Welcome.
It is his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz Ben Ferguson with you and Senator we have got a lot to talk about it, especially with the border. As you're hearing from many Texans that are frustrated with what's going on.
Well, that's exactly right. I'm in South Texas right now. Next week, the Senate will receive articles of impeachment for Alejandro Majorcas and the Senate will have to act on it. We're going to do a deep dive tonight on what to expect in the impeachment trial of Alejandro Mayorcis, how the Democrats are going to try to avoid this, cover it up, hide it, how Chuck Schumer plans to ignore the constitutional responsibility of the Senate, and everything to know
about what to expect next week. We're also going to examine how the media is turning on Joe Biden. It's truly quite remarkable. The New York Times, the Washington Post, they've all suddenly discovered the guys old. Apparently he wasn't old a few weeks ago, but it just struck him out of nowhere. And it sure seems like rats are are fleeing a sinking ship in a way that makes you wonder what's next.
Yeah, wait till you hear these headlines that they're actually printing. They've never done this before. The bidens. Before we get into the border issue in my orchis, let me tell you about our friends at Patriot Mobile. If you have a cell phone, listen up. It is time for you to vote and switch with your dollars to a company that stands for what you believe in. Get away from
woke Big Mobile. You may not realize this, but Big Mobile gives massive donations to Planned Parenthood, to democratic causes and candidates. That's why Patriot Mobile has started more than a decade ago. And when I say you're going to get incredible service, trust me you are. I'm using Patriot Mobile right now because I get the same dependable, nationwide coverage I was used to before.
But the difference is this.
When I pay my bill, a portion of that bill every month goes back to support free speech, religious freedom organizations, the same to the of life, the Second Amendment causes, as well as supporting our military, our veterans, our first responders, and wounded warriors. Yes, that's why Patriot Mobile is so special. They've got one hundred percent US based customer service team
that makes switching easy. You keep your same number you have now, keep your same phone in your hand, or upgrade to a new one, and their team will help you save money and get the best planned for you. Just go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict are called nine to seven to two Patriot. That's nine to seven to two Patriot get free activation when you use the offer code Verdict as well. Make that switch today and get rid of Big Mobile center.
You and several other senators signed a letter asking for the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to move forward quickly with impeachment hearings for majorcis and there are a lot of Republican establishment people that don't want this to move forward to a trial. Explain why this letter was so important and not a lot of Republicans sign this letter.
You guys are truly leading the way on this.
Well. Next week the Senate will receive the articles of impeachment and the Senate will return from recess on February twenty sixth, and under the Senate rules, when the Senate receives articles of impeachment. The next thing that happens is that senators are sworn in as jurors the next day, and a trial is supposed to proceed. However, Chuck Schumer has made clear he doesn't want to have a trial. He doesn't want anyone in America to know about the
absolute disaster that is unfolding on our southern border. And so what Schumer is indicated he intends to do is use a procedural mechanism called tabling the articles of impeachment. What does it mean to table the articles of impeachment? It means he wants the Senate to vote no, we're not going to take these up. In other words, he wants the Senate not to adjudicate the articles of impeachment at all, not to conclude guilty or not guilty, simply to table it on a party line vote and move on.
And the purpose of this, look, we've talked a lot on this podcast about how the disaster on the southern border. You cannot defend it on the merits, you cannot defend it on the substance. The Democrats have one strategy, and one strategy only, and that is hide it from the American people. In order to hide it from the American people. They need to make sure that the average person doesn't know the human suffering that the Democrats open borders are causing.
That's why Schumer wants to table the articles of impeachment at the outset, never have a trial, never hear the evidence, never consider anything, and never put any Senator on record
adjudicating the claims. And so, in response to that, Mike Lee and I together led a letter to Mitch McConnell, and it's a letter that was signed by thirteen senators and it calls on Mitch McConnell to stand up and fight for the Senate to fulfill our constitutional obligation under the terms of the Constitution, when the House impeaches, we have an obligation to conduct a trial and to adjudicate
the guilt or innocence of the individual who's impeached. And Chuck Schumer is trying to, for the first time in our country's history in over two hundred years, refuse to adjudicate an article of impeachment. Simply table it, make it go away, say never mind, nothing to see here, and give every Democrat senator a get out of jail free pass by avoiding the need for them to give an answer on guilt or innocence.
