Welcome in a verdict with Ted Cruz, we can review Ben Ferguson with you, and my, oh my, was it a crazy week with one of the worst debates we've.
Ever seen in history.
Joe Biden now on defense and we're going to cover exactly what this means moving forward as Democrats are now pushing to get rid of Joe Biden altogether. Will it work? We're going to break that down. Plus another important story that you may have missed. We now have unknown the whereabouts of fifty ISIS related illegal immigrants that were smuggled into this country by an ISIS human smuggling network. The White House wants you to believe that everything's under control.
Well where are these fifty people with ties to ISIS? We'll give you the details on that. And finally, the unlawful appointment of the Special Council and what this could mean for Donald Trump. It's the weekend review and it starts right now out. Let's also talk about there was two moments that I think really speak to the demise of the cognitive clin of Joe Biden. And it was subtle but significant, and I want to get your reaction
to it. There was one moment when he was asked about Social Security and he gave a very very short answer, and then the moderators looked at him like, what are you doing. You still have I think they said eighty four seconds left or something like that. There was another time he was talking about African American voters, African American community and African American issues and they're like, sir, you still have like another minute and ex ember of seconds, sixty four seconds left.
He couldn't even.
By the way, he spent eight days at Camp David preparing and he could not fill the two minutes with it a.
The two minutes on two vitally important issues like social Security. Any politician should be able to fill for two minutes. In fact, you should be able to fill that.
These were not subtle, These were not gotcha's, These were obvious questions. He had nothing to say. He was scared. He was a deer in the headlights.
So you said, deer in headlights. Let's go to the next conversation that's being had right now, and I'm sure it's being had at the White House, at the EO B, at the campaign headquarters. Who goes to the president first and says step down, and then you're also dealing with every guy. That's everybody very stubborn though like he can just can't. He just look at them say I'm not gonna do it.
He is absolutely stubborn. I think it is BARACKO Bob. I think it is Nancy Pelosi. I think it is Chuck Schumer. I think it is every leader in the Democrat Party. It's not Kamala Harris Kamo is not allowed in the room, but I think it is. And they go to him and they're pitched to him. They say, Joe, you were an historic president, you saved America from Donald Trump. You wanted to be the next FDR. I think they will. They will appeal to his vanity and say you are
the next to FDR. You are consequential right now. If you stay in the race, you risk undoing your entire legacy and giving that legacy going down in history as the man who made Donald Trump president. If you stay in this race, it will be your fault that Trump is president. I think they'll appeal to his vanity and look that that is I think to Joe Biden a really powerful pitch. Look you look at the debate tonight, He said, things. At one point, he said, during Trump's presidency,
we had one thousand trillionaires. By the way, there are no trillionaires on planet Earth. At another point, he said, during Donald Trump, we had fifty percent unemployment. No, that is wildly wrong. At another point, he said he created Joe Biden created hundreds of millions of jobs. Mind you, there three hundred and thirty million Americans, and apparently he's created hundreds of millions of jobs, so more jobs than there are working Americans. Like it is, every answer was
a problem. At another point, he said, the Border Patrol endorsed me. Let's be clear. The Border Patrol Union immediately tweeted out, to be clear, we have never and will never endorse Biden at every stage. And what's interesting, he was also trying to insult Trump. Yeah, and Trump didn't take the bait. Yeah, and he was smart. It was really and actually when Trump poked Biden, Biden freaked out. He couldn't not take the bait. And so the contrast,
and I'll say something else. You mentioned African American votes. Trump's numbers are surging in the black community, and I think tonight he made a very hard pitch for black voters and his most significant pitch. He had a lot of points about how bad Trump, how bad Biden has
been for the African American community. He talked about inflation, how it's hammering black families, but then he also tied it to illegal immigration and he said, look that the millions and millions of illegal immigrants that are coming into this country, they're taking jobs from Black Americans. That is a powerful argument. That is an argument. And by the way, Biden had no response to that. It was silent. It was on the substance, prosecuted the case and Biden crashed
and burned. And in fact, the Wall Street Journal just sent out their key takeaway, their story that they wrote tonight, and it's now ten forty seven pm, and and their headline is Biden crashed in first debate with Trump. That's not an editorial, that's the news headline in the Wall Street Journal, because it is just objectively. If you watch the Hennenburg explode, you don't say Zeppelin landed tonight.
