Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 1: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Hello, everybody, Some major breaking
Speaker 2: news happened last night. Hunter Biden, the son of President
Speaker 2: Joe Biden, has been indicted on nine separate charges on
Speaker 2: failure to pay over one million dollars in taxes in
Speaker 2: the state of California, but delivered by a federal grand jury.
Speaker 2: Now you'll have to recall that this indictment, these charges
Speaker 2: were brought forward after a plea deal between Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: and the government collapsed, specifically because IROs whistleblowers came forward
Speaker 2: to allege that there was political pressure involved in the
Speaker 2: IRIS investigation into Hunter Biden and they were not allowed
Speaker 2: to explore his foreign business dealings and the possible connections
Speaker 2: to the current president of the United States. After the
Speaker 2: basically falling apart of the plea deal in that case,
Speaker 2: in which the judge alleged that it was too sweetheart.
Speaker 2: The government has now decided to go through with its
Speaker 2: prosecution effectively after having its hand force and the details
Speaker 2: in some of this. This is exactly why Hunter wanted
Speaker 2: to plea, was to make sure that none of this
Speaker 2: came out, because it is just stunning in terms of
Speaker 2: its corruption in terms of his.
Speaker 1: Own personal conducts.
Speaker 2: And look, we will leave the personal conduct, I think
Speaker 2: for a little bit later in this video. We're going
Speaker 2: to start with what we really need to know about
Speaker 2: his foreign business dealings. So let's go and put the
Speaker 2: indictment up there on the screen, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: go ahead and read directly from this quote. The defendant
Speaker 2: engaged in a four year scheme to not pay at
Speaker 2: least one point four million dollars in self assess federal
Speaker 2: taxes that he owed for the tax years twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: through twenty nineteen, from in or about January of twenty
Speaker 2: seventeen through in or about October fifteenth, twenty twenty, and
Speaker 2: to evade the assessment of taxes for the tax year
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen, he filed false returns in or about February
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty. So there are three felonies that have
Speaker 2: been charged, six misdemeanors from failure to pay taxes and
Speaker 2: failure to file taxes. The indictment also lays out something
Speaker 2: very important around these business dealings. Hunter Biden hauled in
Speaker 2: more than seven million dollars in total gross income from
Speaker 2: foreign business dealings involving Ukrainian, Romanian and Chinese entities. Quote
Speaker 2: at times relevant to this indictment, the defendant served on
Speaker 2: the board of Ukrainian industrial conglomerate and a Chinese private
Speaker 2: equity fund. He negotiated and executed contracts and agreements for
Speaker 2: business and legal services that paid millions of dollars of
Speaker 2: compensation to him and or his domestic corporations. Now, the
Speaker 2: single most important piece of the indictment, I believe is this. Thus,
Speaker 2: go and put it up there on the screen. What
Speaker 2: you can see here very clearly is that Hunter Biden's
Speaker 2: salary from Barisma, the Ukrainian energy company of which he
Speaker 2: was put on the board of while President Obama was president,
Speaker 2: cut his salary in half just two months after Donald
Speaker 2: Trump took office. Let me read this quote in or
Speaker 2: around April of twenty fourteen, the defendant joined the board
Speaker 2: of the director of Barisma Holdings Limited Company, a Ukrainian
Speaker 2: industrial conglomerate. Bearisma agreed to pay the defendant an annual
Speaker 2: salary of approximately one million dollars, to be paid in
Speaker 2: monthly disbursements. In March of twenty seventeen, Bisma reduced his
Speaker 2: compensation to approximately five hundred thousand dollars a year, and
Speaker 2: he continued to serve on the board of directors until
Speaker 2: or around April of twenty nineteen. As a result, he
Speaker 2: received a total of a million dollars in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: which then dropped to six hundred thousand dollar was in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen, and continued to drop between twenty eighteen and
Speaker 2: twenty and nineteen. So very clearly, the vast majority of
Speaker 2: his income from the Ukrainian energy company came while Joe
Speaker 2: Biden was Vice President of the United States and who
Speaker 2: was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio. Now, furthermore, and
Speaker 2: this gets to Hunter's own personal conduct, the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice was not sparing whatsoever in detailing the vast sums
Speaker 2: of money that Hunter spent on illicit activities. So I'm
Speaker 2: going to go ahead and read some of this, and
Speaker 2: you know, if you've got kids in the room or
Speaker 2: anything like that, I would recommend that you take them out.