Let's talk about what this try would look like and explain, because this is not saying it's happened in my lifetime. It's something it's very rare when it's a cabinet member obviously throughout history. But let's talk about what a trial would actually look like. Does it look very much like what we've seen before when it comes to an impeachment trial for a president.
Well, it potentially does, but there are differences. So, for example, the Constitution specifies that when the president of the United States is impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States will preside. By the way, interesting trivia, do you know what the title of John Roberts is?
What is it?
John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the United States. He is not the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Just like Joe Biden is the President of the United States, John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the United States. That that is the formal and technical title. The Constitution provides the Chief Justice will preside over the impeachment trial of a president. Because obviously may orcus is
not a president. The Chief Justice will not preside. Instead, the trial is typically presided over over by the President pro tem, which right now is Patty Murray, Democrat, senator from Washington State. Now, when it comes to cabinet members,
impeaching cabinet members is exceptionally rare. In fact, this is only the second time in history the House is impeached a cabinet member, and even that is overstating it because the last Cabinet secretary to be impeached was Secretary of War William Belknap, and that was in eighteen seventy six. Now what's interesting about Belknap is right before the House voted to impeach him, Belknap resigned. So may Orcas is actually the first sitting cabinet member ever to be impeached.
And in terms of how the trial will proceed, the Senate is not obligated to hold a full trial on the floor of the Senate, as the Senate does for them each man of a president. And so, for example, in past impeachments, a number of judges have impeached, and what the Senate has done in the past is appointed an impeachment committee to conduct the trial, and typically that committee consists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, members of both parties, and so it can be a
smaller group of the Senate that conducts the trial. But what has always happened is that the House managers get to present their evidence, they get to prosecute the case, they get to put on the trial.
And what has.
Also always happened is the Senators adjudicate. All one hundred senators ultimately adjudicate guilt or innocence. So if the Senate appoints an impeachment committee, that committee makes a recommendation to the Senate, but then every Senator goes on record voting. What Schumer is trying to do. He knows that if there's a trial, even of a smaller committee than the full Senate, that that will force press coverage of the absolute disaster Mayorcus has been, the disaster Biden has been,
the open border chaos they have produced. And Schumer doesn't want anyone to know that. And so, as I said, what he wants to do is instead just right at the outset before anything starts, say we're not going to hear any evidence, We're not going to have a trial. The House managers are not going to present the evidence they don't get to prosecute the case. No senator is going to vote guilty or not guilty. We're simply going to vote to table and make it go away.
Now, there's been a lot of media Republican establishment rhinotypes had been out there saying this is a terrible decision by conservatives to do this, that this is we already know what the outcome of the vote's gonna be. This is going to be an embarrassing moment slash failure, and so why the hell are they doing this. If that was the case, then Democrats wouldn't be fighting this. I
don't think this is a mistake, do you all? I mean, this is about national security as well, and that's something that the media and these Republican talking heads I think they're forgetting that. This is about someone that is not enforcing the laws of land, not protecting a country, having an open border policy, deliberately not getting rid of people that come in this country and break our.
Laws who are here illegally.
And on top of all that, it's a national security issue from the domestic from the terrorists on the terrorists watch lists that are coming across the border at staggering numbers.
Yeah, So I don't know who's been going on TV saying that. So I can say this with complete free conscience because I don't know who I'm talking about. But anyone who says that is a blithering idiot with an
IQ below room temperature. To say it is a mistake to impeach Alejandro Majorcas for aiding and embedding a criminal invasion of the United States of America by global cartels that have sent ten million people illegally into this country, that are bringing murderers and rapists and gang members into this country, that are abusing children, that are raping women, that are potentially smuggling in Hamas and hezbel a terrorist.
