FBI Raided Biden's Office...And They Forgot To Mention It!

Center offices in mid November. That came after lawyers for President Biden found about ten documents more classified on November second. Those materials were from mister Biden's time as vice president. Sources also say the search was conducted with the cooperation of Biden's representatives and the FBI did not seek a search warrant. We'll have much more on those developments a

little later this afternoon. All right, now, the Center. I thought this guy said he was going to run the most transparent administration in history, and now we're finding out that there is a previously I disclosed search at the Penn Biden Center in November that no one told anybody about. Look at this point, this is a bad nineteen seventies sitcom where every day another screw up happens. Every day. Up,

we got more documents. We got documents in the Penn Biden Center, We have documents in the Willington House, we have documents in the Robe Beach House, we have documents by the corvette, we have documents in the room beside the corvette. Then we discover, oh, the FBI is engaged in a rate. And now we discover this was not the first FBI rate. There was an FBI raid back in November that miraculously never got disclosed. And listen, we've talked about how the bidendj the FBI has leaked like

a sieve about Donald Trump. Every bad thing they have about Donald Trump immediately gets leaked to the media. When the FBI does a search of Biden's office, they don't leak it to the media. They don't let anyone know because they didn't want to disturb the election. Mind you, the first of these documents, if we're to believe the timeline that has been given, was discovered a week before the election. But they did not want anyone to know, so they kept it silent, and it is amazing. Listen,

just as a crisis management point these guys. Every day it gets worse and worse. Center. One of the things that they keep saying. And when I say they, I'm talking about the White House and the people speaking on behalf all the sarrogates for Biden is will hold on this search and the other search as plural now by

the FBI were not raids. They want to make that very queer and they say they're all conducted without the use of a warrant, like you're supposed to get you know good like time served right for good behavior in this scenario, like everything's fine because it wasn't like they had to come in with a raid. It wasn't like they had to do and get a warrant. We're being transparent.

So even when we do lie to you and tell you that nothing else is there, when it clearly is, you should still give us good you know, good behavior credit. So number one, it's a bizarre semantic game they're playing to say it's not a raid. Listen, if the FBI shows up at your house or shows up at your office to search your house or your office, it's a raid. Like their thesis is, well, they didn't repel in off of helicopters with machine guns and have to shoot the guards,

so we ought to get credit for that. Listen, if the FBI is searching, you know what they didn't do. They didn't tell the American people. The FBI is searching his office, and they didn't do it because they discovered these documents allegedly right before election day and they realized, oh wait, this would be really bad for the election, so let's lie about it. And you know, I didn't tell the American people either, the FBI, you know who

didn't tell the American people either, the DOJ. Mind you, this FBI and DOJ seems to have a direct line to the New York Times, a direct line to the Washington Post. Everything bad for Donald Trump. They leaked like crazy, and in fact, we learned during the Trump administration they don't just leak actual true facts like the FBI searched his home today, that they leak all sorts of false things like the entire Russia Gate fraud where what they

were telling the press was false. This Biden DOJ is thoroughly politicized, and the Biden White House, they didn't tell people. It is right now February. This happened in November. The Biden White House didn't tell the American people in November. They didn't tell the American people in December. They didn't tell the American people in January. The FBI didn't tell the American people in November, December, January. The dj didn't

tell the American people in November, December, January. It wasn't until the press broke it the very last day of January that they're like, oh, yeah, that happened too. It is interesting to see how the media is responding to this, and I want to give it a perfect example of this. CNN called out a White House spokeswoman and this is

again we're missing an accident. I feel like we need a milk carton here asking where the actual White House pressing material is because they put betting filled out there on CNN, and CNN seems to be irritated that they were left in the dark by the White House. But first I want to tell you about Patriot Mobile. If you've got a cell phone, how would you like to know that every time you use that cell phone, you're

actually standing up for what you believe in. You're actually standing up for your First and your Second Amendment rights, you're actually standing up for the lives the unborn, and you're actually helping when it comes to adoptions. Well, you can do all of that whole you're making a phone call when you're with Patriot Mobile. Patriot Mobile is the

only conservative cellone company in the US. You get to keep your same cell phone number, and you can many times keep your same cell phone or upgrade to a new one. If you're a business or a small business, family business, you can switch your entire company over. They have a business plans for people just like you. And when you pay your bill at Patriot Mobile every month, you are actually giving back and standing up for the

causes that you believe in. Check out Patriot Mobile. Go to Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict that's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, or you can call them eight seven eight Patriot that's eight seven eight Patriot use the promo verdict for the best deals of the day eight seven eight Patriot Center. Take a listen again, this is CNN actually irritated that the White House for not being transparent. And I don't think it's because they care that the