Speaker 2: So these are the descriptions of the things that Hunter Biden,
Speaker 2: according to the IRS and the Department of Justice, did
Speaker 2: instead of paying his taxes, he withdrew a grand total
Speaker 2: of one point six million dollars in cash one point
Speaker 2: six million between twenty sixteen and twenty and nineteen for
Speaker 2: payments to various women. He spent six hundred and eighty
Speaker 2: three thousand dollars in that same period for clothing and accessories,
Speaker 2: four hundred thousand dollars for what is described as quote
Speaker 2: adult entertainment, it's one hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Now I have a question too, which is why is
Speaker 2: adult entertainment not lumped together with various women? And let's
Speaker 2: also be very clear here that the payments to quote
Speaker 2: various women were not necessarily girlfriends, or that they're described
Speaker 2: in the indictment as escorts and sex workers all basically
Speaker 2: across the world, including and in Europe.
Speaker 1: There also was a.
Speaker 2: Very important point that the IRS and the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice sought to clarify that they're not prosecuting Hunter for
Speaker 2: being a degenerate drug addict. They are also highlighting quote,
Speaker 2: even after he became sober, they say, well after he
Speaker 2: regained his sobriety and when he finally did file his
Speaker 2: outstanding taxes quote, the defendant did not direct any payments
Speaker 2: towards his tax liabilities for each of those years. At
Speaker 2: the same time, the defendants spent large sums to maintain
Speaker 2: his lifestyle. From January through October fifteenth of twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: he spent as I already showed you, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 2: of dollars. It appears almost close to a million if
Speaker 2: you combine the two three quarters of a million dollars
Speaker 2: on quote, various women and adult entertainment. So the reason
Speaker 2: why again all of this is important is it opens
Speaker 2: up a lot of different exploration for corruption. Who do
Speaker 2: you know that withdraws one point six million dollars in
Speaker 2: cash one point six million. Remember this, folks, if you
Speaker 2: would draw more than ten thousand dollars, that is supposed
Speaker 2: to trigger an automatic notification to the FBI, to the
Speaker 2: Treasury Department, and the bank is supposed to report you.
Speaker 2: This is something that Jeffrey Epstein also did in order
Speaker 2: to cover a lot of the tracks about some of
Speaker 2: the things he were doing. Now with Hunter, it appears
Speaker 2: the DJ had enough visibility in his finances. They can
Speaker 2: even itemize the separate amounts that he's spent on hookers
Speaker 2: and on hookers and quote adult entertainment, as well as
Speaker 2: his lavish lifestyle including clothing, accessories, vehicles, all these other things.
Speaker 2: So what did the remainder of the one point six
Speaker 2: million dollars in cash do who? Do you know again,
Speaker 2: who conducts business that way? Cash under the table is
Speaker 2: the way that all illicit transactions are done. Now, presumably
Speaker 2: some of that and maybe even a large portion of
Speaker 2: that was used to buy drugs, but you also don't
Speaker 2: know who he gave it to. So that's one separate avenue.
Speaker 2: The second thing on Bisma, and this is obviously verifiable
Speaker 2: from the DOJ tax indictment. It's very clear that they
Speaker 2: stopped paying him as much whenever he was no longer
Speaker 2: as useful to them. And I mean that in and
Speaker 2: of itself is outrageous because it demonstrates why he was
Speaker 2: put on the board in the first place, and the
Speaker 2: extent to now which many of his business partners have
Speaker 2: testified to allegedly put Joe Biden at least knowing something
Speaker 2: or something involve with these. Now the big question for
Speaker 2: the investigation is did he receive any cash under the table.