To say that it is a mistake for Republicans to fight for the House to impeach may orchis They should have done this two years ago. You and I have both been calling for this for two years. And in the Senate, look is the Chuck Schumer Democrat Senate going to vote to convict No, obviously not why Because the Democrats are partisan hacks. They don't care about the facts, they don't care about the truth. They are going to
vote with the Democrats because that's what Democrats do. When Schumer cracks the whip, every Democrat obeys that's what's going to happen. But why is it that Biden has been able to get away with this? So the biggest reason is the media is utterly corrupt and they don't cover this. If you watch Fox News, if you watch News Max roy In, if you listen to Verdict, you know about
what's happen at the border. But if you watch CNN or MSNBC or ABCNBCCBS, if you read the Washington Post or the New York Times, there is no border crisis. Nothing is happening. The corrupt corporate media covers it up. The reason this impeachment is important is to put the evidence before the American people. And I got to say, and it's why. You know, the amazing thing is the Democrats get this. Why do you think Schumer wants to table this at the outset because he knows a trial
would be terrible? Why because the facts are terrible. What they are doing, the Democrats are doing is grossly inhumane. It is cruel, It is evil. Schumer and Biden do not want the American people to know that, so they want the issue to go away. But I got to say, any Republican that, like a docile little sheep, rolls over and starts buying the hell is wrong with them. And there's a reason thirteen of us wrote a letter to our hip, because Republican leadership, when they see a fight,
typically turn around and charge the opposite direction. And so we ought to stand united and say, listen, we have a constitutional obligation. Listen, I'm going to read you the letter we sent, because it's not a long letter. Dear Leader McConnell. Our Republican colleagues in the House have recently passed two articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorcas for willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law, as well as the breach of public trust.
These articles will soon be transmitted to the Senate. It is imperative that the Senate Republican Conference prepared to fully engage our constitutional duty and hold a trial. According to multiple briefings by your staff, Majority Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats intend to dispose with the articles of impeachment simply by tabling both individually. This is an action rarely contemplated it and never taken by the US Senate in the
history of our republic. It remains to be seen if the Senate rules will even allow us to brush aside our duty in this manner. But one thing is sure. If a similar strategy was contemplated by Senate Republicans when we were in the majority with a Republican occupying the White House, the opposition would be fierce and the volume
from Democrats would be deafening. We call on you to join us in our efforts to jettison this approach by Democrats to shirk their constitutional duty, ensure that the Senate conducts a proper trial, and that every Senator, Republican and Democrat, adjudicates this matter. When the Senate returns and Mike Lee and I let it signed by a total of thirteen Senators.
I want to ask you about strategy here of laying this out to the American people, because that's going to be obviously something we got to get right at the very beginning. As you know, Republicans sometime are accused of screwing up the basics. So I want to get your perspective on what the strategies to be laying the south of the American people that maybe haven't been listening to this podcast or watching as you mentioned Fox or News Max or on. Let me first say about Freedom Gold
though real quick. If you have been looking at what's been happening with our economy, with inflation, with the ups and downs in the stock market, you may have seen that your purchasing power has been disappearing. Well, that's happening because of inflation. Maybe it's putting your savings, your retirement accounts at risk.
And then you have the other problem.
You have things going on like wars around the world, national debt exceeding thirty four trillion and counting. That is why so many are now actually protecting their hard earned dollars by investing in gold and silver. That's why I want you to know about Freedom Gold USA. They're a company that I use and a company that you can sit down with and talk to about protecting your hard
earned money. You have fifty thousand or more in retirement savings, you may be at risk in times of economic uncertainty. Securing your family's financial future is essential. Call Freedom Gold and they are here to help you navigate all of this. One eight hundred sixty five y five eight eight four three. That's one eight hundred sixty five five eight eight four three. You can also visit them online at FREEDOMGOLDUSA dot com. That's FREEDOMGOLDUSA dot com slash verting. Now here's the other
great thing. When you switch over investments or buy gold and silver, you may qualify for up to ten thousand dollars in free silver. Learn how to add gold and silver to your IRA or have it shipped to your home. Safeguard your wealth of physical gold and silver, and take control of your financial future today one eight hundred sixty five five eight eight four three or Freedom Goold USA dot com slash vertic center laying all this out and the threat from MAJORCIS and not doing his job, which
is what this is basically about. How do the Republicans do this the right way? Do you break it up into, Hey, the fetanyl coming across the southern border because it's open is the number one killer of people under the age of forty nine, And you go through that. Do you then go through the sex trafficking and the human smuggling. Do you then go to the domestic the terrorists on the terrorists watch list? Do you then go to the
financial aspects? I mean, is that how we need to break this down to the American people understand just how catastrophic this is.