White House is alying to us. I think they care that they were actually lied to by the White House. All right, let me ask you about some new reporting here. According to a Justice Department official and another source familiar with the matter, the FBI search President Biden's former think tank office in Washington in November after the discovery just before the midterm elections of the documents with the classified markings. Where any additional classified documents found as part of that search,

That's not something I can comment on from here. That's something you'll need to ask the Justice Department. What I can say is that we have been cooperative and transparent from the outset. We put out multiple statements from the President's personal attorney describing the process and being clear that the President takes this seriously and that he cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the Justice Department in full.

And you know, the other thing I would say while we're on this topic is, you know, over the weekend, CBS had to pull out that showed that the majority of Americans think that President Biden is handling this well. And we've also seen that it has an impacted his approval ratings because while he absolutely takes this seriously and

continues to cooperate. He's also continuing to focus on the things the matter in people's lives, like visiting the tunnel today that is finally getting those infrastructure dollars after so many years of not being able to get it done. So, Okay, you're claiming transparency, but I'm bringing this to you, you aren't bringing it to me. This happened in mid November. If you are indeed being transparent, why the continued trickle of disclosure around these classified documents? I mean, Sida, let's

just stop it right there. You just had CNN say, so Kate talking to the White House quote, you're claiming transparency, but I'm bringing this to you. You aren't bringing it to me. And that's where I go back to what I was saying earlier. I think this is just personal. Now the media is furious that basically they were misled by their partners in crime. Right, they're being double crossed by this Biden White House. He didn't say the American people.

He said, I'm bringing this to you, you aren't bringing it to me. This happens in mid November. If you are indeed being transparent, why continue continue trickle of disclosures around these classified documents. That's CNN, that Senate. Look when the Democrats have lost CNN, their ship is sinking. That is bad CNN. As are as hardcore left wing partisans as you can find. And the problem is the White House every day sends out flax who say things that

are false. I mean, listen, I think this podcast may have single handedly taken Karine John Pierre off the air. Ben I don't know why you're so mean to her, just because she lies to the American people every days. That seems a really harsh thing to do. But I'm pro, and I'm pro employment by the way, I actually feel a little bad right well, every single day what they stand up and say, you don't have to wait forty eight hours twenty four hours later those facts are no

longer operative. Look at the opening question in that exchange from CNN. So when the FBI rated Biden's penn office, did they find any additional documents? Now there's an answer to that question. The answer is yes or no. It's one of the two. Presumably she didn't answer that. Yeah, she said, oh you got to talk to someone else. You know what that means? That means tomorrow or the next day or the next day, we're going to find out yes they found additional documents, or no they didn't.

Like this is not, at the end of the day, terribly complicated that when you have a scandal in Washington, get the facts out, get them out fast, Be totally transparent, be open kimono. Say here's what happened. The FBI examined it. We found this, We found this, like just answer it ripped the band aid off. To mix my metaphors, we've got an open kimono with a band aid being ripped off, and it's Joe Biden. Okay, that's now really frightening. But it could be worse. It could be Hunter. Look, never

mind the imagery. I'm glad this is an audio podcast and not a video one because my eyes would be burning in ibe Homer Simpson pouring bleach and my eyeballs right now. But they're deliberately or either deliberately or incompetently setting this up for the drip, drip drip. We can't answer that. We won't answer that. And CNN says, look, you don't get to say I'm being transparent when you're not telling us anything. Like stonewalling is by definition not transparent.

And CNN's point, you didn't tell us about the FBI. We found out about it because you're not being transparent, and I will say also so her response, he says, well, there was a recent poll that shows Biden's just doing great, so never mind any of this. Well, I'll tell you there was another poll that was done by you gov just recently that concluded, quote, the share of Democrats who see Biden as honest and trustworthy has fallen ten points from seventy nine percent in December to sixty nine percent

this week. Among independents, that perception fell seven points from thirty percent to twenty three percent, and it even fell six points among Republicans from fourteen percent to eight percent. So their claim this is not making a difference is directly contradicted by the polls. And the reason is they are. They're being the opposite of transparent. They are hiding everything, They're refusing to answer questions, which means I can promise you there will be new news on this next week.