Well, let's also talk about those that have been lying. The media center has been lying, congressmen have been lying, staff members have been lying. They've been going on TV telling you that Joe Biden can run circles around me. The White House Press secretary saying over and over again, saying there's no cognitive decline here, saying that he's in perfect health. This guy is is a beast. He's you know, he's jacked up aviator Joe. Now they're all actually having
to admit they're wrong. But no, no one's gonna, i think, call them accountable for that. They're just gonna run out there and say, clearly, it's time for him to step aside, step aside, step aside, which is also weird because if you're not cognitive, you don't have the cognitibility to be president in the future. Right, and they're saying he can't be the president come January again, then when does the
twenty fifth and does that even come up? Because you're admitting that he's basically incapacitated.
Now, Yeah, listen, we have seen reporters and we've seen Democrats lying about Joe's mental capacity for a long time, and nobody fair and objective who watched tonight could conclude anything other than this is a man who is seriously mentally diminished. You know, it's interesting Andrew Yang, he you remember, ran for president against Joe in twenty twenty. He tweeted out tonight quote, look, I debated Joe seven times in
twenty twenty. He's a different guy. In twenty twenty four, hashtag swap Joe out that that's from one of the alternative one of the other candidates who ran against twenty twenty, from a prominent Democrat. Two of the top trends that were trending tonight right after the debate were dementia and Michelle Obama. Now that's bad news. If that's if that's what's uh? What is trending? And all right, I want to wrap up tonight's pod with this. I'm going to
do something I have rarely, if ever done. I may never have done this before. I'm going to praise CNN this morning's debate. You and I both thought Jake Tapper and Dana Bash would do a terrible job. They both hate Donald Trump, they both have become hard partisans. CNN did an excellent job tonight with this debate. Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. That was the best debate moderation they have ever done. They ask good questions, they asked substantive questions.
They didn't make the debate about them. One of the interesting things no one is debating about the moderators bad debate moderators. When Chris Wallace debated moderated, the whole debate was about him because he wanted to be right in the center of the show. When Candy Crowley from CNN was the moderator between Obama and Mitt Romney, she made it all about her. Jake and Danna, they asked good questions, They moved subjects along. They would press the candidates, but
not in a jerky way. They just say, I asked you the following question, you have another sixty seconds to answer it. When they didn't get their questions answered, that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a debate moderator to do. I've been in multiple debates that each of them have moderated.
I think they both were incredibly sensitive to everyone laying out the facts that they have shown wild bias, and tonight tonight they didn't and they did an excellent job, and I think that was a service to the country.
I have to ask you one other question, because everyone's asking it their head right now, what is the on the second.
Ben You didn't respond to that, and since you're a former employee of CNN. I'm not gonna let you bet, Ben, you have sixty two seconds. The question is do you think Jake and Danna did a good job.
I think they did a decent job. And here's why I'm not gonna get them as much cred as you did.
You ready for this, all right, I think, But I'm gonna make you answer it.
I'm not gonna let you wiggle away.
Fair point. Here's what I'll say.
I think they were in as much shock as we were, going, Holy crap, I'm watching an incapacitated president of the United States of America. And they were caught so off guard. They said, just stick to the script, Just stick the script, Just stick the script, like it was a default mode. Because it was such a glaring disaster with Biden that no one, none of the moderators were honestly paying attention to Donald Trump.
Yes, but Jake and Dana were more measured than I've ever seen them. They were deliberately controlled. They knew that half the country viewed them as wild eyed partisans. Look, we played this morning Jake analogizing Trump to Adolf Hitler.
Yes, and I still believe that too.
I think he believes it, but tonight that didn't come out. And so if we're going to criticize him when when he's not doing a good job, I will say I think.
I think that they did their job taking the biggest political train wreck in American history, and they were in it and it was like, I don't know what to do? How do you triage this? And so they got rid of some of that. I think if Joe Biden would have showed up jacked up like you did at the say of the Union, I think it would have been
a complete different debate from the moderators standpoint. But I think they saw what everybody else saw, which was we have a present that is incapacitated and the whole world is watching it now and no one can stop it. There was no one to step in and lead him off the stage like Barack Obama did two weeks ago, Which brings me back to that question that everyone's asking, how quickly will we find out if the conversations with Joe Biden are going to work to get him to step aside?