Well, listen, what you say makes a lot of sense. And what you're doing there is telling a story. And I will say that's one thing Republicans are typically horrible at doing, is telling a story. And that's what we desperately need to do. At the end of the day, the choice of how to present the evidence is not
going to be one for the Senate to make. The way an impeachment trial works, the House managers or the prosecutors, so they will present their case and will be ultimately the managers selected by the Speaker of the House, who will present the evidence and lay it out, and they could very well follow the pattern you laid out. It should be a systematic presentation of the evidence. I think it should focus on the harms. It should focus on
who has heard. It should focus on the dead bodies, the biden body bags that have piled up, one after the other after the other. It should focus on the children who've been physically and sexually abused over and over and over again. It should focus on the women who've been violently raped. It should focus on the disease that
has come in over an open border. It should focus on the more than one hundred thousand drug overdoses last year, the highest and recorded history, seventy percent of which came from Chinese fentanyl coming across our southern border. It should focus on the terror threat hamas Hezbela, the open borders we have, and the exposure we have to a major terrorist attack higher, I believe right now than any time
since September eleventh. All of that they should do. But what Chuck Schumer's trying to do is prevent all of that. He wants to table the articles before any evidence is presented, before the Senate considers anything, and he wants to spare
Democrat senators. Understand, there are a bunch of Democrat senators running in red and purple states that Schumer doesn't want to have them vote not guilty because may Orkis is obviously guilty, and so he doesn't want to get them on record and tabling it is a much simpler and less painful way to do it. Now. I can tell you a week ago, Mike Lee and I together went to the Senate Parliamentarian's office and we presented an argument, the two of us. It's quite rare for Senators to
go directly to the parliamentarian. Typically, staff lawyers on our staff make those arguments. Mike and I made these arguments ourselves, and he and I have both done this a couple of different times over the last decade. But the argument we presented is we wanted to walk through the parliamentarian the history and the precedent in this case, and in particular because Schumer wants to table the articles, we wanted to underscore that in over two centuries, the Senate has
never once tabled articles of impeachment. There was a previous impeachment in which the Senate tabled the procedural rules, but that's different than tabling the actual articles of impeachment refusing to adjudicate. And the point we made, which the Parliamentarian agreed with, is every single time when an impeachment came over,
the Senate adjudicated the merits, it reached the merits. The one exception was a case where the individual resigned and in that case the House basically withdrew the articles of impeachment. So every time there was an impeachment and the House was pressing the impeachment, the end of it was every
senator saying guilty or not guilty. And what Chuck Schumer is trying to do is throw away two hundred years of our nation's history, all in an effort to give political protection to vulnerable Democrats and to avoid any media coverage of the disaster at our southern border.
One other question on this, and that is who is going to run this? I mean, will this be you and Sinerle and others heavily involved, or is this going to be lawyers representing the Republicans that would be asking the questions. How does that play out?
Well, actually, when it comes to questions, unfortunately, the Senate doesn't get to ask questions. And so if you remember back, look when Verdict launched, the very first episode of this podcast was the first night of the first Trump impeachment. And if you remember what happened in impeachment number one and impeachment number two, when we sat there as jurors, we couldn't speak. Yeah, I'll admit that was frustrating. You know, among things I like to do, I do kind of enjoy talking.
I do it a lot.
