Speaker 1: Sader.
Speaker 2: Nice to be back with you in studio, and we
Speaker 2: have got so much to cover. This is gonna be
Speaker 2: a really important show, one that I think people are
Speaker 2: gonna want to.
Speaker 1: Make sure they share, especially the clips.
Speaker 2: That's why we're doing this one in video because there's
Speaker 2: gonna be a lot of clips that come out of
Speaker 2: this that people are gonna want to let their family
Speaker 2: and their friends know. There was something very interesting to
Speaker 2: happen this week, and as I was watching it, as
Speaker 2: if you were watching it, I think we're not surprised,
Speaker 2: but we're also glad to see it come out. And
Speaker 2: that is the prosecutor who was fired in Ukraine that
Speaker 2: was investigating Barisma has now come out and said this
Speaker 2: is why it happened and kind of gave the timeline
Speaker 2: of how the Biden influence came down on him and
Speaker 2: destroyed his career.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right.
Speaker 4: There's been in this last week significant new evidence of
Speaker 4: Biden family corruption and if you watch CNN, if you
Speaker 4: watch MSNBC, you'll hear none of it because they don't
Speaker 4: actually cover news, they're propagandists. But starting off with this
Speaker 4: new interview that Victor Schokuin has given, now what is
Speaker 4: the relevance of this. The central charge against Joe Biden
Speaker 4: is bribery that he solicited and received multimillion dollar bribes
Speaker 4: from foreign nationals, in particular Ukrainian oligarch. As you'll recall,
Speaker 4: the essence of bribery is quid pro quo. The Latin
Speaker 4: phrase is this for that. Now, this the quid is
Speaker 4: alleged to be the firing of Victor Chokun, the prosecutor
Speaker 4: who was investigating the Ukrainian oligarch who owned Barisma. The
Speaker 4: quot was allegedly millions of dollars that that Ukrainian oligarch
Speaker 4: paid both Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We know that
Speaker 4: he paid a million dollars a year eighty three dollars
Speaker 4: eighty three thousand dollars a month to Hunter Biden to
Speaker 4: be on the board.
Speaker 2: And to be clear, that was just part of funneling
Speaker 2: that money. They knew they couldn't send a whole check
Speaker 2: for the full amount. They had to make it look legitimate,
Speaker 2: and they said, okay, well put you on the board
Speaker 2: in essence, and we'll funnel it to you over an
Speaker 2: extended period of time and so that it won't look
Speaker 2: like we just flat out handed you five million bucks.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: And the allegation in the FD ten twenty three, which
Speaker 4: is the report from the confidential human source that came
Speaker 4: into the FBI, is that the Oligart paid Hunter five
Speaker 4: million dollars and the Oligarch paid Joe five million dollars
Speaker 4: and funneled it through multiple different sources. But to assess
Speaker 4: whether Biden is guilty of bribery, you've got to prove
Speaker 4: quid pro quo. Now, the quid part of it, that
Speaker 4: Biden is responsible for firing Choken, that's undisputed. And let's
Speaker 4: go back to because Biden has bragged on air about
Speaker 4: getting Shoken fired.
Speaker 3: Here take a listen.
Speaker 5: I went over I guess the twelve thirtieth time to Kiev,
Speaker 5: and I was supposed to announce that there's another billion
Speaker 5: dollar loan guarantee, and I had gotten a commitment from
Speaker 5: Porshenko and from that they would take action against the
Speaker 5: state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had
Speaker 5: they were walking out to press cont I said no,
Speaker 5: I said, I'm not going to or we're not going
Speaker 5: to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have
Speaker 5: no authority, you're not the president. The president said, I said,
Speaker 5: call him. I said, I'm telling you're not getting a
Speaker 5: billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm
Speaker 5: going to be leaving here. And I think it was
Speaker 5: what six hours. I looked at I Said'm leaving the
Speaker 5: six hours. If the prosecutor's not fired, you're not getting
Speaker 5: the money. Oh, son of a bitch got fired, and
Speaker 5: they put in place someone who was solid at.
Speaker 1: The time, solid at the time, solid for the Biden team.
Speaker 4: So the Biden white House's defense to this is they say, well,
Speaker 4: the prosecutor Victor Schoke, and he was fired because he
Speaker 4: wasn't tough enough on Barisma and the Ukrainian oligarch. That
Speaker 4: that's their claim that that they were really seeking rule
Speaker 4: of no Lord. Now, mind you, the FD ten twenty
Speaker 4: three says that the Ukraine and oligarch specifically said, get
Speaker 4: this guy fired. The reason we hired Hunter Biden was
Speaker 4: to get this guy fired. But what is new now
Speaker 4: is that Shokun has come and done an exclusive interview
Speaker 4: with Fox News, and what he says is really striking
Speaker 4: because it is directly contrary to what Joe Biden and
Speaker 4: the Biden white House has said.
Speaker 3: Here listen to the first part of that interview.
Speaker 6: Not only the position of President Poroshenko, the office of
Speaker 6: President Paroshenko was humiliated, but the entire country of the
Speaker 6: Ukraine was humiliated. And I developed a very firm understanding
Speaker 6: of the fact that vice president. The vice president was
Speaker 6: only acting in his own interests. He generally speaking, handled
Speaker 6: Ukraine like it was his own backyard. He would put
Speaker 6: people that were suitable for him, he would arrange for
Speaker 6: them to be put in a certain positions.
Speaker 2: Somebody said the other day, by the way, and I thought,
Speaker 2: this is a very interesting point. The billion dollar loan guarantee,
Speaker 2: if that would not have gone through in Ukraine. They said,
Speaker 2: that was like almost a trillion dollars in America.
Speaker 1: The amount of money.
Speaker 3: The massive amount of money in Ukraine.
Speaker 2: In Ukraine, I mean a billion dollars could have wrecked
Speaker 2: parts of their economy if we wouldn't have fulfilled that promise.
Speaker 2: And that's putting a gun to the head of that country,
Speaker 2: saying I'm getting on a plane. And I think sometimes
Speaker 2: people hear a billion to think, oh, that's not that
Speaker 2: much money. I know people in America there are billionaires.
Speaker 2: This amount of money Ukraine was enough to destroy things
Speaker 2: in their economy.
Speaker 4: Well, and look what Chokin is saying there that Biden
Speaker 4: treated Ukraine like his own personal playground, like he put
Speaker 4: people in place where he could control them. You know
Speaker 4: the clip we just played a second ago of Biden
Speaker 4: bragging that he said it was his eleventh or twelfth
Speaker 4: time going there.
Speaker 3: That is bizarre.
