Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz week in Review. Ben Ferguson with you in mao mind. Did we have a week filled with some major stories? First up, Anthony Founci was in front of Congress this week with exactly what you would expect from him, a man filled with arrogance, especially now as he's having to deal with the facts of how many things he got wrong when it came to COVID nineteen in the lockdowns, Jim Jordan and others went after him.
We're going to talk about that.
Also this week, the judge and the Donald Trump trial made it very clear to the jury, I'm going to let you find any path you want to give me a guilty verdict in that Donald Trump trial. We'll break down that a little bit as well. And finally, the eightieth anniversary of D Day was this week. Senator Cruz was in Normandy for that anniversary, a special day, and now many are criticizing Biden, claiming that his speeches have been politicized guys to go after Donald Trump. Did it
really happen that way? We'll talk to the center about it. Who is there? It is the Weekend Review and it starts right now. You mentioned that he's unapologetic. Congressman Jim Jordan a good friend of the show. Here he questioned Fauci on US tax dollars going to a grant recipient to the lab directly in China. I want you to hear what he had to say when he was asked about this. It was honestly a little bit shocking to hear just the arrogance from Fauci as.
Prior to that call would have been on the call. Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him.
Okay, did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? I'm sorry, did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China?
Yes?
Of course it was a sub award to the one who approved that award.
Excuse me? And who approved that award? What agency approved that award?
National Institute of Alogy and Infectious Disease.
You're agency approved that, right, Yes it did.
After does that have anything to do with this downplaying the lab Leeku theory?
No, nothing to do with it. Nothing.
What This is a guy that still wants you to believe that the lab week theory was a theory and not reality, and that this somehow came from a wet market. There and then the other question that was asked of him was from Representative Brad Winthrop, a Republican from Ohio. This was the question he asked, and listen to the anger from Fauci.
The vaccine saved millions of lives and I want to thank you for your support and engagement on that. However, despite statements to the contrary, it did not stop transmission of the virus. Did the COVID vaccine stop transmission of the virus?
That is a complicated issue because in the beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect, not one hundred percent, not a high effect. They did of
prevent infection and subsequently obviously transmission. However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by, is that the durability of protection against infection and hence transmission was relatively limited, whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization and deaths was more prolonged.
We did not know that in the beginning. In the beginning, it was.
Felt that in fact, it did prevent infection and thus transmission, but that was proven as time went by to not be a durable effect.
I mean, just there, He's like, well, I didn't really get it wrong. It was just, you know, the science that I'm in charge of was not what we thought it was. They'll never admit they really screwed up on any of this.
So listen, let me give a moment of benefit of the doubt to Fauci.
I agree.
When this pandemic was starting, people didn't know what we were facing, and people were concerned, and there were people dying, and in the face of a pandemic, I understand the decisions. Look, Donald Trump signed off on shutdowns early, on the decision to have shutdowns for a week or two. Yeah, it was two weeks, remember, to stop the spread. Two weeks to stop the spread. In hindsight, that was a mistake, but I can understand why people made the decision. At
the time. We didn't know, We didn't know what the spreading was, we didn't know about what the lethality was, and it was trying to save lives. If Fauci said, listen, we had limited information. We were trying to do steps to stop the spread of a contagious virus, and these were steps that made sense. That would not be a crazy thing to say. But by the way, he doesn't admit any mistakes. And what Fauci did that was fundamentally
wrong is he elevated politics above science. If he admitted we didn't know at the time we made those decisions. In hindsight, some of those decisions were right, some were wrong, that would be rational. But his position is everything we did was right. Be glad we shut your schools down. Be glad your children didn't go to school for a year. Be glad their mass scores and reading scores have dropped. Be glad that they will face learning loss for the
rest of their lives. Be grateful that we, the benevolent dictators, did that. There is an arrogance this man. Look, he publicly says, when you attack me, you are attacking the science, because I am the science. There is an arrogance. He embodies the leftist arrogance. And to be clear, look here early on, when when people asked him, okay, our masks do they make sense, he said, no, you shouldn't wear masks.