And we were not allowed to say a word. We were to sit there and listen, and we listen to the presentation of the House impeachment managers. We listened to the presentation of the President's defense team. Now, as I discussed at great length in those Opening Verdict episodes, I spoke frequently with President Trump's defense team. And by the way, some observers said at the time, Oh, that's terrible. You're supposed to be jurors. You're supposed to be impartial, And
that's not actually right. It is true that we are jurors in one sense, and that we adjudicate guilt or innocence, but senators are not designed to be impartial. Frequently in impeachment you have senators who are very close to the individual being impeached or very antagonistic to the individual being impeached. The impeachments occur in a partisan context, and senators are
elected in partisan elections. The framers knew that that was the world in which impeachments would occur, and they placed it in a political body to have an exercise of judgment.
Uh And and importantly, actually, during the Bill Clinton impeachment, Tom Harkin, the Senator from Iowa at the time, stood up and raised a point of order and asked for clarification from the presiding Chief Justice that was William Rehnquist, my former boss, the previous Chief Justice uh and And Harkin raised a point of order and said, to clarify, we are not jurors in the sense of a jury in a in a criminal case, where we simply have to review the evidence and making determination. And the Chief
Justice rule that is correct. The Constitution empowers you to adjudicate this matter, uh and and and to consider issues of fact and law and policy and politics and everything else. But during that trial, I spoke frequently with President Trump's lawyers. More than once I told them I thought a strategy they were pursuing was boneheaded. A number of times I told them there were strategies they were pursuing that were
quite good and they should do more of it. And I was trying to give my judgment in terms I thought both Trump impeachments were completely bogus. They were not supported by either the facts or the law, and I wanted that to be the outcome, and so I was actively involved in giving my thoughts and counsel to the Trump impeachment defense. Now you'll recall the questions we asked
in the full trial were asked. We wrote them on note cards and then submitted them to the bench, and actually the Chief Justice read the questions, and so that's how it proceeded on the floor of the Senate in this instance, if we have a trial, if the Senate follows the procedure, I think it is more likely than not that a trial would be conducted by a smaller committee, not the full Senate. Don't think we're likely to spend
weeks on the Senate floor. If we had a Republican majority, I would be arguing vociferously for us to spend weeks on the Senate floor trying this, But with Schumer as majority leader, that argument is going to fail. So I think it is likely instead to go to a smaller committee appointed to hear the trial. But then the trial will be driven by the presentation of evidence by the
House managers. If the Senate actually does its job and Republicans don't roll over quietly while Schumer tables the whole matter to make.
It go away.
One last question, because this is incredibly complicated but also unbelievably interesting, there are going to be a ton of people that say this is a frivolous waste of taxpayers money in time, because you can count the votes, and you know the Democrats are going to be able to defeat this. Therefore, Republicans shouldn't do this. What is your counter to that.
That it's obviously false, and by the way, that was true of the Trump impeachment, the Trump impeachment, the Clinton impeachment before that. That's been true of a lot of impeachments. But there is a value, you know. Look, Schumer gets the value of it. It's why he's scared of this. The problem is Republican leadership doesn't get the value of it. Our leadership is from a prior generation where they do not understand that what we do in the Senate actually
influences public opinion. A lot of our leadership comes from an era where they say, look, we make decisions in smoke filled rooms in Washington, and then we go back to our home states and we tell the silly constituents there whatever it is they want to hear. And there's no connection between the two. That they think public opinion is exogenous. Is it is separate and not impacted by what we're doing. I think that is a fundamental mistake.
That a major part of our job is to present facts and argument in a way that move public opinion. Our leadership fundamentally doesn't think that way. Ironically, the Democrats do everything they do is designed to move public opinion. Virtually nothing Republican leadership does is designed to move public opinion because they don't view that as our job. I think it is critical to our job. And all right, let's just go through some facts. So, since seventeen eighty nine,
the Senate has completed seventeen impeachment trials. Of those seventeen trials completed the Senate, seven of them were conducted in the last eighty years, and four of them were federal judges. In those four cases, the Senate appointed a trial committee composed of an equal number of senators from each party
here and consider evidence and report to the Senate. The trial committees were not used for presidential impeachments, and the three trials since eighteen thirty six conducted without a committee, where Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Donald Trump. Every single instance in over two hundred years of our nation's history, the Senate has never, once, not even a single time,
tabled articles of impeachment. Every single time the Senate has voted on either guilt or innocence or the House has withdrawn the impeachment, and so this is an opportunity for Senate Republican leadership just to stand and fight, and I hope that they do. I don't know if they will, but I hope that they do.