Speaker 2: We have not even really gone into James Biden, the
Speaker 2: president of Joe Biden, who is long traded off of
Speaker 2: his name. And I recommend Ben Schreckener's book called The
Speaker 2: Bidens that specifically goes into all of the transactions over
Speaker 2: the decades of President Joe Biden's career that he and
Speaker 2: Hunter have taken advantage of the Biden last name to
Speaker 2: the tune of tens of millions. And look, I'll just
Speaker 2: finally and take a step back, and I want everybody
Speaker 2: to think about this. If you were lucky enough to
Speaker 2: make seven million dollars to accrue one point four million
Speaker 2: dollars in taxbile income, which is like not which is
Speaker 2: a crazy sum.
Speaker 1: When we start, we all lean.
Speaker 2: Back and we think about it, and you fail to
Speaker 2: pay your taxes four years in a row, would you
Speaker 2: have made it all the way to twenty twenty three
Speaker 2: without being thrown in jail by the irs and the
Speaker 2: doj getting your sweetheart. The judge has to come in
Speaker 2: and say no, no, no, this is too sweetheart and forcing
Speaker 2: the government to prosecute you the special treatment that this
Speaker 2: man got from his drug addiction, to the ability to
Speaker 2: trade off of his father's last name because of his
Speaker 2: drug addiction, to avoid jail time, to avoid gun charges,
Speaker 2: to avoid tax prosecution, and all of that until it
Speaker 2: becomes a central priority for the opposing party when your
Speaker 2: father is president. It's just truly disgusting and it shows
Speaker 2: you what these people get away with. How many more
Speaker 2: hunter Bidens are walking around out there, I guess all
Speaker 2: people who've made or at least a lot of the
Speaker 2: people who have made seven to ten million dollars from
Speaker 2: foreign governments who are paying them directly for influence. So
Speaker 2: that's the summary of the charges as best as I
Speaker 2: can make them. I encourage everybody to go and read
Speaker 2: these rod documents afore themselves. As you said, I barely
Speaker 2: even scratched the service. Some of the other stuff in
Speaker 2: there is equally jaw dropping. And we'll see you all later.
Speaker 2: Hello everybody. So I brought a monologue to all of
Speaker 2: you yesterday about these Ivy League presidents. At this point,
Speaker 2: I'm sure that you have seen the clip somewhere about
Speaker 2: the three of them unable to immediately say that calling
Speaker 2: for the genocide of Jews would constitute bullying in harassment
Speaker 2: under their student code of conducts Obviously that they've been
Speaker 2: called out for their hypocrisy on the issue, because we
Speaker 2: all know that if they had been asked about the
Speaker 2: calling for the genocide of black or trans people or both,
Speaker 2: that they would have immediately said, oh, these horrible words,
Speaker 2: and they would have issued the same fraught language that
Speaker 2: they did during BLM. Now this has opened up a
Speaker 2: lot of debate around whether especially within the Jewish community,
Speaker 2: and I think what most of them have fallen on,
Speaker 2: Bill Ackman, all the other many who build careers on
Speaker 2: being free speech absolutists, They're like, no, no, no, no. The
Speaker 2: thing is is that we're upset that we as American
Speaker 2: Jews are not considered marginalized within DEI. Where our objection though,
Speaker 2: is not to the diverse the equity inclusion, you know,
Speaker 2: racial preference regime itself. They just want to also be
Speaker 2: included as special and I vehemingly object to that, of course,
Speaker 2: but they have adopted the same tactics, it seems at
Speaker 2: this point of BLM, which is just full blown cancellation
Speaker 2: and to try and get these people to issue struggle
Speaker 2: session type of statements, which is largely what's occurring now
Speaker 2: and now, including calling for the immediate expulsion of all
Speaker 2: of these presidents, and they have been successful. Let's go
Speaker 2: and put this up there on the screen. So the
Speaker 2: University of Pennsylvania, the Penn Wharton Business School, probably one
Speaker 2: of the most important business schools in the entire country,
Speaker 2: has now asked the president Liz McGill, to resign. Let's
Speaker 2: go and put the letter please up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: and I'm.