Number one? Okay, and number.
Two, how quickly do Democrats have to fall back in line and stick with this guy if he doesn't decide to step down. And those are the two most important questions. Maybe the entire.
Night, three weeks, twenty one days, this happens or doesn't happen. In three weeks, I think you're gonna have massive chaos following this debate. You're gonna have massive panic. People are going to go to Michelle Obama. People are going to go to Joe Biden. I don't think given the train wreck that happened tonight, I don't think they'll wait until after the Democrat Convention. I think they feel a panic
right now. I think they're going to want Michelle Obama to be the keynote speaker at the Democrat Convention, not Joe Biden. So I think we have twenty one days for this to play out. And look over the course of the last last year, I've handicapped this. I initially laid it out as a possibility, then shifted as the Democrats and the media we're starting to get nervous about
Joe Biden. I shifted to about fifty percent. As we sit here today, I put the odds at north of eighty percent that Michelle Obama is the Democrat nominee on the ballot. In November of this year.
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation, you can go back and listen to the full podcast from earlier this week. Now onto story number two, Senata, I want to move to another shocking story, and it is one that I wish I could say I didn't think we would see. Unfortunately, you predicted it, We've talked about it, that this was going to keep happening. This one, though,
is extremely concerning. The Department of Homeland Security has identified now quote over four hundred migrants brought to the US by an ISIS affiliated human smuggling network. Now they are desperately trying to find people they had caught and released. Now over one hundred and fifty of them have been arrested, but the whereabouts of over fifty remain unknown.
Your reaction, Look, this is a shocking story that in some ways is not shocking because we know that this administration that Joe Biden and the Democrats have effectively rolled out the red carpet and with open borders, have given an invitation to terrorists to come into the country. But even so, the degree of naivete and reckless disregard for the safety of Americans is remarkable. So here's the story.
According to NBC and I'm just going to quote NBC quote, the Department of Homeland Security has identified over four hundred immigrants from Central Asia and elsewhere who crossed into the US in the past three years as subjects of concern because they were brought by an ISIS affiliated human smuggling network,
three US officials tell NBC News. While over one hundred and fifty of them have been arrested, the whereabouts of over fifty remain unknown, the official said, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is looking to arrest them on immigration charges when they are located. One of the US officials and people said people affiliated with ISIS are operating as human smugglers in Central Asia and helping people there leave their countries and travel to the West, where they are smuggled
into the US. It is not known whether the human smuggling activity directly funds ISIS activities, or whether ISIS members are making personal money through human smuggling on the side, the US official said. The official added that the US has no indication that the more than four hundred migrants brought to the US by the network have plans to carry out terrorism in the US, but immigration agents are looking to arrest them out of an abundance of caution.
And here's a quote from the Biden administration. Quote. In this case, it was the information that suggested a potential tie to ISIS because some of the individuals involved in smuggling migrants to the borders. That led us to want to take extra care and out of an abundance of caution, make sure that we exercised our authority in the most expansive and appropriate way to mitigate risk because of this potential connection being made. Now that's the quote, And what
utter and complete garbage out of an abundance of caution. Yeah, we let four hundred people go that ISIS had smuggled into the country because we're so cautious. And then we realized, wait a second, there's an election. There's an election coming up in five months, and all these people that ISIS smuggled in if they carry out a terrorist attack and people realize we let them go, that's going to be a real problem. Oh, crapt does anyone know where they are?
Like?
What an insane statement?
Well, and not just insane, but it's also interesting to see now how the media is covering this. Nightly News actually ran this on the nightly news and called it an NBC investigation. Listen tonight.
NBC News has learned more than fifty migrants with potential ties to an ISIS affiliated smuggling network are at large in America. Many illegally crossed the border and were released into the US by border patrol because there was no information suggesting terrortizes at the time. Now their whereabouts are
unknown as immigration agents look to arrest them. US officials tell us saying they're among a group of over four hundred migrants DHS identified in the US from Tajikistan, Huzbekistan, Moldova, Kyrkistan, Georgia, and Russia as subjects of concern because they were brought to the US by an ISIS affiliated smuggling network, something the FBI director warned about earlier this year.
