don't want to out your personal finances, but I kind of do. How much to see Ann pay someone? I mean, look, if you don't want to answer that, don't answer that. But I'm kind of curious.
Yeah, it all depends on if you're hosting. What you're resume was, how long you been there? And so I made I mean low six figures when I was there. My first yeah, clus I think it's what it was.
And you did two appearances in a year, in a year, in a year, they paid you fifty freaking thousand dollars.
Per appearance, a little more than that.
That's why I said, I go down in history is the highest paid CNN contributor in history per appearance. But they benched me, and the Hollywood Reporter noticed that there was like two or three of us that were pro Trump, and we vanished from the screen. Because a normal week when I was there in the first, you know, six years, I would probably average four to six appearances a week
some weeks to be eleven, twelve, thirteen. During the political campaigns, I did so many appearances in my first contract.
That I'm doing some quick math. Let's say five appearances a week fifty two weeks. That's over two hundred and fifty appearances a year. That's that's what you used to be. And you went from two hundred and fifty appearances a year to.
Two to two in my last year two and it was only I did one appearance where they tried to I think it was actually to try to get rid of me. They had me come on to defend Rush Limball and they try to turn me into a racist bigot that was defending Rush Limball, that was anti gay, and I didn't take the bait. And you could see I was very angry when I was on TV because I knew what they were trying to do and it didn't work, and I didn't take the bait, and I
fought back. And then there was a bunch of articles from you know, scumbags and media were trying to imply that I said something I didn't say. And then Hollywood Reporter noticed that the pro Trump surrogates, in essence, these conservatives at CNN had vanished from the air, and they wrote an article.
So I say this seriously, and look, I don't watch CNN. So but I can't recall a single pro Trump surrogate in years they've had. Yeah, I can tell you I used to do CNN. I didn't do it five times a week because they paid me zero and in my entire life have been paid zero by CNN, and you know, I feel it was a fair trade. But I used to do CNN once a week consistently. I haven't done them in years, years because they're not interested in a fair discussion. They are propagandas, yes, and they're not even
Democrat propagandists. They are the left wing of the Democrat Party. And it's not just CNN. Why did CBS seese Catherine Herridge's confidential source notes that is extremely unusual, but it is a manifestation of the complete corruption of the corporate media.
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week. Now onto story number two. Let's talk about what's happening also with this adversary to Vladimir Putin and give a little context here so people understand the Russian regime has been trying to murder Alexi for
now years. You go back to Joe Biden, and he even went on the record in Geneva, Switzerland, back on June the sixteenth of twenty twenty one, saying that there would be major consequences if he died in captivity by the Russians, by Putin. I want to play this from June sixteen, twenty twenty one, mister presidents, a quick following the same theme of consequences you said just now, you spoke to him a lot about human rights.
What do you say would happen if opposition later Alexi Dvanni dies.
I made it clear to him that I believe the consequences of that would be devastating for Russia. I'll go back to the same point. What do you think happens when he's saying it's not about hurting navalne, all the stuff he says to rationalize the treatment of navalney, and then he dies in prison. I pointed out to him that it matters a great deal.
I mean, Senator, that was twenty twenty one.
What changed, Well, actually nothing changed, And I'm going to explain in a minute that he didn't believe what he was saying then. But before I explain that, let's play what Biden is saying now, because even he is admitting today that what he said then was full of crap. Listen to what he's saying right now.
Now's the time for even greater unity among our NATO allies to stand up to the threat that Putin's rush of poses. You know, I sent my deepest condolence as Alexi staff and supporters are going to continue his work despite this loss, despite all of Putin's desperate attempts to stamp out the opposition, and most of all to his family, especially to his wife, his daughter, and his son. We've already sacrificed so much for their family and a shared dream for a better future for Russia.
Now, that was him making his first statement at the White House. But then the media asked him that question, Hey, what happened to what you said three years ago? First?
Was this an assassination?
The answer is that we don't know exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that the death of the Volny was the consequence of something that Putin and his thugs did.
And to be clear, you warned Vladider Putin when you were in Geneva of devastating consequences if Navali died.
In Russian custody.
What consequences should he and Russia face?
That was three years ago. In the meantime, they faced a hell of a lot of consequences. They've lost and or had wounded over three hundred and fifty thousand Russian soldiers.
I mean, he doesn't answer the questions. He says, that was three years ago, and now, because of the war with Ukraine, Well, they've had some somehow, some consequences that have nothing to do with killing this individual.