Speaker 4: Why is a vice president going eleven or twelve times
Speaker 4: to Ukraine? Like it is weird for a vice president,
Speaker 4: for a vice president to go over and over and
Speaker 4: over again. And what Chokin is saying is the reason
Speaker 4: he's doing it is because he had corrupt business interests,
Speaker 4: and we know it was very profitable for Hunter. Here,
Speaker 4: listen to what Chokin went on to say.
Speaker 6: I did not want to deal in unproven facts, but
Speaker 6: my firm personal conviction is that yes, this was the case.
Speaker 6: They were being bribed. The fact that Joe Biden gave
Speaker 6: away one billion dollars in US money in exchange for
Speaker 6: my dismissal my firing, isn't that alone a case of corruption?
Speaker 1: He also said, And I want to make sure I
Speaker 1: have this right.
Speaker 2: He said that up until his firing, there were no
Speaker 2: complaints about his performance in the investigation. He said the
Speaker 2: only problem was that he was investigating Barisma, which means
Speaker 2: he was investigating the company which was fundling money to
Speaker 2: the big guy and a hunter Biden who was on
Speaker 2: the board. He said before that no one had even
Speaker 2: brought up that there could possibly be anything wrong.
Speaker 4: Look, it really is striking that the Ukrainian prosecutor who
Speaker 4: Joe Biden got fired says that he believes Joe Biden
Speaker 4: was being bribed. I mean, that's an explicit allegation. By
Speaker 4: the way, did you see that on ABC News too?
Speaker 4: Now do you see that on NBC? No, how about CNN,
Speaker 4: None of them. They don't cover that. They don't cover
Speaker 4: that a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a corrupt oligarch,
Speaker 4: who Joe Biden bragged about getting fired and bragged about
Speaker 4: holding a billion dollars in US loan get guarantees hostage
Speaker 4: to get him fired, says the reason Joe Biden did
Speaker 4: that is Joe Biden was being bribed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a big damn deal. Yeah, And by the way,
Speaker 2: it's exactly what Soakin said.
Speaker 1: Listen to this.
Speaker 6: There were no complaints whatsoever, and all problems with how
Speaker 6: I was performing at my job but because pressure was
Speaker 6: repeatedly put on President Parshanko, that is what ended up
Speaker 6: in firing me.
Speaker 2: I read this guy as very believable. I read this
Speaker 2: guy as a guy that was hired to do a job,
Speaker 2: to investigate, and then all of a sudden, he's like, wait,
Speaker 2: there's the President, Vice President United it's America's son on
Speaker 2: this board. You keep digging, and all of a sudden
Speaker 2: you get a phone call, Hey, you're fired because we
Speaker 2: need a billion dollars. One, I'm honestly surprised he's still
Speaker 2: alive if this is how things work in that part
Speaker 2: of the world. And two, I'm shocked that he was
Speaker 2: willing to do this interview at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and let me say, look, I don't know if
Speaker 4: chokun Is is someone who has integrity or not. And
Speaker 4: I'm certainly not invested in saying the guy was a
Speaker 4: paragon of virtue. Yeah. Ukraine is a country that has.
Speaker 2: A long history of corruption, and many say it's worse
Speaker 2: than even Russia.
Speaker 4: Yes, and it's been tragic the corruption that's in Ukraine.
Speaker 4: But that makes it all the more questionable. Why does
Speaker 4: Joe Biden turn it into his playground? You know, if
Speaker 4: you go to a place that is infamous for corruption,
Speaker 4: you know what people do. Apparently they offer you millions
Speaker 4: of dollars like it's a pretty profitable place. If you're
Speaker 4: a senior government official, you go there over and over
Speaker 4: and over again. And by the way, you bring a
Speaker 4: billion dollars of US taxpayer money with you. If you
Speaker 4: want to get corruption, having a billion dollars in your
Speaker 4: pocket that doesn't happen to be yours, but you can
Speaker 4: choose to give it or not is an awfully good
Speaker 4: way to attract a ton of interest.
Speaker 3: Listen to what else Showken says, I.
Speaker 6: Have no doubt that there were illegal activities engaged in
Speaker 6: by Barisma. As a matter of fact, the criminal case
Speaker 6: had been started before me. It continued to expand and Slotchevsky,
Speaker 6: who at the time held the post administer and was
Speaker 6: the founder and CEO of Parisma, started bringing in people
Speaker 6: who could provide protection for him. Hunter Biden was among them,
Speaker 6: and the corruption network expanded as a result. So, yes,
Speaker 6: to answer your question, there's no doubt in my mind
Speaker 6: that Parisma was engaged in legal activities.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of people, including business partners of Hunter Biden,
Speaker 2: that have said that if Joe Biden wouldn't have gotten
Speaker 2: involved with Barisma, gotten Soaken fired, the investigation started before
Speaker 2: Soakin got his job, that this company would have gone under.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Look, Slotchevski is a billionaire, he's an oligarch. There were
Speaker 4: massive allegations of corruption. He was also a government minister,
Speaker 4: so it was very profitable. One of the ways Barisma
Speaker 4: made so much money as they had access to the
Speaker 4: government leases for natural gas and gosh, when they were
Speaker 4: sold to himself, it made a whole lot of money
Speaker 4: in this investigation from Chokun. Look, chokn was going after Bearisma,
Speaker 4: that's undisputed. The Biden folks say, well, we wanted him
Speaker 4: fired because he wasn't going after tough enough. Well, you
Speaker 4: know what, once Chokun was fired, the investigations on Barisma
Speaker 4: largely disappeared. So the objective that is alleged in the
Speaker 4: FD ten twenty three, which is get rid of the
Speaker 4: prosecutor that is investigating the corrupt oligarch, that objective was accomplished,
Speaker 4: and the Biden White House has really no defense.
Speaker 3: And here listen to what else Joken says.
Speaker 6: It is public knowledge. Everybody knows that it was because
Speaker 6: of Joe Biden's actions that Russia was able to claim
Speaker 6: Crimea without firing a single shot, which of course eventually
Speaker 6: led to a full scale war that is currently underway.
Speaker 1: It's full circle in a sense what we're now seeing.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's talking about not only Crimea, we're talking
Speaker 2: about the war now, we're talking about a weak policy
Speaker 2: that now. I mean for a guy that was an
Speaker 2: expert in Ukraine and watching what's happened in Ukraine and
Speaker 2: then now trying to send tons of money over to.
Speaker 3: Ukraine, billions, tens of billions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and people are worried about that. Where's the money going?
Speaker 2: Follow the money? How much this money's actually going to
Speaker 2: the back and how much is going to oligarchs who
Speaker 2: are in Warsaw in five star hotels, which is where
Speaker 2: they are in a lot of their families.
Speaker 4: And are any of the oligarchs continuing to pay the
Speaker 4: Biden family?