Speaker 1: Going to read. You can blah blah blah and go
Speaker 1: read through it.
Speaker 2: But in the call for resignation, they say this quote,
Speaker 2: in light of your testimony yesterday before Congress, we demand
Speaker 2: the University claif its position regarding any call for harm
Speaker 2: to any group of people, immediately change any policies that
Speaker 2: allow such conduct with immediate effect and discipline all offenders expeditiously.
Speaker 2: Call for punishment of any person that calls for harm
Speaker 2: of any group of people. Okay, so that might sound good,
Speaker 2: but let's think about it for a second. So if
Speaker 2: you're calling for the genocide of Jews, Okay, that's what
Speaker 2: they want. They want to make sure that that would
Speaker 2: make sure that you're kicked out. But what if you're
Speaker 2: pro Israel and you're calling for retaliation on Hamas. Hamas
Speaker 2: is a group of people, So now what wouldn't that
Speaker 2: be harm on a group of people with that result
Speaker 2: in your expulsion or we could say obviously both should
Speaker 2: be allowed. And if it then goes into the realm
Speaker 2: of harassing, bullying an individual student and crosses the line
Speaker 2: into violence or somewhere within that, then yeah, that person
Speaker 2: would be expelled because it would translate into individual and
Speaker 2: it would translate into pervasive and or it would be violence.
Speaker 2: But the speech itself should be protected. Now, obviously, that's
Speaker 2: what I think it should be. That's what a lot
Speaker 2: of people used to think until they switched on a
Speaker 2: dime after October seventh. Again, I think their core objection
Speaker 2: is that they previously considered themselves marginalized and or do
Speaker 2: so now and are very upset that the DEI people
Speaker 2: don't also consider themselves as marginalized, and that's what they
Speaker 2: want to rectify. They basically want to be the new BLM,
Speaker 2: even if they disagree with BLM, and if you want
Speaker 2: to see this on If you really want to see this,
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. The new president
Speaker 2: of Harvard, Claudine Gay of BLM or herself, has now
Speaker 2: issued a new clarification to the Harvard Crimson and the
Speaker 2: way that she talks is exactly the way that all
Speaker 2: these university presidents and CEOs talked in June of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Let's listen to some comments.
Speaker 2: Okay, she says, quote, I'm sorry words matter when words
Speaker 2: amplify distress and pain. I don't know how you could
Speaker 2: feel anything but regret, she says. I got caught up
Speaker 2: and what had become at that point an extended combative
Speaker 2: exchange about policies and procedures. What I should have had
Speaker 2: is the presence of mind to do in that moment,
Speaker 2: was returned to guiding my guiding truth, which is that
Speaker 2: calls for violence against our Jewish community, threats to our
Speaker 2: Jewish students have no place to Harvard, will never go
Speaker 2: unchallenged substantively.
Speaker 1: I've failed to convey what is my truth.
Speaker 2: When the committee invited me to the hearing, I didn't
Speaker 2: hesitate to agree. It was an opportunity to convey the
Speaker 2: depth of my personal commitment and institutional commitment to combating
Speaker 2: anti Semitism, And she says she has now heard wrenching
Speaker 2: testimony about how much pain students are in and to
Speaker 2: contemplate something I amplified that pain.
Speaker 1: That's really difficult. It makes me sad.
Speaker 2: Okay, So once again we basically have the same type
Speaker 2: of BLM nonsense that we all heard from the commanding
Speaker 2: heights of American culture for the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: So let's actually just think about that. Is this a
Speaker 1: good thing?
