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