I don't know what it'll be. Well, you just mentioned transparency, and I want to play this because it speaks to what you're saying they're not being transparent on any of it. They're not telling the truth. Joe Biden came back from another weekend vacation and he was asked about this on the Law of the White House, and this was a question. I'm gonna give you that the transcript for everybody, because

then you can follow easier. The reporter says, if the Special Counsel who's starting this week asked for your testimony, would you give testimony? The reporter says, Joe Biden responds by saying, Oh, I don't even know about the Special Counsel. Listen carefully, Cecil Council who's starting to your guest for your testimony, your testimony. I I don't even know about

the Special Council. This is why you go back the poll that you just mentioned when it says is Biden as as honest and trustworthy has fallen ten points from seventy nine percent December to sixty nine percent this week. Among independence, that perception fell seven points. I mean that one was among Democrats, the first one from thirty percent

to twenty three. He's lost independence at twenty three percent, and it's following another six points, as you mentioned among Republicans down to eight percent, and he looks at you, he goes, oh, I don't even know anything about a special counsel. Now, I do believe that a cognitive decline is real with this guy, but I don't believe he doesn't know that there's a special counsel. So, Ben, let me ask a simple question. Is he telling the truth or is he lying? You're lying? Both of those outcomes

are bad. If he's telling the truth, and I actually think there's a very real possibility he's telling the truth. When he says I don't know about the special counsel, the degree to which this man is intellectually compromised is not aware. I want you to think, in the history of our government, can you imagine Richard Nixon saying, I don't know who Archibald Cox is. I don't know anything about that. Can you imagine Bill Clinton saying Ken Starr, who's he? Never heard of it? Can you imagine Donald

Trump saying Robert Muller, who's that guy? Never heard of the guy? Like, the two options are Biden is telling the truth, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume he's telling the truth. He's standing up there saying I don't know about the special counsel. What kind of president doesn't know his own Attorney General and Department of Justice has appointed a special counsel to investigate him, Joseph Robinette Biden Junior, for potential violations of federal criminal law.

If he doesn't know, that is one heck of an indictment of his ability to do the job as president. If he does know, then option number two, which ironically is the less damning option, is he's just blithely lying to the press that he knows about it. He's like, Oh, I don't know, because I don't want to talk about it. That's the best option. The irony is that he's a

deliberate and blatant liar. Is the less damaging option then that he is so oblivious he is not aware that his own Justice Department has had to appoint a special counsel to investigate multiple flagrant, apparent violations of federal criminal law by him. Yeah, and that brings us, honestly to this next story. You talked about this on the last podcast, and for people listening if you'd missed this episode, there

was a lot of bad weather. I know, a lot of people may not have been driving over the last couple of days with a snow and ice storm that's hitting the country. But this is an episode you need

to go back to and listen to. We were talking about this, this incredible email that Hunter Biden sent to one Devin Archer, one of his business associates, trying to get this job in Ukraine on Barisma a week before his dad goes over there and two weeks before he gets his eighty thousand plus dollars a month job with

Barisma sitting on the board and this email. Many people you taught you said this, you believe this email clearly came from a document that was more than likely a classified document that the Vice president at the time, Joe Biden, would have had his hands on. And we go into great detail about that email. So go back and listen to that our last podcast. But there's new documents center

that have come out. Hunter Biden apparently pitched himself as an expert in Russian oligarch who was targeted by the FBI. Now Miranda Divine, who she wrote a book. I'd tell people rarely to go buy books, but if you haven't read Laptop from Hell, you should she's the one that came out with us, saying. Hunter Biden boasted he could provide intelligence on the shady Russian oligarch whose Greenwich Villa

townhouse was rated by the FBI on Tuesday. The present son said he could provide Alcoa, a giant US aluminum firm, with knowledge about the elite quote unquote networks connected to this olagark and a proposal from his company, Rosemont Seneca.