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: One of the things about people who engage in bribery
Speaker 4: and corruption, they tend not to stop. Yeah, and that
Speaker 4: the amount of money that Biden is shoveling towards Ukraine.
Speaker 4: And remember shoveling after Biden waived the sanctions on Nordstream
Speaker 4: two on Russia and Putin, which caused the Ukraine War.
Speaker 4: Right now and right now, Biden is funding both sides
Speaker 4: of this war. He's sending billions to Ukraine, but he's
Speaker 4: also refusing to enforce oil sanctions on Iran. Iran is
Speaker 4: using the billions of dollars they're making to produce drones
Speaker 4: that they're giving to Russia, and the drones are killing
Speaker 4: Ukrainian soldiers. So Biden's funding both sides of this war.
Speaker 4: And by the way, war profiteers for a long time
Speaker 4: have funded both sides of war. And I'll tell you,
Speaker 4: if you have corrupt oligarchs, funding both sides of a
Speaker 4: war can be a very offitable way to pursue it.
Speaker 4: And so Chokun's allegations are very serious.
Speaker 1: Will Congress do anything with this intel? With this information?
Speaker 2: Is there a way that Congress could bring a guy
Speaker 2: like Choking over and say we want you to testify
Speaker 2: after seeing this. Would that be a smart move for
Speaker 2: House Republicans.
Speaker 4: I think that's entirely possible. I would expect the House
Speaker 4: of Representatives to do it. I would expect either James
Speaker 4: Comer or Jim Jordan to do that. I'll tell you
Speaker 4: what I don't expect. I don't expect the Senate to
Speaker 4: do it because Senate Democrats don't want to know. Not
Speaker 4: a single Democrat has any interest in knowing whether Joe
Speaker 4: Biden has received millions of dollars of bribes from foreign nationals.
Speaker 4: They're never asked it. They don't ask any questions about it.
Speaker 4: That they are ostriches with their head buried in the sand.
Speaker 3: They don't want to know.
Speaker 4: And much of the media, The New York Times, the
Speaker 4: Washington Post, they don't want to know either, because they
Speaker 4: have abandoned any pretense of being real journalists.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about a friends of our
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile.
Speaker 2: If you are conservative and you are sick tired of
Speaker 2: giving your money to wote companies, you need to grab
Speaker 2: your cell phone and switch to Patriot Mobile. It is
Speaker 2: so easy to switch, and you get the same great
Speaker 2: coverage that you have right now, except when you pay
Speaker 2: your bill.
Speaker 1: This was This is what happens.
Speaker 2: They take a percentage of your bill every month, they
Speaker 2: give it back to conservative causes that you help choose.
Speaker 2: The support we're talking about setting up for the rights
Speaker 2: of onborn children. Children, we're talking about supporting the First
Speaker 2: and Second Amendment rights. We're talking about helping our veterans,
Speaker 2: our first responders, our policemen, and our fallen warriors. That
Speaker 2: is why I love Patriot Mobile. Now, Patriot Mobile has
Speaker 2: the same great coverage that you have right now. You
Speaker 2: don't have to worry about that. The other thing is
Speaker 2: you can keep your same cell phone number if you
Speaker 2: want to. You can usually keep your same cell phone
Speaker 2: you have right now in your hand, or you can
Speaker 2: upgrade to a new one. If you're tired of giving
Speaker 2: money to corporations that fight against your values, then switch
Speaker 2: a bill you're gonna have every month no matter what.
Speaker 2: That's your cell phone bill to Patriot Mobile. Go online
Speaker 2: to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. That's Patriot Mobile dot
Speaker 2: com slash verdict. You'll get free activation, the best deals
Speaker 2: of the year. Eight seven eight. Patriot is their number
Speaker 2: as well. That's eight seven eight Patriot eight seven eight
Speaker 2: Patriot or Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: You look at also Ukraine.
Speaker 2: One other question on this statute of limitations seem to
Speaker 2: be part of the play of wis and we're gonna
Speaker 2: deal with that with China in a little bit but
Speaker 2: you look at Ukraine now, it's like we're finding out everything,
Speaker 2: or maybe we're confirming it.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: We've known about a lot of these activations for a while,
Speaker 2: but Weis and his team at the DOJ have done
Speaker 2: one hell of a job of making sure, oh yeah,
Speaker 2: that's too far in the past. We can't even look
Speaker 2: it into it if we wanted to. What a great alibi.
Speaker 4: Well, we know from the IRS whistleblowers that the Biden
Speaker 4: DOJ forbade any investigation into Joe Biden any questions about
Speaker 4: the big guy, any questions about what he did that
Speaker 4: was off limits. So no wonder the investigation doesn't cover
Speaker 4: whether Joe Biden has received bribes. The Biden DOJ ordered
Speaker 4: the investigators you're not allowed to inquire whether Joe Biden
Speaker 4: received bribes. And I got to say it's effective because
Speaker 4: they still haven't even begun to examine it in any
Speaker 4: serious way.
Speaker 2: There's a second part of this story, obviously, just with
Speaker 2: the Bidens, and there is now Biden staffers. I'm reading
Speaker 2: this because I want to make sure I get it right.
Speaker 2: Biden staffers. We now have confirmation and this would be
Speaker 2: contradicting what the Biden White House has said, and what
Speaker 2: Joe Biden said. They met with Special counsel Jack Smith's
Speaker 2: age just weeks before Trump was indicted. Jack Smith, special
Speaker 2: counsel that brought the charges against President Trump for allegedly
Speaker 2: mishandling classified documents. There's a guy by the name of
Speaker 2: Jay Bratt who joined the Special council team in November
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty two. He took a meeting in the
Speaker 2: White House on March the thirty first of twenty twenty
Speaker 2: three with Caroline Sabbath, the Deputy chief of Staff for
Speaker 2: the White House Council's Office. Now, this is proven through
Speaker 2: White House visitor logs. They were joined in a ten
Speaker 2: am meeting. We're being told now by an FBI agent
Speaker 2: in the Washington Field office. This is nine weeks after meeting.
Speaker 2: On June eighth, Trump was indicted by Smith's office. Interestingly enough,
Speaker 2: here is what Biden had to say on the exact
Speaker 2: day of trump indictment about saying, I've stayed out of this.
Speaker 2: Clearly the White House logs these meetings proved that's aye.
Speaker 5: Look, do you notice I have never once, not one
Speaker 5: single time, suggesting your Justice Department what they should do
Speaker 5: or not do. Lt to bringing to charge and not
Speaker 5: bring to charge. I'm honest.
Speaker 1: He's not honest.