Well, he did answer the question, actually, and his answer is nothing. That he's so weak, that he's so ineffective that he's not going to do anything. And Putin knows that everybody else knows that Navalney knew that. So last week, when the news of Navalney's death broke, here's the statement that I put out. Quote. The Russian regime has been trying to murder Alexi Navolney for years to stop his criticism of Vladimir Putin's corruption and ontocracy and to intimidate
the Russian people from similar criticism. Tragically, they appear to have finally succeeded in murdering him. We must ensure that they will never succeed in silencing him. The regime interprets weakness from the United States as appeasement and has only escalated it suppression in recent years. The Russian people are entitled to express their views peacefully without fear of retribution, and I will work with my colleagues to hold accountable
those in the Russian regime responsible for this atrocity. So that's what I put out. But I want to go back because I said that Biden didn't mean the tough
consequences when he said that. How do I know that, Because if you go back to twenty twenty one, you go back to the beginning of the Biden administration where Vladimir Putin poisoned Alexi Nevaldi actually poisoned him in August of twenty twenty and he was poisoned with a Novachok class nerve agent, which is the same class that was used by Russia in the twenty eighteen assassin assassination attempt against a former British intelligence agency. It's a strategy of
murder that the Russians are fond poisoning. And at the time Biden announced really mild sanctions on Russia, said okay, we're going to slap your hand. And what I called for at the time was sanctioning and shutting down the nord Stream two pipeline. Now remember nord Stream two pipeline was a pipeline that Putin was building that went straight
from Russia to Germany. It circumvented Ukraine. The entire point of the nord Stream two pipeline was to enable Russia to get its natural gas to Europe without needing to go through the pipelines in Ukraine. Why did Putin want the nord Stream two pipeline so he could invade Ukraine. I authored the sanctions that shut nord Stream two down. I passed them into law in December of twenty nineteen, got overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, got overwhelming bipartisan
support in the House. Donald Trump signed my sanctions legislation into law. Law and listen to this. Putin stopped building the nord Stream two pipeline literally the day, the very same day that Donald Trump signed my sanctions legislation, the pipeline was done. That was December of twenty nineteen. December of twenty twenty, I passed another set of sanctions legislation on nord Stream two, again with overwhelming bipartisan support. Again,
Donald Trump signed it to law. The pipeline remained dead. Now fast forward to January twenty twenty one. On January twentieth, Joe Biden takes the oath of office. He becomes president. Four days later, four January twenty fourth, twenty twenty one, Putin resumes deep sea construction of the nord Stream two pipeline literally four days into the Biden presidency. Why because
Biden was already showing weakness. Putin understood Biden was weak, and by the way, that foreshadowing of weakness was true, it was accurate. Why do we know that because several months later Biden formally waived the sanctions on nord Stream two. He gave Vladimir Putin a multi billion dollar gift. He let him complete that pipeline, and that pipeline waving those sanctions is why Putin invaded Ukraine. It is Biden's fault. But when Navalney, when Putin went after Navalney, I called
on Biden. I said, all right, you gave Biden this gift of Nordstream too. How about now, when Navalney's in jail, how about now impose the sanctions on Nordstream two. How about now grow a backbone and stand up to Putin? And Biden refused to do so, instead put little slap of the wrist sanctions on it. And so when he said severe consequences, he didn't meet it in twenty twenty one, and he's admitted it now. The consequences he has in
mind are nothing. And you know what, Putin will continue to behave worse, will continue to be more oppressive, will continue to be more of a threat. China, she will continue to behave worse, to be more oppressive, to be more of a threat North Korea, will, Venezuela will, Iran will, every enemy of America Hamas will has blow will all of them. When we have a weak commander in chief, America is at greater peril and every one of our allies is at greater peril.
Cener.
Our final question for you on sanctions, what is the point of having sanctions And you mentioned multiple countries there that we have sanctions on that we're not doing anything. We're not enforcing the sanctions. And if the president and his administration will not enforce the sanctions, is there any checks and balances that can come into play on the House, the Senate, congressional oversight, Because if you've got the sanctions and they're worthless because you don't enforce.
Them, who does that fall on And can it change?