They don't do any good. A mask is not going to stop the spread of a virus, and then going forward, he said everyone's got to be masked, and he didn't explain the change. And by the way, when it came to the Wuhan lab, leap understand Anthony Fauci personally funded the research that I believe created the COVID virus. He was desperate to cover his own ass. He was desperate to argue no came from a wet market. We now
know that is false. But he reached out. He asked Mark Zuckerberg, will Facebook suppress any allegations that this came from a Chinese government lab? And to be clear, I want you to go back if you look at this podcast. In March and April of twenty twenty, right at the beginning of COVID, we did two different podcasts on Verdict where we let out the evidence then early on that I thought the clear evidence was this virus escaped from
a government lab. I think that is now overwhelming. It is almost indisputable as strong, but it is clearly the overwhelming way to the evidence is that it escaped from a Chinese government lab. And I think the majority of the evidence this is not as strong, but I think it is greater than fifty percent is that this virus was deliberately created by the Chinese government. Now I don't think they created it because they wanted people to die. I think they were creating it because they were engaged
in research and they were irresponsible and reckless. But they took viruses and they made them that they engaged in gain a function research, which is they made them more deadly, and they made them more transmissible to humans, and then I think the virus escaped in the world faced pandemic.
There's something else that's also very shocking, and that is Doctor Fauci was asked a very simple question and I'll wrap with this, but it's an important one, and that was about the unvaccinated, and I want you to hear just some of the kind of disdain they're still shaming the unvaccinated.
Yes, it's proven that, and.
Do you also agree that it saved hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of lives in America and across the world.
That is absolutely correct, and it's very clear that it's saved millions of lives here and throughout the world. The Europeans have done the same studies that we have, and the data are incontrovertible that they save lives.
Certain, do you think the American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists or instead listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes.
Now, listening to people who you just described is going to do nothing but harm people because they will deprive themselves of life saving interventions, which has happened. And you know some have done study, but he's Fidehotz has done an analysis of this and shows that in people who refuse to get vaccinated for any a variety of reasons probably responsible for an additional two to three hundred thousand deaths in this.
An additional two to three hundred thousand deaths in this country. They're still shaming anyone that asks a question. Remember the ivermectino. You guys are getting horse to warmers. I mean, the list goes on and on.
And by the way, in a subsequent pod we should play Chris Cuomo when he was called out for his lying on ivermectin. But it is the corporate media crawled in bed with Anthony Fauci, crawled in bed with with with the left wing, dishonest political scientific medical world, and they just lied to people. And I will say, if you look at something like COVID vaccines for children, for children under six, there was zero scientific evidence to back that.
I get why someone who was eighty or ninety, or even someone who was fifty or sixty made the decision to get the COVID vaccine because, look, you could make a rational cost benefit analysis that we don't know everything about this vaccine. There are risk to it, but we also know this is a very infectious disease and they're particularly for people who are health compromised, it can be really damaging. And so people who are older could make a rational decision to get the vaccine for a five
or six year old. I think there was no rational decision to give a child that because the rate of.
Fatalities behind that, as there was behind the six foot rule, which apparently he's admitted.
Now, yeah, we just kind of made it up. He just made it up.
And this was all about politics and power, and Fauci was willing to put politics in power above medicine and science.
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcasts. From earlier this week. Now onto story number two.
The jury was just told, well, if if it could influence the election, you got to find it's a violation of law that has flat out false. And they were not told if Trump had done what Alvin Bragg said he needed to do, the FEC would have charged him with a personal use violation with using campaign funds illegally. The jury didn't know that because the judge didn't want him to know that.
And that's why they said you can't come and testify.
Yes, and he also prevented the lawyers from arguing this. But by the way, so that was one ground. The other two grounds that could be unlawful means, and you could have three jurors on one and five on another and four other like they could mix and match the other ground.
Have you ever heard of a jury where that was it okay? This don't think you understand weird that.
Usually it's you either got to be all in lockstep, yeah, or you're not. So it's either your innocent or guilty because a twelve agree, and or if they disagree, one of them disagrees.
We're done. Find the elements of the crime.
He said, find your own path.
To guilty. Yeah, whatever you want. The objective is guilty.