Senator you said something there was very interesting.
You got to really pay attention to the words, and you said there was seventeen completed impeachment. So the question I have to ask is, well, then, how many others weren't completed?
And what it's the difference between the two.
Is it meaning that the Senate decides guilt or innocence and that is completed.
That's a very good question. In total, there been twenty one impeachments sent to the Senate, and look, we're well over two hundred years old, so it averages a little less frequently than once every ten years. Of the twenty one impeachments, twenty one individuals who were impeached by the House of Representatives and transmitted to the Senate. Seventeen of them were completed, had a trial, and they ended in
an adjudication of guilty or not guilty. One of the twenty one never got started and the Senate didn't take action because the person resigned, and so it became mooted, and then three of them were dismissed. One of them was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and two of them were dismissed because the people resigned, and the House asked for
the proceedings to be halted. The one that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds was the first ever impeachment, and it was the impeachment of a senator, and the Senate concluded they had no jurisdiction over the impeachment of a sen that that impeachment applies to executive officers or judicial officers, but not to members the legislature, and so it was dismissed on the.
Basis of jurisdiction.
Uh.
The other two that were dismissed were judges who resigned, and so the House asked the Senate to end the proceedings. And the ones that were dismissed, the most recent one was Samuel Kent, who was a district judge in Texas who who was impeached and then he resigned right and so the House asked the Senate to dismiss the matter. Before that was George W. English, who was a district judge from Illinois who was impeached by the House in nineteen twenty six, and likewise, the judge resigned, and so
the House asked the Senate not to proceed. And then the very first one that I mentioned was Senator William Blount, and and Blount was a Senator from Tennessee, and he was charged with conspiring with British forces and Indian tribes to seize Spanish held lands in the Lower Mississippi Valley in order to open the area to more settlers than to increase his personal landholdings. So I mean, you want to talk about salacious charges, it was literally treason with
our enemies to enrich themselves. And what happened there was that the House impeached him and the Senate and this was in seventeen ninety seven, so it was very early in our country's history. And over the next several months the Senate spent a lot of time preparing for the trial.
And the Senate trial began on December seventeenth, seventeen ninety eight, and the House managers and Blounts defense council presented arguments, but ultimately the question came down to whether Congress could impeach a former member, and on January fourteenth, seventeen ninety nine, the Senate dismissed the case, doing so unjust dictional grounds, holding that that impeachment did not lie again against a
member of the legislature. What that means is unless there's a jurisdictional claim, and there's not uh, and unless Majorcus resigns and he hasn't that In every single instance for more than two hundred years, when the House has impeached someone, the Senate has adjudicated the matter and has come to a conclusion guilty or not guilty. That's the argument I
presented to Mike Lee, presented to the parliamentarian. I think that's consistent with the Constitution, in our rules, and I very much hope that we see Republicans united in holding Democrats to follow the Constitution and follow the rules of the Senate.
Last question for you, and that is there are people that are going to be listening and they're going to be saying to themselves, how do I get involved to make sure Republican leadership does the right thing? Is this that that moment of call to arms or you say, hey, call your senator, regardless of their Republican or Democrat call the Senate Minority leader's office as well.
What should people do now.
Well, that is always effective, picking up the phone and calling your senator and saying, follow the law, convict majorcas remove him from office. The invasion at our southern border is threatening the safety and security of my family. It is threatening this country. It is inhumane, it is cruel, it is it is a grotesque violation of the obligations
of a cabinet member. And look, every senator, it makes a difference when their constituent calls that that that can be very effective, and speak out and make the case to your friends and family and on social media and to anyone else who will listen. That the right thing to do here was to impeach him, and now it's to convict him.