Speaker 4: Okay, that is a flat out lie. He says he's
Speaker 4: never once suggested to the Justice Department what they should
Speaker 4: do or not do regarding Trump.
Speaker 3: That was in June.
Speaker 4: Let me read you a quote from the New York Times,
Speaker 4: hardly a right wing source, on April second, twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 4: And while the President has never communicated his frustrations directly
Speaker 4: to mister Garland, he has said privately that he wanted
Speaker 4: mister Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and
Speaker 4: more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive
Speaker 4: action over the events of January sixth. Now, listen, this
Speaker 4: is reminiscent of England's King Henry the Second, who said
Speaker 4: about Thomas Beckett, the Archbishop of Canterbury in eleven seventy,
Speaker 4: who will rid me of this troublesome cleric? Where he
Speaker 4: says it out loud and promptly his knights went and
Speaker 4: murdered Beckett. Well, in this instance, Biden's defense is I
Speaker 4: didn't directly tell Merrick Garland what to do. I just said, gosh,
Speaker 4: who will rid me of this troublesome, ponderous judge and
Speaker 4: get him to act like a prosecutor and actually prosecute Trump.
Speaker 4: That's according to the New York Times. If the New
Speaker 4: York Times is telling the truth, then Joe Biden and
Speaker 4: the clip you just played was flat out lying. And
Speaker 4: then this breaking news. Look the fact that Bratt, one
Speaker 4: of the senior lawyers in the Special Council's Office, met
Speaker 4: with the White House, with the White House Counsel's Office,
Speaker 4: not just the Council's Office, met with political senior political
Speaker 4: leaders in the White House. It is difficult to overstate
Speaker 4: what a massive breach of protocol this is. Listen line,
Speaker 4: lawyers at DOJ don't meet with the White House. If
Speaker 4: you're in AUSA an assistant US attorney, you don't go
Speaker 4: meet with the White House.
Speaker 1: You're not taking that mean they wouldn't let you. Probably go.
Speaker 4: There are very rigid I was at the Department of Justice.
Speaker 4: I was an associate Deputy Attorney General under George W.
Speaker 3: Bush.
Speaker 4: There are strict rules that limit who from the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice can meet with the White House, and it
Speaker 4: is run through very narrowly circumscribed channels, precisely to avoid
Speaker 4: political interference withcution. So a line prosecutor would pretty much
Speaker 4: never meet with senior officials at the White House. Now
Speaker 4: Bratt's not just a line prosecutor. He is with the
Speaker 4: Special Counsel. So he is charged with which everyone knows,
Speaker 4: investigating Donald J. Trump, investigating the chief political opponent of
Speaker 4: the president. The idea that a senior lawyer for the
Speaker 4: Special Counsel is over at the White House, is in
Speaker 4: meetings with the White House just weeks before Trump is indicted,
Speaker 4: just weeks before mar A Lago is raided. And by
Speaker 4: the way, Bratt was intimately involved in the mar A
Speaker 4: Lago raid. There is no innocent explanation for it any
Speaker 4: Department of Justice with even a shred of integrity. If
Speaker 4: you were to suggest the Special Counsel, let's go meet
Speaker 4: with the White House, any real prosecutor would say no
Speaker 4: to the hell no, that's not gonna happen. But let's
Speaker 4: be clear that this Bratt guy, and I don't know him,
Speaker 4: but there are real evidences that this Bratt guy is
Speaker 4: deeply involved in corruption and cover up. And I'm going
Speaker 4: to read from NBC a story June eighth, twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: The title of the.
Speaker 4: Story is lawyer for witnessing Trump's dox probe alleges prosecutorial misconduct.
Speaker 4: Here's what NBC reported. The source said Woodward's allegation could
Speaker 4: raise questions about any prosecution of Nauda, a military valet
Speaker 4: in the Trump White House who went to work for
Speaker 4: the former president at mar A Lago, adding that the
Speaker 4: Justice Department appears to be taking the allegation seriously and
Speaker 4: plans to respond to the judge. The source says that
Speaker 4: Woodward alleges that Bratt, same guy, same guy who's over
Speaker 4: at the White House meeting. Source says that Woodward alleges
Speaker 4: that Bratt had with him a folder of information related
Speaker 4: to Woodward's bid for a judgeship and told him, quote,
Speaker 4: I didn't take you.
Speaker 3: For a Trump guy. Quote.
Speaker 4: The implication was that the judge thing would go badly
Speaker 4: for him if his client didn't cooperate. The source said, Now,
Speaker 4: now I want to break up what that means. So
Speaker 4: Woodward is a lawyer who's representing now to who's Trump's
Speaker 4: valet now is one of the defendants. Yeah, Woodward comes
Speaker 4: in to meet with DOJ, to meet with Bratt, senior
Speaker 4: lawyer in the special counsel's office. Now unrelated to this,
Speaker 4: Woodward had applied to be a judge, had an application
Speaker 4: to be a judge, and according to Woodward, Bratt shows
Speaker 4: up with a folder of here's your application.
Speaker 2: I know who you are, I know what your dreams are,
Speaker 2: I know what your life goals are, I know what
Speaker 2: you've applied for it. He's basically saying, I'm holding your
Speaker 2: life in this folder and your life's work in this folder,
Speaker 2: and I can either possibly make it happen or make
Speaker 2: sure it never happens and you never reach this goal.
Speaker 1: Is that not what he's doing there?
Speaker 4: If this is true, it absolutely is. It's reminiscent someone
Speaker 4: walking into an establishment, going, nice little bar you have here,
Speaker 4: shame is something happened to it.
Speaker 3: That's a threat.
Speaker 1: It's almost a scene out of a movie.
Speaker 3: It is a scene out of a movie.
Speaker 4: And to be clear, if this happened, and it's only
Speaker 4: an allegation, but if it happened, Bratt would and should
Speaker 4: face serious legal discipline for threatening to tank someone's judicial application.
Speaker 4: If that lawyer didn't get his client to cooperate with
Speaker 4: the prosecutors. That's not what a prosecutor is supposed to do.
Speaker 4: Those two are not supposed to be connected. That is
Speaker 4: something corrupt prosecutors do. That is something political prosecutors do.
Speaker 4: And I can ask you a question.
Speaker 2: You were at the DOJ and I just want to
Speaker 2: people to understand how I abnormal this would be.
Speaker 1: This is not opposition research.
Speaker 2: When you're a lawyer in this position, to even get
Speaker 2: your hands on that application to become a judge, you're
Speaker 2: not work working in the best interest in the American people.
Speaker 2: And just as that point, you're working for the Democratic
Speaker 2: Party or for Joe Biden and saying go in there
Speaker 2: and you better tell this guy give us something good
Speaker 2: on the president, give him up the former President Trump,
Speaker 2: and will reward you with something if you do it.