Well, it certainly can change, and Congress can force the president to do it. And the best example of that, Let's go back to Nordstream two and I'll finish the story. When Biden waived the sanctions. My response, as I put a hold on every single nominee at the State Department. I blocked them in the Senate, and it caused the Biden administration to go nuts. It caused Senate Democrats to go nuts. And I said, listen, Joe Biden is handing a massive gift of Vladimir Putin. He is causing war
in Europe. He is causing Russia to prepare to invade Ukraine. This makes no sense, and it is endangering Europe, our allies, and it's endangering America. For all of twenty twenty one, I had those holes in place. In December of twenty twenty one, I cut a deal with Chuck Schumer. I let I think it was thirty four of those holds go in exchange four scheduling a vote on new sanctions on Nordstream two in January of twenty twenty two. Schumer agreed, so I forced the vote on the Senate floor. Now.
When the vote came up in January twenty twenty two, the week before the vote, President Zelensky and Ukraine publicly begged the United States Senate please please please pass Cruises sanctions legislation. This legislation is the last best hope to stop Russia from invading Ukraine to avoid war. That same week, the government of Poland put out a formal statement pleading with the United States Senate to pass my sanctions legislation. Poland said, if you do not do so, Russia will
invade Ukraine. Now, Ben that is highly unusual. Foreign countries generally do not put out statements on particular votes in the Senate asking the Senate to do something. In this case, both Ukraine and Poland put out those statements. The day of the vote, Joe Biden came sixteen blocks from the White House down to Capitol Hill and he went to the Democratic CS Senate lunch and he personally lobbied the
Democrat senators. This was the first time he had done so since he became president, and he came there to lobby them. His request was, please please please vote against Cruise's sanctions legislation. Please vote for Russia and putin so. Twice, when I had introduced my legislation and passed it to law, all the Democrats had come together and supported it, so they were on record twice supporting my sanctions. In January twenty twenty two, because of Biden's personal lobbying, forty four
Democrat senators flipped their votes. They voted against sanctions, they voted in favor of Russia, they voted in favor of Putin, and as a result, a month later, Russia invaded Ukraine and we had have still today the biggest war in Europe since World War II. Look, I'm someone who hates war. I am very reluctant to go to war. But I
agree with Ronald Reagan. I agree with Winston Churchill. I agree with Donald Trump in the philosophy of peace through strength, that the best way you avoid war is being strong enough your enemies don't want to mess with you, and sanctions can be a very powerful tool for avoiding war. What the Biden White House is all about when it comes to our enemies is weakness and appeasement, and waiving
these sanctions directly cause the war. Once the pipeline was complete, Putin's view was he could invade because he could still get his gas to Europe even if the pipelines in Ukraine were.
Destroyed as before.
If you want to hear the rest of this conversation on this topic, you can go back and down the podcast from earlier this week to hear the entire thing. I want to get back to the big story, number three of the week you may have missed, Senator. I want to move lastly to this other issue, and that is it is weird. The media seems to be turning on Joe Biden. Headlines now coming from major news organizations.
The Washington Post, for example, had this headline, what happens if Trump or Biden can no longer run for president? Obviously to try to act like Donald Trump is in cognitive decline. It's not happening, and we know it's different with Joe Biden. The New York Times even said this how old is too old to be president? An uncomfortable question arises again, and now the New York Times taking
heat for that headline. I want to get your reaction to this moment on Fox News Channel as they describe this turning on the president.
On the story thanks for being here this afternoon with us, everybody. Interesting when you take a look at a theme that seems to be emerging in the coverage of this campaign, this presidential race. Right, check out some of these recent headlines, quote what we know about cognitive decline? Quote what happens if Trump or Biden can no longer run? For president?
How old is too old to be president? These are not your typical electioneer headlines, But this is clearly not a typical election year matchup if it turns out to be these two presumed nominees. So the publisher of The New York Times is standing by his papers reporting on the president's quote on popularity and his age, but says that the White House is not happy. In fact, he says they're extremely upset about the coverage that they're getting at the New York Times. And take a listen to
this exchange. It's a short time ago as President Biden left for a fundraising trip to California.
Watch, Gavin, are you ready? Well, I'm looking for I'm looking to you. We're looking to you.
Okay, with that we bring in our I mean, he didn't even know what they were talking about, Senator and you can see the media flipping on him. Is this the beginning of the end of his presidency with the Democratic Party figuring out how to offload him?
Yeah?