These emails again telling this story on Hunter Biden's laptop and federal agents what we're being told carried out law enforcement activity on Tuesday at the Gray Street townhouse and a Washington mansion tied to these Russian oligarchs, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and this is who Hunter Biden was trying to do business with. Well, that's exactly right. Before I address that, though, I do have to say two things. Number One, Ben, you just said

you rarely rarely urge people to buy books. Yours was the last one before this, So there you go. I've got a book, Justice Corrupted, how the Left has weaponized the legal system. I got to say, why do you hurt me? Yeah? Why are you urging people? Not to buy my damn books. They how to go to Amazon. Right now, you can pause the podcast. I want you to listen to the rest of the podcast, but you can pause the podcast, you can flip over to Amazon and with one click you can do the have it

delivered tomorrow. I love it. In fact, you could combo these two books together. Valid point. All right, So, and I will say secondly, you said in our last podcast, which was on Monday, and it was we got went into great detail about a very detailed email that Hunter Biden sent that had twenty two points about Ukraine and geopolitical analysis, that was very scholarly, very areadite. And you said that that I said that this was this was very likely from classified documents. I want, I want to

be clear. I didn't say that. What I said was this email is very unlike the other emails Hunter Biden sent, and it reads as if it came from a federal government briefing. Binger, that's a better way of putting it. I think it is quite likely that the substance of the email came from a briefing that Joe Biden received as vice president. It was a week before his trip to Ukraine and It reads like a US government prepared briefing. What I don't know is whether that briefing was classified

or not. It may have been, and often those briefings are classified, but I don't know one way or the other. And what I've said is the Special Counsel needs to investigate. It needs to look at the briefings that Joe Biden as Vice president received at that time. Those are in the archives, they have them, and it needs to examine did Hunter Biden's email cut and paste and copy from

that briefing. Now, if it was not a classified briefing, that's the Biden family exploiting daddy's connections, and that's that's kind of sleazy, but it's not necessarily illegal. If it is a classified document, and presumably Hunter did not have security clearance, then it is illegal, likely on both Hunter Biden's part and Joe Biden's part, and so on the face of it, it screams out that this came from

a far more detailed government briefing than Hunter had the expertise. Now, there's another email that Hunter Biden sent, and he sent this email to Alcoa, the big aluminum company, to quote provide alca A statistical analysis of political and corporate risks elite networks associated with Oleg Deripaska, Russian CEO of Basic Elements Company and United Company RUSSAU and in on June third of twenty eleven, Hunter wrote quote, please see the

attached proposal per our last conversation, we try to provide a little better sense of the product by attaching some of the raw data that is produced through the elite mapping procedure. And the proposal includes quote a list of elites of similar rank in Russia, maps of the oligarchs networks based on frequency of interactions with selected and countries.

And Hunter watered to charge Outcoa fees of twenty five thousand dollars for phase one of the project and fifty five thousand dollars for refined analysis, and Alcoa came back on June eighth with an email and said, I don't believe the data analysis is worth the full fifty five

thousand dollars. I think the most valuable piece for us would be the list of the Russian elites connected with the oligarch der Pasca that would not be otherwise on Government Affairs team's radar, including various Russian committee, committee heads, union leaders or ministers, and the person from Alcoa also noted Hunter's political pedigree. And here's what it says, quote

Rosemont Seneca. His company has co chairman Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden, and Christopher Hines, stepson of Senator John Kerry. So they're being very open. Hey, these are the kids of politicians with classified information, and we're going to pay for it. Now. Once again, there's nothing in Hunter Biden's background.

There's nothing in his educational training, There's nothing in his study that suggests that he has any particular expertise on the networks of elites in Russia connected to Russian oligarchs. Now he wants to charge fifty five thousand dollars for his analysis. Hey, you want to know what's going on with the Russian oligarchs, I'm your guy. That Once again, like the Ukraine email, it is a level of sophistication that it asks any person with a reasonable degree of skepticism.

How did Hunter Biden find this out? Where did he get it? Did he you know, does he often pile around with Russian oligarchs? How does he know who are the oligarchs friends and peers and contemporaries and what's going on other than the only source I'm aware of for him to get this information is the briefing apparatus that surrounded his father, the Vice President of the United States. I don't know that those briefs who were provided a Hunter. I just don't know of any other source from which

he could have acquired this information. And mind you, the White House isn't providing any. Hunter Biden isn't suggesting any. Joe Biden isn't suggesting any. No Democrats are suggesting any. So the obvious inferences this came from Daddy. And again, if it's just Daddy saying, all right, here all my briefings from my staff go make money and sell it on the private sector for fifty five grand a pop. That's pretty sleazy. But it may not be directly illegal,

but it should be looked at. But if the briefings are classified briefings, if they are the sa I A saying here are the oligarchs in Russia, here are the relationships between them, and suddenly Hunter is getting access to it, then you're facing serious criminal liability. And so we now have two emails that strongly raise the inference that Hunter

had access to his father's files. We know that Dad was leaving classified documents just about everywhere, sitting who puts classified documents in the garage next to their classic corvette which Hunter Biden was living in. Joe Biden's house was

driving the corvette like it's remarkable. But the Special Counsel, if he's going to do his job we talked about on the last podcast, the tell if DJ's trying to protect the political prospects of the White House, they will do everything they can not to investigate the connections between