Speaker 4: And yes, and by the way, the natural follow up
Speaker 4: question is who gave Bratt that folder of the application
Speaker 4: to be a judge. Look, when he applied to be
Speaker 4: a judge, he didn't submit it to Bratt. That folder
Speaker 4: would have been at one of two places in DJ
Speaker 4: or in the White House, probably in both places, so
Speaker 4: it's entirely possible in his meetings in the White House,
Speaker 4: the White House political operatives gave him that folder said
Speaker 4: here's something you can use to pressure the lawyer to
Speaker 4: get Trump's assistant to flip. I don't know that that happened,
Speaker 4: but Bratt either got it from the White House or
Speaker 4: from DJ. But to be clear, DOJ the office that
Speaker 4: is in charge with reviewing that application, is not in
Speaker 4: the Special Council's office. It's not the people prosecuting Trump.
Speaker 4: It's somebody else.
Speaker 2: Who said, hey, we got it, we got it, We
Speaker 2: got you something you might want to take down there
Speaker 2: to meet with them.
Speaker 4: We got some leverage on this lawyer, and we got
Speaker 4: a political objective. We want to get Donald Trump. Look,
Speaker 4: I actually am stunned that they would do this meeting
Speaker 4: at the White House. I'm absolutely stunned. As I said,
Speaker 4: I cannot think of an instance where a line prosecutor
Speaker 4: ever meets with a White House, where an AUSA ever
Speaker 4: meets with a White House. Typically, white house meetings are
Speaker 4: done by senior officials. They're done by the attorney General.
Speaker 4: They're done by the deputy attorney general. They're done by
Speaker 4: an assistant attorney general. They might be done by a
Speaker 4: deputy assistant attorney general or an associate deputy attorney general.
Speaker 4: Those are the and they're pretty much always done with
Speaker 4: a ledge affairs staffer from DOJ in there to make
Speaker 4: sure that the communication are appropriate. So you might get
Speaker 4: if they're discussing some criminal justice legislation, you might have
Speaker 4: DOJ meeting with a White House and saying, Okay, here's
Speaker 4: here's what we think in terms of this legislation. That
Speaker 4: would be something that would be appropriate. There are lots
Speaker 4: of issues that are policy base that are appropriate. There
Speaker 4: are lots of issues DOJ, the National security prosecutors might
Speaker 4: be meeting with a White House to say, hey, we
Speaker 4: got some threats, we got some terrorists who are raising threats.
Speaker 4: That's an appropriate area. But it's senior people, it is
Speaker 4: political appointees.
Speaker 2: And if anyone below senior even goes into that meeting,
Speaker 2: that's with a significant amount of approval, like hey, you're
Speaker 2: going to go take this meeting because we're working on
Speaker 2: this stuff, but give them an update. Maybe that could
Speaker 2: be possible, But you don't just randomly get to go
Speaker 2: make a meeting at the White House on your own, right, said, I.
Speaker 4: Do not know of a single instance in which an
Speaker 4: AUSA and Assistant US attorney has ever had a White
Speaker 4: House meeting. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I
Speaker 4: don't know of it. But then take the whole thing
Speaker 4: and put on steroids. This guy isn't just some random Ausa.
Speaker 4: He's a senior lawyer in the Special Council's Office. The
Speaker 4: whole point, why do you appoint a special counsel. You
Speaker 4: appoint a special counsel because there's a conflict of interest
Speaker 4: with a White House, because politically you need some separation
Speaker 4: from the White House. For a lawyer from the Special
Speaker 4: Counsel's Office to go meet with the White House. No
Speaker 4: one has articulated an innocent explanation, and I don't think
Speaker 4: there can be one. This is corruption on its face.
Speaker 4: And apparently the meetings went well because contrary to Joe
Speaker 4: Biden's lie that he's never told people what to do,
Speaker 4: right after the meeting, what did they do? They went
Speaker 4: and rated mar A Lago, They went and indeded Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: They did exactly what the political operatives at the White
Speaker 4: House wanted to do. And I got to say, the
Speaker 4: corruption on the face of it would make the Ukrainians blush.
Speaker 2: I tell you about a friends of Augusta precious medals.
Speaker 2: You've been seeing what's going on in the economy, you've
Speaker 2: seen the bank failures that happened earlier this year. You've
Speaker 2: also seen the interest rates that are now skyrocketing. House
Speaker 2: In interest rates are a twenty one year high. So
Speaker 2: now people are saying, all right, especially if you're in
Speaker 2: retirement or close retirement, how do I protect my hard
Speaker 2: earned dollars my assets? How do I make sure that
Speaker 2: I'm not losing money right now because there's no time
Speaker 2: to make up losses. Well that is where my friends
Speaker 2: and Augusta Precious Metals come in. A gust of Precious
Speaker 2: Metals can sit down with you and talk to you
Speaker 2: about how to protect your retirement in this crazy economy
Speaker 2: with a gold IRA. I trust a gust of Precious
Speaker 2: Metals and I can tell you this. They do two
Speaker 2: things that are really unique. One they're gonna send you
Speaker 2: the free Investors Guide on gold. But number two, they
Speaker 2: do a face to face web conference to answer all
Speaker 2: of your questions about gold and how to protect your
Speaker 2: assets in an IRA. If you've never talked to them,
Speaker 2: you should call them and they will do this conference
Speaker 2: with you for free. Eight seven the number four Gold IRA.
Speaker 2: That's eight seven to seven the number four Gold IRA
Speaker 2: or online Augusta Precious Medals dot com. That's Augusta Precious
Speaker 2: Medals dot com or eight seven seven the number four
Speaker 2: goldr A. One other thing you mentioned about the meetings
Speaker 2: is this other meeting. Prior to the appointment of the
Speaker 2: Special Council, Brett met with SABA at the White House
Speaker 2: in November of twenty twenty one, Trump was involved in
Speaker 2: negotiations with the National Archives, who were demand the return
Speaker 2: of the presidential records from his mar Lago state before
Speaker 2: a formal investigation had been open. We then find out
Speaker 2: that Bratt had a third meeting with the White House
Speaker 2: in September of twenty twenty one, with Catherine Riley, an
Speaker 2: advisor to the White House Chief of Staff's office.
Speaker 4: The logs we also bought by the way, that woman
Speaker 4: is not in the White House Council. So typically if
Speaker 4: there's a meeting with DOJ, you meet with a White
Speaker 4: House counsel, you meet with the lawyers. He's meeting with
Speaker 4: an advisor to the White House Chief of Staff. That
Speaker 4: is bizarre.
Speaker 1: That doesn't happen normal, That.
Speaker 4: Does not happen normally, and it, on the face of it,
Speaker 4: it stinks.