You come up with however you want to get there, all right, So one was the federal campaign finance. On his instructions are wonefully deficient. He only includes part of the rule. He leaves out the other half, which is explains why Trump shouldn't have done so. And it would have been a mistake to do it the way the prosecutor wanted him to do, and he would have been charged with it. I mean it would have been he would have been violating the law to do what Alvin
Bragg is saying he should have done. Another supposed basis of unlawful means was falsification of other business records. The second of the people's theories. This is from the jury instruction. The second of the people's theories of unlawful means, which I will define for you now, is the falsification of other business records for purposes of determining whether falsifizing business to records, and the second degree was an unlawful means
used by a conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Here you may consider the bank records associated with Michael Cohen's account formation. The bank records association with Michael Cohens wired to Keith Davidson, the invoice from Investor Advisory Services, and the ten ninety nine MISK form of the Trumpet Organization issued to Michael Cohenes. So, in other words, they're thirty four counts of false business records. They're all the identical charge.
They just occur thirty four different times, thirty four different entries in the bookmarks. What he's saying is, you know what, every one of these is a misdemeanor. But if you say you made one of these entries to assist in another of these entries, then they're all felonies. Wow, Like it is the most circular reasoning that just makes no sense. And by the way, let's go to the third one, because the third one just makes me laugh out loud.
The people's third theory of unlawful means, which I will define for you now, is a violation of tax laws. Under New York State and New York City law, it is unlawful to knowingly supply or submit materially false or
fraudulent information in connection with any tax return. Likewise, under federal law, it is unlawful for a person to willfully make any tax return, statement or other document that is fraudulent or false as at any material matter, or that the person does not believe to be true and correctess to every material matter. I listened to this last sentence. Under these federal, state, and local laws, such conduct is unlawful even if it does not result in the underpayment
of taxes. So, in other words, he told the jury, by the way, you can find a violation of tax laws even if you paid you didn't pay any less taxes, even if you didn't defraud anyone, even if you're not using it to cheat on your taxes, if you think there's something in the tax laws. And by the way, there is no person on planet Earth who understands all of the tax laws. You know, there was a book that was written years ago called three Felonies a Day, and it argues that all of us living in this
complex world commit three felonies a day. Between tax laws and environmental laws. There's just so much regulations. If you are doing anything, if you're filling out a credit card application, an aggressive prosecutor can find three felonies a day that Ben Ferguson has committed. In this instance, that jury instruction says well, if you can figure out if you think there was.
Any come up with your own theory. Basically, come up with your own theory.
And by the way, the violation of tax law doesn't have to have taken a penny of taxes from New York City, New York State of the federal government. And if you think there was some amorphous violation of tax law that didn't result in any underpayment of taxes, suddenly, presto chanjoh. These misdemeanors that we can't prosecute the statute of limitations that extended. They're now felonies, and we can sentence Donald Trump to one hundred years in jail.
One hundred and thirty four years in jail.
In other words, orange man bad, find your way to figure out out how to say he's guilty.
That's exactly what this was all about. This is politics. It'll get reversed on appeal, but the judge doesn't care. He knows that The purpose is what Alex Soro said, The purpose is what Joe Biden said. The purpose is all the Democrats at all the media get to call him a felon over and over and over again between now an election day. This is a five month battle. It's not a five year battle. The purpose is not
to put Donald Trump in jail. They know that's not going to happen cost the election they are trying to win. This is about keeping Joe Biden the Democrats in power because it's all they care about, and they're willing to burn the justice system to the ground.
Center. Final question for you, and this goes back to the last podcast. You were conflicted on what Trump's plan should be next? Do you go to the Supreme Court? Do you try to get their quickly? Is there a way to force this case moving forward? Now knowing the jury instructions and what they were given and most importantly, what they had admitted from them, does this open up any different legal pathway for the Trump team to say, Okay, we need to get this scene even quicker. So it
isn't hey, we got what we wanted. We get to say you're a convicted felon all the way through election day. Can this speed up the process or no?
So let me answer that.