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. If they're actually following the facts and the evidence, the entire focus should be on the connections between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, because that's what implicates corruption from then the Vice president of the United States and today the President of the United States.

I want to get people an update on another very important story that's really gone viral, and it dealt with Biden's judicial nominee who didn't know what Article two of the Constitution is and now Democrats have actually been forced to defend this nominee. I'm going to play that audio that originally kind of exploded for people, but before we do that. I want to tell you about our friends at a Gust of Precious Metals. Have you saved a long time for retirement, Well, you need to understand that

you can protect your money with a gold ira. I'm excited to tell you about a company that I trust and I use. It's a Gust of Precious Metals. They're different because they even tell you if a gold ira isn't your answer, there's no pressure, there's just facts. A Gust of Precious Metals is all about protecting iras and four o one ks in this crazy economy, and it's so important, especially if you're close to retirement because there's

no time to make up losses. So if you've saved one hundred thousand dollars or more, take a look at their free guide and you can sign up for their web conference. Now I've done both of these things, and the web conference was the most important. You can take a look at all of their insights and how a gold ira can work for you. Give you peace of mind, and that's a pretty big deal. Call August of Precious

Metals eight seven seven four gold Ira. That's eight seven seven four gold ira, or visit augusta Precious metals dot com say I sent you and they'll pay your fees for up to ten years. That's a gust of precious metals eight seven seven four gold Ira or augusta precious metals with an ask dot com Senator for people that miss this. A Biden judicial nominee was asked a basic question about the Constitution. I'm going to play that for people just so they if you miss as it's amazing.

This is Senator Kennedy asking very basic questions here. It is Judge, I'm a far end. Tell me what Article five of the Constitution does. Article five is not coming to mind at the moment. Okay, how about Article two? Neither is Article two? Okay? Do you know what purposivism is? In my twelve years as an assistant Attorney General, in my nine years serving as a judge, I was not

faced with that precise question. We are the highest trial court in Washington States, so I'm frequently faced with issues that I'm not familiar with, and I thoroughly review the law, our research, and apply the law to the fact I'm presented to me, or you're going to be faced with it is a if you're confirmed, I can assure you that. I mean, Senator, it's still shocking when you hear it.

But we talked about this on this show, and this has really exploded to the point now where Democrats are having to come in and defend this and try to normalize this. Dick Durbin, one of your colleagues, is one of the people trying to save this. Give people kind of an update of what's happening in DC. Well, first of all, let me explain what the questions are that John Kennedy asked. So. Article five of the Constitution is the article of the Constitution that provides how amendments are

made to the Constitution, and it is the process. It is how we got the Bill of Rights. It is how we've got every amendment to the Constitution is through Article five. Article two of the Constitution is even more fundamental. So the first three articles of the Constitution. Article one creates the legislature, invests all legislative power in the Congress, the House of Representatives, in the Senate. Article two, which is what Kennedy asked about, creates the President of the

United States and the entire executive branch. It is the executive It is an incredibly important article of the Constitution. Article three is what creates the judiciary. So this woman has been nominated to be what's called an Article three judge, which means she's nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and then enjoys life tenure she's a federal judge. For a first year law student to not know what Article two of the Constitution is, you would flunk constitutional law.

Like this may be something that an ordinary layperson might not know, but not even any lawyer, any law student, to not know Article two is stunning. For somebody that wants to be a federal judge, wants to be an Article three federal judge, to have no idea what an Article three federal judge is is remarkable. And so Dicturban, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And mind you, the Democrats have confirmed every single one hundred of the judges

nominated by Joe Biden. The Democrats are confirmed. Not a single Democrats senator has voted against a single Joe Biden nominee. And he has nominated the most radical, the most extreme, and in many cases, the most un qualified judicial nominees I've ever seen. So Durban said this week that he's confident that Charnel, Bagel, ken Grin, which is the woman who didn't know the answers to that will be confirmed.