I want to tell you about saying that it is really cool. Many of you may know this. I was an under of a gun store for four years and during COVID there was a massive shortage that happened with AMO. We saw AMMO prices skyrocket and people coming in that just want to make sure they can protect and defend themselves in their family and they couldn't find what they needed. I back then thought, man, I wish there was a
way that you could just get Ammo and store it. Well, there is a way now, and it's called Ammo Squared. It's helping people just like you and I stay stocked up on Ammunition automatically. Ammo is delivered on demand or automatically when you need it, and stored for free when you don't. It's customizable to your budget. You can buy as little as a few dollars a month and let it grow over time, or buy a bunch all at once, and you have it when you need it. It's truly automatic,
Set it and forget it. Ammo purchasing, you pick your calibers, you set your budget, you select a shipping trigger, and that's it builds up over time, and it delivered automatically when you want it, no matter what's going on in
the market, because you already own it. In twenty twenty, when the store shows were empty and everyone had trouble finding Ammo locally or online, Ammo squared customers just need to ship their Amo stored at AMO squared and get it all immediately delivered with just the click of a single button. So forget about dealing with a moving, heavy case of ammunition in your garage, are having to figure out how to store it, or worried about prices skyrocketing
when you need it the most. Check out amosquared dot com slash ben that's amosquared dot com slash bend to sign up and get free AMO in your account. It's effortless ammunition management. Amosquared dot com slash bend to sign up and get free AMMO in your account today, Senator, I want to move lastly to this other issue, and that is it is weird. The media seems to be turning on Joe Biden. Headlines now coming from major news organizations.
The Washington Post, for example, had this headline, what happens if Trump or Biden can no longer run for president? Obviously they're trying to act like Donald Trump is in cognitive decline. It's not happening, and we know it's different with Joe Biden. The New York Times even said this, how old is too old to be president? An uncomfortable question arises again, and now the New York Times taking
heat for that headline. I want to get your reaction to this moment on Fox News Channel as They describe this turning on the president on the story.
Thanks for being here this afternoon with us, everybody. Interesting when you take a look at a them that seems to be emerging in the coverage of this campaign, this presidential race. Right, check out some of these recent headlines, quote what we know about cognitive decline? Quote what happens if Trump or Biden can no longer run for president? How old is too old to be president? These are
not your typical electioneer headlines. But this is clearly not a typical election year matchup if it turns out to be these two presumed nominees. So the publisher of The New York Times is standing by his papers reporting on the president's quote on popularity and his age, but says that the White House is not happy. In fact, he says they're extremely upset about the coverage that they're getting
at the New York Times. And take a listen to this exchange just a short time ago, as President Biden left for a fundraising trip to California, watching.
Biden, are you ready, yes, Blod, look at Blod'm looking at you.
We're looking to you, Okay that we bring in our paper.
I mean, he didn't even know what they were talking about, Senator and you can see the media flipping on him. Is this the beginning of the end of his presidency with the Democratic Party figuring out how to offload him?
Yeah?
Look, that was weird that exchange at the end, being asked, are you're going to California for a plan B to talk to Gavin Newsom? Look, that was a nasty little question, but his answer was bizarre. It was a non sequit or it made no sense. And you know those three headlines that the Fox story just read. The first one was from the Wall Street Journal, the second one was from the Washington Post, the third one was from the New York Times. And I do think we are seeing
the corporate media starting to turn on Joe Biden. And we've talked at length. Listen, it was this podcast that drove news and drove news across the country when we said months ago that I believe there was a very significant chance the Democrat Party would pull the court on Joe Biden, yank him out and replace him with Michelle Obama.
And I think if they do that, they're likely to do it either at the Democrat convention this summer or shortly thereafter, and we're seeing the corporate media, which is one and the same with the Democrat Party, but in many ways they're the left wing of the Democrat Party. They're starting to get nervous. They're starting to realize, crap, if it's Biden against Trump, we think Trump's gonna win,
and so they're they're they're hitting the panic button. And I think we're going to see more of these stories as the media turns on him. I do think you're seeing both Democrats in the media getting very, very worried about Joe Biden's ability to win in November.