But let me answer that in connection to a question that people ask quite a bit, which is what's the sentence going to be? We've got the sentence, we know that is just a few days before the Republican Convention, and a lot of folks are asking, is the judge going to sentence Trump to jail time. I think there's a very real chance the judge sentenced Trump to jail time. I think this is a vicious partisan. I think he hates Donald Trump. I think he's willing to abuse his power.
But I will wager large sums of money regardless of what he sentences him to jail time or something else, that if if there is incarceration, he will suspend it pending appeal. I think that I could see the judge at sentencing saying I sentence you to four years in jail or no, No, I don't think he would. I do think you've got four years for each of these thirty four.
Counts is the maximum amount.
Typically they would run concurrently, which means they would all run at the same time. You could run them consecutively, which is how you get over one hundred years in any ordinary circumstance. Number One, a judge of Trump's age that does not have any prior offenses in New York would never serve a day of jail time in any other case. I mean, look, you can physically assault someone. You can repeatedly violently beat people up. You can engage in all sorts of crimes and not serve jail time
in New York. That being said, I think it's entirely possible. This judge is enough of a partisan to say, you're the president, what you did mattered, I'm sentencing you to four years in jail. I could see him, he would love that. That would be the crowning moment of his life to utter those words.
It also be useful politically, because then not only can you say he's convicted felon, but then you say, do you want a guy going to the White House, it's about to go to jail.
Yeah.
So what I do not think he will do is sentenced him to jail and say take him into custody and put him there right now. He could, but I think if he did that, it would prompt an immediate emergency appeal and he would get reversed. I assume this guy is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to get reversed, and he especially does not want to get reversed before election day. He's engaged in politics, so
he's not going to do something. I think that will prompt an immediate reversal because that undermines the political value of the charade that he's conducting. So if the sentence is in prisonment or it could be home confinement. If the sentence is something like that, I I think he'll suspend it pending the resolution of the appeal. In that case, I think the odds are quite high. This appeal will have to go through the New York state system. First we talked about in Friday's pod, and by the way,
you should go back and listen to Friday's pod. We did Friday's pod late Thursday night. We did it on the road as I was driving from Dallas to Houston. It was right after the verdict came down, and it was analyzing the next steps and in much greater detail than we have in this pod. And so you ought
to listen to the two pods together. But the ordinary course of appeal would be to appeal from the trial court to the intermediate appellate court in New York in the state court system, and then if you lose in the intermediate appellate court, to appeal to the top appellate court in New York called the New York Court of Appeals, and then finally, if you lose there, then you could appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. That's normally how
a criminal case would proceed. It is possible you can file an extraordinary writ to ask the US Supreme Court to intervene right now, but it is very very very rare. There is a chance, and I'm sure the Trump legal team is debating this right now. There's a chance the court would say yes, but I think it's probably unlikely. I think the court's instinct, particularly if a sentence is suspended, if the judge order Trump put in jail, the Supreme Court would say yes. It would force the court to
say yes. So if the sentence is suspended and Trump is free to campaign, for you, to debate, for you to go to the convention, I think the justice's instincts will be, you know what. The New York state courts might correct this. The Court of Appeals might reverse this, The Intermediate Court of Appeals might reverse this. They might get it right. And there's a long ethos at the court, which is, if we.
Don't need to act, we don't need to act.
If someone else can fix this, if another level of the justice system can fix this.
The U. S.
Supreme Court doesn't need to step in. That's their jail approach. If they were to deny the extraordinary writ, I suspect you would have some justices right and say something like there are lots of reasons to be concerned here, but right now the sentence is suspended. The verdicts can be overturned on appeal, and so will allow the state proceedings to go forward. If there was an order of immediate incarceration,
it would force their hands. I think the whole game here from the DA and from the judge is the political advantage, not actually sending Trump to jail. They know these jury instructions will never survive an appeal. If you had anything resembling fairness in the judicial system, the New York Courts of Appeals should reverse it. I got to say, based on the absolute disgrace we just saw play.
Out, I have no confidence of that.
The New York justice system is, I suspect forever a global laughing stock. And you put this on top of the prior civil case where they took a half billion dollars, they're trying to take a half billion dollars from Trump. The combination the message New York has said is if we don't like you, if you are politically disfavored, welcome to communist Cuba. We will treat you the same and you have the same rights as you would have locked in a gulac 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. I want to go to the president's speech. Lloyd Austin spoke, and then the President spoke, and I actually played some of that on my show, and I said this at the beginning.