Some of the overseas facilitators of the smuggling network have ISIS ties that were very concerned.
About ice IS located and arrested over one hundred fifty d of the four hundred migrants so far, with some already deported from the US. Officials say, adding authorities are not panicking because their ties to ISIS are not certain, but they're prioritizing their arrest out of an abundance of caution.
The problem is the volume of people coming across the southern border. Individuals from ISIS and other affiliated groups have recognized it as a weak point in our defense, and they're using this opportunity to try to sneak in.
NBC News was first to report on a similar arrest of a newsback man in Baltimore whose country alerted the US he was affiliated with ISIS. That man, like the others apprehended so far, was arrested on immigration charges, not
terrorism related charges. ISIS K has claimed responsibility for deadly terror attacks in Russia and Iran in the past year, and recently the DHS Inspector General sharply criticizing vetting at the US southern border, saying DHS is at risk of admitting dangerous persons into the country or enabling a side seekers who may post significant threats to public safety and national security to continue to reside in the United States.
Two senior law enforcement officials told NBC News they are not tracking a terror plot from this group of migrants, but their arrest on immigration charges come out of an abundance of caution cluster.
They sure do you like that word center, abundance of caution? I also love in there that one line that really just made me laugh is quote authorities are quote not panicking.
Really, that's supposed to make me feel better.
Well remarkably, though, what they're not panicking about is not the actual public safety threat. It's not keeping Americans safe. It's the political exposure. They're freaked out because there's an election in a few months and they realize, oh no, this could look really bad for us. It has been the consistent pattern of this White House that they do not prioritize national security, everything, everything, everything as partisan politics. And Okay, what I'm about to say, it's not hyperbole.
It is accurate. Day after day, week after week, month after month. For three and a half years, Joe Biden, the Democrats have released illegal immigrants who are murderers, who are rapists, who are child molesters, who are gang members, and who are being smuggled in by isis K, a known terrorist organization, and they're letting them go. They're letting them go the four hundred notice notice. In that NBC report,
they said they were released by the Biden administration. So we apprehended them said, oh, look, isis k bringing someone in? All right, let's let them go? Like that is it defies words. And if there were not an election in five months, I don't think the Biden administration would be doing anything at all about it. This is all about cover it up until after election day and then we can let them go again. And I don't get Actually,
I do not understand the thought process. If you're Alejandro Mayorcus help me on this, Ben, Seriously, if you're Alejandro Mayorcis, you're like, hey, four hundred people, isis case smuggled in? Should we let them go? Like? What is? How do the brain synapses fire for your answer to be yep, let them go?
Yeah?
And the scary part is I think they just say this is just part of that. You got to take the bad with the good, and their definition of good is letting millions in. So, hey, we know there's gonna be bad actors in those millions. We can't check them all out fast enough as we're allowing them to flood into this country. So that's just our policy. There may be terrorists to get in here. Oh wait, there are
terrorists to get in here. We know there's people on the terrorists watch list, and we're just gonna do it anyway. But right before the election, we're going to clean it up a little bit and look like we're being proactive.
I've said this multiple times times, but I very much believe it. We are today at a greater risk of a major terrorist attack than we have been any time since September eleventh, and the director of the FBI has been saying that over and over and over again in congressional testimony. What the FBI is looking at, I'm confident is even worse than what we're talking about, and that is the direct consequence of utterly reckless policies of open borders.
And to tie this to what we started at the beginning, I think this should be front and center what Trump is talking about tonight at the debate.
I was going to ask you that was gonna be my final question for you is if CNN doesn't bring it up, do you force the issue? Because I have a feeling they're going to be playing defense for Joe Biden. So does the President go all in on these type of issues even if they don't bring them up.
Yes, yes, absolutely, Yes.
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.
It brings us to story number three.
It's an important one, and that's the unlawful appointment argument that's been made about the special counsel Jack Smith. I want you to walk us through this because it is complicated, and I want you to make the argument that is, why is there a possibility that this may work for Trump's legal team? They're the ones that are basically raising the argument about this special the unlawful appointment of Jack Smith.