And here's the quote from Durban. The honest answer is there aren't many members of the Judiciary Committee who can answer all those questions. Well, let me say if Dick Durban's defense is, you know, we got Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee who have no friggant idea what Article too is. Let me tell you right now, ben people need to get the hell off the Judiciary Committee. Like if you don't know what Article two of the Constitution is,

this is not complicated. John Kennedy was not asking some obscure gotcha question. There are unfair questions you can ask, you know. You see it in presidential elections where you get someone that says, you know, who's the foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, and you know the Canada will be like, I don't know, and they're like, ah, you're a moron.

These were not obscure gotcha questions. You know. This is like somebody who is interviewing to be a sports broadcaster for the NFL and they say, okay, how many points do you get for kicking a field goal? And the person says, I have not reviewed field goals recently. Like it is that level of like, if you don't know what Article two of the Constitution is, you shouldn't be a judge. And by the way, Dick Durban, if your defense is, well, gosh, the Democrats we put on this committee,

we're as ignorant as these nominees. That ain't a very good defense. It doesn't. It's not a very good defense. And yet that's all they're left with. I mean, when you have to defend the indefensible, and that's what this basically is, I guess you just say, Okay, I'm gonna look like an idiot two and take one for the team to try to salvage this. I mean, do you think there's any chance they don't confirm her, because, like you said, they have confirmed every single judge it's come

before them from the Democratic side, from Biden. Look, I think they believe the press will not hold them accountable and so they can just party line vote. Everyone. This is an embarrassing judicial nomination. And you know, I'm reminded of a similar example in the Trump administration. So in twenty seventeen, the first year of the Trump presidency, Trump nominated a fellow named Matthew Peterson to be a federal judge.

He was a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, and he went before the Judiciary Commis and once again, John Kennedy, my friend, senator from Louisiana, asked him some fairly basic legal questions, and he did spectacularly poorly. In fact, take a listen to John Kennedy's questioning of Matthew Peterson, a Trump judicial nominee, in twenty seventeen. Um, have you ever tried a jury trial? I have? Not civil? No criminal, no bench, no stay at our federal court? I have not.

Have you ever taken a deposition? I was involved in taking depositions when I was associate at Wiley Ryan when I first came out of law school. Um, but that that was. Have you ever how many? How many depositions? I would um, I'd be struggling too to remember. Less than ten, yes, less than five, probably somewhere. Have you ever tried taken a deposition by yourself? I believe no? Okay, have you ever argued emotion in state court? I have not.

Have you ever argued emotion in federal court? No? When's the last time you read the Federal Rules of civil procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil procedure I have in my current position, I obviously don't need to stay as you know, UH invested in those on a day to day basis,

but I do try to keep up to speed. We do have at the at the Federal Election Commission roughly seventy attorneys who work under our guidance, including a large litigation division, and as a commissioner, we oversee that litigation. We advise them on over all legal serrategy, provide recommendations and addits to briefs and so forth, and meet with them about how we're going to handle it. If I got to ask you, I'm sorry to interruption, but we're

only given five minutes for five of you. So when's the last time you read the Federal Rules of evidence? The Federal Rules of Evidence all the way through, would um well comprehensively would have been in law school, obviously I have been involved in when I was an associate. UM that was something that we had to stay closely abreast of. And um there have been some issues dealing with evidentiary issues that will cause me to UM examine those periodically in in our oversight role oft the litigation

division at the Federal Election Commission. Okay, Um, well, as a child judge, you're obviously going to have witnesses. And you tell me what the dobear standard is, Senator Kennedy, I don't have that readily at my disposal, but I would be happy to take a closer look at that. That That is not something that I've had to contender. Um, do you know what emotion in lemony is? Uh? Yes,