I said, I always root for the President of the United States of America on moments like this, on today's like this to have an amazing speech, and I root for the president always, my president always when it comes to national secure issues, especially and when it comes to honoring our men and women in uniform. And the President gave a speech, and I was watching it with the
best of intentions. I wanted to root for this speech, but there were some moments in that speech that caught me a little bit by surprise, and I wanted to know your thoughts on this. There was a couple points where Biden tried to invoke Ukraine, and he also said this, which the media even picked up on. Here's what he had to say during the speech about democracy in America.
Now, the question for us is in our our trial, will we do ours? We're living at a time when democracy had more risk across the world than a point since the end of World War Two, since these beaches were stormed in nineteen forty four. Now we have to ask ourselves, will we stand against tyranny, against evil, against crushing brutality of the iron fist? Will we stand for freedom? We defend democracy? We stand together? My answer is yes, all we can be yes.
That was an interesting point for me because he said democracy is more at risk now than at any point since World War Two. He talked about it on a domestic side, which was implying I think Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, and then he implied it with obviously Russia and Ukraine. And I wanted your reaction to that.
You know, I'm going to say, this is an interesting example of having a different reaction to something when you're physically there versus watching it on TV or watching it on Twitter. Look, I know, on the way after the speech, like looking at Twitter and people's reactions, I know people
are upset that they view Biden asizing. I got to say, it didn't feel that political being there in person, and and and maybe it's because frankly, you're paying attention to the veterans and the heroes you're in front of, and it's so dominated things that you know what Biden said, I barely paid attention to it, like it was not it wasn't the dominant events of the day. And you know, it was fine, he said, Okay, you know what was actually stood out much more to me than anything Biden said.
Who was that was?
But prone did something that was really cool, which is he awarded the French Legion of Honor to It was about eight or ten American gis and and he, you know, he and each of them, you know, they were almost all the wheelchairs. Each of them would stand for it, and they're teetering and they'd have someone helping them, but they wanted to stand and he would pin on their chest the friend legion of Honor that I wasn't expecting,
And that was just powerful. That was just like he was literally and then it was funny Macron would lean in and he would kiss them on both cheeks as the French way. You could kind of see these old dudes being like, hey, why is this French guy kissing? But you know it's your big awarded the French Legion
of Honor. That's a pretty damn big deal. And you think about it for someone who was nineteen and was right there, I mean, understand, we're doing this like right next to the beaches where they saw their friends die, right next to the beaches where I'm going to have to assume that was the most hellish day they've ever experienced, or was certainly one of them, although those that continue to fight in the war there may have been others that rivaled it. But you know, you think about it.
Imagine being one hundred years old and the president of France thanking you for liberating France and pinning the Legion of Honor on your chest. It was most of us had tears in our eyes during this.
Anthony Blincoln came out afterwards. He did an interview from Normandy with the backdrop behind him of many of the heroes and the crosses of those tombstones of somebody that lost their lives. He had this to say, Mark in the eightieth anniversary of D Day, and I want to get your reaction.
And joining us now from Normandy, the United States Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln, thank you very much for joining us here on morning.
Joe.
What should our allies and enemies take away from the President's speech this morning in Normandy?
The same resolve that the extraordinary men and women that were celebrating today showed then, he's showing now. Because they did what they did, we're here today and we not only have we responsibility to honor what they did, but the real way to honor it is to make sure that we're good in our time, in our moment, in
standing up to the challenges that we face. And one of those we see now is aggression from Russia, not only against Ukraine, but against the very principles at the heart of the international system that were put in place after World War Two to try to make sure that we didn't have another World war, that we maintained peace and security. And President's determined to make sure we're standing up today just as they stood up eighty years ago.
And the President talked about Ukraine as one of the current challenges that exemplify the fight against dark forces that never fade, and he made another, yet another commitment. He reinforced the commitment to Ukraine. And by the way, if I may, we're watching live pictures right now of President Biden and the First Lady walking through the cemetery in Normandy, France.