Look, that was weird that exchange at the end, being asked, are you're going to California for a plan B to talk to Gavin Newsom? Look, that was a nasty little question, but his answer was bizarre. It was a non sequitor. It made no sense. And you know those three headlines that that that the Fox story just read. The first one was from the Wall Street Journal, the second one was from the Washington Post, the third one was from
the New York Times. And and I do think we are seeing the corporate media starting to turn on Joe Biden. And we've talked at length. Listen, it was this podcast that drove news and drove news across the country when we said months ago that that I believe there was a very significant chance the Democrat Party would pull the court on Joe Biden, yank him out, and replace him with Michelle Obama. And I think if they do that, they're likely to do it either at the Democrat convention
this summer or shortly thereafter. And we're seeing the corporate media, which is one and the same with the Democrat Party, but in many ways they're the left wing of the Democrat Party. They're starting to get nervous. They're starting to realize, crap, if it's Biden against Trump, we think Trump's gonna win. And so they're they're they're hitting the panic button. And I think We're going to see more of these stories
as the media turns on them. I do think you're seeing both Democrats in the media getting very, very worried about Joe Biden's ability to win in November.
When you are running for president, you've done this before and you see something this significant of a change in the news cycle. Joe Biden has had three years of basically a media that's been covering for him. I think that's why he was so shocked when he had the report that came out about his cognitive decline and couldn't answer basic questions, and then he came out with that very angry, really dysfunctional press conference at night, and the media didn't get back in line since then.
So when you see this, who is moving the needle.
Is it donors who are saying we're not going to give money anymore, or is it the leadership of the Democratic Party saying we got to figure something out, we got to figure it out fast.
Or could it even be both?
So I don't think it's donors, and I don't think it's anyone cutting off money. And understand, the Democrats and the media would be perfectly happy if they could wave a wand and put Joe Biden there four years more. They're not worried that he's incompetent to be president. They're not worried that the Department of Justice says he's not competent to stand trial. They're not worried that he's such a weak commander in chief that our enemies are attacking
our allies and threat America. They're not worried that he lacks the competence to do the job. That there's only one thing they're worried about, that he would lose. If they believed he would win, they'd be perfectly fine to weekend it bernies him to stand him up as a corpse and say, Joe Biden's there, and let's keep pulling the puppet strings. Their concern is they're worried he's going to lose, and that is a very real and an acute concern on their part. It's also worth noting you
were talking about the press turning on him. You know, there's a real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Look, on my end, the press has always turned on me. They're always hostile. Every question they're asking there, they're looking to
screw me. Nine ways to Sunday. That's just when when you're and by the way, and you've been in the Capitol with me, Ben, as you know, when I walk from my office to the Senate floor, and I do so repeatedly, whether it is to vote, or to go to meetings or to go to committee hearings, I'm walking back and forth through the Capitol and there's a cluster of reporters that surround you, and they ask you a hostile question after hostile question on every topic under the sun.
And if you're a Republican, especially a conservative Republican, you're used to just getting constant barrages of attacks. The Democrats don't get that. They get the kind of questions. Remember Joe Biden in his first year in the White House, the reporters would ask him things like, mister President, what's your favorite flavor of ice cream?
I mean, that was right. I mean, it's it's embarrassing.
It's it's they're like groupies chasing the Beatles, throwing their pennies at him. And that's just the guys. I mean, I mean, it is it's pitiful and and and so he is really startled because he's not used to any scrutiny. He's not used to journalists actually being journalists. By the way,
there is this phenomenon for Republicans as well. If you remember John McCain, John McCain used to get lots of a boring press coverage because when he was a Republican senator he would often attack other Republicans and the press, and he would attack him from the left, and the press loves it when a Republican attacks other Republicans from the left. It's the best way to get good press. You get called a bipartisan statesman when you agree with
the Democrats and attack your fellow Republicans. Well, when John McCain got the Republican nomination, and you and I both supported John McCain once we was our nominee, Yeah, but the press turned on him and turned viciously on him. If you remember, McCain made a comment something like, I don't understand. I thought you guys were my base. And he was completely startled. Because it's the same sentiment Biden's having.
When you're used to just getting your your hindquarters kissed by the media, when they start biting, you don't know how to handle it.
And one of two things is going to happen when it comes to this center. They're either going to get back in line after trying to you know, step out and see will others follow us right and test the waters, or they're gonna keep going, what's your prediction.
Well, if he stays the nominee, they'll get back in line and they'll immediately begin saying it's agist and racist and horrible to even ask these questions, and they have no shame. So this is the moment where they're trying to see if they can push him out and replace
them with Michelle Obama. If they can't, if he doesn't go, If if we get to September and Biden's the nominee, the media will suddenly be completely silent on this front and will attack anyone who dares raise the same questions they're raising right now.
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down with my podcast, and you can listen to my podcast every other day you're not listening to Verdict or each day when you listen to Verdict afterwards, I'd love to have you as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Yes,