Speaker 2: Is this a net good result that you know, if
Speaker 2: you were an American Jew and you're somebody who's cheering
Speaker 2: this on, I would really urge you to think about
Speaker 2: the precedent that's being set here about whether it's a
Speaker 2: good thing to just be able to brute force your
Speaker 2: way into compelling people to make statements that you know
Speaker 2: are obviously half hearted and fake, and to just now
Speaker 2: slot yourself in to a group that's able to compel
Speaker 2: these types of statements, get people fired, get people canceled,
Speaker 2: get people pearl clutching.
Speaker 1: I don't think this is a good thing.
Speaker 2: And I hate all these university presidents, but for very
Speaker 2: different reasons, because they themselves are the product of the
Speaker 2: racial preferences regime, of the HR bureaucracy, of the speech police.
Speaker 2: And what I'm watching instead are the people who created
Speaker 2: such a regime just incorporate a new group into it.
Speaker 2: They're not changing their practices, they're not changing their curriculum,
Speaker 2: they're not changing fundamentally their ideology about actually getting to
Speaker 2: a point where we could have free speech on campus.
Speaker 2: Conservative views, liberal views, Palestinian views, Israeli views.
Speaker 1: I think everything should be allowed everything.
Speaker 2: And for those people who say about safety on campus,
Speaker 2: the language of safetyism is the road to hell. That's
Speaker 2: how the COVID regime happened. Masks all of that, you're
Speaker 2: doing it not for yourself but for somebody else. That's
Speaker 2: how the safe spaces on campus. All of it came
Speaker 2: back to the idea that your emotional fortitude or is
Speaker 2: so low that you need to be removed entirely from
Speaker 2: a place where you're not around people who don't agree
Speaker 2: with you. And in my monologue that I did, I
Speaker 2: actually played some videos of some of these Jewish students
Speaker 2: who the House of Representatives came forward and they were
Speaker 2: saying things like you got to walk to class and
Speaker 2: look at posters where people have scribbled things on them
Speaker 2: that I find offensive. Does that really make you feel
Speaker 2: unsafe or does it make you feel upset? Feeling upset
Speaker 2: and unsafe for very different things. Safety is a physical condition.
Speaker 2: Now I understand or there's a big conversation about mental
Speaker 2: health and all that, and of course, and I feel
Speaker 2: bad for these students, but the precedent has to be
Speaker 2: such that in a society, especially in an American society, we
Speaker 2: get to disagree with one another. And actually the reason
Speaker 2: we have our first Amendment, the reason that we really
Speaker 2: free speech is something that we've always tried to defend
Speaker 2: in this country is that other countries don't have free speech.
Speaker 2: Israel does not have free speech, Gaza Hamas, West Bank.
Speaker 1: They don't have free speech.
Speaker 2: We don't want to import these third world attitudes into
Speaker 2: our country and to enforce these types of regimes. That's
Speaker 2: actually why the Dei regime itself, it's illegitimate, it's un American.
Speaker 2: And to have the robust debate, to have the ability
Speaker 2: to make sure that people aren't getting fired for the
Speaker 2: wrong reasons, even if you may not like them, and
Speaker 2: I don't, but I want them to be fired for
Speaker 2: the right reasons. I want people who are pushing this
Speaker 2: to say, Okay, let's not donate to the universitymore if
Speaker 2: they're going to have DEI. But unfortunately that's not what's happening. Instead,
Speaker 2: we're living in a more censorious in America today in
Speaker 2: elite higher institutions than we did before October seventh, and
Speaker 2: I think that's a net negative. So anyway, it's something
Speaker 2: that I felt like I wanted to speak out on
Speaker 2: and obviously give you guys the update. Thanks to all
Speaker 2: to the Premium members who make all of this possible,
Speaker 2: and we will see you all this weekend if something
Speaker 2: crazy happens, and otherwise on Monday