I haven't. Um, I'm again, my background is not in litigation, as as when I was replying to Chairman Grassley, UM, I haven't had to Umm again, do a deep dive. And and I understand and I appreciate this, this line of question, and I understand the challenge that would be ahead of me if I were fortunate enough to become a district court judge. I understand that, Um, that the path that many successful district court judges have taken has been a different one than I have taken. So that

was a Trump judicial nominee the first year of Trump's presidency. Now, some of the questions that John Kennedy asked are particular to trying cases, something like the Dobet standard. If you're not a trial lawyer, you probably don't know what it is. It's from a Supreme Court case, and it lays out the standard to assess a witnesses, expert testimony, and scientific testimony,

whether it's valid, whether it's admissible. Likewise, emotion limiting. If you're not a trial lawyer, you wouldn't necessarily know that emotion limity is emotion that is made to the judge outside the presidence of the jury and to request that testimony be excluded from consideration by the jury. Now, if you're being nominated to be ambassador to Peru, you don't need to know the Dobet standard. You don't need to

know emotional limity because that's not your job. You do need to know something about Peru, presumably, But if you're being nominated to be a federal district judge, where you're going to wear a black robe and sit on the bench and preside over trials, where lawyers are going to make motions and lemon ay, and it'd be really good if you said, I'm sorry, counsel, what is that? This was when this questioning happened, I got to admit for the rest of us. It was a little bit like

watching a train wreck where you just stopped. I mean, you felt horrified. And listen, this fellow, Matthew Peterson, as far as I know, is a very nice guy. I don't know him. He's you know, he was a Republican, presumably a conservative. He was on the Federal Election Commission, but he was not qualified to be a federal district judge. Here's what happened after that, questioning the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to a person said this is a problem,

and the Trump white House withdrew the domination. They said, Okay, we can't do this. We can't and and look, sometimes a white House screws up. They put someone, they put the wrong person forward, it doesn't go well, and they say, okay, rewind. And by the way, there were several nominees that were put forward by the Trump white House that the Senate. The Republicans in the Senate raised issues with and said, hey,

this person's not the right choice. We're Republicans, we generally support what you're doing, but we're going to impose some standards of quality, and in this case, you've got to be qualified to do the job. What is amazing is Dick Durban and the Democrats are digging in and saying it doesn't matter. If our judicial nominees have no idea what's in the United States Constitution, if they don't know what Article too is, doesn't matter. We're Democrats, Damn the torpedoes.

We don't care about the substance. We're going to stick to it. And you know what, we know not a single reporter back home is going to ask us, wait, why did you vote to confirm someone that knows nothing about the United States Constitution to be a federal judge. Isn't that an important step? I don't understand why there's not a Democrat willing to call the Biden White House and say, hey, kind of screwed up on this one. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's find someone else.

We can find a left wing radical, we got lots of those, but let's find a left wing radical that actually knows what Article two of the Constitution is. To date, not a single Democrat's been willing to do that. It's incredible, and I think that just tells you how partisan that the Democratic Party is. When they just say we want something, there's no logic there's no reason behind it. And this. But it's not that it's not just partisan. It's also

that they believe they will have no scrutiny. It is because the corporate media is corrupt that they can do this and know when they get home they will get lovey dovey questions like Joe Biden gets of you know, what's your favorite flavor of ice cream, rather than actually, you know, I'd be embarrassed. I'm you know, I'd be embarrassed to vote to confirm a judge like this. The Democrats don't feel any embarrassment because the press will bury it and ignore it. Yeah, and this is what the

problem is. I think with so many Americans, they just get so frustrated, flabbergasted by the fact that this is how business can be done. Certainly on the Democratic side, at least there's putting some pressure at least Durbans now at least having to come out and try to save this. And as you said, you believe they'll probably get you know, confirmed, because this is the Democratic Party in twenty twenty three.

All right, But by the way, Ben, so this podcast comes out Wednesday morning, Thursday morning, we're scheduled to have a markup in Judiciary. I'll tell you what I intend to do. Thursday morning, We're gonna have a markup. Now I'm intrigued. I am going to quote Dick Durban who says, many of the members of this committee cannot answer these questions.

And I'm going to look at my Democrat colleagues and I'm gonna say, let me ask you, are there any members of this committee who don't know what Article two of the Constitution is? Because if there are, you need to pull the hell off this committee and get in another committee. Like that is an honishing statement for the chairman to make. Oh, our members have no frigging idea

what's in the constitution, and that's our defense. I don't know how they'll respond, and I actually am quite confident that zero Democrats on the committee listen to this podcast, so I know it's coming. I'm previewing what I'm going to do tomorrow, and I have an absolute certitude they will have no idea, and I promise everybody we will give you an update and we will count. That is the easy part. Centator always pleasure, don't forget. We do

this podcast three days a week. Monday, we was ay Friday, hit that subscribe or auto download button. Make sure you write us a five star review as well, so we can reach more people and we will see you guys back here on Friday morning.