Walk us through the argument that his legal team is making and why they're making it.
Now, well, let me start by watch and listen to how it was laid out in a TV interview with Andy McCarthy, and then we'll talk about it as soon as we listen to this.
Look, Jackie, I think it's deceptive coverage. The difference between the issue about Smith's status that's been raised in this case that distinguishes it from other cases is that prior independent councils were appointed under a congressional statute. This independent council, Jack Smith, has been appointed under a Justice Department regulation.
And what the Constitution says is that when you're talking about an officer of the United States carrying out these kinds of duties, either the person has to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or has to occupy a position that Congress has established by law.
So this actually is.
A pretty novel and important argument, which is why people like former Attorneys General Edwin mess and Michael Mukasey have filed briefs saying that Smith doesn't have adequate legal constitutional basis to proceed with this case. It's not at all a frivolous argument, and I think the rap on Judge Cannon is just ridiculous. This is a classified information case. They're very hard to get to trial. She could have satisfied the media and said, you know, we'll have an
August first trial date that everyone would have known was illusory. Instead, she's trying to move through a massive pre trial work that has to be done so that she can set a realistic trial date, and for that she's being accused I think falsely of postponing the case because she's trying to help Trump's electoral effort.
I want to ask you about Mees and these others that have filed these amicus briefs. But before we do that, I want to talk to you about her incredible organization called Preborn.
For two years, it has now been since Roe v.
Wade was overturned, and over sixty five million babies have fallen, with thousands more taken. Every day Preborn honors these precious souls who never had a chance to take their first breath. Who would they have become? Is the question we should all ask. Every one of them was special. We lost a generation. With the abortion pill now accounting for over sixty three percent of abortions, ending a baby's life is
all too convenient. That's why every day Preborn's networks of clinics stand strong with these little defenseless babies, offering love, support and a free ultrasound to introduce mothers with unplanned pregnancies to the life growing inside of them. Once a mother sees her baby and here's their heartbeat, she is twice as likely to choose life. So that's why I want you to join with me and preborn in defense of these babies. One ultrasound costs just twenty eight dollars
and one hundred and forty dollars helps to rescue five babies. Now, giving is easy. You just dial pound two fifty and say the keyword baby. That's pound two fifty, say the keyword baby. Or you can go online to preborn dot com, slash verdict. That's preborn dot com slash verdict and rest assured that one of your taxeductible donation will actually go
directly towards saving babies and mothers. That's preborn dot com slash verdict or Pound two fifty say the keyword baby to give today, Senator, I want to get your reaction to the point he said about these briefs that were filed. They're important briefs that are being filed, and yet for many Americans they can still sound very overwhelming to understand.
So what's the goal here?
Yeah, and let me say, by the way, we just played a clip for Mandy McCarthy. Andy's a Goo friend of mine. One question I'd be interested from Verdict listeners. We could certainly have Andy as a guest on this podcast. We could also have law professor Jonathan Turley as a guest on this podcast. Both of them I know very well. So if y'all think those would be good guests to have a detailed discussion about these issues, let us know
on Twitter. Let let us know, reach out to Ben and me and let us know and either of both of them we could have on and it could be a very interesting discussion. Listen. So, the judge in Florida has set an oral argument on the question of whether Jack Smith's appointment is legal and constitutional, and that's going to be argued by Gene Cher and Josh Blackman. Josh Blackman is a law professor. Gen Chaer is a very very well respected Supreme Court litigator. Shares the name partner
in share Jaffe. Jaffe is Eric Jaffey, who clerked with me. He was a Clarence Thomas clerk the same year I clerk for Chief Justice Renquist. I've known both of them a very very long time. Ed Meese, former Attorney General, is who has brought brought this arguments, filed an amicus brief arguing that that Jack Smith is not appointed legally
and and the argument. First of all, they say there's no federal statute that establishes an office of Special Counsel in a Department of Justice, So there's not a statutory basis for creating this this role. Secondly, they argue that even if you ignore that there isn't a statute, there is also no statute authorizing the Attorney General rather than the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
to appoint such a special council. The special counsel, the way it's structured right now, has more power than any of the ninety four US attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. So all across the country, they're ninety four US attorneys. Every single one of them has been nominated by the President of the United States, and every single one of them has been confirmed by the Senate. That's the structure. When you have a prosecutor with that level
of power, you go through the checks and balances. Well, Jack Smith was not confirmed by the Senate, and their authority is limited to the jurisdictions where they're appointed. So if you are confirmed to be the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, you can't prosecute someone in California. You don't have the authority to bring any
case outside of whatever district you're confirmed to. Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions anywhere in the country he wants, and he's indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions, in DC and in Florida. He was not nominated by the President, he was not confirmed by the Senate, and that the amicust brief argues violates the requirements of the Constitution.