Speaker 2: We also know that apparently he was one of the
Speaker 2: guys that went down to Marlago when they were negotiating
Speaker 2: on the records to see the secure room slash location
Speaker 2: where where Trump was holding these documents. So, how on earth,
Speaker 2: being this intertwined, could you possibly serve on a special
Speaker 2: prosecutor as part of that team, knowing that you were
Speaker 2: in all this before they'd even named him.
Speaker 4: Look, because I think this entire thing is a sham,
Speaker 4: and I think it's corrupt. I think the Biden DOJ
Speaker 4: is corrupt. I think they targeted Donald Trump from the beginning.
Speaker 4: I think these indictments are corrupt. I think this was
Speaker 4: designed to defeat their political enemy and to abuse the
Speaker 4: Administration of Justice to do so.
Speaker 3: I think that these.
Speaker 4: Clowns have done massive damage to the integrity of the
Speaker 4: Department of Justice and the FBI, And as an alumnus
Speaker 4: of the Department of Justice, that saddens me profoundly. Listen,
Speaker 4: David Weiss, who is the fake special Counsel So Merrick
Speaker 4: Garland nominated, the guy who is accused of participating an
Speaker 4: obstruction of justice of blocking investigations into whether Joe Biden
Speaker 4: solicited and received bribes, has been now named the fake
Speaker 4: Special counsel, the fake special counsel, the guy who Merrick
Speaker 4: Garland knows. And by the way, we talked about this
Speaker 4: in an earlier pot it was illegal to name David
Speaker 4: Weisse's special counsel. Why because the DOJ guidelines say it
Speaker 4: a special counsel must be someone from outside DOJ. Merrick
Speaker 4: Garland just ignored the law, said, nope, nope, I got
Speaker 4: my guy. I know he'll do it right. Why because
Speaker 4: he's been doing it right. He's already been willing to
Speaker 4: engage in corruption and.
Speaker 2: Remind people if they missed our past podcasts you said.
Speaker 2: The problem is the reason why Garling can get away
Speaker 2: with doing that is because if that protocol that law
Speaker 2: has broken, who do you go to to whistle blow
Speaker 2: that the laws being broken?
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: And the DOJ guidelines say that it's non justiciable, in
Speaker 4: other words, that you can't challenge it in court. So
Speaker 4: he violated the law, but he knows that no one
Speaker 4: will force him to follow the law, and he knows
Speaker 4: the press will ignore the fact that it's illegal. Now,
Speaker 4: why is it that the DOJ guidelines say it should
Speaker 4: be someone from outside DOJ? Because you appoint a special
Speaker 4: counsel when there's a political conflict of interest. And let
Speaker 4: me tell you something David Weiss has done, which again
Speaker 4: nobody in the media is reported on. David Weiss in
Speaker 4: the last two weeks has given Hunter Biden and Joe
Speaker 4: Biden and the Chinese Communist Party a get out of
Speaker 4: jail free pass on the mountains of evidence of corruption
Speaker 4: concerning China. And I want to walk through this in
Speaker 4: some detail because nobody is reporting on it and it's
Speaker 4: really important. Andy McCarthy at National Review has done a
Speaker 4: very good job of highlighting it, but almost nobody else
Speaker 4: has focused on it. All right, Let's go back for
Speaker 4: a second to the WhatsApp text that Hunter Biden sent,
Speaker 4: and I want to read it again. The WhatsApp text said, quote,
Speaker 4: I am sitting here with my father and we would
Speaker 4: like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled.
Speaker 4: Tell the director that I would like to resolve this
Speaker 4: now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight.
Speaker 4: And Zee, if I get a call or a text
Speaker 4: from anyone involved in this other than you, Zang or
Speaker 4: the chairman, I will make certain that between the man
Speaker 4: sitting next to me and every person that he knows
Speaker 4: and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you
Speaker 4: will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here
Speaker 4: waiting for the call with my father. That's five references
Speaker 4: to Papa Joe in one text. Now, that was a
Speaker 4: message that was sent to Henry Zoo. Who is Henry Zoo?
Speaker 4: Henry Zoo is the CCP connected General secretary of China's
Speaker 4: Harvest Fund, which was part owner, along with Hunter and
Speaker 4: others a bo High Harvest RST Partners. And by the way,
Speaker 4: Hunter appears to have transferred his ten percent stake in
Speaker 4: that venture to Kevin Morris. Now who is Kevin Morris.
Speaker 4: Kevin Morris is the Hollywood lawyer who paid Hunter's millions
Speaker 4: in delinquent taxes. Now, the Zang that Hunter mentions appears
Speaker 4: to be CEFC executive director Zang Jin Jun, who is
Speaker 4: a CCP heavyweight who accompanied President j to a twenty
Speaker 4: seventeen meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow as China sought
Speaker 4: a steak in Russia's state owned energy giant Rosneft. So
Speaker 4: these are high ranking Communist Party officials. Now the chairman
Speaker 4: appears to refer to Yi xing Ming, who is the
Speaker 4: CEFC chairman and a former she protege who began his
Speaker 4: business relationship with Hunter in twenty fifteen while Joe Biden
Speaker 4: was Vice president, And Ye gifted Hunter what do you
Speaker 4: think you gave Hunter?
Speaker 2: I know now only too much because we cover this.
Speaker 2: But it's either got to be It's got to either
Speaker 2: be a a car, be a diamond, or see an airplane.
Speaker 4: Let's just go with that, all right, that's good. It's
Speaker 4: door number two, this particular one. It's hard to keep
Speaker 4: the keep corruption. By the way, you forgot the watch.
Speaker 4: I forgot the watch, but this is watch. By the way,
Speaker 4: this is not the watch. So Ye gifted Hunter a
Speaker 4: three point one six carrot diamond worth eighty thousand dollars
Speaker 4: to seal the deal. Ben, you're a good looking guy,
Speaker 4: You're a charming guy. Has anyone ever given you a
Speaker 4: three carrot diamond?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 3: Why not?
Speaker 2: Probably because I'm not corrupt as hell, and probably I
Speaker 2: don't take bribes well.
Speaker 4: And you also don't have the ability to deliver favors
Speaker 4: from the vice president of the United States if you
Speaker 4: were selling favors from Daddy, and Daddy happened to be
Speaker 4: vice president, perfectly willing to give favors, then maybe you'd
Speaker 4: get three carrot diamonds from senior communists.
Speaker 2: Side note, by the way, on the diamond thing, this
Speaker 2: is interesting to me.
Speaker 1: I had no idea.