And as we look at these pictures which really symbolize the losses eighty years ago on d Day, and talk about the losses that Ukraine is incurring right now from the same type of aggression, the President did say that the support for Ukraine would continue, that we will be there for Ukraine. How does that parallel with some of the reticents we have seen in Washington that actually delayed the much needed aid Ukraine needed to push back against Russian aggression.
Well, you don't make it that age should have gotten there a long time ago. But I'm glad it's there now and it's making a difference every single day. We're pushing it out to the front lines, making sure the Ukrainians who need it against this Russian aggression have it and can use it. But you know, there's a really powerful parallel too, between what we're commemorating today and what we're doing now. Back then, it wasn't just the United States.
Here in Normandy, Twelve countries came together, one hundred and sixty thousand men coming to this beach, coming to start the final fight that ultimately, eleven months later led to victory in World War Two.
In Ukraine, we have more than.
Fifty countries standing up, standing together, making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and to push back this aggression. And that's the power of our alliances. And that's the biggest difference maker we have in the world. Our adversaries are competitors. They don't have the same kind of voluntary alliances. Yeah, sometimes they course countries into helping them,
or maybe they pay them off. Here we have country after country that volunteers to stand together, stand together in defensive principles that we share and no need defending.
We're seeing that in Ukraine.
We saw that eighty years ago here in Normandy.
You listened to that. It was very clear that NBC was wanting to make that and Blincoln wanted to make that connection. And this deals with the reality of foreign policy center. He said, it is exact quote, there's a really powerful pairer between D Day and the Ukraine War.
He had, no, there's not. That's Look, this White House does all politics all the time. It's what they do. They spin, spin, spin, and the two are fundamentally different. You know. I wish they would treat a solemn commemoration like this for what it is, a solemn commemoration, and not treat it as another day in politics. Now, I will say President Zolensky was there, He was at the events, and so that did add some of the focus to it.
And actually I think tomorrow we're maybe sitting down a meeting with prensident Elynsky and listen, I agree that we want Russia to loose, that Russia is our enemy. Now, Vladimir Kutin is not Adolf Hilery. He's our enemy, but he doesn't have to concentrate cancer. He's murdering six million people right now. He is our enemy and he does not wish us well. And so I think Vladimir Putin is a KG because it's an America's interest for Russia to lose. But and we've talked about this at great
length on the pods. It is Joe Biden's fault and Tony B. Lincoln's fault. The Ukraine War happened in the first place. Joe Biden gave multi billion dollar gifts to Vladimir Putin when he weighs sanctions on the North String two pipeline sanctions that I authored. I wrote the legislation, wrote them into law, and Putin stopped building that pipeline the day President Trump signed my sanctioned legislation in the law. If Biden had not weighed those sanctions, the war in
Ukraine would not have happened. If Donald Trump were still in the White House, the war in Ukraine would not have happened. It's Joe Biden's weakness that caused the war in Ukraine. And by the way, as much as Biden and Blincoln want to see themselves as Churchill and Fdr, if there isn't, If there is a World War Two analogy, then Biden is Neville Chamberlain. He is the one who is weak. He is the appeaser. He is the one who gave billions to Russia. He is the one who
gives billions to Iran. He's the one that constantly shows weakness to our enemies, which is why we went from peace and prosperity when he inherited three and a half years ago to two simultaneous wars playing out across the face of the globe. And look, I'm glad Biden says
he stands for freedom against tyranny. He can't seem to figure that out in Israel because he's blocking weapons going to Israel and at the same time blowing money to Iran that goes to Hamams, and so when it comes to freedom and tyranny, he manages to be on the wrong site of that.
An awful lots Yeah, no doubt about it. I'm really thankful that you got to be there and we got to talk about this and honor our our amazing brave men who went and fought and the women that were involved as well.
By the way, you know who I met, I met the original Rosie.
The Riveter No way, no way.
That was really cool. She's like one hundred years old, but she was the original Rosie the Riveter in in those ads, you know, drumming up support for the military, and that was very cool.
As always, thank you for listening to Verdict with Center. 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.