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