When you are running for president, you've done this before and you see something this significant of a change in the news cycle. Joe Biden has had three years of basically a media that's been covering for him. I think that's why he was so shocked when he had that the report that came out about his cognitive decline and couldn't answer basic questions, and then he came out with that very angry, uh really dysfunction press conference at night, and the media didn't get back in line since then.
So when you see this, who is moving the needle? Is it donors who are saying we're not going to give money anymore. Or is it the leadership of the Democratic Party saying we got to figure something out, we got to figure it out fast, or could it even be both?
So I don't think it's donors and I don't think it's anyone cutting off money. And understand, the Democrats and the media would be perfectly happy if they could wave a wand and put Joe Biden there four years more. They're not worried that he's incompetent to be president. They're not worried that the Department of Justice says he's not competent to stand trial. They're not worried that he's such a weak commander in chief that our enemies are attacking
our allies and threatening America. They're not worried that he lacks the competence to do the job. That there's only one thing they're worried about that he would lose. If they believed he would win, they'd be perfectly fine to weekend it bernies him, to stand him up as a corpse and say Joe Biden's there, and let's keep pulling the puppet strings. Their concern is they're worried he's going to lose, and that is a very real and an acute concern on their part. It's also worth noting you
were talking about the press turning on him. You know, there's a real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Look, on my end, the press has always turned on me. They're always hostile. Every question they're asking there, they're looking to
screw me nine ways to Sunday. That's just when you're and by the way, and you've been in the Capitol with me, Ben, as you know, when I walk from my office to the Senate floor, and I do so repeatedly, whether it is to vote, or to go to meetings or to go to committee hearings, I'm walking back and forth through the Capitol and there's a cluster of reporters that surround you, and they ask you a hostile question
after hostile question on every topic under the sun. And if you're a Republican, especially a conservative Republican, you're used to just getting constant barrages of attacks. The Democrats don't get that. They get the kind of questions. Remember Joe Biden in his first year in the White House, the reporters would ask him things like, mister President what's your favorite flavor of ice cream? I mean, that was right.
I mean, it's it's embarrassing.
It's it's there like groupies chasing the Beatles, throwing their panties at him. And that's just the guys. I mean, I mean it is it's pitiful and and and so he is really startled because he's not used to any scrutiny. He's not used to journalists actually being journalists. By the way, there is this phenomenon for Republicans as well. If you
remember John McCain. John McCain used to get lots of adoring press coverage because when he was a Republican senator he would often attack other Republicans and the press, and he would attack him from the left. And the press loves it when a Republican attacks other Republicans from the left. It's the best way to get good press. You get called at bipartisans statesman when you agree with the Democrats
and attack your fellow Republicans. Well, when John McCain got the Republican nomination, and you and I both supported John McCain once it is our nominee, Yeah, but the press turned on him and turned viciously on him. If you remember, McCain made a comment something like, I don't understand I thought you guys were my base, and he was completely startled.
Because it's the same sentiment Biden's having. When you're used to just getting your your hindquarters kissed by the media, when they start biting, you don't know how to handle it.
And one of two things is gonna happen when it comes to this center. They're either going to get back in line after trying to, you know, step out and see, well others follow us right and test the waters, or they're going to keep going what's your prediction.
Well, if he stays the nominee, they'll get back in line and they'll immediately begin saying it's agist and racist and horrible to even ask these questions, and they have no shame. So this is the moment where they're trying to see if they can push him out and replace
him with Michelle Obama. If they can't, if he doesn't go, if we get to September and Biden's the nominee, the media will suddenly be completely silent on this front and will attack anyone who dares raise the same questions they're raising, right now don't forget.
We do the show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. We have a week in review on Saturdays. Make sure you grab that wherever you get your podcasts, hit that subscribe, auto download or follow button as well, and The Sinner and I will be back with you on Friday morning.