Speaker 2: Apparently, about fifteen years ago, I was told this from
Speaker 2: a diamond broker, a guy that's been doing this in
Speaker 2: New York City. He said, out of nowhere, China got
Speaker 2: into diamonds big time, and they started coming in and
Speaker 2: out of the diamond district in New York. And they
Speaker 2: said it was because they realized it was the easiest
Speaker 2: way to funnel money on airplanes that you could not trace,
Speaker 2: because you could take something that's three carrots and three
Speaker 2: carrots is you know, I mean we're talking something very small,
Speaker 2: the size of a dime or smaller, a lot easier
Speaker 2: than a when you're tracking money through bank accounts. Right
Speaker 2: with suspecialtive reports B you can bring a billion dollars
Speaker 2: in a little bag. And they said they noticed a
Speaker 2: massive influx of these diamonds coming in from shady characters.
Speaker 2: And they said what they figured out was you could
Speaker 2: hold in your hand hundreds of millions of dollars in diamonds,
Speaker 2: and you could disperse into people around the world that
Speaker 2: you needed to and they were coming in they said
Speaker 2: like they'd never seen before because they understood this was
Speaker 2: a way to bribe people.
Speaker 4: Well, you saw the money that came in. And by
Speaker 4: the way, the text, the WhatsApp text that Hunter said
Speaker 4: that says I'm sitting next to his father. We know
Speaker 4: from the irs whistleblowers that the Biden doj forbade any
Speaker 4: examination in GPS dated to determine if Joe Biden was
Speaker 4: in fact sitting next to him. But we also know
Speaker 4: from photographs on Hunter's laptop that the laptop that Hunter
Speaker 4: was at his father's home the day that message was sent,
Speaker 4: So he was physically at daddy's home. What we just
Speaker 4: have not confirmed, and we haven't confirmed because Mary Garland
Speaker 4: doesn't want us to confirm it is whether Joe Biden
Speaker 4: was physically to him or not.
Speaker 2: And we could have figured that out. That was easy,
Speaker 2: one hundred percent and could have figured that out. He said,
Speaker 2: we don't want to know because I think you knew
Speaker 2: the answer.
Speaker 4: They didn't want to know. It's see no evil as
Speaker 4: their of you. By the way, here here's some other
Speaker 4: things Hunter said. Is zau quote. All too often people
Speaker 4: mistake kindness for weakness, and all too often I am
Speaker 4: standing over top of them saying I warned you from
Speaker 4: this moment until whenever he reaches me. It is nine
Speaker 4: forty five am here and I assume nine forty five
Speaker 4: pm there, So his night is running out. Ask you,
Speaker 4: if you ask yourself, is that threatening? Okay, here's something
Speaker 4: zou respondents told Hunter he would call him on WhatsApp.
Speaker 4: And here's Hunter's reply. Okay, my friend, I am sitting
Speaker 4: here waiting for the call with my father. I sure
Speaker 4: hope whatever it is you're doing is very, very very important.
Speaker 4: That's what he's saying back and forth. And you know what.
Speaker 4: What was the response to these threatening emails, Daddy's getting
Speaker 4: ready to punish you.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: The next day, Hunter got in touch with Gon Wing
Speaker 4: Kevin Dong, who has been described and some of these
Speaker 4: names seem like something out of a John Hughes movie,
Speaker 4: like like Pretty.
Speaker 3: In Pink, but set that aside.
Speaker 4: Kevin Dong has been described as his CFC partner in
Speaker 4: the United States and an emissary of Chairman Ye. Three
Speaker 4: days later, an LLC known as Hudson west I began
Speaker 4: establishing checking accounts. What happened with the checking accounts. The
Speaker 4: following day, CFC Infrastructure Investments LLC, which is a US
Speaker 4: based CFC subsidiary that listed Gong Wing Dong as its director,
Speaker 4: sent Hunter Biden's a Wasco firm a payment of one
Speaker 4: hundredth one thousand dollars one hundred thousand dollars. So that
Speaker 4: was a good text one hundred grand boom. That's worth
Speaker 4: more than your three carrot diamond that was only eighty grand.
Speaker 4: But you know what, one hundred grand is chump change.
Speaker 4: Four days later, that same CFC Infrastructure Investments LLC wired
Speaker 4: how much you think that they wired Hudson West.
Speaker 1: It's got to be a hundred one thousand plus.
Speaker 4: Five million dollars five million dollars. Over the next seven weeks,
Speaker 4: almost all of that five million dollars, and specifically four million,
Speaker 4: seven hundred and ninety thousand, three hundred and seventy five
Speaker 4: dollars and twenty five cents was transferred from Hudson West
Speaker 4: the third to Hunter's Awasco firm. By the way, if
Speaker 4: a wasco is familiar to you, remember oasco is one
Speaker 4: of the things that David Weiss wrote in the Plea
Speaker 4: Deal that says we will exempt everything and you will
Speaker 4: be forgiven from everything. THEASCO did so, the plea deal
Speaker 4: whitewashed all of this until the twenty.
Speaker 2: From everything we've ever looked at, anything on your laptop,
Speaker 2: all of it you did. It doesn't matter, and we're
Speaker 2: just gonna say, sign your name on this piece of paper,
Speaker 2: don't go to jail, don't do any jail time, don't
Speaker 2: worry about the gun problem that you've got.
Speaker 1: It'll all just go away.
Speaker 4: And remember we covered this in an earlier podcast. Also,
Speaker 4: the Biden DOJ didn't want to prosecute any of this
Speaker 4: at all. Wanted no no criminal charges, wanted no guilty plea,
Speaker 4: wanted to give a complete exoneration. But let me tell
Speaker 4: you how they did give an exoneration. Today is August
Speaker 4: twenty eighth, twenty twenty three. Let's go back and look
Speaker 4: at the calendar because the dates are incredibly important.
Speaker 3: Hunters.
Speaker 4: What's that message happened on July thirtieth, twenty seventeen. Now,
Speaker 4: the statute limitations for most of these violations is six years.
Speaker 4: That means the statutal limitations for a charge related to hunter,
Speaker 4: what's that message expired July thirtieth, just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 4: The one hundred thousand dollars payment that rolled in was
Speaker 4: on August fourth, twenty seventeen. That means the statute of
Speaker 4: limitations expired on August fourth, just a few weeks ago.
Speaker 4: The five million dollar payment that followed was an August eighth,
Speaker 4: twenty seventeen. That means the statute of limitations expired twenty
Speaker 4: days ago. Now, David Weiss is known about all of
Speaker 4: this for years, and he sat there and did nothing.
Speaker 4: Those texts are corrupt as hell. This money trail is
Speaker 4: corrupt as hell, and David Weiss is directly responsible, and
Speaker 4: with Merrick Garland's blessing. And by the way, Bratt going
Speaker 4: to White House meeting after White House meeting after White
Speaker 4: House meetings, said look, all we got to do is
Speaker 4: get six years beyond that.