General mess also acknowledges quote there are times when the appointment of a special Council is appropriate, but federal statutes in the Constitution only allow such appointments through the use of existing United States attorneys. So it's worth noting there have been other special councils, but they were sitting US attorneys. So, for example, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as a special Council, he was a sitting US attorney. Rod Rosenstein was appointed
as a special council. He was a sitting US attorney. John Huber was appointed as a special council. He was a sitting US attorney. John Durham was appoint to a
Special Council. He was a sitting US attorney. Every one of them had been nominated by the President, had been confirmed by the Senate at the time of their appointments, and so what they argue is, you can't just make an appointment as Attorney General and create a roving US attorney with national authority greater than any US attorney without the Senate having the right to engage in advice and consent that argument.
Is that a legitimate argument?
I mean, you're obviously a guy that did this for a very long time and that role is a lawyer. So the question I ask you is, when you hear this argument, you see names like mess and others that are getting involved, and you hear the argument you're making, is it a legitimate one.
It's a real argument and a serious argument. It doesn't mean it will necessarily prevail. Doesn't mean it'll be a slam dunk. There are real arguments on the other side. But look, I think there is a possibility this argument prevails. There's a long history dealing with special counsels, and before that there was there was something called the Independent Council. There was a statute that allowed independent counsels to be
appointed and that was created by Congress. So you'll recall ken Starr was appointed as an independent counsel to prosecute Bill Clinton, and at the time, so there was a there was a case that was brought challenging the constitutionality of the Independent Council Statute. It was a case called Morrison versus Olson. The Olson was Ted Olsen, who at the time was the head of the Office Legal Council in the Department of Justice. He later became the Solicitor
General of the United States under George W. Bush. Ted is a good friend. That case went to the Supreme Court and and eight to one the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Independent Council Statute. The dissent was authored by Justice Scalia, and Justice Scalia laid out an argument why having an independent council who was not subject subject to the authority of the Attorney General, not subject to the authority of the President is contrary to Article
two of the Constitution and exceptionally dangerous. What's interesting is the view of Scalia's descent a loan descent eight to one. I think has been vindicated over the years. And over the decades, more and more people realized Scalia made some very effective points, so much so that when the Independent Council Statute expired, so it was written so it would expire. I don't remember if it was ten years or twenty years,
but it had a date certain where it expired. When it expired, Congress didn't reauthorize it, so it is no longer the law. The Independent Council Statute is no longer the law, and neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted to authorize it. I think Democrats were really unhappy with the job Ken Starr had done going after Bill Clinton, so they didn't
want that to happen again. Republicans had seen it abused going after Republicans, and so both parties said, let's let this statute expire, which means you don't have a special statute authorizing Jack Smith the way you would otherwise. So I think this is a real argument. We'll see what Judge Cannon does, but but these are serious arguments that deserve to be considered seriously. On the man find out.
I think we'll get a decision relatively quickly. My suspicion is that we'll get it within the next few months.
Best case scenario for Trump, what would that look like.
Well, if Judge Cannon rules that Jack Smith is illegally appointed, that he does not have the authority to bring the case. That would that decision presumably would be appealed, but that would permanently put on hold the case in Florida. But it would have a naturally have an implication on the DC case because Jack Smith is the prosecutor who's brought the DC case as well. Now, technically speaking, the DC judge would not be bound by the decision of the
Florida judge. Nonetheless, how those two interact, it would become an issue in every case, both cases being brought by Jack Smith.
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 podcasts 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.