Speaker 3: And it is.
Speaker 4: Now incredibly difficult to prosecute Hunter Biden or Joe Biden
Speaker 4: for their corruption with China. And that was a deliberate objective,
Speaker 4: I believe, of David Weiss, of Merrick Garland, the Department
Speaker 4: of Justice.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you about a friends of her chalk.
Speaker 2: If you're a guy and you are getting a little
Speaker 2: bit older and you feel like fatigue is sitting in
Speaker 2: and you just don't have the energy used to have.
Speaker 2: You need to check out chalk choq dot com. Why
Speaker 2: because you can actually take the mail bac Teality Stack
Speaker 2: and booster t estost from levels up to twenty percent
Speaker 2: over ninety days. If you are just sick and tired
Speaker 2: of feeling sick and tired, you want to get that
Speaker 2: energy back, then go to Chalk and see what they
Speaker 2: can do with their natural herbal supplements.
Speaker 1: Testalstrom levels in this country.
Speaker 2: Have actually dropped off a cliff actually worldwide, and this
Speaker 2: is why Chalk is being used by so many men.
Speaker 2: They're making sure that they get back to feeling like
Speaker 2: they used to.
Speaker 1: So go online to chalk choq dot com.
Speaker 2: Now if you use the promo code Ben, you get
Speaker 2: thirty five percent off any Chalk subscription for life. That's
Speaker 2: choq dot com. Use promo code Ben thirty five percent off.
Speaker 2: Check out that mail Vitality Stack and boosters at SAWS
Speaker 2: from levels of twenty percent.
Speaker 1: Over ninety days.
Speaker 2: Senator, what you just said a moment ago is obviously
Speaker 2: very depressing because it feels like we're getting played in
Speaker 2: real time and we're watching this happen in real time.
Speaker 3: And by the way, is anyone covering this?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 4: No one is Jake Tapper? No, how come, Jake, you
Speaker 4: want to be a journalist, you pretend to be a journalist.
Speaker 4: How about on State of the Union on Sunday, you
Speaker 4: walk through that timeframe, you walk through the WhatsApp, you
Speaker 4: walk through the one hundred thousand dollars payment, you walk
Speaker 4: through the five million dollar payment, and then you make
Speaker 4: clear that David Weise just let the statute limitations expire
Speaker 4: in the last few weeks. That would be seeing an
Speaker 4: actually covering news. And the chances that Jake does that,
Speaker 4: I think are zero points zero percent, because if you're
Speaker 4: the apologist for the regime, you don't cover facts that
Speaker 4: are problematic. You don't cover facts like senior lawyers for
Speaker 4: the Special Counsel are going to the White House over
Speaker 4: and over and over again in a way that is
Speaker 4: obviously corrupt.
Speaker 2: Last thing on this and that is as Jim Jordan
Speaker 2: and James Commy both said that they are going to
Speaker 2: have more banking records come out, we're now I think
Speaker 2: north of fifty million that could have come into the
Speaker 2: Biden family, and we keep seeing the statute of limitations
Speaker 2: run out. If we find new money, is there anything
Speaker 2: that the House can do or is this going to
Speaker 2: just straight up be an election your issue where you say, hey,
Speaker 2: if you want this guy who we know is corrupt,
Speaker 2: we can prove he's corrupt, who's been taking bribes, who
Speaker 2: has compromised at the highest levels of government from our advisaries.
Speaker 2: If you want to get him out of the White House?
Speaker 2: Is that maybe the best case scenario at this point.
Speaker 4: So look, statutes of limitations don't apply to impeachment. So
Speaker 4: one remedy that remains there is impeaching Joe Biden for bribery.
Speaker 3: And if the.
Speaker 4: House demonstrates evidence of bribery, the House should impeach him,
Speaker 4: and the Senate if Senate Democrats had a shread of integrity.
Speaker 4: If it's proven that the President of the United States
Speaker 4: solicited and received millions of dollars of bribes from foreignation,
Speaker 4: he should be removed from office. Now I'm not naive
Speaker 4: enough to think that there's even a single Democrat who cares.
Speaker 4: We could literally have video of Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs
Speaker 4: handing Joe Biden bags of cash or three caret diamonds
Speaker 4: or sports cars or watches, and that would not be
Speaker 4: enough to move a single Democrat vote. But impeachment is
Speaker 4: one remedy that's unquestionably there. In terms of criminal prosecution, Listen,
Speaker 4: at some level, it doesn't matter because Merrick Garland, I think,
Speaker 4: will never ever ever prosecute Joe Biden for the corruption
Speaker 4: that right now the evidence is really growing and growing
Speaker 4: on a daily basis. Merrick Garland sent his own integrity
Speaker 4: up the river. And it's sad because the guy used
Speaker 4: to be a respected federal judge and he's going to
Speaker 4: go down in history, I believe, is the most partisan
Speaker 4: attorney general in US history. Whether you could secute Hunter
Speaker 4: and Joe for all of this China activity depends. You
Speaker 4: can't prosecute it directly for something that has got exceeded
Speaker 4: the statute of limitations. It is possible that DOJ could
Speaker 4: take a page out of Fanny Willis, the Georgia prosecutor
Speaker 4: is going after Trump and bring a RICO charge and
Speaker 4: a RICO charge of a criminal enterprise. If you demonstrate
Speaker 4: an ongoing RICO charge with conduct that falls within the
Speaker 4: statute of limitations, you might still be able to focus
Speaker 4: on it. But at a minimum, David Weiss, fulfilling his
Speaker 4: job as protector in chief of Joe Biden, has given
Speaker 4: a very strong legal shield to protect against any criminal
Speaker 4: charges for bribery and corruption between the Bidens and communist China.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a campaign issue for sure in
Speaker 2: this presidential It should be one yes, and it's certainly
Speaker 2: one of the hacks and the media should be covering,
Speaker 2: but they're not. So that's why you should share this
Speaker 2: podcast wherever you can. If you're seeing the video, makes
Speaker 2: you share that on social media. If you're listening to
Speaker 2: the audio only version, make sure you share it hit
Speaker 2: that follow button. If you're listening on Apple or subscriber
Speaker 2: auto download, it's always free wherever you're listening to this podcast.
Speaker 2: And on the days that we don't publish, we publish Monday,
Speaker 2: Wednesday and Fridays, make sure you check out my podcast
Speaker 2: as well. It's the Ben Ferguson Podcast, and I'll keep
Speaker 2: you updated on the breaking news in the days in
Speaker 2: between this podcast. We'll see you back here in a
Speaker 2: couple of days.